Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2017

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) 07:25, 30 October 2017 [1].

---

Craig Kieswetter

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Craig Kieswetter was one of those England cricketers who bounced in and out of the team. He had a good run in one-day cricket early in his career, and was man of the match in the final when England won the World Twenty20, the first one-day trophy won by the team. He later lost his England place to one of his Somerset team-mates. At domestic level, he was one of Somerset's star players until he was struck in the eye by the ball, ending his career prematurely.

This article underwent a GA review by Sturmvogel 66, who helped to reduce the amount of jargon used, or at least reminded me to explain it or wikilink it. Relentlessly very kindly copy-edited the article, both improving the quality of the prose, and identifying a number of areas where the referencing fell short. Crisco 1492 took a quick look at the images. The last FAC stalled a bit, but I think I have addressed all the points raised at that nomination by Dweller, and have returned for another shot. Since the last review, Kieswetter has started a career as a professional golfer, and I have added some information about that, though there is little to say so far. Harrias ^talk 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments: Recusing as coordinator on this one. A few thoughts on the lead (which I copyedited; please revert anything you don't like) to begin with, more later. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• "after qualifying for the England cricket team": Do we need to say something more about this? The general reader might struggle to understand this, but I'm not sure the lead is the place to spell it out.

• Per the final point here as well, I've cut this from the opening paragraph. The second paragraph spells it out a bit more, and it isn't needed here too. Harrias ^talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• "a lack of progression": Similar issue here. I think the general reader will be lost by this. Maybe lack of opportunity?

• Yup, changed. Harrias ^talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• In the lead, we repeat the information in the first paragraph later on in the lead. I think we could trim that first paragraph right back to a description of his role and stats. The rest is duplicated later. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• You're right, I've got into a bad habit of using the opening paragraph of the lead as a "mini-lead", in which I summarise the rest of the lead. I've cut a couple of bits out, how does it seem now? Harrias ^talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that I haven't forgotten this, and hope to get back to it this weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• "he scored a relatively modest 606 first-class runs at an average of 31.89": If we are going to talk about relative success, we should be citing something which compares him, such as the Somerset averages. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Changed and added a source for this. Harrias ^talk 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• "He played all ten matches for the Warriors, scoring 199 runs at an average of 22.11, including two half-centuries.": Apparently uncited at the end of a paragraph. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Added a reference. Harrias ^talk 09:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• In the playing style section, there look to be one or two terms that would benefit from linking, such as off side and square.

• Linked. Harrias ^talk 09:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I also wonder do we need a touch more on his wicketkeeping. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I recall him being a pretty terrible keeper. Were there any technical discussion of his keeping about why he was not the best?

• This is an interesting one, because the little bits I've found suggest he was the best gloveman out of the list below! Want to find more on this before I put anything in though. Harrias ^talk 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1: I've looked around this a bit more, and there is really very little written. I wonder if it might be worth mentioning the "modern wicket-keeper", who is a batsman first and a wicket-keeper second; possibly referencing Gilchrist as the man who really solidified this change in attitude? Therefore it was primarily batting talent that decided his place, not keeping ability. I just don't know if that is too much to go into for an article about one person. (That isn't Gilchrist.) Harrias ^talk 15:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd be wary of too much Gilchrist, unless it was an article in which it discusses how he changed the role of wicketkeeping. I've certainly read something like that before, but I'll be damned if I can remember where! Ideally, it would mention Kieswetter, but if it's just on the role of the keeper, that would be fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Is there anything in particular about his batting technique, especially if he had problems against the moving ball?
  • @Sarastro1: I've added a bit more about his batting technique and a little about his keeping, though there is little specificity, more a comparison between him and Buttler/Bairstow, which might link to the point below slightly. Let me know what you think. Harrias ^talk 10:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Works for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• On the ODI keeper tangle between him, Buttler, Bairstow and Prior, is there anything else? The article looks a little light as it took quite a while to settle.
  • What I added above covered this a little, but I'm not sure how much more should be added. Articles and articles and articles were written about it, but ultimately, they all just rehashed the same things over and over, which is mostly included in the discussion about his technique above. It doesn't seem appropriate to put much about the other players technique in here, so the only avenue to add much more would seem to be talk about Kieswetter playing (or, rather, not playing) Test cricket? Harrias ^talk 15:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Other than the quotes we already have, are there any comments from colleagues/coaches about him or his effectiveness? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I can't find a great deal online for this. I'll have a look through some of the year books against for this point when I return from holiday. Harrias ^talk 15:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've added a little, but most of the rest of what I can find it pretty bland stuff. Harrias ^talk 14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise looking OK. I'll be happy to support once these issues have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Added a couple of simple ones; the Somerset year book will probably be the best thing for comparison, so I'll check that at home. Will look into the latter points, which require more research. Harrias ^talk 09:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Support: This is a very well put together summary of Kieswetter's career. Just a couple of minor nitpicks below which don't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I still wonder about "relatively modest"; the source is good, but I still think we need to say relative to what; his previous form? The form of his teammates?
• "worked on his batting, which had been described by Steve James as a "frenzy at the crease, as manic as a teenager on a night out"" Would this be better as "working on his batting technique"? Otherwise I'm not quite sure it makes sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Very little at issue here. The sources apppear to be of appropriate authority and reliablility for a cricketer biography. The only nit I can find to pick is that refs 15 and 59 seem to be lacking publisher details.

Otherwise all well. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton. Not sure how I managed to omit those details; added in now. Harrias ^talk 15:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: I archvied two dead links. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, though neither was actually dead. Harrias ^talk 14:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Both where dead when I checked them, odd. Oh well... (t) Josve05a (c) 14:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note I will be on a family holiday from now until 16 October. I may be able to pop and do bits and bobs, but it isn't going to be my priority. Hopefully this won't be a problem, but I can understand if things need to move on. Harrias ^talk 10:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments on prose by Finetooth

I have never played cricket and know only a little about it, but I can offer a few suggestions about prose and MOS issues. The prose generally flows nicely, and the tale is interesting.

General

• Concise alt text would be nice.
• Citation 94 has a dead URL.
  • Note Need to find a new source for this. Harrias ^talk 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. I'll check back later. Finetooth (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I found an archived version of the article, so have linked to that. Harrias ^talk 13:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've noted some duplicate links below, but there are others.

Lead

• ¶2 "He qualified to play county cricket through his Scottish mother,..." – Better might be "Through his Scottish mother, he qualified to play county cricket,...".

Not only does this inadvertently suggest playing through as in golf, it's not clear here in the lead what about his mother made him qualified. Finetooth (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, odd, I thought I'd changed this one. Done now as suggested. Harrias ^talk 21:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Early life and career

• ¶2 "Not out" and "Glamorgan" are both linked twice in this paragraph.
• ¶3 "after two wickets had been lost in an over" – Link over?
• ¶4 "Warwickshire" is linked twice in this paragraph.

International selection

• ¶3 "that went for four on first ball he faced" – Missing word, "the", before "first ball"?
• ¶3 "he was then caught at first-slip" – Link first-slip?
• ¶3 Bangladesh is linked twice in this paragraph.

Dropped and recalled by England

• Jos Buttler is linked twice in this section.
• ¶3 "in English conditions" – I assume this means something like "local rules", but I'm not sure. Would linking to something be helpful here?
  • Note This refers to the same thing as is mentioned later in "Playing style", when I wrote that "but was less effective in England, where the ball tended to change direction more." I might put a note in to clarify this on the first mention here. Harrias ^talk 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying on first mention would be good. Finetooth (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added a note in about this. Harrias ^talk 13:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Later domestic career

• ¶1 "a season in which Somerset struggled against relegation" – Link relegation?

Injury and retirement from cricket

• ¶1 "which went through the gap between the grille and the visor on Kieswetter's helmet and struck him in the face" – Does this sort of accident happen often?
  • Note Not at all, although there have been a few high profile incidents in recent years, that have eventually led to helmets being redesigned. It's worth me checking whether articles about that specifically cite the Kieswetter case. Harrias ^talk 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. I'll check back later. Finetooth (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added a bit more on this at the end of the section. Harrias ^talk 14:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Interesting addition. Finetooth (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Playing style

• ¶1 Note c: "A front-foot" technique is one in which a criketer plays the majority of their shots with their weight forward, over the front foot." – Singlar "a" mismatched with plural "their". Suggestion: "A "front-foot" technique is one in which a criketer plays the majority of his shots with his weight forward, over the front foot."
  • Note This uses the singular they. Harrias ^talk 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the link to the "singular they" article, which I had never encountered before. The language keeps changing. Finetooth (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶1 "flat subcontinental pitches" – Link pitch?
• ¶1 "subcontinental" – Does that mean India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka only?
  • Note And Pakistan. I have linked subcontinental to Indian subcontinent. Harrias ^talk 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• ¶2 "a better wicket-keeper than two of his rivals for an England" – Is "for an England" correct, or is something missing?

Golf career

• ¶1 "After his retirement from cricket, Kieswetter's father suggested that he take a break and play some golf." – Modifier problem. Suggestion: "After Kieswetter retired from cricket, his father suggested..."

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Finetooth: Thanks for your comments; is your username nominative determinism? All have been done as suggested with the exception of those I have put notes by above, which are either waiting for me to action something, or querying your comment. Harrias ^talk 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"Nominative determinism" is a concept I had never considered, but yes, my user name seems to be an example of exactly that. I've struck most of my comments, but a few remain. Finetooth (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

All good. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• however he continued to experience However is frowned upon at FAC and i'm starting to agree that it's over-used; a "but" would be perfectly sufficient here
• and, in June 2015—aged 27, Use the same punctuation to open and close the subordinate clause; perhaps lose the comma after "and" for clarity
• between the ages of 13 to 18 Ranges should be from X to Y, or between X and Y; not between X to Y.
• The link on 2008 (to 2008 English cricket season) is arguably an Easter egg, and for reasons I don't fully understand some people have devoted inordinate amounts of time to arguing about linking dates with the result that we generally shouldn't do it.
• "Bangladesh Cricket Board XI" Why the quotes?
• In the next match, two days later, Kieswetter was dropped by Mushfiqur Rahim off a thick edge that went for four on the first ball he faced; he was then caught at first-slip off a similar thick edge to first-slip on the next delivery Is that even in English because I have no idea what it means! ;)

  I don't know what you mean! No, I can see that sentence has got very jargon heavy, even though it is all linked. On re-reading, I think it probably goes into far more detail than is needed; would you agree that it might be better just cut right down? Harrias ^talk 13:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  You could cut it down if you wanted but it still needs to make sense to those of us who don't follow cricket! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell: How is this: In the next match, two days later, Kieswetter misplayed his first ball and was lucky not to be dismissed; he was then caught at first-slip off a similar mishit on the next delivery. Harrias ^talk 20:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  That's much better in terms of prose, but is "lucky" from the source or is it editorialising? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell: Good point; in that case: In the next match, two days later, Kieswetter misplayed his first ball and was nearly dismissed; he was then caught at first-slip off a similar mishit on the next delivery. Harrias ^talk 22:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  So, I think I know what first slip means, but I had to read the explanation in the linked article a couple of times before I got it. If it's really important, you might need to explain it in-line, and if it's not I'd suggest dropping that detail. And does "next delivery" mean the next ball bowled? Can you just say that? I'm being pedantic now really; your suggestion is much more accessible than the sentence as it was. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell: But, but, all my cool, cliquey cricket words! Fair point that where he was caught is probably irrelevant to an article like this. I've therefore changed the article to In the next match, two days later, Kieswetter misplayed his first ball and was nearly dismissed; he was then caught off a similar mishit from the next ball bowled. How's that? Harrias ^talk 16:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Howzat you mean? Look at me actually knowing enough about cricket to make a bad pun! ;) Yes, that's much better in that I actually know what it means! With that change, I'll support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• However, playing in an era that however could probably become a "nonetheless" with no loss of meaning (I seem to be the bloody "however" police today!)

I'm only picking nits really. What I know about cricket you could fit on, well, a cricket ball but this is the most polished and readable FAC I've read today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the review; I've fixed all as suggested except where noted above. Harrias ^talk 13:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I'm happy with the responses to my comments and I can't really see anything else to criticise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Quick comments – To help the coordinators out, I checked for disambiguation links and repeat wikilinks and found none. The script I used to highlight repeat links brought up a few hits, but they were all for links in the body that had been repeated from the lead, which is just fine. The only thing I noticed worth bringing up is that reference 6 had part of its title in all caps, which could stand to be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, sorted that reference. Harrias ^talk 06:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

• "In early 2010, Kieswetter achieved his target" – This one sounds POVish
  • This is mentioned and cited in the body: "Kieswetter repeated his desire to play international cricket for England." (ref #22) Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay, got it! —Vensatry _(talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• "and a couple of months later he was the man of the match when England won the 2010 ICC World Twenty20." – In the final?
  • Yes, the sentences starts "During the final, ..." Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm talking about the one in the lead. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I see now. Tweaked. Harrias ^talk 12:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• "There was initially some hope of a full recovery and he was named in a provisional England squad for the 2015 Cricket World Cup, but he continued to experience difficulties with his vision and in June 2015, aged 27, announced his retirement from professional cricket." – This one is breathless. I'dsuggest you to trim this down a bit.
  • Tweaked. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• "80 off just 66 balls." - ditto with "scoring an unbeaten 138 off just 131 balls against Warwickshire."
  • Removed. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Somerset's second team" – A clarification on "second team" might be helpful for non-experts.
  • Linked to Reserve team. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• "he made 69 not out off 58 deliveries and took a catch described as "world class" by Somerset's director of cricket, Brian Rose." – The catch or the innings as well?
  • Just the catch, hence why it says "took a catch described as "world class"". Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Not sure what I was thinking then. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• "A few weeks later, he scored 106 runs against Durham to help his county avoid defeat" – Again, it might be worth clarifying that he helped his team draw the game as non-experts may not be aware what "avoid defeat" means in the given context.
  • @Harrias: Any update here? —Vensatry _(talk) 17:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Vensatry: Sorry fella, completely missed this one. I've piped it to Result (cricket)#draw. I don't think it needs stating explicitly, but a piped link could help, I agree. Harrias ^talk 21:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• "After England's drawn T20I series with Pakistan" – Which series are we talking about?
  • Added a link. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• "in the first warm-up match on 23 February against the Bangladesh Cricket Board XI." – There's no mention of year/season anywhere before this one.
  • It follows on from the previous paragraph, talking about 2010. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • But there's a huge leap between the two - perhaps add the year in this bit: "After England's drawn T20I series with Pakistan ..." —Vensatry _(talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Fair point, clarified now. Harrias ^talk 12:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• "These performances led to Kieswetter's selection for the first ODI against" – Apart from his career-best 143 were there any other knock?
  • Tweaked. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Umm, this bit is unsourced. Further, the Cricinfo ref. (that supports the following bit) talks only about his 143 as far as the warm up games are concerned. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Good point; I've had a look, changed the wording again, and added another reference, which better supports it. Harrias ^talk 12:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Given that CricketAarchive isn't accessible to non-subscribed users, you could replace a few ones (preferably by cricinfo) – add the "subscription required" label in such refs.
  • Added subscription tag, but per WP:PAYWALL there is no need to change them. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Two things – is CricketArchive more reliable than Cricinfo? If some sources are easily replaceable by better-quality (read reliable) ones, I'd go with them rather than the lesser-reliable (and non-accessible) ones. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, CricketArchive is generally more reliable and comprehensive than Cricinfo, and is a little more stable at the moment. And going by your argument, we should not use books if a free source is available, and this is absolutely the wrong way to go about writing a FA; we use the best sources, free, non-free, online or offline. As long as they can be verified, which CricketArchive can be. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Frankly, this is the first time I'm hearing that CricketArchive is more reliable than Cricinfo (notwithstanding its comprehensiveness). CA's credibility has been questioned in FLCs in the past. And, I've never implied that we should do away with such sources if they are non-replaceable. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source.
  • The Daily Mail has a multi-award winning sport writing team. It is not a reliable news source, but it is a top-notch sports source. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• "he scored 164 runs, the highest innings of his first-class career" – "he scored 164 runs, the highest score in his first-class career"
  • No, the use of "innings" is preferential to repeating the words "scored" and "score" so close together. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Kieswetter remained England wicket-keeper for the T20I and ODI matches against India late in the season." – Can you link to the relevant tournament?
  • Added link. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Despite this, he was considered to be a better wicket-keeper than two of his rivals for England; Bairstow and Buttler." – Not sure the claim is verifiable by the source.
  • "doubts over the glovework at the highest level of the other two may bring Kieswetter back into consideration for the Tests against Sri Lanka next month." (From the source; doubts over the glovework of Buttler and Bairstow, but the selection of Kieswetter equates to saying that he was considered better at that. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • By "highest-level", I presume the author means Test cricket. Second, the claim seems to indicate "form" rather than the "class". In any case, another source could be added as the claim looks a bit contentious. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I've clarified this a little in the article. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • "glovework" sounds journalese. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I think it is jargon, rather than journalese; I've linked the term to our glossary. Harrias ^talk 12:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• You use both "one-day" and "List A".
  • Switched all to one-day. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Ditto with "balls" and "deliveries". Perhaps, clarify that both are one and the same in the first instance. —Vensatry _(talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Switched all to balls actually. Harrias ^talk 12:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

—Vensatry _(talk) 08:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Thanks, have responded to each point above. Harrias ^talk 11:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Meets the standards, IMO. Nice work! —Vensatry _(talk) 07:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 13:08, 29 October 2017 [2].

---

Black-necked grebe

Nominator(s): RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 & Kostas20142 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a grebe that can be found throughout the Northern Hemisphere (and in some places in Africa). Me and Kostas think that the article meets all of the featured article criteria, and I personally think it to be an interesting read. Hope you enjoy it! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon, but as usual, I have some image suggestions, since the article looks rather empty. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! Hopefully the taxonomy section is interesting enough. The original scientific name is the same as it is today, so I didn't have to do too much there. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• We have photos of the juvenile, and though not a particularly good picture, we should always show it if images are available:[3] Also shown in this video, which could be an interesting adittion.[4] As well as this photo of a feeding individual.[5] There seems to be other interesting stuff on Commons as well.

Added the first two, but not the third. Although it is interesting, it just shows it eating, not doing things like diving. I did, although, add a picture of the black-necked grebe diving. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• This free photo on Commons seems to show some kind of interesting behaviour (courtship display, according to the caption there):[6]

Transferred to Commons and added. It is in fact courtship behaviour. There is actually a name for this; the penguin dance. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• It seems off that you use the scientific name in one caption under description, yet the common name in another. Seems the second image shows the other subspecies, so you could state this in the caption.

Fixed and done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• You should end each subspecies sentence under taxonomy with a citation for clarity.

I'd disagree; I think that it would be unneeded, as the reader should be able to understand that it is all from the same source. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I see, there are no such exceptions at Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Only the lead is exempt from citations. Every stand-alone sentence should be cited, we can never know what the reader may or may not understand. The info could just as well be from different sources, but it isn't apparent. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand which sentences you mean. Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• "The other subspecies', P. n. gurneyi, is slightly smaller than the other subspecies" Repetitive.

Fixed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• "The adult of this subspecies also has, on its lesser wing-coverts, a rufous-brown tinge." Sentence seems overly convoluted, why not just "The adult of this subspecies also has a rufous-brown tinge on its lesser wing-coverts."

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• "in addition with the tufts" In addition to.

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• It seems a bis strange that you show each subspecies in the taxobox, but one with breeding and one with non-breeding plumage, but then show both under description with non-breeding plumage. Better to show both with breeding plumage in the taxobox, or take the non-breeding image out (you already show it better under description).

I switched this up a bit. I'm going to show both in the taxobox (but both will be the nominate subspecies), and then take out one of the images in the description (the one showing the nominate subspecies in non-breeding plumage). I think that it is better to do this because it is better to show the major variations in the species in the taxobox (like how we sometimes show both male and female birds in the taxobox when the two have a large difference). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, wonder why I didn't think of that instead... FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• "As of 2016, the black-necked grebe is classified as of least concern by the IUCN" Not needed, and repetitive.

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• "classification of the species as of least" Again.

I actually changed this to "the current classification of this species" and removed the whole "least concerned" thing, as it is a bit repetitive. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• "In the past, this species was threatened in North America by egg collecting and the millinery industry." When and how?

Date not specified (both in the source and in other sources I found), but I specified how the millinery industry affected it (I think it should be pretty clear how egg collecting would affect it). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• "hunted in the Gilan Province and northern Iran" There should be a way of making it clear that the Gilan Province is in Iran without being repetitive.

Fixed this. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• "(although this can vary, with nests ranging from about 20 centimetres (8 in) to over 30 centimetres (12 in)) on average while nests in colonies have an average diameter of about 25.5 centimetres (10 in)." Not sure this very long sentence needs to parenthesis, also looks confusing with the multiple× parentheses within a parenthesis.

Fixed this by removing the parenthesis and breaking up the long sentence. Hopefully it works for you. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• "it will often nest in mixed-species colonies." With which other species? I see you mention one species further down, but why not just mention it briefly the first time you mention mixed colonies?

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• "It is suggested that sometimes, some pairs" Why is this only "suggested", when almost everything else is stated as fact?

This is suggested because it was inferred from the data; specifically, the author of the paper thought that since there were more nests than grebes at a certain colony, that some grebes watch over more than one nest. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• "individuals used the whole area of the lake" Use the whole area of a lake? Why definite tense?

It's definite because I previously used "the breeding lake" (two sentences back) and "the lake" (one sentence back). Thus, since it is already introduced (as the breeding lake), it is definite. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• "with the last note only able to be heard" "Less audible" would sound better, and is less wordy.

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• "This grebe lays one, but sometimes two,[9] clutch" The tenses are messy here, could be rewritten.

Rewrote this. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• You use the word "although" an incredible amount of times, could be good with some variation.

Fixed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Egg in a museum collection" Name the museum, WP:easter egg links are advised against.

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• "This is compared to other species of grebes, which cover up their eggs when leaving the nest." This seems odd. You could say "by comparison, other species" etc.

Fixed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Predation does not usually take eggs" This is oddly worded. You could say predators, or "eggs are usually not lost to predation" or such.

Reworded. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• You don't explain why it needs to migrate for moulting

I'm guessing you meant to say that I don't need to explain what a moult migration is. I cut that part. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, other way around, I was wondering why it has to migrate to moult? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I added a bit, so one should be able to understand why. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Is this in US English? You write "moult" (instead of "molt"), which is UK English. You also say colour instead of color.

No, it is written in British English. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Are all those external links really useful?

Seems not. I'll keep the Wikispecies and Commons links, but I will get rid of the rest with the exception of the link to Cornell. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• "this bird greyish-black upperparts," Has?

Fixed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• I only see one unanswered issue left, then I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - everything nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Only minor issues:

• Ref 2: You should note that the source language is German

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 10 carries a "subscription required" note, yet it's the same source as ref 6, which doesn't.

The latter is in fact a different source that is freely accessible. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Publisher locations missing from 11, 14 and 29

Done, except for 29, which should be a journal, which I have now converted it to. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I have replied to all of your comments. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine's Sunbird

Glad to see the bird train continued while I was on holiday. Some comments:

• Taxonomy is a bit threadbare. No reference to relationships with other grebes within its genus. HBW notes that Sometimes placed in genus Dytes (not noted at all in article) and Often considered to include †P. andinus as a race. (the extinct Andean Grebe) and Also closely related to P. juninensis, P. occipitalis and P. taczanowskii. Older specific name caspicus officially suppressed. E African birds sometimes placed instead in race nigricollis. All of these points probably merit mention. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually got myself to search through the archives for the story behind this. Hopefully it will now satisfy you. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Tres bien. I'll go through the rest tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Some weird stuff happening with structure. Information about migration is pretty thin and scattered around article. The following from BNA would add some context to the single statement of the wintering grounds of NA birds for example: Despite broad breeding range, main winter range is fairly restricted. Hundreds of thousands, the vast majority of the population, evidently winter around islands in the n. and central Gulf of California, with additional tens of thousands on the Salton Sea, CA. Several thousand winter on salinas at Guerrero Negro, Baja California Sur (Carmona and Danemann 1998); only small numbers are reported elsewhere.

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• The bird migrates in winter, to places such as the Palearctic and east Africa and Asia. This is very imprecise and not very helpful. Birds migrate to Asia from Asia?

Clarified. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Palearctic Is a similarly unhelpful descriptor of its wintering range. Click on the link to see. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I specified where (in terms of direction). Hopefully that clears things up. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• it travels as much as 6,000 kilometres (3,700 miles) to reach prosperous areas that are exploited by few other species Prosperous is an unusual word here.

I would disagree; they fly to areas where there is basically shrimp (and really only shrimp) everywhere. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It is usually used in a financial sense or referring to success. I have never seen it refer to the natural wealth or condition of a land, only in the sense that it is used. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Huh, maybe it is a difference between American and New Zealand literature. Anyways, would "flourishing" do? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I moved here but grew up in the US and UK. I would say to reach rich feeding areas... Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• The legs only move when they are underwater. maybe the legs on start moving? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: I'm done! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pair formation in the black-necked grebe starts during pauses in the migration to the breeding grounds. It continues through the breeding season, and sometimes occurs on the wintering grounds. This suggests that it can start before the pauses. Also, perhaps it is fair to say it happens during migration, and qualify after?

Fixed. The source doesn't say, although, that it happens during migration itself. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• The eggs, although they are not initially spotted, do get stained by the plant matter that the nest is built out of. Does this mean that the stains are always spotted in appearance?

No, my bad. Fixed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Predation is usually not the primary cause of egg loss, with most failures occurring when the chicks have hatched this is the first introduction of the concept of nesting failure in the article, so I would preceed failure with the word nesting. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Sabine's Sunbird, do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Not logged in (at work) but my comment about Palearctic remains unanswered above. 202.8.13.71 (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• In the lead It occasionally practices foliage gleaning. is this common enough to warrant mention here?

Yep. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• In the subspecies description section you render the names of subspecies three different ways, one just the subspecific epithet, once the full trinomial and once the trinomial with the genus and species abbreviated. Is there a reason for this inconsistency?

When I used just the epithet, I was saying something specific about the epithet itself (the etymology, in this case). I only used the abbreviation after I had already written out the genus (or species) that I abbreviated in full. Hopefully that makes sense. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• When breeding, the black-necked grebe gives a quiet "ooeek" that ascends in pitch from an already high pitch. This call is also used as a territorial call Is the "when breeding" referring to the whole season or the actual act? If the whole season then is there another specific behaviour or purpose alluded to in the first sentence? Also, how can the call be territorial when the species is noted not to be territorial later in the article?

The source doesn't specify in relation to the first sentence. Second, it was only mentioned that it wasn't territorial when courting. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If the species is territorial in other contexts it should be mentioned to avoid the misunderstanding that I mentioned being made. I did some follow up research and I see the species maintains a small breeding territory in the immediate vicinity of the nest. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Added. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• This grebe is silent when it is not breeding[4] and when it is feeding or resting per above it would be good to make the distinction between seasons and behaviours more explicit here.

Luckily, the source does specify here. Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• After a period of time, it migrates to winter in places such as Maybe After completing its moult they may remain on the lakes for several months before moving to their wintering grounds (BNA).

Changed it to something similar. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• This has the effect of the behaviour of black-necked grebes changing in response to the availability of brine shrimp; very wordy, maybe The behaviour or black-necked grebes changes in response to the availability of brine shrimp;

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• This species builds its floating nest in the usually shallow water of[21] open lakes.[22] The nest itself is anchored to the lake by plants try The black-necked grebe nests on open lakes, building a floating nest in shallow water and anchoring it to plants - a little simpler and you don't have to cite mid sentence without a punctuation mark. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I messed up here. Citation 21 doesn't support it; instead, citation 22 supports it. So, I will correct that. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

support Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

• There are currently three accepted subspecies, including the nominate subspecies. - err, why mention the nominate here? Comes over as odd...

So that people don't assume that there are three accepted subspecies, in addition to the nominate. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 12:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd move mention to the sentence The subspecies californicus can be distinguished by its usually longer bill. --> "The subspecies californicus can be distinguished (from the nominate subspecies) by its usually longer bill. "

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• To get crustaceans, molluscs, tadpoles, and small frogs and fish, this grebe dives. - odd flow and odd use of "get" - I'd rejig as "This grebe dives to catch/hunt crustaceans, molluscs, tadpoles, and small frogs and fish."

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• link brine shrimp in lead.

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• date Brehm's description in the body of text

Done RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 12:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• This grebe eats mostly insects (both adult and larval insects) ...why not just say "This grebe eats mostly insects, of both adult and larval stages.."

Done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Been busy and rushed for time. Will have another look later, but looking on track...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• link moult at first instance in body, link biotoxin.

Done; also changed the link to moult in the lead to the first occurrence (to "moulting"). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 13:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise I think that's about it. Not seeing any prose clangers and looks pretty comprehensive so cautious support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Source Review from Adityavagarwal

• No issues source wise, and really good sources cited. No copyvio issues either. Support Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Adityavagarwal are you supporting this on sourcing, or in general? I only ask because it is not clear on what grounds you are supporting, and we had a source review earlier in this FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sarastro1 I thought the previous source review was on general formatting and reliability, and not on spot checks, right? So, I supported on just sources, and not prose (meaning it is all clear source-wise, and spot checks were also fine). It is not included in the general three prose reviews required for an FAC. It is just to mention clearly that source review went all fine! If support should not be mentioned for this and just the sentence stating that the source review went fine, please let me know! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Black-necked Grebe Schwarzhalstaucher.jpg: Where does the license come from?

From here. What that means, I have no idea. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like it's copyrighted to me. May want to ask on commons:User talk:Merops why they did upload the image under that license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully they reply soon. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems very likely the Commons user is the photographer, as he also links the website the image is from on his userpage.[7] An email is also listed in the file description, so the photographer can also be contacted there. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

And the smoking gun is that the English userpage Merops links to is called Andreas Trepte, like the photographer:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• File:Podiceps nigricollis 001.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Black-necked Grebe-map-location-map-en.svg: Use seems fine, the file relies on File:Black-necked Grebe-map-localisation-fr.svg whose source link is broken.
• File:Eared Grebe.jpg: Use is fine, the lack of author information is innocuous (may merit a change in {{Information}} if anywhere) but lack of EXIF makes the license a tiny little questionable. Caption information depends on the map seems like.
• File:Podiceps nigricollis IMG 4467.jpg: License and use seems fine, assuming that the license changed after the upload to Commons.
• File:Geoorde fuut met jongen-4961573.webm: License and use seem fine, wondering where in the source the license is stated however.

It's stated in a link near the bottom of the about page on the source website. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• File:Eared Grebe Courting Display (34617077235).jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Podiceps nigricollis MWNH 1923.JPG: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Podiceps nigricollis diving.JPG: License and use seem fine for me.

No ALT text so no comments on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have now added alt text, if you want to take a look. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I notice that there is still an unaddressed issue with one of the lead images, and I'd like that to be sorted before we promote. Otherwise, we are good to go. In the meantime, if someone could have a look at the use of "however" in the article (see WP:HOWEVER) as it is often unnecessary. Finally, I note that there is no alt text in the article. While this is not an explicit FA requirement, and is not an obligation, I always feel that FAs should demonstrate best practice on this issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Can I just check how we are progressing on this last issue? Also, Jo-Jo Eumerus, if we cannot get a response from the uploader, what is the best way to move forward on this? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

  The question of the first image touches on one of the least likeable aspects of Wikipedia's copyright policy (at least for me). Unless people really are questioning the copyright status of the first image, I'd recommend to leave it but to ask Merops again to clarify the copyright status (RileyBugz did actually post that question and immediately reverted themselves, so I am not sure if Merops actually saw it or no). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I did it because it seems that FunkMonk has basically solved the mystery. I'm willing to revert myself again, though. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, pardon me if I'm being thick, but I'm still not sure if the image issue is resolved, and if not, what remains to be done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

We do not have any explicit link from the website to the Commons uploader, that's is my only issue. I see no reason to doubt that Merops is the same person as the copyright owner of that website, so I'd accept that the image is freely licensed but would encourage Merops to say so on the website as well, otherwise people will be confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: OK, I'm assuming from this that the images are all good to go and will be promoting shortly. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 13:07, 29 October 2017 [9].

---

Coldrum Long Barrow

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Neolithic burial site in Kent, south-eastern England, one of several Medway Megaliths located around the River Medway. Part of a tradition of chambered long barrow construction that took place across much of Europe in the Neolithic, it is one of the very oldest built constructions still extant in the British landscape. As well as having an important archaeological side to its story, it also has various folkloric associations. The article has been a GA for two years and I believe that it now meets FA criteria. I managed to get Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas to FA several months ago, and I'm hoping that this one can join it and improve our coverage of British prehistory. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Map_of_the_Medway_Megaliths.jpg: description page should include mention of sources used to create this map

• Good idea. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• File:Coldrum_skeletal_material.jpg: confused by this - if there is a FUR there should also be a fair-use tag of some sort. The given PD tag requires more explanation, both regarding which point is believed to apply as well as what steps have been taken to attempt to identify author. Same with File:Coldrum_skulls.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've been having trouble with these photographs and finding their precise origins. To ascertain the photographer, one would probably have to start exploring the museum archives, and I am not in a position to do that. I have removed the photos and replaced them with another image of the site itself, which should cause no copyright problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• There's a Harvard error on each of the Holgate citations - 1981 v 1982 I think

• Well spotted! It is 1981, so the problem is in the bibliography. Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 51: mdash in page range

• Replaced with the shorter dash (sorry, I don't know the specific name of it!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Bibliography:

• National Trust: The title on the linked page is apparently "Stunning views from the top of the barrow", not the title you give in your bibliography

• I was under the impression that the title is "Coldrum Stones", with "Stunning views from the top of the barrow" as a form of sub-header between the main title and the main prose? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Way: Can you clarify which of the articles listed on the linked page is your source article?

• Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ditto with Wright

• And done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• (being really pernickety) isbns should be consistently formatted. The 10-digit isbn shown for the Malone book can be converted to 13 via this.

• Smashing website; thanks for the link. Will try and remember to use that in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources are of impeccable quality and reliability. Signature added following the reproof below. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: the above source review is by Brianboulton. He should be forgiven his absence of mind in omitting to add his tiddlies, as he's almost as old as I am, poor soul. Tim riley talk 13:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time on this one, Brian! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I expect to be supporting the elevation of this comprehensive and fascinating article, but I have a few very small quibbles first.

• In the "Meaning and purpose" section I imagine "mouments" is a typo, but as it is in a quotation I didn’t like to alter it.

• Indeed, it is just a typo. Well spotted! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• In the Bibliography I wondered about "Otherparts" (in the George Payne entry).

• That appears to be an error; I will correct it to "Other Parts". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• "North Downs" is linked twice in the main text.

• Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• "an idea likely derived", "monuments were likely influenced" and "a local community could likely muster" – a curiously AmE feel to this formation. In ordinary BrE I'd expect "an idea probably derived", "monuments were probably influenced" and "a local community could probably muster". (The other "likely" in the text seems to me perfectly idomatic.)

• Sure. Changing instances of "likely" to "probably". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Good. Privately I think the AmE "likely" is rather better than our BrE "probably" (always prefer the shorter word to the long, and the Anglo Saxon - or in this case Norse - to the Latin) but the BrE usage here is pretty invariable. Tim riley talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• False titles: in a BrE article, it is jarring to see false titles such as "Archaeologist Robin Holgate", "historian Ronald Hutton" and "Archaeologist Caroline Malone". Prefixing them with a definite article would take away the pain.

• A fair point (and one you've made to be before, admittedly). I've made the amendments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• "morris dancing – one hates to encourage goings-on of that sort, but the Wikipedia article capitalises Morris throughout. The OED on the other hand, doesn’t. I leave it to you to decide which is the greater authority on the point.

• If we don't capitalise waacking or waltzing then there is probably no good reason to capitalise morris either. Ensuring that it appears in lower-case throughout this article (except when it appears in the name of a particular dance troupe). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• waacking? I won't ask (nor click on the link); I agree with your decision about capitalising "morris". Tim riley talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing of any great consequence here, but it would be nice to have these minor points cleared up. – Tim riley talk 13:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for offering your thoughts, Tim; I've responded to all of them but if there is anything else then please do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

After another perusal I am happy to add my support for this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Another most readable and enjoyable article from Midnightblueowl. Tim riley talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This is well-written and appears to be comprehensive. I have a small number of questions and suggestions.

Lead

• ¶1 "located near to the village" – Trim to "near the village"?

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Link sarsen in the lead caption?

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Context

• Link peristalith in the caption?

• Good idea. Done Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 "Britain was largely forested in this period,[8] with Kent only seeing widespread forest clearance in the Late Bronze Age." – Link Late Bronze Age and give a date span?

• Unfortunately, clicking on Late Bronze Age takes us to a section of the article on the Bronze Age which deals only with the Near East, which is not particularly relevant to this article. Instead I shall add a link to Bronze Age Britain. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Good catch. Finetooth (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 Replace "with plus -ing" construction in the Late Bronze Age sentence? Suggestion: "Britain was largely forested in this period; widespread forest clearance did not occur in Kent until the Late Bronze Age (date span)."

• Looks good. Will make the amendment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The chamber

• ¶1 "and 53 centimetres (1 foot, 9 inches) in depth at its thicker, eastern end." – Should this be "in thickness" rather than "in depth"?

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Demographics

• ¶5 "revealed that while the bones had δ13C values" – Link δ13C?

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶5 "they had significantly higher values of δ15C, which grew over time." – Should that be δ15N? An isotope of nitrogen rather than carbon?

• Indeed, it should - my silly mistake. Well spotted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶6 Link calibrated BCE?

• Good idea, and done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Post-mortem disposition

• ¶1 Link innominates?

• Very good idea. Added link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶1 Link femora?

Again, a very sensible idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Damage and dilapidation

• ¶2 "which ordered the opening of tumuli" – Link tumuli?

• I've added the link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Folklore, folk tradition, and modern Paganism

• ¶4 "Pagans sometimes visit the site alone or in pairs, there to meditate, pray, or perform rituals, with some having reported experiencing visions there." – Replace the "with plus -ing"? Suggestion: "Pagans sometimes visit the site alone or in pairs, there to meditate, pray, or perform rituals, and some have reported experiencing visions there."

• I've gone with your suggested wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Early antiquarian descriptions

• ¶1 "alerted to their existence by a local vicar" – Link vicar?

• I've added a link to Vicar (Anglicanism), which I think is more appropriate and specific here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Good catch. Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶3 "stating that two individuals excavated in the centre of the chamber without permission, discovering a human skeleton, the skull of which was re-buried in the churchyard..." – Slightly smoother might be "stating that two individuals who excavated in the centre of the chamber without permission discovered a human skeleton, the skull of which was re-buried in the churchyard..."

• Good idea. I've made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Archaeological excavation

• ¶1 "he returned to excavate on the north-west corner of the dolmen" – Link dolmen?

• I'm going to change "dolmen" to "chamber" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks for offering your comments, Finetooth. The article is much the better for them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• All good. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. A most interesting article, well-done. Finetooth (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Coldrum Lodge, which has since been demolished" When was this name coined, and when was the farm demolished?

• If only we knew! Sadly, this does not appear to be mentioned in the reliable sources. Hopefully, it might appear in some future publication and we could use it in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• "about 500 metres from", "one and a quarter miles away" I'm assuming that conversions would be needed for measurements here, since you also do it elsewhere. Anyhow, you should be consistent in what units you use.

• I've ensured that in both of these instances we have both imperial and metric measurements. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think you could mention country and area under Name and location too, the intro and infobox should only summarise info found in the article body, but now the info isn't there.

• Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not an WP:engvar fanatic at all, but isn't this sufficiently associated with the UK for British English to be used in the article? Maybe it is supposed to be UK, I just see "meters" written various places instead of "metres".

  I've ensured standardisation as "metre". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think you could define long barrow in-text early in the article body. The article is written in a way that just assumes the reader knows what it means.

• I've added a few sentences to the start of the "Medway Megaliths" sub-section to give greater explanation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, FunkMonk! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• "from the vicinity of the White Horse Stone" It could be explained what this is.

• I have added the brief following explanation to the sentence in question: "a putatively prehistoric monolith near the river," Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "and Maloideae Only genera and species should be in italics, not families.

• Ah, I did not know that. Removed the italicisation of the word. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "They can be divided into two separate clusters" I would name them, since this is the start of a new paragraph.

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Eocene." You could add "epoch", so readers will not confuse it with the much narrower periods also mentioned.

• Good idea; done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Any genetic work done on the human remains?

• It does not look like it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Are there any reconstructions of how the monument would have looked originally?

• I'm not sure that any would be fair use given that they would be artistic depictions created by other people. The other option would be for someone with a talent for art to produce a reconstruction (based on others) which could then be used here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Constructed circa 4000 BCE," Only seems to be stated explicitly in the intro, which should not have unique info. Also, what is the date based on?

• I've changed this to "Probably constructed in the fourth millennium BCE". The issue of date is discussed when examining the bones, mentioned in the final paragraph of the "Demographics" sub-section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so that's the only line of evidence that has been used for dating? FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's also the stylistic evidence, i.e. that it is a chambered long barrow and these are known to have been erected in the Early Neolithic. So it's a matter of relative dating, rather than any absolute dating. Hopefully any future excavation might be able to utilise techniques like carbon dating and thus ascertain a more precise date for the barrow's construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "about by Neolithicisation" Which is what?

• I've replaced the term "Neolithicisation" with the more explicit "the transition from the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic to the pastoralist Early Neolithic". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• It would seem those 1910 photos might be PD-old, know who the photographer was? In any case, they are PD-US, so you should upload them here locally in full res, like for example this image:[10]

• I've removed the photos being discussed due to problems regarding ascertaining their copyright status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• "in a paper largely concerned with discerning racial characteristics of the bodies" May be controversial, but what did he conclude?

• I've added a quotation from Keith that summarises his ideas. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• "their results were published in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society in 2013" Do we really need to name the journal in-text? You don't do this for other such studies.

• It's not essential. Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• " published in the Folklore journal" Likewise.

• Also removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Wysocki's team noted that in all but one case, the fracture morphologies" Maybe add "of the bones" to make it clearer.

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "on the left frontal" Spell out frontal bone and link. A bit too jargony.

• Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "sub-adults" Seems too jargony, could at least be defined.

• The article defines the bodies as between 16 and 20, so I have added that date range to the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "as seen here in contemporary Sichuan" Better to give a date, or be more vague, like "modern". If this article exists in 50 years, will the photo still be "contemporary"?

• Good idea. I've switched "contemporary" to "in the early twenty-first century". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The inclusion of occupational debris" Which is what exactly?

• I've added a little extra detail here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "earth energy" Any reason why this isn't linked?

• I've now added a link to Energy (esotericism). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "spirits of Albion" Could be linked.

• I do not think that "Spirits of Albion" itself could really link to anything, but we could link "Albion" itself? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was thinking. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll add the link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Kit's Coty House" is mentioned a few times, but what is it?

• It is the name of one of the other Medway Megaliths; this is mentioned in both the second paragraph of the lede and again in the third paragraph of the "Medway Megaliths" sub-section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, for some reason it didn't work when I searched the article... FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Have there been no excavations after the 1920s?

• Unfortunately not from what I gather, but hopefully some will take place in the future, at which point we can add any information about them into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "An patch of scorched earth exists on the grass" Looks like a mistake

• That it is, and I have corrected it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "After limited reconstruction" You mention this in the intro, but I cant see any elaboration in the article body.

• The article mentions the chambers being fortified with concrete in both "The chamber" and "Archaeological excavation" sections; do you think that the lede needs to be clearer on this point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems just short of reconstruction, though? Perhaps clarification would be better. Or do the sources refer to it as reconstruction? If so, it could also be solved by stating this explicitly in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I expanded the lede a little to better clarify things, but I felt that doing so just made that last lede paragraph too clunky, so I felt that the best bet was just to remove "After limited reconstruction" all together. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Any reason why your self-made diagrams haven't been moved to Commons? Could be useful to other projects.

• Not that I am aware of. If anyone wants to move them, then feel free to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I would, but the tools for it somehow don't work for me anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Seems only two issues are unaddressed, after that I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, FunkMonk; I've responded to the two questions which I was previously unable to address. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - every fix looks good, I think those century old photos would be fine to use here locally, in case you want me to look into it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

• Of these, it is in the best surviving condition.. - this segment is in a funny location tacked onto that sentence. If there were some way to tack this onto the previous sentence it would make more sense.

• I think that appending it to the previous sentence would make the sentence in question a bit too long. Instead, I've made "Of these, it is in the best surviving condition" a sentence all of its own, which I feel deals with the problem you mention without creating another. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• the long barrow fell into a state of ruined dilapidation - why not just, " the long barrow fell into a state of ruin"?

• A fair point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Another nearby village is Addington, which is located 5.23 kilometres (one and a quarter miles) away - why not just "The village of Addington is located 5.23 kilometres (one and a quarter miles) away"

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• I wonder if the Medway Megaliths section is possibly a little too detailed for this article (given there is a parent article..?)

• I see what you mean but I am really not sure if there is anything that could be removed without detrimentally impacting the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah I guess....having a look again, it's a pretty involved segment that adds necessary context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd add as a prefix to Michael Wysocki his occupation maybe

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise a detailed and eminently readable article. Nice job. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Cas Liber. I have responded to them all, although if there is anything else then do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: All the images have alt text except for "Coldrum Long Barrow 4.jpg". For consistency, it would be worth adding this but it isn't an outright requirement and is not worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 11:17, 28 October 2017 [11].

---

Mells War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Another war memorial. Another Lutyens. But this one's a little different. Lutyens did not just design memorials for major towns and cities like my previous few nominations but also for lots of tiny little places in the middle of nowhere, usually in connection with his pre-war work on country houses. Such was the case with Mells (population ~600 in 2011), where Lutyens' friendship with the owners of the manor resulted in multiple commissions. The story of this tiny village's war memorial is a microcosm of a nation's pain and grief following the slaughter of the First World War. The article has had an A-class review at Milhist and I feel it's up to scratch but I'd appreciate any and all comments. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I supported this article at its A class review, and also carried out an image review. I believe it meets Featured Article standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Support similarly, I supported this article at its A class review, and any concerns I had were dealt with there. Nice work. Harrias ^talk 09:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Avoid "multiple ... multiple".
• "In November 2015, as part of commemorations for the centenary of the First World War, Lutyens' war memorials were recognised as a "national collection".": By? After you add this, I'd suggest using the same language in the lead, in place of the unattributed quoted text.
• 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) 17:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Who doesn't like multiple multiples? ;) I've made the addition to that sentence, and I get what you're saying about the lead but the feedback in previous FACs has been to cut that down in the lead and keep it about the individual memorial rather than the group. One day I'll get round to writing an overview, but I've got another half a dozen individual memorials to cover yet. Very much obliged, as ever, Dan! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, all I was looking for was the removal of the quote marks, or attribution. They're gone now, so I'm happy. You're welcome, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Support from Moisejp

Minor suggestion for your consideration:

• "By 1916, 74 men": Possibly a bit awkward to have two numbers in a row separated by a comma. Consider spelling out "seventy-four" or adding "a total of" to act as a buffer? Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and that's probably the easiest way to address it, so done. Thanks very much for the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources are all of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

All images are licensed properly and have correct rationales, no so issues there. A couple of (minor) things I did notice was that they are missing alt text, and the infobox image caption says it was taken in June 2014, however the image itself was photographed in September 2007. Other than that, no worthwhile problems so I'll be happy to lend my support on the images as a whole. Nice work with this article by the way! JAGUAR  09:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jaguar. I'm guessing the date confusion comes from the images being switched around. As for alt text, I'm never sure what to put in there that would actually be helpful to someone using a screen reader and in this case there's an entire section dedicated to discussing what it looks like; with a different sort of article, it's definitely something I'd consider. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jackyd101

A very nice, simple and well-constructed article, quite moving. I only had one comment, not serious enough to hold up support, which was to ask whether there is anything on contemporary use of the memorial. I would presume there are ceremonies on remembrance day etc. Can anything be said about its role within the village community? Maybe not, but just a thought which occurred. Great work--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 11:14, 28 October 2017 [12].

---

Operation Inmate

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This article covers a two day long series of air attacks and naval bombardments conducted by the British Pacific Fleet against isolated Japanese-held islands in June 1945. Somewhat oddly to modern eyes, the main purpose of the operation was to provide the Allied airmen and sailors with combat experience before they conducted more demanding operations against Japan itself. The Allied force achieved this goal, and incurred relatively light casualties by standards at the time, though the Japanese later reported that the attacks had caused only minor damage. Overall, the article provides an interesting insight into the tactics used during naval operations in the final months of World War II and the circumstances endured by cut-off Japanese garrisons in the Pacific.

I developed the article from a stub about a year ago. It was assessed as GA class in November, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in February this year. The article has since been further expanded and copy edited, and I believe that it draws on all of the significant sources available on this minor military operation to provide a rounded view of the experiences of the Allied and Japanese forces. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:HMS_Implacable_arriving_at_Sydney_on_8_May_1945.JPG: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Australian copyright expired after 50 years if the image was taken before 1 May 1955. This was taken in 1945, so the copyright expired in 1995. It is also in the public domain in the United States because it was in the it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (1 January 1996). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  The US tag currently in use has publication requirements beyond "PD in home country", though. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  G'day Nick-D, I suggest, given this is held by the AWM, PD-AustraliaGov applies. You do not need a US PD licence for PD-AustraliaGov. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  I've just made that change. Thanks for the image review Nikki, and your assistance Hawkeye and Peacemaker. Nick-D (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 15:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article at GAN and again for Milhist A-Class. I've gone through the changes since then, including Dan's copyedit, and believe that it meets the Featured Article criteria. I've also conducted a source review and they are all reliable. Spotchecked fn 12 and 34, both ok. Suggest moving the References section to 20em to eliminate whitespace. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I've just made that change. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

SupportComments from Hawkeye7

• "The British Pacific Fleet " Introduce the abbreviated BPF here
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• "The British aircraft carrier HMS Implacable " Do we need "British"? And should we say "fleet carrier"?
  • Not in this context (as it seems clear), and yes - fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Admiral Bernard Rawlings – the commander of the fleet's combat force" Rawlings was only a vice-admiral at the time.
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• " the 29th of the month" -> 29 May per MOS:BADDATE
  • Tweaked to avoid this Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• "a US Navy submarine took up position near the atoll " That was USS Pompon?
  • Could you please provide a source which confirms that? The sub's DANFS's entry says that her patrol commenced on 18 June 1945 [13] - though DANFS is often wrong, and Clay Blair doesn't mention it in his Silent Victory. None of the sources I've found name the sub. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources comment: 13-digit isbns are preferred in booklists. You can convert the 10-digit versions to 13 by means of this Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, I've just made that change Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment Between this and the A-Class review, I think this has had enough commentary now to promote. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 11:02, 28 October 2017 [14].

---

Balfour Declaration

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This article has been significantly improved following another detailed peer review, prose advice from Corinne, and an extrapolation of those comments to tighten up every nook and cranny of the article. Having implemented the prose polishing, the creation a smooth narrative flow throughout, and the trimming of the footnotes, it is now a much easier and more pleasant read. I am pleased to nominate this again for FAC ahead of the centenary on 2 November; I hope you enjoy it. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Support - all my issues were ironed out during the latest peer-review, so I'm happy to see it here again. A flurry of sudden interest and intense edits from many editors, in a way I haven't seen before, seems to have made the article less cohesive right before the first FAC (and after the first peer-review where I, for full disclosure, acted as mentor). FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up lead image slightly

Done

• At the previous FAC, you had mentioned proposing an amendment to the UKGov tag wording - any progress on that?

Yes. I have pinged you on Commons

This fix has now been completed. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• File:The_"Basel_Program"_at_the_First_Zionist_Congress_in_1897.jpg: first source link doesn't appear to work.

Fixed with Wayback Machine

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Replies in green above. Many thanks for the speedy review. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

In my view all sources meet the required standards of quality and reliability. This review is concerned with issues of presentation and format.

• In about 20 cases you use "p." instead of "pp." when citing page ranges (17, 33, 65 etc)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 65 and 73 need ndashes not hyphens

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a bit dubious about the use of "et seq" in cited page ranges. It's open-ended, not particularly helpful to someone wishing to check. Is it possible to be more precise?

Agreed and fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 32: Your text refers to the Jewish population as "a small minority, approximately 3% of the total" – but I don't see any mention of 3% in the source.

I have added Bachi, the underlying source, which includes a table with percentages supporting the "approximately 3%". Other sources summarize the data in a similar fashion, which we can use if needed: ([15], [16], [17]). Onceinawhile (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Also in 32, why is it necessary to refer your readers to another WP article for "further details"? What "further details" do they need? (same issue arises with ref 85)

I have removed this in ref 32. Source 85 is a link to the Central Zionist Archives article, that is intended to be linked in the same manner as Cambridge University Press is linked, rather than for further information in the way ref 32 was being used. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 214 and 236: wikisource citations should give author and date information (there is a useful template available)

Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 216: Harvard error

Fixed by RL0919 (thanks). Onceinawhile (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 217: Italicize Jerusalem Post

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 262: requires author and proper source title

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 276: The link on "Virginia Page Fortna" is dead.

Updated. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 287 lacks publisher information; Jim Miles is the author

I removed this ref as not necessary. Instead I added an additional page number to the Schneer ref. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 290: Italicize The Guardian

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Access dates are required in a number of cases: 262, 287, 290 and 292 are obvious examples, but there may be more.

I added these. I also looked for others, and can confirm that these are the only primarily web-based sources in the article which did not already have access dates. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• What is your criterion for adding access dates in the bibliography, which you do on a couple of occasions?

I removed the two access dates; I have always considered them only relevant when the reference is primarily a web-based source (WP:CITEHOW only mentions access dates under "web pages") Onceinawhile (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• You need to be consistent about including publisher locations for books. In general you don't give them, but in the odd instance you do (Stein, Wavell and Woodward are examples but there may be more)

I found and removed nine examples of this. They don't add anything; the books are all easily identifiable with existing information. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Be consistent about how publishers are shown. For example, you have "Cambridge University Press", but "OUP". Another abbreviation is "NYU Press". Also, consistency is required in the use of "The...", e.g. "University of Texas Press" and "The University of California Press"

I reviewed and fixed these. On the first topic, I found three abbreviations (including SUNY). On the use of "The" I have removed the example you pointed to, and added it to a journal name – the criterion I am using is that "The" is only used when it appears in the official title of the organization or journal. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yapp appears in the bibliography but has no citations.

Removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all I've found. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

All fixed; replies in green above. Many thanks for looking at this so thoroughly; I imagine it took some quite some time (I figured that the volume – c.300 citations and c.100 items in the bibliography – would have made a source review more onerous). Onceinawhile (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "was the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict": "origin" doesn't work because it's ambiguous; it can mean "initial stages", "explanation" or "cause". Pick a different word.

This is a very good point. I spent some time looking across the underlying sources in the article, and opened a discussion at Talk:Balfour_Declaration#The_Declaration_and_the_Conflict. The consensus is for "cause", which I am happy with. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "On the basis of the quid pro quo agreement in the correspondence, the Arab Revolt was launched on 5 June 1916. However, in May 1916 the governments of the United Kingdom, France, and Russia secretly concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement": "However" is the wrong word here, because a secret agreement doesn't negate or mitigate a revolt. Rewrite to clarify which two things are being contrasted.

Done; I have flipped the first sentence around to directly juxtapose the two agreements. As such I kept the word "however", but I case just as easily delete it if you think better without. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Sykes was a British Conservative and Unionist MP whose role had developed from his seat on the 1915 De Bunsen Committee to have a significant influence on British policy in the Middle East, including initiating the creation of the Arab Bureau, whilst Picot was a French diplomat and former consul-general in Beirut.": Loss of clarity, mainly from trying to do too much in one sentence.

Done. I had the same uncomfortable feeling reading that sentence previously. I have now split the sentence into two, and copyedited the Sykes sentence to improve clarity and flow. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• “: no curly quotes, per WP:MOS

Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• "it was intended that Palestine may become a Jewish Commonwealth if and when ...": might, or would, not may.

Done. Changed to “would” since that’s the word Lloyd George used in his quote Onceinawhile (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. I got down to the last section before the end-sections, Reaction. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Seraphim System

This statement is in the lede: The opening words of the declaration represented the first public support for Zionism by a major political power. I am looking for a source for it in the body but I can't find it, could someone please point it out for me? Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I have now added this into the body in the Zionist reaction section. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Midnightblueowl

• Great work on a very important article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do we really need the full quotation of the Declaration's wording in the lede? It looks a little messy to have an indented block of prose in the lede itself, and I'm wondering if we would be better off simply paraphrasing its contents in that opening paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Not my article, but ... personally, I wouldn't want to see this changed without a discussion at WT:FAC of the general principle. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed during the last FAC at Talk:Balfour_Declaration#Infobox:_Proposed_RfC and Talk:Balfour_Declaration#RfC:_Location_of_verbatim_text. The discussions were linked at the FAC review. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have said before that I am not too keen on having both the info box and the text block; now that there is a higher resolution image available, could we not look at this again? Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I opened another discussion here: Talk:Balfour_Declaration#Need_for_verbatim_text_in_lede ten days ago, but there was no support for a change. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Anti-Zionist Jews" - link to Anti-Zionism? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. I also added a link to Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• There is a duplink to Palestine (region) in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Allied war effort" - this is the first introduction of the concept of the "Allies" in the lede. I'm concerned that there are points like this which require the reader to have a pre-existing understanding of the First World War and its various sides in order to understand what the lede is actually referring to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Took a great deal of thinking, and a lot of iteration, but I think I have fixed this. I only explained the position of the countries we discuss in the lede. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The opening words of the declaration represented the first public support for Zionism by a major political power" - probably could just go with "The declaration represented the first expression of public support for Zionism by a major political power." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have made most of this proposed change. The bit I didn’t implement was the deletion of the words “opening words of”; this is there in order to differentiate from the latter part of the paragraph which talks about “the second half” of the declaration, which comprises the two key provisos. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• We link to Palestinians when mentioning "local population of Palestine" but it would be better to move that link to the earlier mention of the "the local population in Palestine". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "It greatly increased popular support for Zionism, led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories, and was the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, considered the world's most intractable conflict." I'm wondering if this would work better as two separate sentences: "It greatly increased popular support for Zionism, led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories. It was also the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, considered the world's most intractable conflict." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have split this as proposed, and incorporated Dank's comment above. Rather than "also" I used "As a result" as the linkage, because the causation of the conflict runs through the strengthening of Zionism and the creation of Israel/Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

In "Background"

• The first sub-section has a lengthy paragraph and then a very short one. Consider rearranging so that we have two even-sized paragraphs? That should make it more appealing for readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. I didn't make them exactly evenly sized, but created one paragraph relating to the mid-1800s and one to the late 1800s/early 1900s. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The British Foreign Office worked to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine" - perhaps "The British Foreign Office encouraged Jewish emigration to Palestine"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Changed to "actively encouraged", to be clear that this was not passive encouragement of an existing trend. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The 1881–84 Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire encouraged " - "Anti" should probably be "anti" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Consider aligning the "Basel program" picture to the left, to avoid clustering on the right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "and former MP" - this acronym has not previously been explained in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done - I have now explained this. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The Turks began to apply restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine in late 1882" - I think that this is the first explicit mention of the Turks; before this we have only mentioned the Ottoman Empire. It might be worth making clear the connection between the two for readers unfamiliar with the situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done - I have added "also known as the Turkish Empire" in the paragraph above. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• " At the meeting David Lloyd George, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whose law firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co had been engaged a decade before by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland to work on the Uganda Scheme,[40] "referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine".[41] " This is a bit clunky, especially the middle section. Perhaps it could be broken into two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, by moving the middle section to the next sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• " a Zionist, who believed Weizmann's demands were too modest.[" - we could quite easily scrap the comma here and streamline the sentence as a result. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed; restructured the sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "his election defeat in 1906," - perhaps "his electoral defeat in 1906," would read better? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "member of the Conservative and Unionist Party in their role " - link to Conservative Party (UK); also, probably best to simply use "Conservative Party", which is common use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Added link as proposed. Conservative and Unionist Party was the contemporary name in common usage, because the merger of the Unionist and Conservative parties had only just taken place in 1912. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Many further discussions followed, including the initial meetings in 1915–16 between Lloyd George, who had been appointed Minister of Munitions in May 1915,[48] and Weizmann, who was appointed as a scientific advisor to Lloyd George's Ministry of Munitions in September 1915.[" - it is a bit repetitive to use "Minister of Munitions" twice; in the latter case perhaps just "advisor to the ministry in September 1915." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Seventeen years later in his War Memoirs Lloyd George described these meetings as being the "fount and origin" of the declaration although this claim has been rejected by historians.[" - this sentence could do with some additional commas, after "years", "Memoirs", and "declaration". Midnightblueowl (talk)

Done. I made the last one a semi colon and removed "although". Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• There are a few instances of passive voice where active voice might be more appropriate. "Zionism was first discussed at a meeting of the British Cabinet on 9 November 1914," could be "The British Cabinet first discussed Zionism at a meeting of the British Cabinet on 9 November 1914," while "although this claim has been rejected by historians." could be "although historians have rejected this claim." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• In the "1915–16: Prior British commitments over Palestine" sub-section, the second paragraph is far, far too long. Definitely trim this into two if not three smaller chunks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, split into three. I made some additional stylistic improvements to make this work. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "In late 1915 the British High Commissioner to Egypt, Henry McMahon, had exchanged ten letters with Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, in which he had promised Hussein to recognize Arab independence "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca" with the exception of "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo", in return for Hussein launching a revolt against the Ottoman Empire." This is a very lengthy sentence and it would work better if divided into two sentences. Also, no reason to include the "had" in "had exchanged" and "had promised". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• " for carving up the area" - "for dividing the area" might be a little more encyclopaedic in tone. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Sykes was a British Conservative and Unionist MP" - no need for "and Unionist", I'd have thought. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Per above, it is more accurate to contemporary usage to retain Unionist. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "In Sykes’ mind, the agreement became outdated even before it was signed – in March 1916, he was to write in a private letter: " - change the apostrophe after "Sykes" to the standard style; maybe "was" rather than "became"; "he was to write" to "he wrote"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "borders of the Ottoman empire" - Upper case E needed in "Empire" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "responsibility for Middle Eastern Affairs" - "Affairs" should probably be "affairs" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Sykes’ goals" - again it's the odd apostrophe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "mobilizing of Zionism" - "mobilisation of Zionism", perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, although retained American spelling Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the wider war had reached " - "the war had reached"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "would first turn in " - "first turned in"; "had declared war" to "declared war"; "was still hoping to avoid" to "still hoped to avoid". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, except for the first one, where I am intending to communicate that we are talking about events which post-date the subject of the declaration – and in particular the narrative to come in the following sections. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The Russian forces were known to be distracted " - "Russia's armies were distracted"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's important to retain the information that this was known to the British, as the most relevant point to the article is what the British thought rather than what was or was not true. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Link Bolshevik. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Alexander Kerensky's Russian Republic " - perhaps better to state "Alexander Kerensky's Provisional Government"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• " and would only withdraw after the final stage " - "and only withdrew after the final stage". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Approvals

• "Balfour met Weizmann at the Foreign Office on 22 March, in a meeting described by Weizmann in a letter two days later as being "the first time I had a real business talk with him".[94]" This could be edited down a bit to something like: "Balfour met Weizmann at the Foreign Office on 22 March; two days layer, Weizmann described the meeting as being "the first time I had a real business talk with him".[94]" Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Balfour was in agreement" would work as just "Balfour agreed". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "with the Sherif of Mecca" - link? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Already linked in the "1915–16: Prior British commitments over Palestine" section above; I had removed duplicate links. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the Western Front " - again, link? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Already linked in the "Late 1917: Progress of the wider war" section above. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the French and Italians were to send" - "the French and Italians sent". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• The third paragraph is very lengthy here; it should be divided into two, if not three. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Following the US entry into the war on 6 April, Balfour travelled on the Balfour Mission to the United States," - "the US..." but then "the United States". Perhaps the other way around? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done; I fixed this another way, by adding reference to Washington and NYC. I also dealt with the double Balfour usage by replacing on with British Foreign Secretary. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "were all in favour of supporting the " - perhaps "all supported the"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This meant they supported the country supporting; I have added "Britain" in the middle to clarify. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Balfour met with Lord Rothschild and Weizmann and asked them " - "and... and"; perhaps "and asked them" could become "asking them". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I restructured the sentence to avoid the "and... and" Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• " his fellow Conservative and Unionist MP" - again, just "Conservative MP" would probably do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. I added a clarification above next to the 1906 reference to the party. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Drafting and Terms

• "Declassification of Government archives" - small g for "government", surely? Also, perhaps better to be crystal clear by saying "British government" or "UK government" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• The second paragraph is one long sentence, and I really think we would do best to divide it into two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "a number of mainly presentational amendments were proposed by Balfour" - we could switch to active voice here, as "Balfour proposed a number of mainly presentational amendments". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "having previously been High Commissioner for Southern Africa during the Second Boer War" - superfluous information here that unduly elongates the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Added as an endnote, and clarified relevance. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "debated as to who" - scrap the "as to"; it is superfluous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Explication of the wording" - might "explication" be a bit too obscure a word here? "Analysis" or something like that might be preferable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done; change to Interpretation. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the interpretation of the Zionists" - "the Zionists' interpretation"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "also no accident" - "also intentional"? Or "also deliberate"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, I went for deliberate. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of "Scope of the national home "in Palestine"", there is a quote which has been italicised, but need not be (and indeed probably should not be). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed italics. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Again in the same paragraph, we put words in quotation marks in the first sentence to emphasise them but italicise them in the last for the same purpose. Best if we standardise our approach here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done; removed italics Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "described that this community were to observe that they had been " - not keen on this wording, it seems a bit clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, simplified down to "in the words of... the community observed that they had been" Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "compared against the commitment " - "contrasted against" would be better, no? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, changed as proposed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "British Governments have " - lower-case g for "governments"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. I also searched through the article and found three other examples - now these are consistently lower case. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• In "Rights and political status of Jews in other countries", we have two sentences that are standing alone as paragraphs. I think that we need some rearrangement to ensure that the paragraphs are more equitable in size. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done - rearranged, and reads better now. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Reaction

• "It was first published in newspapers on 9 November, " in the "Zionist reaction" section. This information has already appeared in the section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point; now changed to "In addition to its publication in major newspapers..." Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "after the issuance of the declaration" - perhaps "the declaration was issued" will be easier for a lot of readers. "issuance" is probably not an everyday word for most people. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "From 1918 until World War II Jews in Mandatory Palestine" - probably best to have a comma after "World War II". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the first post-war settlement in Mandatory Palestine," - this is the first link to the article but is not the first mention of Mandatory Palestine in the section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Adolf Hitler had taken a similar approach " - "Adolf Hitler took a similar approach". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "was to continue for some time to come." - "continued for several years"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I made this more specific, with reference to the 1990s and a link to the Wikipedia article on the topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Why do we link to Zionism in the "Evolution of British opinion" sub-section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the link, as it’s already linked in the Background section. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "British public and government opinion became increasingly less favourable to the commitment that had been made to Zionism;" could be streamlined to something like "British public and government opinion became increasingly unfavourable to state support for Zionism;" Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Historiography

• We could cut "Lloyd-George's personal testimony in the context of his role as Prime Minister at the time of the declaration" back down to "Lloyd-George's personal testimony" quite easily. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. I also removed the repeated “Lloyd George” in the following sentence, and replaced it with “He”. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Balfour had died in 1930 and Sykes had died in 1919" to "Balfour had died in 1930 and Sykes in 1919". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "described a total of nine factors motivating " - to "listed nine factors motivating". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly enough it did previous say “listing”. However, in the source itself, Lloyd-George didn’t “list” the factors, but rather described them in a less structured manner. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the Suez Canal and reinforce the route to Great Britain" - scrap the "Great" and wikilink Suez Canal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. I replaced the second Britain with “their”. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "appeal to Jews in Germany and particularly America, " - "United States" rather than "America". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "French pressure for an international administration" - perhaps add "in Palestine" to the end of this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• " that British government's decision" - there needs to be a "the" before "British". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Long-term impact

• "With respect to the latter, the declaration has been described as the "original sin" with respect to Britain's failure in Palestine" - "With respect... with respect". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done; replaced the first one with just “It”. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• " it was seen as a repudiation of the declaration by Zionists" - this can be misread as meaning that Zionists themselves repudiated the declaration. Change to "Zionists saw it as a repudiation of the declaration". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed; I added the word “many” so as not to imply all. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The Arab-Israeli conflict in a wider sense ran primarily from 1948–73, but continues today, mainly in the form of the more localized Israeli–Palestinian conflict." - unreferenced and perhaps not really necessary given the prior mentions of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Scrap "in her work Britain's Moment in the Middle East, 1914–1971" as we do not mention other historian's books in this manner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The 2010 study by Dr. Jonathan " - scrap "Dr.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The Document

• Additional Manuscripts number 41178 - no need for italicisation, perhaps. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Other

• I'm really not a fan of the very heavy use of quotation in the Notes, which I find a bit excessive. That would not stop me supporting the article, but I do think it could be trimmed back. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Understood. You may be interested to see the discussion at the last FAC. I have cut them down since then, and will have another go at some further trimming now. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: just to say thanks very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: do you expect to have any further comments? I am keen to encourage Wehwalt to have another look at the article following his previous detailed feedback, but if you are still in the middle of a detailed review I imagine he may prefer to wait. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Can people ping me when ready? I would hate to overlook returning to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:: I will ensure that all my comments are provided here by the end of the day, apologies if I have held anything up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Midnightblueowl. You certainly haven’t held anything up. You have provided superb comments, always constructive and always clear. Your input has been greatly appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I have completed putting through your comments. Thank you so much for performing such a thorough assessment!

@Wehwalt: It’s ready for your review if you have time; I will hold off on making any further changes. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy to lend my support to such an important article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, nice work. I have the following suggestions/observations (apologies if some have already been mentioned above): AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "...Churchill's 1841–42 exhortations...": probably should be "...Churchill's 1841–1842 exhortations" per WP:DATERANGE

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• same as above for "1881–84 anti-Jewish pogroms" and "1905–06 election campaign after" and other similar constructions

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• the duplicate link checker tool suggests that the following terms are overlinked: Zionist Organization, Nathan Rothschild, Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, Lloyd George ministry, Western Front (World War I), Russian Revolution, Bolsheviks, Leonard Stein (Liberal politician), League of Nations mandate, King-Crane Commission, Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, Public inquiry, 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine

All removed. Thank you for listing these out, it was very helpful Onceinawhile (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography, for the Renton work, is there an end to the page range? Currently it has: "pp. 16–"

Corrected Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography, "A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the struggle that shaped the Middle East" --> probably should use title case caps: " A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle that Shaped the Middle East" (please check for other instances)

Done. I found four more in addition. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography, some isbns have hyphens and some don't (e.g. compare Barr with Antonius)

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography, for the journal articles, I suggest adding ISSNs if there aren't dois. For instance, Brecher is missing one of these.

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography, "THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE PALESTINE PROBLEM 1917-1988 PART I" --> should use title case instead of all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: many thanks for taking the time to review the article, and for your helpful comments. I have made all of the changes, per above. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BrightR

Very satisfied to see the increase in Palestinian, Jordanian, and other sources on the topic. I can see what Midnightblueowl says about apparently excessive quotes, but I am a fan of direct quotes myself and see it as a benefit to the article's verifiability. At any rate, if required, all the quotes can be removed. Strong support. Bright☀ 10:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I weighed in at the initial FAC. Additional comments (more coming).

• "the United States had yet to suffer a casualty," The U.S. was an Associated Power, not an Ally. A year or two in the 2nd pp might be helpful.

Good point. I changed it to "Britain's Allies and Associated Powers"; having looked around for other alternatives, I have not come across anything more concise. On your second point, I agree - it wasn't clear given the prior reference to 1914. I have added 1917 just once, because after that it's clear that the rest can only be 1917. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• While you mention that there was enoucragement for Jewish emigration to Israel, I don't see any numbers, nor mention of the Jews already there.

Agreed; this was because the encouragement had no direct effect on immigration (although it may have indirectly succeeded by encouraging the growth of Zionist thought in the longer term). I have added some wording to explain the fact that it did not succeed, and added a number as suggested. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe "co-belligerants"?

I did think about that, but concluded that the term belligerant is unnecessarily technical and can be misinterpreted as "aggressor". "Associated power" is long, but I think it is simpler to understand. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• " leaving Britain without a sphere of influence.[3] " I might add "in the Levant" or similar

Done. I added Palestine and the wider Middle East to follow Schölch, and used the same article to append a better bridge to the subsequent sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Consider mentioning long term hopes of Jews to return to Zion, as stated for example in the liturgy, "next year in Jerusalem" and all that.

I have considered it, but can’t find a way to do so without creating something quite complex. Prior to the BD and the creation of the State of Israel, Jewish views on references in the literature to a return were widely spread and – in the late 19th century – hotly debated. Much of these hopes were Messianic and Eschatological in nature, and many Jews – both religious and non-religious (such as Moses Mendelssohn) – interpreted manmade attempts to to encourage a mass return to be unacceptable. As an aside, the phrase L'Shana Haba'ah (Next Year in Jerusalem) is relatively recent in popular usage. A broad-brush statement on this would be open to challenge, so I’d be keen to hold off for now. I might work on this in a different article at some point, when I have a few weeks to spare, to develop a description which is robust on all sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "to enlist him in influencing those deemed to be receptive within the British government to their agenda" a bit vague

I have added a footnote with further clarity here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• " but remained a senior member of the Conservative and Unionist Party – today known as the Conservative Party – in their role as Official Opposition.[e]" They're still the Conservative and Unionist Party, technically, so I would lose the full name and just say Balfour was senior in the Conservative Party.

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• FIrst sentence of 1916-17 I might mention that all those people were members of the Liberal Party.

Done. I added it to the second sentence, with a small restructuring. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The Russian forces were known to be distracted by the ongoing Russian Revolution and the growing support for the Bolshevik faction, but Alexander Kerensky's Provisional Government had remained in the war, and only withdrew after the final stage of the revolution on 7 November 1917." I might toss a "Russian forces" before "only".

I added just "Russia" to avoid repetition, and added a semi-colon. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "on 22 March;" 1918?

Added the date - it was 1917. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• The French position in regard to Palestine and the wider Syria region during the lead up to the Balfour Declaration was largely dictated by the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and were complicated. Likely the "were" should be "was"

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Caps inconsistency, "southern borders" vs. "Southern border"

Changed to lower case. I checked all four cardinal directions, and can confirm there are no other inconsistencies. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Israelites" this term is in my experience anyway, rarely used to refer to a modern people.

Fixed. This was a mirroring of the name of the Italian organization in the previous sentence; I have fixed this too, and added an explanatory footnote. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• " described by Harold Nicolson – who had been involved in preparing the draft – in 1961 as proposing a "sanctuary for Jewish victims of persecution".[127][128] " to make it less choppy I would move "in 1961" to before "by"

Done; good solution, thanks Onceinawhile (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "mainly presentational amendments." I might say "technical" as the adjective.

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "although the chief architects of the declaration considered that a Jewish State would emerge in time.[xvii]" I might say "contemplated" for "considered"

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The clause had been drafted together with the second safeguard by Leo Amery in discussion with Lord Milner," I might say "consultation" rather then "discussion".

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Fourteen points" usually "Fourteen Points".

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "speeches were given by leading Zionists as well as members of the British government including Sykes and Cecil" Was Sykes a member of the government.

In some uses of the word government, civil servants can be included, and Sykes was an MP as well and acted in many ways like a minister in what was a very unusual government structure at the time (the Cabinet was very small, and most ministers were not part of it - even Balfour himself.) But I take your point, technically Sykes probably was not in the government. Either way, I made it simpler by replacing "government" with "administration". Onceinawhile (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "On 25 April 1920, the San Remo conference established League of Nations mandates for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine, the latter including the Balfour Declaration and," I might clarify, as I understand, that the terms of the mandate for Palestine included the Balfour Declaration.

Agreed. This is an important part of the story. I have added more detail. You'll see in the next section (Evolution of British opinion) further detail of the creation of the Mandate. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "one represented in 1961 by Leonard Stein," represented could be better as "presented" or "argued"

Done; I picked argued. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the government’s wider radical agenda" I'm not clear on what is meant by this--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It meant partition of the Ottoman Empire. I have clarified. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

All done, with many thanks for another very valuable and incisive round of comments. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Nice work. Not sure I agree with every one of your solutions, but that's not required:)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 17:42, 25 October 2017 [18].

---

Alfred Shout

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It has been a little while since my last FAC, but I think this one is up to scratch. Shout was a New Zealand-born soldier and Australian Victoria Cross recipient of the First World War. Commissioned into the AIF not long after its formation, Shout took part in the Gallipoli invasion on 25 April 1915, was awarded the Military Cross for his "conspicuous courage and ability" over the next two days, and soon after Mentioned in Despatches. His VC was posthumously awarded for his actions at Lone Pine in August 1915 – after Ottoman forces had recaptured a section of trench, Shout twice led small parties of men to clear them out. He was mortally wounded when a bomb he was throwing exploded prematurely. Shout was the most highly decorated man in the AIF at Gallipoli, and his VC sold for a world record auction price in 2006. The article was listed as GA some months ago and recently passed a WP:MILHIST A-Class review. Any and all comments welcome, and much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian -- recusing from coord duties; good to see you back, Bryce!

• Copyedited so let me know any issues; outstanding points:
  • Shout "assisted greatly" in maintaining the position of his men... brought him back "to a place of safety"... As a result of his "great courage" -- if we use quotes I think they should be attributed inline; as it is we don't know if it's the author of the work speaking or an official despatch or something else.

Have tweaked this – let me know what you think.

• • having "served with distinction" during his time in South Africa -- as above.

Will get back to you on this one, as there is something I would like to double check with the sources.

Have cut this one – it was not really vital, and there seemed no smooth way of attributing the quote to Snelling.

• • the couple had a daughter named Florence Agnes Maud on 11 June that year -- not a biggie but I don't think we generally name children unless notable in themselves, nor worry about their exact birthdates.

Have cut the middle names and specific date of birth, but as Florence was Shout's only child I think the name and month is worth retaining.

• • Following the outbreak of the First World War, Shout applied for a commission in the newly raised Australian Imperial Force (AIF) on 18 August 1914 for active service overseas. -- I think this sentence has one clause too many for comfort; suggest you lose either "Following the outbreak of the First World War" given the section header, or "for active service overseas" since you explain the purpose of the AIF next sentence.

Have cut the latter.

• • the "impregnable" Ottoman position at Lone Pine -- I seem to recall from my readings that it was generally considered so therefore perhaps not appropropriate to attribute to this particular source but simply to paraphrase in some fashion.

Done.

• • "bitter, savage fighting" over the next three days, predominantly in the form of "deadly bombing duels" -- since the quotes don't relate directly to Shout, I wonder if rather than attributing the first one we could just try paraphrasing; I think "deadly bombing duels" would be worth retaining if attributed.

Done.

• • Shout was fighting with "splendid gaiety" throughout the assault, "laughing and joking and cheering his men on" -- probably worth retaining the quotes with attribution.

Done – let me know what you think.

• • he remained cheerful, "drank tea and sent a message to his wife" -- if only one of the cited sources described him as cheerful I think worth attributing that, as well as the quote.

Ditto.

• • Shout was evacuated from the Gallipoli Peninsula to the hospital ship Euralia shortly afterwards. -- given this is the start of a new section, I think "shortly afterwards" needs clarification; shortly after he was wounded I assume?

Clarified.

• • Although Sasse's Sap "was never wholly regained" -- I think preferable to just paraphrase this one; we need to guard against the article becoming a quote farm.

Done.

• Structure is straightforward and level of detail seems appropriate.
• I'll try and look over images and referencing at some stage, if no-one beats me to it.

Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and tweaks, Ian! Much appreciated. The following are my edits: [19]. Will get back to you on the second point asap. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian Rose. Just wanted to check whether your comments above have been satisfactorily addressed? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Tweaked a little bit but generally no probs from my perspective. I'd prefer to see Ealdgyth's response to your ping before supporting outright; if I have time I may just comb through the changes in response to her comments myself -- let's say I've no objections to promotion anyway... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to support outright following Brian's and Harry's involvement -- I think the "little is known" point was well made and a good reminder of things we have to watch for (Bryce's reassuring response was no less than I expected given his experience as an editor, but still worth hearing). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Support and image review by PM I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR, and could find little to comment on then, I've had a look at the above improvements, and believe it currently meets the FA criteria. I also checked the image licensing during ACR and they are all fine. Great job on this article and welcome back to FAC! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Peacemaker! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

• Okay, we have a problem with the use of the "record search" from the National Archives of Australia. These are all primary sources. And it's an 83 page file but all sorts of things are cited to the entire file. I'm pretty sure there are some problems with interpretation of the primary sources going on here - but I'm not going to freaking scroll through the entire slowly loading 83 page file trying to figure out which of the 83 pages (that take forever to load) supports each tiny bit of information. Each bit of information should be sourced at the least to a page range, but ideally to an individual page.

• Actually I have to agree here regarding closer citation. When I've used NAA records, I tend to cite the page (as defined by NAA) or a narrow range where the information comes from across a couple of pages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, will differentiate between cites. However, I will not get a chance to do so until at least this evening. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• there is no rush. To be honest, I probably won't have a great deal of time to get back to it before Monday or Tuesday Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• No worries – I'll let you know as soon as I am done, but it should be before then. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• A lot of these sources are primary sources - embarkation rolls, the various bits of paperwork in the archival records, the Gazette mentions, etc. The extensive use of primary sources concerns me - we should be relying on secondary sources not primary. It's entirely too easy to slip into interpreting the primary sources - can none of these details be cited to secondary works instead?

• This has not been a problem in the past, as the sources have not been 'interpreted' to make an argument. Rather, in almost every case they have been used alongside secondary sources to provide slight additional detail, such as a specific date. Indeed, the embarkation roll is backed up by Snelling and, while all of Shout's awards can be verified by basically any of the secondary sources used here, the London Gazette provides the date of announcement and a complete and accurate rendering of his VC citation (though this does appear in Staunton and others too). Further, as every single one of the records are freely accessible and available online, there is not really a verifiability issue (excepting perhaps the above, which will be addressed shortly). To be honest, you'd be hard pressed to find an FA-level article on an Australian military figure that does not use similar sourcing. As for the London Gazette, this article features just four entries – compare this case to Richard Dannatt and Donald Hardman (both FAs, the latter promoted just last month), which make use of dozens, though in a similar method for a similar reason. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• The problem is that it isn't clear from the way you reference what the additional details ARE. An example: "Information on Alfred Shout's early life is rather scant, and the details differ between sources. It is believed that he was privately educated in his youth and," is sourced to the records search (page 1) AND to Snelling. What part of the two sentences comes from the records search? There IS interpretation in this sentence - is Snelling supporting the first bit? Even if the records search is just supporting the "privately educated" ... that phrase is actually "it is believed" which is interpreting the primary source document (which is emphatic about him being privately educated on page 1). Another example: "He then joined the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop, and served with the unit until the Boer War ended in 1902." ... which is sourced to three sources: the records search which says that he served in the "Border Horse 1900-2 (Sgt)", to this source which says "Records suggest that he also served with the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop." and then this source which says "He was in South Africa when, as an eighteen year old, he joined the Border Horse and later served with the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop and the Cape Colonial Forces." None of these actually support the sentence "He then joined the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop, and served with the unit until the Boer War ended in 1902." ... what is actually happening here is that the three sources are being combined together like a historian would to come up with a synthesized statement that isn't supported by the sources.

• Clarified and substituted for more definitive source. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Here's another "Following the outbreak of the First World War, Shout applied for a commission in the newly raised Australian Imperial Force (AIF) on 18 August 1914." is sourced to the page 1 of the records search. But nothing on that page says anything about "following the outbreak of World War I" or that the Australian Imperial Force was "newly raised".

• Arguably common enough not to warrant a further cite, but have added one in. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Another "On 11 May, he was wounded once again, suffering a second gunshot to his arm. He was evacuated to the hospital ship HMHS Gascon but, having recovered sufficiently, rejoined his unit fifteen days later." - this is mostly supported by the source but it puts in details not covered by the primary source - the fact that HMHS is a hospital ship, that he was evacuated to the ship. Nor does the source explicitly state that the reason he returned to his unit was that he had recovered. We can assume that but it's not expressly stated.

• Clarified and added additional cite. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• A last example: this source is given as the source for "Shout was also posthumously issued the 1914–15 Star, British War Medal, and Victory Medal for his service during the First World War." but nothing in that record states whether it was posthumous or not. It just says he was awarded these awards in addition to the VC.

• This information is covered on pages 28 and 83 – the medals were not issued until 1921. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to be a pain here, but it's difficult to use primary sources in wikipedia because it is so tempting to interpret them or add information that included in them. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - the things it's flagging up are the long quote from the citation for the VC, which is properly quoted and attributed.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Ealdgyth! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth. Just wanted to check whether your comments above have been satisfactorily addressed? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth. Sorry to be a pain, but I was just wondering if you had had a chance to check whether your comments above have been satisfactorily addressed? I ask as the review seems to have stalled pending review of the above. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

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) 01:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and tweaks, Dank! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: As Ealdgyth seems unable to return to this FAC at the moment, I think we need another source reviewer to check if her concerns have been addressed. I wonder if Brianboulton could take a little look; the bulk of the review has been cleared, the issue was over the use of primary sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I did say I'd have a look at the sourcing resolutions if I had time (which I'm afraid I haven't) but OTOH as I write similar articles using similar sourcing to Bryce it might indeed be better to have someone more removed to do the final check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As Ealdgyth has not responded to a specific request on her talkpage (5 October), it is reasonable I think to assume that either she is satisfied with what's been done here, or at the very least has decided not to press her points further. I believe that, had she wished to pursue an objection, she would have let you know by now. I don't really feel that I can adjudicate on the point at issue, which seems to be whether or not the use of primary sources in this article is excessive, and in my view the sources review should be considered as completed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day Sarastro1. As one of the reviewers, I don't consider that the use of primary sources in this article is excessive, they are being used to cite straightforward facts, and I think that it is a reasonable assumption that Ealdgyth is either content with the responses or doesn't wish to comment further. I believe it is ready for promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. By my count, we still only have two supports. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, Sarastro1. I was (possibly incorrectly) assuming that Ian Rose was a support once Ealdgyth's concerns had been addressed re: sourcing. Which I felt they had. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• Alfred John Shout, VC, MC Comma needed after MC per MOS:POSTNOM

• With respect, the above is not my reading of MOS:POSTNOM. The guideline notes that, if commas are used, they should appear between sets of postnominals. Nothing is mentioned about following them, and I tend to think it would be a tad redundant. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• My reading is that it should either be "Shout, VC, MC, was" or "Shout VC, MC was", but I'm certainly not going to oppose over a comma. --HJM

• Having skimmed Ealdgyth's comments, I have a similar concern with Information on Alfred Shout's early life is rather scant and the details differ between sources. Is that from Snelling, or is that your interpretation of the source material?

• The vague and (slightly) differing deails are mentioned in a couple of the sources, including Snelling. However, I can cut out "and the details differ between sources", if that would be better?

• My concern is what the sources say about what the sources say, if that makes sense. It's one thing if Bloggs 2017 says "little is known" and our article says little is known, but it's a different thing for an editor to say "little is known" because they couldn't find anything. So what does Snelling say, exactly? --HJM

• Hi HJ Mitchell. Snelling p. 178 has: "Little is known of his early life." Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's fine. I just wanted to make sure we were reflecting the sources and not coming up with a novel interpretation in their absence. Happy to support now that's resolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• No worries, and thanks. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Shout "assisted greatly" in maintaining Whose quote is this?

• The citation for Shout's Mention in Despatches (via Snelling). The attribution (in text) was removed during some recent tweaks and, as I see no smooth way of reintroducing it, I have cut it back to "assisted" without quote marks. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• That works. --HJM

• succumbed to his wounds WP:EUPHEMISM

• Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I notice you include the description of the VC ( the highest decoration for gallantry "in the face of the enemy" awarded to members of the British and Commonwealth armed forces) in the lead but it doesn't appear anywhere in the body.

• The above is something of the standard speel in articles on VC recipients (a similar style is used in Medal of Honor recipients' articles, too). I don't think it really vital to include in the body, but can do so if you think it necessary. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm happy to leave it to you. Somebody else might pick up on it but I won't hassle you for it. --HJM

Not seeing anything of major concern. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, HJ Mitchell (and my apologies for the slow reply)! Much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A few replies inline. I imagine I'll support once we've agreed a frame of words for the early life. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. Everything is resolved to my satisfaction. I can't see any barriers to promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: This one looks ready to go, but we have three dead links: the links to awm.gov.au do not seem to be working anymore. I think this needs to be sorted before this can be promoted. We can promote as soon as this is sorted as everything else checks out. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarastro1. The AWM recently moved their entire website and, while I updated the links before nominating for FA, it seems these three were shifted in the time since. Have updated them now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:24, 24 October 2017 [20].

---

The Boat Races 2017

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well it took nearly six months to get this passed at GAN so this can’t be much worse... another comprehensive Boat Races article based on existing predecessors who have been promoted to FA over the past couple of years. As ever will work my little cotton socks off to address any and all comments here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the course map. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  Cool, to what? You know there are like 180+ of these all based on the same image size and several have gone through FAC before? Any other image issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  All images are appropriately licensed. Looks like of the other FAs on the races, most don't use |upright=, so that'd make the difference. If you do want to keep the upright you can scale to 1 to match the ones that don't use it, or pick something up to 1.3 for larger. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  Okeydokes, dropped "upright". Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

A rather new topic for me, please excuse possible silly questions, and don't expect me to have read other articles in the series ;) Lead

• The lead image is too small.

  Yes, it's sub-optimal, but it's that or nothing. I prefer something. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  made it a bit bigger, Alakzi told me how --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• There are many boat races in the world. If the article name doesn't tell us Oxford/Cambridge, the lead needs to clarify that soon, certainly before sponsorship.

  There's only one called The Boat Race and that's linked in the opening sentence of the lead, and explained as such. Alt name is mentioned there because it would be awkward to add it later. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  I know FAs where an Alt name is given later, see Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4. Better than getting clumsy, even a translation has been postponed, see Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'm following a consistent approach to such sporting events, because often as not, it's borderline the common name for such an event, and it's in parentheses so I don't think it should change. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the men's, women's and both reserves' races" - I understand that saying "races" three times would be awkward, but so is this. Do you expect us to know the term "men's reserve race"?

  Yes, I do, that's what it's called, although I seem to recall there's an issue outside BritEng with the term "reserve", it may be that we could find a wikilink to make it easier. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  Yes please. I understand the explanation in the body, but this super-short version is not good for someone unfamiliar with the topic. Could you link to below, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  I have linked reserve. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Goldie" sounds singular, even Club (which I don't know until hovering over the link) would be singular.

  The joy of British English, where we allow English plurals. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Background

• The second para presents rather mixed bits of background, history of women's races, sponsorship, prize money, - could that be organised / fleshed out?

  It says all it needs to say as far as I can see, it's been like that for a few previous FAs (see 2015 and 2016), and covers what is necessary without giving undue weight to anything in particular. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Are umpires and broadcasters "background"?

  Yes, because they are all decided upon months and months in advance of the race, so (and as I have for the preceding 180-odd similar such articles) that would be the "background" to the race as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now, thank you for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for the interest Gerda, responses inline above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

More responses inline, others taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

Support I reviewed this at GA, and believe that it meets Featured Article Standard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7, I appreciate you getting to the GAN after all this time, and I appreciate your support here! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I'll be supporting the promotion of this first-rate article, but first a few minor drafting points.

• Except at the start of sentences we usually have a lower case "t" in "the Boat Race", but there are two places, one in the opening para of the lead and the other in the second para of the Background section, where the article has been elevated in mid-sentence to initial capital status.

  Yeah, that means I probably need to edit the previous 181 race articles...! Thus fixed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Consistency is the refuge of the unimaginative, as Oscar is alleged to have said. To Hell with the other articles (unless you actually feel like tweaking): it is this one with which we are concerned here. Tim riley talk 18:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Unless a merciful oblivion has set in, you will not have forgotten my regular bleats about false titles: "former Oxford rower Matthew Pinsent" is another case of tabloiditis. Also shown on the charge-sheet are "former Goldie coach Rob Baker", "former Light Blue cox Peter Rudge", "former Oxford cox Acer Nethercott" and "long-term coach Daniel Topolski". It drives ageing Wikipedian Tim Riley up the wall.

  I've addressed each of those issues, and taken advantage to reduce a little prose redundancy while I was at it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• The event was threatened with the discovery – this gave me momentary pause. Nothing actually wrong with it, but it might help to avoid breaking flow if you made it something like "jeopardised by".

  Rephrased entirely, but avoided "jeopardised" because I have a personal aversion to any word which contains J, E and O in order. Frankly, an abhorrence. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The article really conjures up the event. I'm not generally all that much interested in the Boat Race, but reading this, I got quite caught up. I look forward to adding my support. – Tim riley talk 18:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Tim riley, thanks for your review and your kind words. Hopefully I've addressed your concerns, but if not, of course give me a shout. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed you have. Incidentally, as a Mozart fan I am hoping that this article full of Isis und Osiris will fall to the High Priest Sarastro to promote, but I digress. Very pleased to Support. Tim riley talk 18:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Like Gerda, I know little about boat races but found this account to be interesting and clear. I have a small number of suggestions that should not threaten your cotton socks.

Background

• The map showing the course of the race includes "Harrods Depositary". Should that be Depository with an "o" rather than an "a"? See listed buildings. I really like the map, by the way.

• Yes, it almost certainly should! In the 182-odd articles (all of which are at least GA), that's the first time this has been noticed, so good spot. I'll leave a note for Pointillist who created it, to see if they'd be kind enough to update it, although their edit history indicates they are no longer regularly around. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 "For the fifth year, the men's race was sponsored by BNY Mellon while the women's race has BNY Mellon's subsidiary Newton Investment Management as sponsors." - Better if flipped to active voice and trimmed by a few words? Suggestion: "For the fifth year, BNY Mellon sponsored the men's race, while Newton Investment Management, a Mellon subsidiary, sponsored the women's race."

• Gladly, I've never liked that. Thus reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Coaches

• ¶2 "OUWBC's chief coach was the Canadian former international cox Ali Williams, her first year in the role having been the University of Alberta's head coach." – The "having been" segment is kind of dangling in space, and I'd rather see the four Williams modifiers placed elsewhere. Suggestion: "Ali Williams, the former Canadian international cox, was OUWBC's chief coach, a new role for her; she had been head coach at the University of Alberta." Or something like that.

• Okay, suits me. Thus reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Build-up

Men

• ¶2 "The second race was much closer, with the result being declared in favour of OUBC 'by a seat'." – Replace the "with plus -ing" construction and flip to active voice? Suggestion: "OUBC won the much closer second race 'by a seat' ."

• Tightened per suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 "Numerous pushes from Leander were responded to by Oxford and the latter passed the finish line with 'a lead of several lengths'." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "Oxford responded to numerous pushes by Leander and crossed the finish line with 'a lead of several lengths'."

• Activated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

General

• Alt text would be nice.

• Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Some of the citations use title case, while others use sentence case. It's probably best to choose one or the other and stick with it. Nitpicky, I know.

• Done I think. A lot of stuff like "Blue Boat", "President" etc remains capitalised as they're specific terms in this context, hope that's okay? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Citation 45 is out of sync. It employs the "citation" family, while the others use the "cite" family.

• That's what happens when you let someone else edit my article....... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• The link checkers find no problems with dabs or dead URLs.
• No remaining duplinks. I found and removed three. Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Awesome news. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Finetooth thanks for the review, I've addressed and responded to each of your comments inline above. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

All good. Thanks for the rapid response. Switching to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources look of appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's great Brianboulton, thanks for taking the time to check. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:21, 24 October 2017 [21].

---

Casey Stengel

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... Casey Stengel, one of the great managers in baseball history, and one of its great characters. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. There are a lot of good things going on in this article, but right now there are a few holes. The article's evaluation of Stengel as a manager is incredibly slight, with little effort given over to describing his managerial style or his impact on those great Yankee teams of the 1950s. I also don't see how an article on Stengel could only contain the word "platoon" or variations thereof a total of three times -- and not at all in the lead -- when his popularization of the practice is arguably his greatest baseball legacy. These issues can be rectified by including information from The Bill James Guide to Baseball Managers, The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, and Evaluating Baseball's Managers by Chris Jaffe, all of which try to place Stengel and his accomplishments into the larger context of baseball history. Without this material, I do not believe the article can pass the comprehensive or well-researched FAC criteria. Indrian (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good. As it happens, I can get my hands on copies of all three without too much trouble. Please, Indrian, check back in few days on this or I will ping you. I'd certainly welcome any other comments you might have, either in the interim, or later.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Indrian:, I've done as you asked. Would you mind looking it over?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Love all the additions. I will do a formal review soon.Indrian (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Casey_Stengel_1953.png: source link is dead. Same with File:Billy_Martin_1954.png
• File:HOF_Stengel_Casey_plaque.jpg: when was the plaque created? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed on the plaque, still looking on others ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the dead links. There is still a verifiable reference without them. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Source Review

• Your ref #1 seems irregular in multiple ways. It is missing publisher info and retrieval date, and it has first name first.
• For the Jaffe and James refs, it says "Check isbn=value: invalid character". I guess that's related to your note that "Numbers for the James books and for Jaffe indicate Kindle locations."

Everything else for your sources seems to be in order. Moisejp (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed those things.-- (Wehwalt) 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments – After recovering from a sudden bout of severe depression last night, I'm happy that there's something in my wheelhouse to review here. This is what I saw in the early part of the article; I'll return as time allows.

• Linking World War I in the lead is probably a bit of overlinking since that's such a common term.
• Same goes for the basketball link in Early life.
• Check the titles of several of the subsections. They appear to be using large em dashes instead of the smaller en dashes. Minor point, but the bigger dashes don't look great when reading the individual sections.
• Return to the minors: "and was very reluctant in his content when reached by cable." Was "content" meant to be "consent" or am I reading this wrong?
• Repeating success: "Mantle's talent and speed awed Stengel. Stengel...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this.
• "Much of the burden of winning a third consecutive pennant fell on Berra, who put together a MVP season." This should be "an MVP season" instead.
• Another unwanted em dash in 4—1 lead, which should also be the smaller en dash. Same goes for 1936—1939 later in the section. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I've gotten everything there. I share your pain, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Now that my pain has eased, I've come back to the article and looked at the rest of it. Only a few referencing quibbles to point out. First, reference 6 (Toledo Blade) has an author which can be added to the cite. Also, my from experience, these Google News links can go dead from time to time (due to licensing issues and the like) and I find it helpful to add page numbers to them as a precaution, although this is purely optional.
• It appears that reference 168 comes from Fox Sports, not Fox News.
• Since ref 74 is a book, it may be helpful to put the full cite in the bibliography, where the other books are, and just leave a short cite in-text as is done elsewhere. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Done those too, though in the case of ref 74, found an alternative source.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support – All of my concerns have been resolved, and the article looks to meet FA standards. Nice work on a topic familiar to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. Glad you're feeling better :).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Support

• Should "managing vacancy" be "Management vacancy". Ceoil (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's how it is in baseball talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Its a Support from me anyhow. The article is rather comprehensive, well sourced as noted above, crisply and tightly written throughout, and in a pacey, engaging style. Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Support

I do not know a lot about basketball but it was a good read. Some minor quibbles for your consideration:

• Does the "I learned more from McGraw than anybody." quote really need to be in quote box? Can't it be part of the prose?
• (Bibliography:) why can't New York, New York be simply New York?
• I believe you should only link authors on their earliest instance. Also, why are the publishers in the section not linked? It might be useful linking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. The technical things are fixed. Regarding the quote box, I am using quote boxes as a way of showing the reader Stengelese, without which I doubt the baseball people would consider the article comprehensive. In a way, it's Casey's running commentary on his own life. If I put it in the text, it would sort of duplicate the Appel quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator notes: I think this is just about ready for promotion, but I'd just like to check if Indrian plans to return. In the meantime, a few queries from me. Not all the images have alt text, which isn't a FA requirement, but is always good to include as best practice. I also noticed using this tool that we have a few duplinks. Some of them are probably justified as they are some way apart, but I'd appreciate someone taking a little look. And a minor point, why are we spelling out "twenty-nine days after the World Series ended" rather than having "29 days". Sarastro1 (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Because it immediately follows a date, thus it would be "On November 13, 1923, 29 days ..." I seem to recall one of my English teachers saying don't do that. I'm pretty sure most of the duplinks are intentional--Bill Veeck for example--but I'll look them over and add the alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Either of these is fine either way, just checking. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any way to add alt text for the retired numbers, but I've added the remainder and delinked a couple of multiple links. The rest seem worth having. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I don't think there is any need to wait any longer. Indrian did not express any concerns, and if there are any other issues, they can be raised on the article talk page after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:14, 24 October 2017 [22].

---

Achelousaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC) & MWAK (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is the first about a ceratopsian (or "horned dinosaur") nominated for FAC in ten years, since 2007's Styracosaurus. This ceratopsian dinosaur is unusual in having bosses where most others of its kind had horns, and it has been theorised to have been a transitional form between horned and non-horned members of its group. We have summarised most of what has ever been written about this animal in the article. This is also MWAK's first stint at FAC, who wrote the main part of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Image check All images seem appropriately licensed and properly used. I note the following:

• File:Herakles Achelous Louvre G365.jpg There should probably be a license for the pot's design. Yes, I know it's 2500 years old.

Added a PD-old tag. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Most images lack alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Are these a requirement? It is extremely inconsistent whether reviewers ask for these or not, so it has become a bit confusing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

I don't know if I will really do a full review, but I will provide some comments. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• For the pronunciation note, it would probably be good to use {{cite web}} for the link to the email.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• There seems to be two instances where the citations are out of order (ie where a citation with a lower number goes after a citation with a higher number when the two are right next to each other).
  • I fixed one instance; the other instance addresses a series of research, where it might be preferable to put them into chronological order. Of course the numbering as such is inherently unstable.
• There is one point where there are four citations at the end of one sentence; is this really needed?
  • This is the same series of research mentioned above. If we omit a paper, the series is no longer complete.--MWAK (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• In the sentence "Adult Achelousaurus had rough bosses above the eyes and on the snout where other centrosaurines often had horns in the same positions," what are bosses?

Note that there is no appropriate article at present for the definition of "boss" as it applies here. An in-text definition would probably be necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"Boss" is actually explained in the description section as "(a roundish protuberance)", but the text has been moved around so much that I should probably move it farther up again. The question is whether it's an appropriate description, though... FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Added that explanation to the intro and moved explanation in article body up. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that the genus is monospecific (just having read the lead). If this is the case, then the species should be bolded. If not, then this probably needs to be mentioned.

Yep, I'll bold the full name. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That is all for now.

Thanks, even if you don't feel like an "expert" on the subjects, all comments are welcome. It is good to know whether the text is understandable to most readers. I can take care of some of these, but can you look at point two and three, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

A copy-edit is in process, so I'll fix the remaining issues when that's done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Everything should be addressed now, RileyBugz. Any other issues? FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

• Why isn't the Two Medicine Formation linked? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it was removed during the copy-edit, added it back. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "Horner, an expert on the Hadrosauridae family, had less affinity with other kinds of dinosaur", I think that it would be proper grammar to say "dinosaurs" instead of just "dinosaur". Plus, it just seems odd that you would say affinity; maybe say interest or something similar? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Said "less familiar with" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't quite reflect the source correctly. But I made an idiom mistake and should have written "affinity for".--MWAK (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, looking back, what I wrote is also a bit too interpretative... FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe link "grain truck"? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to link to, so I made that a redirect to dump truck. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• You use both spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes. Choose one or the other. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  I think I fixed this now? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  Sorry, no. See MOS:DASH.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I changed them all to – , is that it? FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I think so.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentences "Horner, an expert on the Hadrosauridae family, had less affinity for other kinds of dinosaurs.[15] In 1987 and 1989, horned dinosaur specialist Peter Dodson was invited to investigate the new ceratopsian finds.[15]", only one citation is needed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence might easily seem OR. It is perhaps preferable to make clear from the outset that it is sourced.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me, then. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Saying "separate" in the sentence "In 1990, the fossil material was seen by Dodson as strengthening the case for the validity of a separate Styracosaurus ovatus, to be distinguished from Styracosaurus albertensis" makes it seem like this is strengthening the case of a new species called S. ovatus. Maybe say instead "seen by Dodson as strengthening the case for the collected specimens as being of Styracosaurus ovatus", or something like that. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, S. ovatus was already mentioned, making it unequivocal that Dodson was not proposing to name a new species. But his point was not simply to assign the fossils to S. ovatus but to reaffirm its validity, which had been doubted. So, more in general your impression was correct!--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, you should make it clear that the validity of it was doubted when you first introduce it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Doubts inserted.--MWAK (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pachyrhinosaurus needs to be linked in the body. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• "For the time being they declined to name these taxa", to me, at least, implies that the taxa are still unnamed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if the phrase was simply "They declined to name these taxa", it might suggest they had never been named. Adding "For the time being" correctly suggests that they were named at some point in the future.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you then try and find a way to reword it? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll try...--MWAK (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• For the sentence "Sampson had continued his studies of the material since 1989", what time exactly does this occur? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sampson doesn't say. Of course, this functions simply as an introduction to remind the reader that Sampson's 1989 studies had been mentioned earlier.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• What does the phrase "over the hand of Deianira" mean? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It would seem to mean it was to "win her favour", but she isn't actually mentioned in the source used, so it would probably have to be snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed it, since it isn't in the source, and isn't really relevant to the dinosaur's name. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• This seems to be a sentence separate from the previous one: "Achelous lost the battle when one of his horns was removed". RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Does it look better after I removed the "Deianira" part? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It still looks odd. Maybe say "Hercules, the mythical hero, won a battle against Achelous, who was in the form of a bull, when the latter's horns were removed." RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about " During a fight with Hercules, the mythical hero, Achelous took the form of a bull, but lost the battle when one of his horns were removed." FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, but it should be "was", not "were". RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence "Additionally, it preserves some bones of the skull rear and sides, among which are a right squamosal bone, the left squamosal, both maxillae, both lacrimal bones, both quadrate bones, both palatine bones, the braincase and the basioccipital bone", uses "both" a lot. I suspect that you could reword this to cut down on its usage. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, we could replace it with "the left and right" — but then we would be using that phrase a lot. Simply speaking of the "maxillae, lacrimals, quadrates, palatines" presumes that the reader knows that these are all paired bones. And using "both maxillae, lacrimals, quadrates, palatines" makes the sentence very confusing. Sometimes you have to sacrifice elegance for clarity.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "None of the specimens were of an advanced individual age", it might be better to say "None of the specimens collected showed dinosaurs of an old age", or something similar, as "advanced" is both slightly confusing (I thought for some reason that "advanced" meant adult) and unneeded technicality. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This is tricky. It is vague, but the source is deliberately vague in using the word "advanced". It doesn't simply claim that they were not senescent animals. What really was meant by the source was that the level of bone fusion in no known specimen implies it was fully grown. So "adult" is not far of the mark. I feel it is best to stay as close to the source as possible.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Could you please explain the meaning of "TMP 2002.76.1"? It is in parenthesis. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Added "specimen", better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• It seems to me that there should be commas after Einiosaurus in the sentence "It is about as large as its close relative Einiosaurus but with a much heavier build." RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• It might be better to say the common term, toes, instead of "digits" in this sentence: "As a ceratopsid, Achelousaurus would have been a quadrupedal animal with hoofed digits, and a shortened, downwards swept tail." RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In this case, it is a common denominator for both toes and fingers, so we would have to be much more wordy to replace it. Digits seems a pretty common word anyhow? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops, that was my fault. I wasn't thinking, so I didn't take into account the fact that dinosaurs walk on four legs. It's good. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that the usage of Oxford comma's is inconsistent. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, what choice shall we make? Personally, I find the Oxford comma a silly affectation, but many will disagree :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this, I'm in on whatever you prefer. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't know if this was fixed, RileyBugz, but I personally don't know how to do it, not a comma guy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• What is a "column of teeth"? Did you mean row of teeth? If not, could you please explain? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the most confusing traits in these animals. I'll try to clarify how the column of stacked teeth works.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed the things I could above, MWAK will probably have to have a look at the content parts. Also, since the date of description was changed from 1994 to 1995 in some places, I changed all instances; whatever we choose, it should be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great! I still have to review a bit, so hopefully I can finish it before Monday (EST). MWAK did a great job expanding the article to this level. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• What are "horncores"? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• It would probably be good to define supraorbital (maybe link to wiktionary?) RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Defined in text. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Why is "medially curved" inside commas in the sentence "The frill spikes of Achelousaurus are more outwards oriented than the, medially curved, spikes of Einiosaurus; these spikes are, however, less directed to the outside than the comparable spikes of Pachyrhinosaurus"? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

But now you introduce an ambiguity. The sentence could now be read as "The frill spikes of Achelousaurus are more outwards oriented than the medially curved spikes of Einiosaurus, in contrast to the not medially curved spikes".--MWAK (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

What could be an alternative? What do you think, RileyBugz? FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are in fact saying that the spikes of Einiosaurus are medially curved, then saying "the former spikes are, however" instead of "these spikes are, however" should fix the problem. If you are saying that the spikes of Achelousaurus are the ones medially curved, then putting "medially" before frill spikes in addition to doing the previous fix it should fix it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't quite do it. I'll change it into "the spikes of Einiosaurus, which are medially curved".--MWAK (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• When you talk about the frill spikes that Achelousaurus has, you should probably mention that they primarily cover the sides of the neck (looking at the picture). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The spikes are only the two long ones poking backwards, the small ones on the sides are the "epoccipital" processes mentioned in the text. Perhaps this is not clear enough? FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the confusion. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

So is the problem that those processes are mentioned too late in the article, or what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Instead of "the opening at the rear skull side", why not say "the opening at the rear of the skull"? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed ambiguous. I'll replace it with "the opening at the rear of the skull side".--MWAK (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you need to include "side"? It makes it a bit confusing. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The "rear of the skull" is that part of the skull you see when you look at it from behind. The "side of the skull" is the part seen from the side. However, these parts themselves can again be subdivided. The rear has its sides and the side has a rear. In technical texts that rear is called "posterior" or "caudal" but most readers will not understand these terms. Calling it the "back of the side" or the "hind(er) side" will not be very helpful either, I fear. Also note that the phrase is "the opening at the rear of the skull side" not "the opening to the rear of the skull side".--MWAK (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• The first occurrence of "et al." should probably be linked (in the article body). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• In the sentence "The animals were living on a narrow strip on the east-coast of Laramidia, bordering the Western Interior Seaway, and constrained in the west by the three to 4 km (2.5 mi) high proto-Rocky Mountains", you should probably use the convert template like this: {{convert|3|to|4|km|mi}}. This will yield this: 3 to 4 kilometres (1.9 to 2.5 mi). RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• There should be a comma after "Transgression" in the sentence "During the Bearpaw Transgression sea levels were rising, steadily reducing the width of their coastal habitat from about 300 to 30 km (186 to 19 mi)." RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• The first comma in the sentence "The lower number of individuals that the smaller habitat could have sustained, constituted a population bottleneck, making rapid evolution possible" should probably be removed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It will not improve readability but in principle such a noun clause indeed does not need a comma.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• It would probably be better to say "was" instead of "would be" in the sentence "That sexual selection had indeed been the main mechanism would be proven by the fact that young individuals of all three populations were very similar: they all had two frill spikes, a small nasal horn pointing to the front, and orbital horns in the form of slightly elevated knobs." RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It is best to make clear that these are hypotheses by Horner, hardly undisputed facts. I added a "according to Horner".--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• The sentence "Such a tree would as a consequence of the method used never show a direct ancestor-descendant relationship", should probably have commas after "would" and after "used". RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• For me, "direct line of descent to" in the sentence "Subsequent studies have sought to determine the precise relationships within this part of the evolutionary tree, with conflicting results regarding the question whether Styracosaurus albertensis, Rubeosaurus or Einiosaurus might have been in the direct line of descent to Achelousaurus" sounds like you mean the descendant of the animal, which would conflict with previous information. It might be clearer to say "most recent ancestor" or something. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Good point. It must of course be the "direct line of ascent".--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Which outcome is this referring to: "In 2011, a subsequent study by Andrew T. McDonald had the same outcome"? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Removed the ambiguity.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Aberrant" should probably be linked to Wiktionary. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

One more section to go! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

reference info for Achelousaurus

unnamed refs	22
named refs	15
self closed	62
cs1 refs	37
cs1 templates	45
cs2 templates	3
sfn templates	71
use xxx dates	mdy
cs1|2 dmy dates	1
cs1|2 last/first	47
cs2 mode	8
List of cs1 templates cite book (13) cite conference (1) Cite journal (2) cite journal (25) cite mailing list (1) cite thesis (3)
List of cs2 templates Citation (1) citation (2)
List of sfn templates Sfn (17) sfn (54)
explanations

• Since "Jack" Horner publishes under his formal name of John R. Horner, this form should be used (see ref 3). In all other instances in the Sources section the formal name is used.

  Fixed, we have tried to abbreviate all names anyway, so this was a slip. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand why some of the items in the bibliography are inset – what is the distinction?

  Not sure if this is what you mean, but Trappist the monk just placed some book chapters into the bibliography with this edit.[23] Until then, we only tried to keep the books that had been broken up into smaller page ranges in the bibliography. Maybe he can change it back? His other citation edits look good, though. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  When I came here I was chasing a cs1|2 error caused by a bug in Citation bot (see here). There were a handful of other cs1|2 errors on this page so I fixed them. The most common was the use of |editors=. In fixing that particular error, I noticed that but for one, they were all the same book edited by all of the same editors, had all the same title, publisher, isbn, ... except for author(s) and chapter titles. That kind of repeated citation is why editors at cs1|2 suggested the creation of {{harvc}} – to reduce the clutter in a reflist caused by unnecessary repetition of bibliographic data over and over again.

  At the time I made those edits I did not know that this article is a FAC. Now that I know, I'm surprised that it has got this far considering that it has a variety of citation styles in the wikitext, most notably is has a combination of hand crafted citations and templated citations. Surely one or the other should be chosen and implemented for the sake of internal consistency.

  Per the comment below, I have tweaked §Bibliography so that listed items are in alpha order and all have cs2 style because that is how Horner & Dobbs is defined.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if consistency in whether a template is used or not is an issue at FAC, as long as the visible result is the same, but I'll see if Brianboulton is satisfied by the above changes. Thanks for that, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  I think what you've done, and your explanation, is OK by me. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I think that these are, pretty obviously, visibly different from those rendered by the cs1|2 templates used in the article:

  1. ref 3: double dot after 'J'; no isbn; no page numbers;

     Added template and ISBN, MWAK will have to add page-range and location. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  2. ref 9: http://vertpaleo.org/Annual-Meeting/SVP-2017-program-book-v6-Print-Ready-with-front-co.aspx

     Added link and template. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  3. ref 15: typically a subtitle is set-off with a colon; multiple pages is 'pp.'; endash between two numbers in a range; no isbn

     Added template, ISBN, and the other fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  4. ref 16: http://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6906&context=etd (a pdf); the total number of pages in the source does not really help the reader verify a statement in a Wikipedia article – an in-source location would be better;

     Added link and template, MWAK will have to add page-range. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  5. ref 19: isbn; is Dragons' World a publisher? location? in-source pagination instead of total pages;

     Fixed all. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  6. ref 20: editor handling style;

     Fixed by adding template. Also ISBN. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  7. ref 25: 'p.' missing the dot; isbn?

     Fixed most while adding template, but MWAK will have to look for location. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  8. ref 27: in source locations(s); isbn?

     This seems to be a CD rom (included with the book New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs), but I have no idea how to cite such. Wikipedia:Citation templates doesn't appear to help much. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

     So you are citing something that you have not seen? How then does this article even begin to be an FA. If you have not seen this source, what about the others?

     —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

     As you may have noted, this is a co-nomination; I and MWAK wrote different parts of the article, and he wrote most of it. I don't have access to many of the sources used by MWAK, but that hardly prevents me from adding citation templates to the sources he added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  9. ref 28: this? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313808125_Macroevolutionary_patterns_in_cranial_and_lower_jaw_shape_of_ceratopsian_dinosaurs_Dinosauria_Ornithischia_Phylogeny_morphological_integration_and_evolutionary_rates; again, total number of pages ...

     Added template and link, MWAK will have to fix page numbers. Seems the article has since been validly published (2017), so maybe the source should be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  10. ref 29: what is 252A?

      Added template, not sure what the number means (presentation number?), but it also needs a page-range, so MWAK will have to take a look. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  11. ref 33: isbn?

      Added template and ISBN. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  12. ref 34: isbn? total number of pages ...

      Added template and ISBN, MWAK will have to look for pages. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  13. ref 37: publisher; isbn; 'pp.'; endash; editor style handling;

      Fixed while adding template. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  14. ref 40: publisher; isbn; 'pp.'; endash;

      Don't think this has an ISBN, not a "proper" book, but added the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  15. ref 52: isbn? total number of pages ...; missing publication date; editor handling style; 'pp.', endash in page range;

      I think all is fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  16. ref 61: editor handling style; 'pp.', endash in page range;

      Fixed all when adding template. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  17. ref 62: this? https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/35700; total number of pages ...;

      Added link and template, MWAK will have to add page-range. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  Not necessarily an exhaustive list; I haven't the time for that right now.

  Author name-order in the references are variable; they are either surname-given name or given name-surname. Pick one style and use that throughout

  Publication dates are different; the hand-crafted citations don't usually wrap the publication date in parentheses as the cs1|2 templates do

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  I'll try to fix these examples. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  I've modified my list.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll add citation templates to these, while MWAK will have to add the page ranges to the sources, many of which I don't have. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  Better that instead of page-ranges, a citation should list only the actual page(s) that support the factoids stated in the Achelousaurus article. Page-ranges are fine in a bibliography but I think that using page-ranges that cover an entire chapter of a book or entire article in a journal when the source mentions that factoid on only one page or some subset of pages does our readers a disservice because to find the supporting mention in the source they must hunt for it. That is clearly wasting their time. So, in short cites ({{sfn}} templates and the like) and in a long or full cites (those listed in §References), identify the exact pages that support the factoid. For those sources listed in §Bibliography, whole page-ranges may be identified in the {{harvc}} templates, |pp=, though there is no requirement to do so.

  On another topic, ref 32 is a PLOS One journal article. Articles in PLOS One are generally free-to-read. Typically sources linked by identifiers (|doi= etc) are behind registration- or pay-walls. When they are not, consider marking those that are free-to-read by using, in this case, |doi-access=free which will add a green open lock icon after the doi identifier. This may also apply to ref 35 and ref 38. Regardless, all doi identifiers should be checked and those that are free to read, so marked.

  More tweaks to my list.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I've added then open acces parameter to the journals I know are open access, and added automatic citation templates to all the sources that had DOIs. Will continue with the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I have now added citation templates to books with ISBNs, but MWAK will have to take a look at exact page ranges and some other things. Also note that the sources have shifted a number forwards from ref 16 onwards since the list above was made. This is probably because one redundant book-source was merged (see below). FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  I fear it was because I had to insert another sourced explanation... Great work and I'll add the page ranges later today. I'll also try and find a solution for Ford's Compendium.--MWAK (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  I must not be communicating clearly. There are already too many page ranges. For example, this reference is cited seven times (currently ref 35):

  Currie, P. J.; Langston, Jr., W.; Tanke, D. H. (2008). New Horned Dinosaur from an Upper Cretaceous Bone Bed in Alberta. Ottawa, Ontario: NRC Research Press. pp. 1–108. doi:10.1139/9780660198194 (inactive 2010-10-01). ISBN 978-0-660-19819-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of October 2010 (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

  The reference uses this in-source parameter: |pages=1–108. So, if I, as a reader, want to see where you got one of the six 'facts' that this source supports, you have done me the (dubious) 'courtesy' of telling me that I must search 109 pages to find support for the 'fact'. Really? Surely you can pin down these facts with better precision than that.

  As an aside, Langston's first name probably isn't Junior. See WP:JR. Also, in cs1|2, the value assigend to |url= and which links the value of |title= is considered to be free-to-read. When it is not, as in this case, |url= should be omitted or, as I have done here |url-access=subscription should be added.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  We get the issue, we just haven't come around to fix it yet, which should be apparent from the multiple times I mention issues will have to be fixed by MWAK. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  It was not clear to me that you did. In items 1, 4, 10, and 17 of my list you wrote: ... MWAK will have to add page-range ... or words to that effect. Editor MWAK used similar words in this post. Given those words, how am I supposed to interpret that to mean 'MWAK will have to add specific in-source locations'?

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  "Page range" can mean both, as far as I'm aware. You just asked for a more specific page range (as opposed to full), but anyhow, good we agree. FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  I've tweaked §Bibliography to use the correct cs1 templates, to delete empty parameters, and to provide for uniform style.

  Gilmore (currently ref 5) has this link and |pages=1–39 but the linked source at archive.org is incomplete having only pp. 1–10. Perhaps this is the same thing except that it's more complete:

  {{cite book |last=Gilmore |first=C. W. |chapter-url=http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/100823#page/594/mode/2up |chapter=On dinosaurian reptiles from the Two Medicine formation of Montana |title=Proceedings of the United States National Museum |at=Article 16, p[p]. ?? |volume=77 |location=Washington |publisher=United States Government Printing Office |date=1931}}

  Gilmore, C. W. (1931). "On dinosaurian reptiles from the Two Medicine formation of Montana". Proceedings of the United States National Museum. Vol. 77. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. Article 16, p[p]. ??.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  Indeed it is. Good catch and thank you for providing the better link!--MWAK (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  I think that if you are going to use that link, you should not be using {{cite journal}} but should be using {{cite book}} as I have above, because, to the reader, the current citation is a mishmash of original publication date with particulars of the collection publication. And, yet again, the reference uses the source's entire page-range to cite a single sentence. Surely it is not necessary to compel the reader to hunt through 39 pages to find the text that supports that sentence – especially since Gilmore mentions at least one other Sternberg in his article.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  Well, the citations serve several functions. To provide evidence that the text is sourced, the present format in principle suffices. For the average reader, however, this function is of little concern. More often he will be interested in finding additional information on the subject. For this he will not need to know the exact page. By far the most prevalent reason a reader will want to be informed about the publication, must be that he wants to copy the citation for his own use. As the pages are a normal part of such a citation, it is highly preferable that they are there. No doubt this is why in most scientific publications such a citation format is standard if not mandatory. Indeed this particular article was later published in an annual compilation, but this aspect is usually disregarded when citing such articles.--MWAK (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  There was a very long discussion about page ranges for journal articles a while back[24], doesn't seem any consensus came out of it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  Clearly we disagree. I might agree with some of what you've written for this particular citation were it part of a bibliography listing. In such a listing the entire page range is wholly appropriate. But that isn't how it is being used in this article. Here it is used as an in-line reference to identify the source where an editor found information to support the text to which it is attached. But, and I shouldn't have to keep saying this, with a 40-page range, it may take some searching to find where the supporting text is located. There is no need to make the reader do that.

  I think that we should not make assumptions about what uses readers make of citations and bibliographies that they find at Wikipedia. If there is any truth to your argument that [by] far the most prevalent reason a reader will want to be informed about the publication, must be that he wants to copy the citation for his own use, then shouldn't you want the citation to be accurate? I have described above why the citation in its current form is not accurate. At Wikipedia we are required to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. The editor didn't get it from the link that I provided as an alternate to the 10-page (incomplete) version hosted at archive.org. The information may be there in the new link but that isn't where the editor got it. All of the details in the original citation except publication year, refer to the compilation, not to the original publication; yet, it is cited as though the source is the original publication.

  I note that apparently many of the in-source locations listed in §References are not whole-page-ranges, but appear to precisely locate the source within the referenced work; as they should. But there are others, like Gilmore, where apparently whole-page-ranges are identified. Why this inconsistency?

  Because an FA article is supposed to exhibit Wikipedia's best work, the claim that merely sufficient citing is good enough is, in my view, falling far short of mark. So, I guess, were anyone to ask me, I would have to oppose advancement of this article to FA status because I can't see how merely good enough is our best.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  Well, let's then combine whole page ranges with {{rp}} page indications, so that we'll have the best of both worlds. Would that be agreeable to you? Will take some time, though, as we'll have to read those sources again :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  That would not be agreeable to me because it introduces a third citation style. I would agree to this:

  1. in-line citations are moved to §Bibliography
  2. {{sfn}} and/or {{harv}} templates identify precise in-source locations
  3. whole page-ranges are included as part of each item in the bibliography where appropriate

  Some of this is already done and has the benefit of consolidating the current two-style citation format into one-style format.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

  If you insist. As said, it will take some time.--MWAK (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  I have no authority to 'insist' on anything. Is there a problem with the task [taking] some time? I do not have access to the sources but I can do a lot of the grunt work of moving in-line citations to §Bibliography if you would like me to do that.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  I appreciate your generous offer but I prefer to do it myself: it will be less confusing :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• In any event the bibliography should be in alphabetical sequence.

  Seems it was fixed above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No other issues that I can see. The sources seem to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton, fixed one, and asked a question for the other. I also have a question for MWAK, shouldn't ref 15 be a page range like the others from that book? FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that reference was mistakenly not removed.--MWAK (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

• It'd be good if at least one of the three lead paras didn't start with "Achelosaurus..."

Reworded in second para. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Also, don't need to mention at the start of the third lead para that it is centrosaurine as you've done so in para 2.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why not just say "lucky" rather than "fortuitous"?

Shouldn't the style be more formal? Also, for Horner, the situation was not simply "lucky" as being banned from his main research site was potentially disastrous for his career.--MWAK (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should be lucky. If you want to emphasize that he was really lucky, then say "extremely lucky" or something like that. We need our readers to understand what we are writing, otherwise, it does them no good. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, my point is that he was really unfortunate :o). We might change it to "serendipitous". That's a fashionable concept now-a-days ;o). Besides being much too informal for an encylopedia ("Napoleon was lucky to return from Moscow"), "lucky" poorly combines with "chain of events". I'll change it into "accidental".--MWAK (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I would not view the word "lucky" as informal, and as it (to me ) is synonymous with fortuitous I see no reason not to use it. However, it is such a trivial thing to argue about that I don't see it as a dealbreaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jens Lallensack

I'm glad to see this article here, its level of comprehensiveness is quite impressing. Here my first comments, more will follow soon:

Thanks for the copy-edits! FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• He stated that paleontologists needed to be cautious when naming new ceratopsian genera because their intraspecific variation (i.e., variation within a species) might be mistaken for interspecific differences (between species). Sampson, however noted that until 1995, only one new genus of ceratopsian dinosaur had been named since Pachyrhinosaurus in 1950, namely Avaceratops in 1986.[22] – This reads as if the latter argument would refuse the former. This can't be the case. I would suggest to at least remove the "however", to break the connection between both sentences.

Well, it is the case. Sampson's argument was: "you have to be careful naming these genera but only one has been named in forty-five years, so we're hardly oversplitting".--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I can not believe this was his argument, as this would be highly unscientific. And I do not find this statement in the paper either. In the first paragraph of his discussion, he wrote some general sentences, including "one must be cautious in describing new taxa" and "Only a single centrosaurine [In the article you wrote "ceratopsian"] genus has been erected since 1950". But there is no obvious connection between these bits of information. I feel you did over-interpret this.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The interpretative elements were removed and a change was made into "centrosaurine".--MWAK (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Also, a fragmentary lower jaw is present, which has been catalogued as MOR 485-7-12-87-4.[29] – Could you please explain why you are treating this lower jaw separately, in a separate sentence, and even specify the exact specimen number (you are not doing this for all the other skeletalal elements of the specimen, which are just listed)? I think "MOR 485" (the number for the whole specimen) might already be enough detail here.

I thought about that too, maybe MWAK has something to say. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This way we structure the known holotype material as the sources do. Sampson gives only a very vague and incomplete indication. The thesis reveals both the fact that there is a lower jaw — not mentioned by Sampson — and a more detailed accession number. These numbers are not published for any other element. Ford allows us to complete the list.--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but I still feel these jaws should be just listed with the other skeletal elements of the respective specimen. There is no obvious reason to keep them separate. And I feel these exact specimen numbers for the lower jaws are just too much – they did confuse me a lot while reading (I first thought these were separate finds of isolated jaws) – and I can't think of any situation where people might find this information helpful. When these numbers occur only in the thesis and not even in the first description, there are, in my opinion, simply not relevant and not in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Summary Style policy is about deciding when articles should be split. Certain information — never in itself absolutely excluded — can be too detailed for the main article and should then be moved to a separate article. If e.g. large numbers of Achelousaurus fossils had been found, their elements subnumbered, we should have created a separate list. In this case only a single element is subnumbered, so the principle offers little guidance.

Mentioning the lower jaw in a separate sentence has some advantages. It sets the element apart from the cranium, nicely following a natural subdivision. More importantly, it makes the source structure transparent. Sampson is vague. He mentions the skull but only indicates the bosses and the parietal as present. Only Ford lists the cranial bones. Neither mentions the lower jaw. Your impression of a separate find might be not far off the mark. In 2010 it was made public that MOR 485 represents at least two individuals. Likely that lower jaw was not articulated to cranial material. To which individual did it then belong? Is the museum mount a composite? Was Sampson well aware of these problems inducing him to limit the described material to the bosses and the parietal? Until this is revealed by some publication, it seemed wise to me not to collate too much. We should not suggest that Sampson simply understood the elements listed by Ford to have been part of a single holotype for he might very well have concluded to the opposite. This also shows the importance to give the full subnumber, for otherwise we leave open to what extent the thesis takes a position on this. I'll rephrase the text, disentangling these issues and hopefully, this will make the distinctions seem more natural.--MWAK (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• It also includes lower jaws, catalogued as MOR 591-7-15-89-1 – same as above.

Here the situation is the same.--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• In addition to the three specimens described in 1995 – When starting the section "Additional finds" like this, you should also move MOR 456.1 here, since it is not one of the three specimens described in 1995, right?

Yes, that was inconsistent. We might change it to "In addition to the specimens discovered by Horner".--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, that's not a good criterion either. We might instead make a distinction between material that has been unequivocally referred and fossils that are only possibly belonging to Achelousaurus.--MWAK (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I just made an attempt.--MWAK (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• A centrosaurine ceratopsid specimen with bosses from the Dinosaur Park Formation (specimen TMP 2002.76.1) found in 1996 was suggested to belong to a new species in 2006, but may instead belong to Achelousaurus or Pachyrhinosaurus. – I don't understand, this doesn't preclude each other. Do you mean "new genus" instead of "new species"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The source (Sampson & Loewen p. 408) says species, but we may get around the issue by spelling out the full binomials of the species it might belong to (though the source only uses their generic names in that sentence). Or maybe by, as in the image caption, just saying it could be a new taxon instead of species? FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Pachyrhinosaurus has a lot of species... "belong to known species of Achelousaurus or Pachyrhinosaurus"?--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I went with "new taxon", just to be as close to the source as possible... It is vague, but the source isn't really specific either. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Such a boss is often called "pachyostotic", i.e. consisting of thickened bone.[42] This can be misleading, however: in fact its bone floor is thin and it forms a wide depression with irregular excavations, though it is less depressed than with Pachyrhinosaurus.[33] – Not exactly sure what a "bone floor" is. The bone cortex? I wanted to get an idea by searching the respective passage in the provided source (Ryan et al., 2010) but couldn't find the part discussing the term "pachyostotic", can you help me?

It's on page 141. This article spells it as "pachystotic". As it is in fact not really a boss but a depression, it has a "floor", meaning the vertical thickness between its top and the sinus. I'll rephrase this.--MWAK (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Its intermediate position suggests that it shared its habitat with forms roughly found in the middle of its formation. – It is not clear what "intermediate position" means here (could be in a morphological, geographical, or stratigraphical sense). I would also make it more clear if "middle of its formation" means the geographical or the stratigraphical middle.

Rephrased.--MWAK (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• The skull of Achelousaurus was more than twice as strong in its bending strength and torsion resistance. – This is not unambiguous as well: Twice as strong than what?

Added "than the skull of Einiosaurus".--MWAK (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• For this reason, Hieronymus considered it unlikely that the bosses served for species recognition as this was already guaranteed by the innate species-specific display rituals preceding a real fight. – I think this misses the main point of the Hieronymus paper. What is missing is the reasoning why they think the bosses were used for combat in the first place. In the Description section, you elaborate on their take on the life appearance of the bosses. But you do not make the link between this inferred appearance and the combat behavior, and on what this is based (comparison with modern animals showing similar morphologies and behaviors). Furthermore, consider changing "real fight" in "fight".

The analogy with extant animals is now mentioned. An explicit contrast has been added with a ritual fight.

• Others however, tend to see the finds as representing single individuals, not bone beds.[76] – I do not understand this sentence at all. It does not depend on the interpretation of the researcher if something is a bonebed or an isolated find. Its either the one or the other. I also can not find this information in the source provided.

Well, the way a concept is applied, depends on the scientist's conceptual framework. Dodson clearly thought of Achelousaurus as living in herds and being found in bonebeds — he had observed the situation personally, so he might be right within his personal frame of mind. Others just as clearly see the limited amount of specimens referred, as indicative of equally limited discoveries: "Many centrosaurines, such as Centrosaurus, Styracosaurus, Einiosaurus, and Pachyrhinosaurus, are known from multiple skulls and skeletons or bone bed material. Others, such as Diabloceratops, Albertaceratops, Sinoceratops, and Achelousaurus, are known from isolated but well preserved specimens".--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but a bone bed does not necessarily imply that there was herding. McDonald (2011) only states that Achelousaurus is known from isolated but well preserved specimens, but he does not state that this means Dodson's claim was incorrect, neither did he discuss anything about herding (perhaps I do miss something). Interpreting this claim as an contra-argument to the herding hypothesis is original research and should be removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a modicum of synthesis present. I'll remove the sentence but Dodson's interpretation then has to go also, as it can no longer be balanced.--MWAK (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but was it really necessary to remove the argument of Dodson? I don't see that McDonald is necessarily conflicting with Dodson's claim (when there is some evidence for bone beds his general rule might still apply. He doesn't state that bone beds are entirely absent). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I reinserted it while moving McDonald's assertion to the Discovery chapter.--MWAK (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe consider removing the section "Paleopathology", and move its content (the syncervical) to the "Description" section, where it might be better placed. The syncervical is quite interesting, but I think the fact that they had been interpreted as pathologies by some people is only of secondary importance, not warranting its own section. The section title also is somewhat misleading, as it implies that there are paleopathologies; the text then says that this possibility is unlikely. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had thought of that but there appeared to be a insurmountable obstacle: we have no sourced information on any other part of the postcrania. Creating a separate "Syncervical" subchapter seemed rather ludicrous, while the paleopathology aspect, though indeed in a way deceptive, offered an elegant solution...--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought it might fit with the section "General built", where you already mention that the head was large and the neck straight. But well, its a minor point, and the decision is on you of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we could just change the section title? It does go into possible function... FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be also a good idea, maybe even just combining it as an additional paragraph in "Function of the neck and skull ornamentation"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, though not 100% fitting, I'd be for that. To me, it seems logical the function would strengthen the neck during skull impact, but that's apparently not what the writers of the paper concluded... FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to close with two more general comments:

• The "Description" is quite detailed, and without doubt challenging for most readers. I had problems with some sentences as well. Yes, the article does its best to avoid technical terms, but this also makes the wording more ambiguous and unclear. But the main problem is maybe the lack of illustrations showing the described features. Even if we have full access to such figures, we unfortunately can't refer to specific images right from the article text, as a scientific paper would always do. However, relying entirely on text to describe complex anatomical shapes can be impossible in some cases. In this article, we have the advantage that the relevant anatomical information is concentrated in parts of the skull only. I therefore would propose two things: 1) Expand the image captions, explicitly stating which features discussed in the text can be seen. 2) Some long-term thing probably not realizable during this nomination: Add a diagram of the skull in both lateral and dorsal views, with all the skull sutures and with individual bones labeled, maybe based on the skull reconstruction in Sampson 1995. I think such a figure would make a huge difference.

I fully agree that an explanatory diagram would be most useful. I have limited talents in this field but even then should be able to improve on Sampson 1995 ;o). Meanwhile, I can expand the captions of the two smaller images, which highlight detail already.--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This map[25] shows a line drawing of the skull, could perhaps be used as basis. I can scale it up and remove the background, would you be able to add text, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I could try :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright, MWAK, here's an isolated skull diagram with transparent background[26], not sure which software you have, Photoshop would of course be optimal, but Gimp would do. You can just upload directly on top of that file. If we really need a dorsal view, I'd have to draw it from scratch (tracing a skull-photo or something). Maybe Jens Lallensack has some further thoughts. I've added the preliminary diagram to an appropriate spot in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, and the preliminary diagram already helps a bit, I think. Well, this was supposed to be a suggestion for improvement for the future, it is not something that one can demand until the end of this candidature, so please no hurry. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It can be finished pretty quickly, I just need to know which features we should highlight and spell out... I guess we should not be as detailed as the diagram in Sampson 1995. Only the dorsal view will take some more time. I like how the image fills an empty space in the text, hehe, we don't have too many images of the subject of the article itself here... FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have an old version of Gimp installed but it proved to be just as user-unfriendly and counterintuitive as most software. I'll try good old Paint next and upload the results.--MWAK (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, if you do that, I can maybe do a more "refined" version based on the text you've added afterwards (if necessary). FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not doubt it will be necessary but have full confidence in your powers of refinement ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• I feel that the information flow is not always optimal, but I do not know what to do about it. For example the section "Keratin sheats", whose implications are only discussed much later. Maybe one could think about merging this with the "Function of skull ornamentation" section, to something like "Life appearance and function of the skull ornamentation"? It would make it easier for the reader to follow. The other example is the section "Horner's hypothesis of anagenesis". Based on the wording one can guess that the anagenesis-hypothesis does not currently enjoy wide support, but some of the important argument against this hypothesis are only discussed in the "phylogeny" section. It feels like the anagenesis discussion is somewhat disjunct, with the follow-up to be found within a completely different section. The problem I see is that a reader just interested in the anagenesis (and thus only reading this section) will miss the rest. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, if Hieronymus would have published some biomechanical analysis determining e.g. exact strength values of the ridges and estimating impact forces, such a direct link between morphology and function would have forced us to treat the subject in a single section. As it is, the reader only has to remember that the bosses are padded. It then seems preferable to present a distinct part of the morphology under "Description".

Yeah, the text about the keratin sheaths is only descriptive in nature, and doesn't go into function, so I also think it is more fitting as part of description. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Lusotitan also pointed out that the anagenesis section is deficient in this respect. I'll add a reference to Sampson's critique.--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A reference is now added.--MWAK (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am supporting now – thank you a lot for this comprehensive work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for support and the great photo! FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Lusotitan

Didn't initially think I'd be able to contribute much, but I decided to run it over anyway and found some things:

Good to see you have a go at it! FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pachyrostra is listed as a subtribe in the taxobox, but to my knowledge it's a clade not corresponding to any rank, similar to Brachyrostra - the body of the article supports this. Now, this'd obviously be the fault of the taxonomy template, but it's still something relevant that'd need fixing if I'm right (seeming supported here [27]). Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree, but this is beyond the limits of this particular article.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've gone and changed in on the taxonomy template for Pachyrostra, although it's still not displaying as a clade in the taxoboxes. If I'm remembering right that can take a few minutes though, so maybe it's resolved? Anyway, I agree it's not relevant to this nomination in particular. Lusotitan 02:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not super knowledgeable on how these templates work, so maybe I'm describing something that couldn't happen, but I feel it seems redundant having both Pachyrostra and Pachyrhinosaurini in the taxobox, especially when Centrosaurinae isn't. Is there any way to make it display Pachyrostra (which re-directs to Pachyrhinosaurini anyway...) and Centrosaurinae instead? Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

If we abandon the automatic taxobox. But someone will then soon restore it... The entire taxobox system is of course a total mess, unable to be validly sourced and OR. As these ranks are meaningless anyway, the taxobox is best ignored.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've gone and swapped the "always display" tag on the taxonomy template for Pachyrhinosaurini and Centrosaurinae; I don't think this should have any adverse effects on the non-pachyrostran's taxoboxes, but I'll see. Again, it's not immediately displaying. Anyway, yeah, also irrelevant for nomation. Lusotitan 02:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's hope for the best ;o).--MWAK (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• In this locality, Gilmore had employed George Fryer Sternberg to excavate skeletons of the horned dinosaurs Brachyceratops and Styracosaurus ovatus. – I think a note in parentheses the latter taxon would later be named Rubeosaurus should be added. On its own I think'd be nice but largely unecessary; however, Rubeosaurus as a taxon is referenced later in the same paragraph, with the reader having no reason to think these are the same animal unless they had followed the links. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It is now made explicit that Rubeosaurus is Styracosaurus ovatus.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• For that matter, the paragraph comments two specimens would later be named Einiosaurus and assigned to Rubeosaurus; would this not, however, fall under the "Interpretations of the fossils" section? Perhaps establishing it in this initial section would lead to less confusion, but in that case, shouldn't MOR 485 be noted as later being named Achelousaurus in the following paragraph? I'd personally lean towards not mentioning names until the next section, but I think either way a change is needed for consistency IMO. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the "Interpretation of the fossils" section covers a phase before the formal naming of Einiosaurus. Normally, in a Discovery & Naming chapter you first list the discoveries and then relate the naming acts. It's redundant to state of each specimen: "This is of Taxon X". Here, it's no different. In this case, the situation is more complex because Einiosaurus and Rubeosaurus material was found also. So we make clear from the outset which fossils belong to these. By default, the others are of Achelousaurus. Of course, not explicitly indicating Achelousaurus at this point generates an expectation. Which is then abundantly met in the subsequent sections.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• He still thought that the fossil material had been part of a single population but concluded that this had developed over time as a chronospecies evolving into a series of subsequent taxa. – perhaps a note in parentheses about what a chronospecies is? Then again, the tail end of the sentence might sufficiently do that already. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with your last observation :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• This puts it in the same size-range as other members of the Centrosaurinae subgroup of ceratopsians that lived during the Campanian age. – the larger end of the relevant Pachyrhinosaurus surpassed this by a couple metres, so I'm not sure if this statement is entirely valid. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This is what the source says. You have to read it literally: Achelousaurus is neither the smallest centrosaurine known, nor the largest.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Horner however, noted that the newer forms often had a strong similarity to the previous types. – there should be a comma after "Horner". Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• A further indication was the failure to identify true autapomorphies – unique traits that prove a taxon is a separate species. The fossils instead showed a gradual change from basal (or ancestral) into more derived characters. – some of this might go on the source, but I find this statement very confusing. How are there a lack of autopomorphies when we've based over a half-dozen species (counting the multiple Pachyrhinosaurus species) on them? Within the claim of anagenesis, there is indeed a gradual change, but they still obviously cluster (as seen with the multiple specimens of Achelousaurus nobody disputes group together). If this is merely describing how Horner viewed things, that should be made more clear. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Added a "according to Horner".--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• The horned dinosaurs discovered by Horner exemplified this phenomenon. – this obviously implies the last paragraph was talking about the dinosaurs of the time in general, but the last paragraph never clearly established if the phenomenon was restricted to ceratopsids or not. Of course I know the claim extends to other groups, but most readers won't. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This should have been made clear by talking about "animal communities", "animal types", "newer forms", "various types" and a "fauna". Should there still be an ambiguity, this will be destroyed by the sentence you cite, which indeed carries a strong implication!--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• The orbital horns showed coarse ridges. Today, "Taxon A" has been named Rubeosaurus,[9] "Taxon B" has become Einiosaurus, while "Taxon C" is Achelousaurus – does this need to be re-stated again, when the point of the history section was to establish this already? Also, why is the naming of Rubeosaurus given a reference but not the other two? Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Most readers will not clearly remember the history section at this point :o). The reference does not proof the naming but warns that the reference has been doubted. We talked about this earlier.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm merely ignorant, but is there a reason MOR 456 8-8-87-1 has to be used over merely MOR 456? Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The jaw has its own subnumber, so we best mention it. Also indicates the precise excavation date, which might be of interest.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

O, dear, I confused this with another issue. The number 456 8-8-87-1 is mentioned by the source. As I understand matters, a lot of the material has in the 1980s been imprecisely catalogued, with the result that MOR 456 represents several individuals.--MWAK (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• In 2010, Gregory S. Paul renamed Achelousaurus "Centrosaurus horneri". – I think this'd read better if it said either that he sunk the genus into Centrosaurus or re-assigned the species, rather than "renamed" it. I'd learn towards the latter personally, but either woudl be an improvement. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"Synonymized" would probably be the most accurate way to describe it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There is the added problem that the statement has to be true both on the generic and the specific level. Perhaps "assigned Achelousaurus to the genus Centrosaurus as a Centrosaurus horneri"?--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Then it should rather be "assigned A. horneri to the genus Centrosaurus, as C. horneri"? I'll add that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sampson felt, in 1995, that there was not enough evidence to conclude that Achelousaurus was a direct descendant of Einiosaurus. – this seems important to note in the anagensis section, even if it's just a brief sentence somewhere. That said, the latter half of the paragraph isn't even relevant to phylogeny anyway, so I think the whole thing could be lifted and put into the anagenesis section, before the paragraph on Dodson's objections. The word "subsequent" would merely need to be removed from what is now the second paragraph in the Phylogeny section for it to function perfectly fine as the first paragraph, with the former one moved up. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence is about anagenesis but only by referring to a rejection by Sampson of the hypothesis, who then chose for the phylogenetic method. So, the sentence fits perfectly within the phylogeny topic, while serving as an elegant introduction of it, meanwhile providing a connection with the first chapter section to ensure the narrative coherence of the chapter as a whole. This way we make a nice contrast between "anagenesis" and "cladogenesis". Such considerations should override the objection that not everything is perfectly covered by the section title :o). The speciation in the second half of the paragraph has again a clear connection with phylogeny. Also, the entire second paragraph is about research either confirming or refuting Sampson's tree, so his results should precede them immediately.--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair on the paragraph as a whole, but a lack of mention of Samson's disagreement in the anagenesis section seems odd as its directly relevant to the topic. One sentence could easily be thrown in somewhere, and merely have this fact be mentioned twice, once in each section, seeing it's relevant and needed in both. Lusotitan 02:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I've now split the paragraph, as you suggested.--MWAK (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• At the end of the Campanian, there seems to have been a trend of pachyrostrans replacing other centrosaurines. – this seems oddly out of place in the middle of a paragraph in the Phylogeny section. Could it fit into the Paleoecology section somewhere?

Well, the paragraph is about the relevance of Achelousaurus within somewhat larger groups. Given that we now know Achelousaurus to have been among the first members of a newly coined clade Pachyrostra, this fact gains some importance by realising that this clade would ultimately dominate the centrosaurine tree. Such trends, though obviously having been caused by some ecological phenomenon, are usually treated within a phylogenetic context. Our Paleoecology section is focused on the ecology of Achelousaurus itself. If we find a source about the ecology driving Pachyrhinosaurus evolution while explicitly referring to Achelousaurus, this should change, of course.--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Apart from Einiosaurus and Rubeosaurus, this included Sinoceratops and Wendiceratops, according to the 2012 analysis.[58] – reference 58 makes no mention of Sinoceratops, and is from three years before Wendiceratops would even be named.

Ouch, that should have been Xenoceratops. And the reference is incorrect as well. I'll repair this immediately.--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ceratopsid skull casts positioned in a phylogenetic tree, in the Natural History Museum of Utah, with Achelousaurus at number 03 – would it be to clunky to instead say that it's the third from the left on the top row? I can barely read some of the numbers when I enlarge the image, nevermind look at it normally. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ill see if I can figure out to reword it... FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Added something perhaps even wordier to make it clear... FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Jens has now added an image with more resolution.--MWAK (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, that looks amazing! FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• One of these was a form in-between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus;[23] in 1994 he would name it Hypacrosaurus stebingeri. – there should probably be a note that this hasn't really been followed. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Anagenesis is indeed largely rejected here, I believe, and a rejection can easily be sourced.--MWAK (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Source added.--MWAK (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• In 1992 he named Prosaurolophus blackfeetensis,[72] that later would be seen as identical to Prosaurolophus maximus. – its presence in the paragraph implies this was also a case of anagenesis, but this isn't stated (and wasn't, to my knowledge, the case, but I could well be wrong). Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I at first assumed Horner would have proposed an anagenetic relationship here too, couldn't find this and then still kept it, as it was part of the fauna anyway and named by Horner. Sloppy writing. I'll restructure this.--MWAK (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, the most convenient thing would be to omit it entirely.--MWAK (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Finally, Horner thought there was a taxon present that was transitional between Daspletosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. – a note that this has since been named would probably be in order, however noting the connection to Tyrannosaurus hasn't been followed. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Another loose end. Of course Daspletosaurus horneri should have been mentioned, the paper after all suggesting anagenesis with D. torosus but not with Tyrannosaurus, but I kept postponing this as I wanted to study the article more carefully. That's not a valid excuse, obviously, so I'll remedy that.--MWAK (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Phylogenetic analyses have varied in the closeness of the relationship between Achelousaurus and Styracosaurus, here at the American Museum of Natural History – to me at least, "here at the AMNH" would be used when you are presently located at the institution and are talking about it. What about "seen at AMNH" or something? Lusotitan 21:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Or "shown in an exhibit at the AMNH". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

How about just "; here, a skull at the American Museum of Natural History"? FunkMonk (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I added that, any further thoughts, Lusotitan? FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's definitely acceptable, but on second thought, wouldn't it make more sense to first state that it's image of an Styracosaurus skull at the AMNH, then afterwords talk about the important of this in relation to Achelousaurus, instead of the other way around like it is now? Lusotitan 19:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, the other captions are inconsistent in how they order it, so I'm not sure if it's a big deal, as long as it is clear... FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• My only two remaining issues are the lack of a mention of Sampson being opposed to the anagenesis hypothesis in the anagenensis section, and the fourth paragraph of the palaeoecology section still not mentioning the other anagenesis hypothesises brought up haven't gotten support either, or that D. horneri has been named. Elsewhere on this page it has been said (independently) all three of these things would be added, but they still haven't been. Lusotitan 20:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

At last, these issues have been dealt with.--MWAK (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - all my minor quibbles have been dealt with and I see no problems with the thorough and well written article. Lusotitan 19:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your first FAC review, I believe! FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I realise that RileyBugz never returned to this review, but had, I think, reviewed most of it without issue. With the other supports, I'm happy to promote this now but if RileyBugz has any issues with the last section, I'm sure they can be raised on the article talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:01, 24 October 2017 [28].

---

The Fountainhead

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This novel was the first bestseller for Ayn Rand, a writer who still generates controversy (and sales) over 35 years after her death. Some readers find it inspirational and life-changing, while others think it is poorly written and immoral. It's about an architect, but it also has kinky sex, satires of other writers, critiques of the New Deal, and an explosion. If you aren't a novel reader, there's a movie, a comic, and a stage version. The article has been GA since July and just got a GOCE copy edit, so now I'm looking for your reviews to build it up to FA. RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Harold_Laski_1936.JPG: what's the status of this work in the US?
• File:Fountainhead_cafe.jpg: as a representation of a 2D work, typically the photographer wouldn't have a copyright claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the prompt IR. Regarding the Fountainhead cafe image, I kind of figured that could be a problem, so I was prepared to remove the image if needed. I did not notice the problem with the Laski image previously. After rooting about for an hour, it isn't clear to me that the images from the 3rd edition of this source (the one this photo would be in) actually would be PD in the US. I've put in an inquiry on Commons about it. In the meantime I've removed both images. If I get information that justifies restoring the Laski image, I'll ping you about it. --RL0919 (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Apologies for the whiplash, but after some helpful clarifications around older Swedish copyright law, I've updated the tagging for the Laski image on Commons and restored it to the article. The cafe image is still out. Let me know if there are any other concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Sorry to pester, but I wanted to confirm whether you have any further concerns with the images, or if the changes described above took care of it. --RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis

• "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Ayn Rand and was her first major literary success." – inconsistent tense (is/was). Also, who is Ayn Rand? Give brief description on first mention

• Split the sentence and mimicked the description used for Rand in another FA. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• "The novel's protagonist, Howard Roark, is an individualistic young architect who refuses to compromise his artistic and personal vision for worldly recognition and success" – purple prose (and probably non-neutral)
• "The story follows his battle to practice modern architecture while opposed by an establishment centered on tradition." – how do you practice modern architecture?

• I revised to combine the sentences from this point and the one above to address your comments. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Roark is opposed by what Rand described as "second-handers", who value conformity more than independence and integrity" → "over independence and integrity". Also, isn't "second-handers" also Roark's evaluation?

• Yes, it is his evaluation (albeit not until almost 600 pages into the text), so copy edited accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Their relationship begins with a sexual encounter that feminist critics have denounced as endorsing rape." – how can a sexual encounter endorse rape?

• Its presence in the novel suggests to some that Rand was OK with rape, so re-worded accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why does the Gary Cooper image appear under ¶ Impact on Rand's career and not ¶ Film?

• Primarily to spread the images out a bit so there aren't large stretches of text. The film adaptation is mentioned in the section, so it isn't entirely misplaced. But if it's a big deal, it's not hard to move one image. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

--Gertanis (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gertanis: Thanks for your comments. I have made changes and inserted replies above. Possibly some of the wording could be further improved, so let me know if you have additional feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gertanis: Sorry to pester, but since it has been a while since your last comments, I wanted to see if you had any further concerns, or perhaps if you wanted to express your support? :-) --RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit short on time atm, but here are a few more suggestions:

• Consider using authorlinks in the 'Works cited' section

• Had some, but missed several, now added. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Every para in the section 'Other adaptations' starts w/ "In [year]"
• "Rand was irritated that Bobbs-Merrill allowed the edited version to be published without her reviewing the text" — reword: 'irritated' feels awkward in this context (kinda itchy to be frank); delete the '-ing', try smth like "...her having reviewed", "her approval of"; perhaps restructure along the lines of "To Rand's great bewilderment/dissatisfaction/dismay, Bobbs-Merrill..."
• "A reviewer for The Guardian praised the Festival d'Avignon production, describing it as "electrifying theatre",[154] while that for La Croix praised the writing, acting, and staging." – 'that' does not rhyme with 'reviewer'
• I don't want to be mean or anything, but I find the writing in this entire section ('Adaptations') to be rather pedestrian. It's not quite of a brilliant standard yet. Perhaps WP:RECEPTION could be of help.

• Technically, "brilliant" is no longer in the FA criteria, but I have revised to address all the points above and hopefully made it at least a little shiny. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The year 1943 also had the publication of..." → "...saw the publication of..."

• Fixed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• "In more recent years, The Fountainhead has received relatively little ongoing critical attention." – weasly prose: more recent than what? relative to what? 'ongoing'? Pardon?

• Reworded. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That's that for now. Gertanis (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gertanis: Thanks again for taking the time to review. Hopefully I've addressed all of your concerns; specific replies inserted above. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Gertanis, do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Sorry for the tardy response, but RL has kept me occupied these last weeks. Anyway, here we go:

• "several directors and writers have considered doing a new film adaptation" – informal/unencyclopedic language
  • Changed to "developing". --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Today, more than 6.5 million copies of The Fountainhead have been sold worldwide and it has been translated into more than 20 languages." – doesn't the MOS somewhere recommend against this usage of 'today'?
  • Not sure offhand about the MoS, but the word is superfluous anyway, so removed. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• "...and has enjoyed a lasting influence, especially among architects and political libertarians." – might want to specify what breed of libertarians, lest Chomsky become enraged :)
  • Changed to "right-libertarians". --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Initial sales were slow" – 'slow' in what sense?
  • In the sense that it did not sell a large number of copies per week. This phrase or close variants (e.g., "slow sales") is commonly used in reliable sources to describe the novel's early sales. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Some praised the novel as a powerful presentation of individualism, while others thought it was overlong and lacked sympathetic characters." – is 'presentation' the right word here? Perhaps 'endorsement' or 'paean' or 'encomium'. Also, to enhance parallelism, try "..thought it overlong and lacking sympathetic characters/proper reader identification [character(s)]."
  • Revised per your suggestions. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Their relationship includes a first sexual encounter that feminist critics have denounced, accusing Rand of endorsing rape." – Sorry to harp about this, but I find the sentence still grammatically and stylistically troubling. Can a relationship include a sexual encounter? Why is 'first' significant? Denounced as what? Maybe censured/criticized/condemned would be better.
  • Rewritten to "Feminist critics have condemned Roark and Dominique's first sexual encounter, accusing Rand of endorsing rape." Regarding the word 'first', these criticisms are strongly focused on what happens the first time the characters have sex, not their subsequent sexual activity. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There you are, a few comments on the lede. I appreciate that the FAC criteria no longer commands that the prose be 'brilliant', but it still says "engaging and of a professional standard"—I don't think we're quite there yet. I recommend querying brianboulton, tim riley or other superlative prose stylists for their belle-lettrist advice. Gertanis (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Responding to that irresistibly flattering ping (I shall need a larger hat) I offer my opinion, for what it's worth, that in terms of readability the lead is fine as it stands. Whether it adequately sums up the content of the main text I could not say without reading the latter, which I don't propose to do, preferring to avoid such a subject as A. Rand. Tim riley talk 12:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gertanis: Updates and replies to your latest comments above. As always, I welcome more input on how to improve the article.

Tim, I wouldn't insist on anyone reviewing an article on an unappealing subject, so thanks for the feedback on the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Sorry to be a nuisance, Gertanis, but I'd like to wrap this up fairly soon. I'd like to clarify if you still have concerns over the prose. If so, is there anything specific you feel needs to be addressed? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wehwalt

I've read it several times over the years. A few comments:

• "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand. It was her first major literary success." I've read the comments above. May I suggest, "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand, her first major literary success." Because I do think it's a bit choppy at present.
• "with an architectural establishment centered on tradition. " For "centered on tradition", I might say "unwilling to accept innovation". Tradition is a pretty broad term and I'm not sure the reader is going to get what you're saying.
• "describes as" I would say "calls" is simpler.

 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "that feminist critics have denounced as indicating that Rand endorses rape." I hesitatingly suggest "that feminist critics have denounced, accusing Rand of endorsing rape".
• " Cameron was once a renowned architect, but he now gets few commissions." I would strike "he"
• "He later gets a job in a granite quarry owned by Francon." The "later" de-emphasizes the fact that he is forced to work in the quarry because he cannot earn a living as an architect. The two are closely related, you make it distant.
• "that he pays off Keating to divorce her," I would strike the word "off". It still means the same thing.
• "and thus hires him." I would say "so", not "thus"
• "Roark's past relationship with Dominique." I would change this. "Relationship" could be taken to mean the sexual encounter, which you mention is controversial. Possibly "that they met at the quarry" or "that they knew each other from the quarry" or similar.

By this point in the novel, there have been other sexual encounters between Roark and Dominique, which she initiates, so "relationship" is more accurate. This was a significant omission from the plot summary, which I've corrected instead of changing this word. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• "for his influence " maybe "to use his influence"
• "Roark returns to discover that the Cortlandt design has been changed." maybe "Roark returns to find that Keating was not able to prevent major changes from being made in Cortlandt's construction"
• " Wynand dismisses Toohey for criticizing Roark." consider "Wynand dismisses Toohey for disobeying him and criticizing Roark". It might help to mention that Wynand uses his papers to defend Roark.
• "Roark also wins over Dominique, who leaves Wynand for Roark." I might put it more directly: "After Wynand gives in, Dominique leaves him for Roark."
• I might make it clearer that Wynand conceives that by allowing the denunciation of Roark to be printed, he has sullied himself from the ideal.
• "Rand's denials have not stopped other commentators from claiming stronger connections between Wright and Roark." I might strike "other" . It's questionable whether an author is a commentator.
• "Wright equivocated about whether he thought Roark was based on him, sometimes implying that he was, at other times denying it." The second "was" should probably be "did" as the question is Wright's belief, not whether Roark was in fact based by
• "than follow his personal interests." I would say "desires" for "interests".

Being familiar with Rand's other writings about self-interest and how that differs from desire, I think my word choice better reflects her intent. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• "By middle age, Keating's career is in decline and he is unhappy with his choices, but it is too late for him to change.[18][19]" I might say "path" for "choices". He is certainly unhappy about not painting instead of building, but to me anyway, his unhappiness otherwise seems more about the outcome.
• "also contributed inspiration" maybe "also helped inspire"?
• "In 1927, Rand was working as a junior screenwriter for movie producer Cecil B. DeMille when he asked to write a script for what would become the film Skyscraper." possibly a word missing, possibly "her" after "asked"?
• "That earlier novel was based partially on people and events from Rand's experiences" a bit hard to read, perhaps "That earlier novel was based in part on people and events familiar to Rand"
• "She did not place the quotes in the published novel," sort of repeating, maybe "In addition to redacting the quotes in the published novel," You might be able to do without "in the published novel", too. I would omit the "she" from the second half of the sentence, as not needed.
• "Twelve other publishers (including Macmillan and Knopf) had rejected the book.[61][67][68]" This sentence might do better at the end of the previous paragraph and in the present tense. It seems out of place where it is,
• "Second Hand Lives" You are not consistent as to whether the first two words of this title have a hyphen between them.

Interesting article. I'm glad to learn more of the background.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Thanks for reviewing. I've implemented most of your suggestions, with comments inserted above only for exceptions. Let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

SupportLooks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aoba47

• The following part reads awkwardly to me (especially among political libertarians and in the field of architecture) as I feel there is something missing in front of the phrase “in the field of architecture”. It just reads a little weird to switch between saying something’s popular with a noun (i.e. political libertarians) and not using the same structure for the rest of the sentence. I think consistency is the point that makes it a little off for me.
• I have a question about this part (several directors and writers have considered remaking the film). Do they really want to do a remake of the film, or do they really want to do a new film adaptation of the book? It seems to me that they want to do a new film adaptation of the book and not necessarily a remake of the past film itself.
• In the following phrase (Rand viewed as wrong ideas:), should the colon be a period? I am not sure of the purpose of the colon in this context.
• I would add the year in which Skyscraper was released (i.e. 1928).

 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• For this first phrase (following the completion in 1934 of her first novel, We the Living), I would change it to the following (following the completion of her first novel, We the Living, in 1934) as it reads smoother to me.
• Add the year in which Journals of Ayn Rand was released. Same goes for Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and For the New Intellectual and Atlas Shrugged.
• I am not sure the thesaurus link is entirely necessary.

Great work with this article. My focus was on the prose; I will leave everything dealing with the source reliability and use to the source reviewer. My comments are very minor as I think there is not much that requires improvement. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my own FAC. Either way, I will be more than happy to support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for reviewing. Another editor apparently jumped in to address one of your comments. I have made edits to address the rest. Let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with getting this promoted and have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: I hope you don't mind my jumping in to assist, just saw an opportunity to help out in a minor way without making too many major changes (as I am unfamiliar with topic). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It was unexpected, but nothing to object to. --RL0919 (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources in general look good. Only one query: in ref 87 the Cox essay is stated as being in "Thomas 2005", this being The Literary Art of Ayn Rand. But the source says the essay is reproduced from The Fountainhead: A Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration, published by the Atlas Society. Strictly speaking, the citation should be direct to the website since this is your source.

No other queries. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the review. I know this is terribly old-fashioned, but I have physical copy of the 2005 book The Literary Art of Ayn Rand, edited by William Thomas, which I used as a source for refs 41 and 87. The web page in ref 87 is a convenience link. I did overlook the page number for ref 87, which I've now added. In double-checking for any similar mistakes, I found two sources that I did get online that lacked access date info, so I added those also. --RL0919 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment (Support)

• It seems to me that referring to the sexual encounter as a "rape scene" ("Responses to the rape scene", "One of the most controversial elements of the book is the rape scene") begs the question under discussion. Wikipedia has decided that it is a rape scene? Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That is how it is most frequently referred to in sources. In some sources quote marks are used -- the "rape scene" or the "rape" scene -- and the article has had those in some versions as well. Occasionally the word alleged has been used in the article, although I don't think that phrasing has much source support. It hasn't changed with enough frequency to trigger discussion of it on the Talk page. You are welcome to suggest alternative wording. --RL0919 (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aureliano Babilonia: Wanted to follow up on this since you had not replied further. After thinking about it a bit more, I came up with alternative wording for the description and the section header that avoids using the phrase "rape scene". Let me know if that looks good or if you have further feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - I do find it an improvement, and it is along the lines of what I would have suggested if I felt like pushing it, which I didn't. ;) The section name is more 'encyclopedic'-sounding now as well, vs. "responses to the rape scene". Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think the article is very good, thorough, well-sourced, etc. I wasn't planning to weigh in, but I am willing to support this nomination. I would like to point out that the entire "critical reception" section uses secondary sources properly to synthesize the reception of the novel. But there is one exception, which simply points to a random(?) Village Voice review. It seems like cherry-picking in the context of a section that otherwise uses sources in a more sophisticated way. I would suggest either removing the "Village Voice" sentence or using a secondary source to state that negative reviews continue. I mean, of course they continue, I grant you that, you can find breathless takedowns of Rand all over the internet, but this particular review has been chosen essentially randomly, as far as I can see. I hope you understand my drift here. It's not a huge deal, and in fact this approach to "reception" is the norm for the huge number of articles for which there are no secondary sources about reception (other than wordless technocratic aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes etc.). However, since this novel has plenty of secondary literature, and it's going to be an FA, it's better not to choose a random review as an exemplar, IMO. Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. It took a bit of looking to find an appropriate source (many cover only the contemporary reception, or discuss recent reception for Rand in broad terms rather than specific to this novel), but I've now updated based on your suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A great improvement - thanks! Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for expanding a book that made history. Only few comments:

Lead

• "but turns to Roark for help with design problems", - doesn't Peter seek for help rather for technical problems?

• There are various incidents, but often it's significantly more than technical. For example, Roark thoroughly redesigns the Cosmo-Slotnik building, even including updates to the Renaissance facade; Keating's contribution is pretty limited. Cortlandt is entirely Roark's design with Keating's name slapped on it.

• It's probably that "Design" in German means foremost the outer appearance. How about mentioning "structural" also? Just an idea.

• "newspaper publisher", - how about mentioning tabloid here already? (and later)

• Done, although I think tabloid journalism is a better link; not all of Wynand's papers are tabloid format.

• "Their relationship begins with a sexual encounter", - no, there was some relation before.

• Fixed.

Plot

• I miss the Temple of the Human Spirit, - it's not any building that causes the lawsuit, and I miss Dominique posing for its statue.

• Added more specifics about that incident.

• "Roark and Wynand become close friends, although Wynand is unaware of Roark's past relationship with Dominique." - I question the "although", it's rather "because" ;)

• Not exactly because, but I take your point. Reworded.

Other adaptations

• Any way (by description or quoting a review) to make us understand how such a vast topic can be brought to a stage?

• I don't have info on how they handled the plot, but I added some detail about the staging.

That's all. Thank you again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the review. Replies on all points above; let me know if you have further concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: As this has been open six weeks, and has had plenty of support, I think we are good for promotion now. Any further concerns that Gertanis has can be addressed on the article talk page after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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, 24 October 2017 [29].

---

Tukwila International Boulevard station

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 05:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet another transit FAC, to complement my ongoing tunnel one. This one involves the other end of Seattle's light rail system, with the third-to-last stop, an elevated station overlooking parking lots, suburban chain stores, and majestic mountains and hills. The station also boasts a pretty nice design, with a roof that is meant to evoke the wings of an airplane (it's only one stop from the airport). Was promoted to GA a few months ago and recently touched up. SounderBruce 05:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Tukwila International Boulevard Station Pictogram.svg: License, rationale and use seem fine for me.
• File:Tukwila Int'l Blvd Station - 01.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Sound Transit Link Light Rail logo.svg: Use seems fine for me. Not 100% certain on the license.
• File:Tukwila Intl Blvd Station under construction, 2006 (178733921).jpg: License and use seem fine for me, but the coordinates appear to be a little too far away.
• File:Tukwila Int'l Blvd station with northbound Link train (2009).jpg: License and use seem fine for me.

Most images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the coordinates on the 2006 image. SounderBruce 20:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Passing comments from Vanamonde

• I know very little about this subject, but just in passing, I find the diagram of the station layout somewhat confusing, because it suggests the northbound platform is above the southbound one (unless that is correct?) Also, forgive me for asking a pointed question, but isn't this your second solo nomination on this page? Vanamonde (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: The platforms are arranged side-by-side on the same level (3rd floor of the station), above the mezzanine (2nd floor) and bus terminal (1st/ground floor). The diagram is pretty much the same as most other transit station ones, and the gray line dividers are meant to indicate a floor change. This becomes a bit more apparent in more complex stations like this NYC Subway station, where the levels are more clearly labeled.
  • As for the 2nd nomination issue...it seems I have mis-read the FAC guidelines and mistakenly thought that other users with multiple nominations were also going alone. I hope an FAC coordinator can clear up whether I should withdraw this one or not, given that my other FAC is one step away from closure. SounderBruce 05:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, I overlooked that this was a second solo nom when it was transcluded. Since your other nom is indeed near closure, and you've already attracted some commentary here, we'll leave things as is but in future pls note the FAC instructions, which state that second solo noms are not permitted without seeking leave from the coordinators. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I really like how this article is written. A few comments:

• In "Location":
  • Second paragraph: "Within a 1⁄2 mile (0.80 km) radius of the station is a population of 4,155 residents in 2,332 housing units, of which 95 percent are considered "affordable". can be changed to A population of 4,155 residents live in 2,332 housing units within a 1⁄2 mile (0.80 km) radius of the station, of which 95 percent are considered "affordable". This is to fix clunky grammar.
    • Done.
  • Third para: "The city of Tukwila adopted an urban renewal plan for the area in 1998 and a comprehensive plan in 2015, both envisioning improved commercial access and additional residential units in the area around the station and on International Boulevard." can be changed to The city of Tukwila adopted two plans for the area: an urban renewal plan in 1998 and a comprehensive plan in 2015. Both envision improved commercial access and additional residential units in the area around the station and on International Boulevard.
    • Decided against having a sentence fragment there, and tweaked the wording. Is that alright?
      • Yes. epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• In "History":
  • First para: "leading to a smaller proposal submitted to voters the following year by the RTA," → and as a result, the RTA submitted a smaller proposal to voters the following year.
    • Done.
  • Second para: "The RTA (renamed to Sound Transit)" → The RTA, by then renamed to Sound Transit,
    • Done.
  • Second para: "Ultimately, the board selected a light rail route in November 1999 including International Boulevard through Tukwila and an elevated station at South 154th Street with a park and ride facility." → Ultimately, the board selected a light rail route in November 1999. The route included International Boulevard through Tukwila and an elevated station at South 154th Street with a park and ride facility.
    • Done.
  • Sixth para: "The shuttle service was suspended after the opening of SeaTac/Airport station on December 19, 2009, replacing Tukwila as the new southern terminus of the line." → The shuttle service was suspended after the SeaTac/Airport station opened on December 19, 2009, replacing Tukwila as the new southern terminus of the line.
    • Also, if the shuttle was "suspended", this implies that it was later reinstated. Do you mean "discontinued"?
    • Fixed, and I did mean that it was discontinued. SounderBruce 03:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

More to come later. Good work so far. epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I have to look over the rest of the article tomorrow, but I am impressed with the improvements made so far. epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments for now. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• In lead:
  • Paragraph 1: "It also includes 662 total parking spaces and functions as a park and ride, one of only two on the line." → As one of two park and rides along the line, it also includes a total of 662 parking spaces.
    • Done.
  • Paragraph 2: Downtown Seattle is linked twice. Remove the second link per WP:DUPLINKS
    • Done.
• In "Station layout":
  • "Since 2013, 62 additional" → Since 2013, sixty-two additional per WP:NUMNOTES
    • Done.
• In "Art":
  • Para 2, sentence 1: "Sculptor Tad Savinar has three works at the station's mezzanine and platform levels." → The station's mezzanine and platform levels contain three works by sculptor Tad Savinar. (I strongly suggest this because the current wording sounds weird. It sounds like the sculptor is claiming possession over the art, which technically is true because he owns the rights, but the artworks are physically in the station.)
    • Done.
  • Para 2, sentence 2: "... plants and animals; The Seattle Times called it a "regionally apt pop-art image" and praised its wittiness" → it would be better to rephrase to something like: ... plants and animals; it was praised by The Seattle Times, which called it a witty, "regionally apt pop-art image". Or you can write: a witty and "regionally apt pop-art image".
    • Done.
  • Para 4: "It was created by Christian French as part of the Stellar Connections series and its points represent nearby destinations ..." → Best to split in 2 sentences, or replace "and" with a semicolon, since these are two separate trains of thought: It was created by Christian French as part of the Stellar Connections series. Its points represent nearby destinations...
    • Done.
• In "Services":
  • Not really nitpicking about this, but some of the links in this section are duplicates, including Seattle–Tacoma International Airport and Washington State Route 99. If you want to leave them to give the reader further context, it's fine.
    • Removed the links I found to be unnecessary.
  • Para 1: Replace the semicolon before "during regular weekday service" with a period: ... from 6:00 am to 12:00 am. During regular weekday service.
    • Done.
  • Para 2, first sentence: As this is a run-on sentence, replace the colon with a period after "... four bus routes, including two RapidRide lines, operated by King County Metro". Also, you would have to separate the rest of the sentence into two or four separate sentences to avoid writing another run-on sentence. So sample new sentences would read like this: Tukwila International Boulevard station is also served by four bus routes, including two RapidRide lines, operated by King County Metro. The RapidRide A Line terminates at the station and travels south along State Route 99 through SeaTac, the Highline College area and Federal Way to Federal Way Transit Center. The RapidRide F Line passes through the station on its route between Burien, Southcenter Mall and Renton. Route 124 terminates at the station and travels north through Tukwila, Georgetown and SoDo to Downtown Seattle. Finally, route 128 connects the station to West Seattle, White Center and Southcenter.
    • Regarding the sentence about the A Line: reword "SeaTac, the Highline College area and Federal Way to Federal Way Transit Center" → SeaTac, the Highline College area and Federal Way, ending at Federal Way Transit Center. Otherwise it sounds weird with "Federal Way to Federal Way Transit Center".
    • Both done.
  • Para 2, last sentence: "The routes use the plaza-level bus station under the station" → maybe replace the second instance of "station" with Link platforms or light rail platforms because that word is repeated in short succession: The routes use the plaza-level bus station under the Link platforms.
    • Done.

That's it for now. Once these concerns are resolved, I'll be happy to support. epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: All finished. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 01:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I support this nomination. If possible, could you review my current FAC? (I totally understand if you don't want to do so.) epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now:

The alignment would keep light rail off of International Boulevard - I'd remove the "of" here....

Done.

Budgetary problems with the Central Link light rail project lead to the shortening - you mean "led", right?

Done.

Not a fan of single-sentence paras in the Art section but concede it is tricky to rejig...

I merged the two short paragraphs together, since the pictogram generally represents the station as a whole.

Otherwise looks very comprehensive and prose is else ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: All finished. Thanks for your review. SounderBruce 21:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Sources are all of the appropriate quality, and all are formatted correctly. No deadlinks. I didn't think spotchecks were needed, but I'll be glad to do them if necessary. Otherwise, this looks good to go as far as sourcing is concerned. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919

Overall this seems like a solid, readable article. I only have two issues to raise:

• The "Station layout" section discusses the station's parking, including the leasing of additional spaces and a carpool permit program, but it omits the reason why ST has added those options. The cited source about the carpool program mentions complaints about inadequate parking. Another source (not currently in the article) about the garage lease mentions commuters overflowing to park on nearby streets. The opening of the Angle Lake station was expected to help, but apparently Tukwila is still "chronically full". I think omitting the parking concerns is a problem for comprehensiveness and NPOV. (In the spirit of NPOV, it may also be appropriate to mention that some local activists think adding more parking at stations is a bad idea, although I didn't find a source about that point that mentions this station particularly.)
• A lesser issue in the "Art" subsection: It says there are four art installations. It then describes a pictogram by Christian French, three sculptures by Tad Savinar, and an abstract by Clark Wiegman. This seems like it could be three installations or five installations, but I don't understand how it would be four.

The second issue should be an easy fix; the first is more substantive, but I hope I've helped by providing some potential sources. --RL0919 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Thanks for mentioning the point about parking. I omitted it mainly because complaints about transit station parking is rather common across the Seattle metro area, with most lots being full before 8 a.m. It's not extraordinary by any means in Tukwila's case, between the early fullness and "park and hide" habits on neighborhood streets. It might be best to cover this in Transportation in Seattle (which I plan to rewrite eventually) or Public transportation in Seattle.

French's pictogram is a component of a singular piece of art that is used by every station, so I don't describe it as one of Tukwila's pieces. I can remove the count entirely, since it's not really that necessary. SounderBruce 02:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Any follow up comments? SounderBruce 21:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. Regarding the number of art pieces, I think it is just a sequencing issue. The first sentence in the section says four installations, but then attention immediately turns to the pictogram. If you put the sentence about the art installations after the discussion of the pictogram, so that it leads directly into the descriptions of the installations, there would be no confusion.

Regarding the parking, I disagree with the idea of leaving this to some other article (especially one that doesn't even exist). The sources give specific complaints about the parking for this location. If the same complaints are made about every ST station, you could say that, but I don't think that's entirely correct (at least not from appropriate sources). This is a suburban location where ST provides park-and-ride, so there is a greater focus on parking concerns. I don't think most people expect to drive up to stations in the urban core and find easy parking. --RL0919 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Thanks for the comments. I have moved the pictogram section to the beginning of the art subsection, and hopefully cleared up that situation. I have added the parking complaints, but left out the anti-parking comments (which are directed at the Sound Transit 3 plan, and not Tukwila in particular). As for the last quip, there are complaints about the lack of parking at urban stations, which I feel would be better addressed in the system articles (Link light rail and List of Link light rail stations or a general public transportation article), since park-and-ride fullness is a region-wide issue and common complaint. SounderBruce 21:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the wider situation is a matter of context; it may help explain the local situation, but doesn't change the fact that it is there and specifically covered in sources. Anyhow, it looks like you've captured the situation for this station well, and fixed the other issue, so I'm happy to support based on prose and completeness. --RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: This looks pretty close, but glancing through I noticed a few minor prose issues. For example, we have a few sentences (such as "A regional transit authority (RTA) was formed in the early 1990s to study a regional light rail system, first proposing a $6.7 billion plan in 1995 with an at-grade light rail line on Pacific Highway (State Route 99; later International Boulevard) with stops at South 144th and 158th streets in Tukwila.") which are a touch long for easy readability and could perhaps be split. There are parts where we could maybe trim a little (e.g. "Officially named Tukwila International Boulevard in January 2005,[36] the station began construction in early 2005. PCL Construction was awarded the $231.7 million construction contract for the station and 4.22 miles (6.79 km) of elevated guideway between Tukwila and Rainier Beach station in March 2005." where we have three instances of construction in two sentences, which feel a little too wordy. "Sound Transit determined that the new proposal was announced too late to be examined in the initial environmental impact statement in November 1999, but approved a formal review in May 2000" feels similarly as if it could be cut back a touch.) None of these are major issues, nor is this an oppose, but I'd feel happier before promoting if someone like Tony1, John or Mike Christie could have a quick look and see if there are any prose issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I've split up the two sentences you mentioned and removed that triple-bunch of "construction". I'll take another stab at finding any remaining issues when I have time later this week. SounderBruce 06:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Sarastro's point is also that the caption is rather long. Can any be moved into the main text? If not, don't worry—but it would be nice. Tony (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tony1: Which caption are you referring to? SounderBruce 04:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

• ...consists primarily of single-family homes, with some multi-family residential and commercial along International Boulevard...: "residential" and "commercial" are adjectives, so aren't we missing a noun here?
  • Added "buildings"
• Suggest giving the date inline for the PSRC population estimate, and making it "were affordable".
  • Done
• A map would be helpful for readers who don't know the Seattle area, perhaps showing the whole route, since it's conveniently north-south. Not required for FA but it would be a nice touch. Ideally it would also make visible some of the landmarks mentioned in the article as well, such as the earlier proposed locations for the station, and since the lack of a station at Southcenter became an issue, that should be shown too.
  • I'm curious as to whether this would be a good place to try out the new Kartographer extension, as it would render better than a static map. Thoughts?

    I hadn't heard of that, but it seems worth a try. Not necessary for FA, as I said. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Budgetary problems with the Central Link light rail project led to the shortening of the line in late 2001 by Sound Transit: can this be cut to just "Budgetary problems led to the shortening of the line in late 2001"? After all, what else could the budgetary problems have been with? And who else would have shortened the line?
  • Done.
• The station began construction in early 2005, but then some specific dates are given. Assuming I have the sequence right, I think this would be more concise: "The station was officially named Tukwila International Boulevard in January 2005, and in March PCL was awarded the $231.7 million contract for building the station and ..."
  • Done
• The park and ride, initially the only facility on Central Link, would regularly fill before 9 a.m.: needs date context, since it's no longer the case. We get the date in the next sentence but it should really be clear to the reader by the end of this one.
  • Done
• Tukwila International Boulevard station is represented by a pictogram of a canoe: I don't follow this. Represented where? Is the pictogram used on maps of the line, or is it just a logo used around the station?
  • Added that it is used on maps and signage
• It took me a few seconds to be sure that the works by Savinar and Wiegman are the four art installations mentioned in the earlier paragraph, and not additional artworks. I assume these are permanent installations? I'd suggest maybe the following, which includes some copyediting:

  The station also houses four art installations as part of the "STart" program, which allocates a percentage of project construction funds to art projects to be used in stations; three by sculptor Tad Savinar, and one by Clark Wiegman. Savinar's A Drop of Sustenance, suspended above the escalators to the northbound platform, features a large raindrop that represents the "living water" used for sustenance for the region's plants and animals; The Seattle Times called it a witty and "regionally apt pop-art image". Savinor also created A Molecule of the Region on the southbound entry, featuring memories and sayings about Tukwila from residents arranged in a ball-and-stick molecular model, and Voices of Tukwila with more quotes from residents etched into tiles on the platform. At ground level is Soundings by Wiegman, an abstract representation of two halves of a hazelnut. One of the halves includes a handle etched with the path of the Duwamish River through Tukwila, carved in an illuminated, blue ribbon. The piece, which also features ambient noise, was inspired by the Chinook Jargon name for Tukwila, k'ap'uxac (translated to "place of hazelnuts").

  • Done
• You don't mention in the text what the expectations were in the original plans for ridership. If that information is available it would be interesting to compare the numbers with the actual results, though that's really a Central Link topic more than an issue for this article, so I would only include it if there's information specifically related to this station.
  • I can't find the numbers immediately (will need to dive into some older, offline sources the next chance I get), but I'm unsure of where to put the ridership numbers. The Central Link article (which I recently expanded and nominated at GAN) has a ridership section that doesn't include the initial estimates, so I may add them there. SounderBruce 23:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

    Struck; it sounds like the Central Link articles is the right place for this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Sarastro1 that there are a couple of unwieldy sentences; I'll try to do another copyediting pass and have a go at the ones I didn't already comment on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I've copyedited some more, a little more aggressively; please revert if you don't like any of the changes. Reading through again:

• I'd suggest changing the description of the neighbourhood from "featuring ethnic cuisine..." to saying it is an ethnically diverse area with many businesses specializing in imported products, or something to that effect -- the sources do support the "cuisine" comment, but they say rather more than that.
  • Done, though I'm not sure I integrated it all that well.
• The board's preferred route: I think "board" refers to the Tukwila City Council but it's not clear as you haven't used "board" before this; it could refer to Sound Transit, I suppose. Can you clarify?
  • Added a mention of "Board" a sentence earlier, hopefully establishing context.

More tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Last comments:

• The new terminus was adopted in November 2001, allowing for construction to begin on the light rail system.: can this be cut to just "The new terminus was adopted in November 2001"? Construction didn't begin then, so I don't think the extra clause adds anything -- yes, it was a key step in allowing it, but we don't need to comment at all such moments in the planning process.
  • Removed the sentence, since the previous one is vague enough to include both the proposal and adoption.
• Sound Transit was granted its application for a $500 million commitment: suggest adding "of Federal funds" or "FTA funds" or something along those lines.
  • Went with inserting FTA after commitment, since "federal funding" is used earlier in the sentence. Also rewrote the earlier part.
• There appears to be some editing debris in the middle of the final paragraph; the RapidRide F sentence doesn't make sense.
  • Fixed.

-- That's everything; I expect to support once these points are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Finished with those last comments. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 22:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. Looks good now; I'm happy to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Tony1

• Opening two sentences: "Tukwila International Boulevard is a light rail station located in Tukwila, Washington. It is situated lies between the SeaTac/Airport and Rainier Beach stations on the Central Link line, which that runs from Seattle–Tacoma International Airport to Downtown Seattle as part of the Link light rail system."
• I'd remove the "also", end of para 1.
• "on the first day of Central Link service"—not sure, but shouldn't there be a "the"?
• "and served as the line's terminus until"—simpler as "and was the line's"? You have "served" a few seconds later, which is repetitive. The second "also" seems OK.

That's the lead. Does it get better? I guess so, since leads are hard to write. But it doesn't fill me with hope. Flicking through rapidly: "9 a.m.", "6:40 a.m.", "12:00 a.m." ... check dots and consistency of formatting with MOSNUM ... might be ok, but the last one can't possibly be compliant. "600", "sixty-two", "8", "fourteenth", "20". Really? I noticed but didn't object to the single numeral in "6 minutes", since it's an ISO measurement and I expect there are a lots of temporal measurements in the article. "trains operate roughly every 6 to 10 minutes during rush hour and midday operation, respectively, ..."—what does that mean? "The station also houses" ... do you need also there? "Tukwila International Boulevard station consists of two side platforms elevated 51 feet (16 m) above ground level and connected to street level by a mezzanine and a series of escalators, stairs and elevators."—and and and: don't you need a comma there? "Kiss and ride" area: sounds like prostitution. Tony (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I've made a couple of these changes as part of a copyedit I've just done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed your concerns about the lead and your first run-through of the prose. I'll comb through now for any related issues, but I hope that there aren't many left. (Also, "kiss and ride" refers to drop-offs and pick-ups, presumably by family members in cars, and is common nomenclature on the West Coast). SounderBruce 01:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What proportion of readers are from the West Coast? We shouldn't have to divert to another article to learn what it means. It's not intuitive. Tony (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the east coast, and it's in use here, at JFK, for example, so I think it's a standard American term. I think so long as it's linked on first use it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Kiss and ride is only used in the layout diagram and has been removed from the prose. SounderBruce 21:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tony1: What other concerns do you have? SounderBruce 04:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

John

• Kiss and ride isn't in widespread use outside the US. It needs a brief explanation.
  • The term is linked and within a self-contained diagram. I don't think it warrants explanation, just as "side platform" and "mezzanine" don't need definitions beyond links.
• No wikilinks in quotations please.
  • Removed in the Location section, but I think the quote in the Art section should be kept for easier understanding. SounderBruce 21:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• I made some copyedits and there is maybe still some scope for eliminating redundant language. --John (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @John: What other concerns do you have? SounderBruce 04:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Harry Mitchell

• This might sound silly, but where is it? I'd mention that WA is in the north-western United States, and somewhere in the lead it should be clear that International Boulevard is a road.
  • I don't think it's necessary to mention where Washington is, beyond the United States, since
• What is RapidRide? (I know it's linked, but don't make the reader work and don't assume they're familiar with public transport in Washington)
  • Added the term "limited-stop" and a link to the BRT concept, which should be universal enough to be understood by non-Americans.
• A map might be nice in the location section.
• serves as its main entrance,[4] also serving Two uses of serve in different tenses a few words apart (a semi-colon might be the quickest fix here)
  • Added the semi-colon and removed the second serve tense.
• 1⁄2 mile (0.8 km) → 0.5-mile
  • Changed to "half-mile".
• commitment from the FTA later What's the FTA?
  • Added the full name.
• Tukwila International Boulevard station consists of two side platforms At this point I think we know where we are and "the station" will suffice
  • Fixed.
• 600-stall park and ride lot, additional sixty-two parking spaces, 8 secured spots check that against MOS:NUMERAL
  • Swapped the 62 to numerals and 8 to words, since the 8 spots are for bicycles and are not going to be directly compared to the car parking spots.
• Tukwila International Boulevard station is represented on maps Again, "the station" will suffice
  • Fixed.
• three works by sculptor This is confusing because it immediately follows the clause about funding, not the one about the artworks themselves.
  • Moved the artists ahead of the funding.
• trains operate roughly every 6 to 10 minutes during rush hour and midday operation, respectively, with longer headways What are you trying to say with that "respectively"? Also, consider splitting the sentence into two for readability.
  • The headways are 6 minutes at rush hour and 10 minutes at midday. Split and reworded for clarity.
• Link trains serve → trains serve; it's only served by one operator and we've established who that operator is.
  • Fixed.
• I would lead with the fact that there's a bus station underneath the tracks rather than the description of the bus routes. Also, do we need that level of detail on the bus routes? Wouldn't the final destination or general direction and perhaps service numbers be sufficient for an encyclopaedia?
  • Moved the last sentence up and split it. As for the directory, I feel having both the numbers and destinations are essential, as Tukwila is equally considered a rail station and a bus hub.

I perhaps haven't gone over this with teeth as fine as John's or Tony's but I didn't see any real howlers in the prose. With the exception of my comments above, it seemed a smooth read and to be honest several of those are just details you pick up on when you hang around FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the review. This is only my third nomination, but by far the most turbulent. I'll look into the maps issue, but I don't think I can have one made in a timely manner. SounderBruce 22:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

A templated map has been added, with labels for Sea-Tac Airport and Southcenter Mall. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to add the light rail routing (available as a KML here) or change the background into something less busy. Thoughts, HJ and Mike Christie? SounderBruce 23:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. I am not knowledgeable about making maps on Wikipedia, but I think this is good enough; it provides a sense of the local geography, which is what I was hoping for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I like the map. As Mike says, it provides a sense of the local geography and the station's setting, which is helpful. It's not absolutely essential to have the railway marked on it. I won't insist on mentioning where Washington is, but I think it would be helpful; bear in mind that an awful lot of people don't know the difference between WA and the District of Columbia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. This seems in pretty good shape to me. I certainly can't see anything worth opposing over, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I think we should be OK now as the prose has had a thorough going over since I last looked, so thanks to all who got involved. One final point, which need not delay promotion, is that we seem to have a few duplinks, some of which are close together. I'd be grateful if someone could check them. This tool will highlight any duplication. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 14:47, 21 October 2017 [30].

---

Spiro Agnew

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC) and Wehwalt

Largely forgotten today, this is the tale of the corrupt former vice president Spiro T. Agnew, who served from 1969 to 1973. His rise was meteoric, from almost nowhere to VP in just two years, and he was an early standard-bearer for what became known as the New Right – the "John the Baptist" of the movement, some said. His rhetoric of the "forgotten Americans", his avid cultivation of the politics of resentment, and his attacks on the elitist liberal establishment, have a strong contemporary feel. A controversial and divisive figure, with Nixon in deep Watergate stews, only Agnew's venality stopped him from becoming the 38th president. What might have been... Co-written by myself and Wehwalt, with sturdy help from our peer reviewers to whom many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Spiro_Agnew.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Spiro_Agnew_Congratulates_Launch_Control_After_Launch_of_Apollo_17_-_GPN-2002-000058.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, both fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment

• Is there a way of wording "and wrote a novel and a memoir defending his actions" which doesn't make it sound like the novel was also written to defend his actions? Bencherlite^Talk 15:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Ref #2: Does it need page numbers? Should "American National Biography" be removed, and if not should it be italicized?
• Ref #11: The author is Douglas Martin.
• Ref #46: Seems to misspell Csicsek.
• Consider bringing the wiki-links for The New York Times and The Washington Post to their first instance in the References section. Consider wiki-linking other newspaper names there for consistency.

Those are all the issues I could find. Moisejp (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, done those things. I've avoided the question of the ANB page numbers by using the online edition, which probably the majority of people do anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good. :-) Moisejp (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. I was among the peer reviewers and was v. satisfied with the outcome. One (I think) BrE spelling – "mould" – has subsequently crept in (third para of Campaign section). That apart, no further quibbles, and though Agnew is arguably more fortunate than he deserves in having two of our leading editors working together on this biographical article, I'm pleased to support its promotion to FA, as it seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 23:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help throughout. I've modified to avoid that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. On prose and comprehensiveness Comments by Finetooth

This article about an important public figure is excellent. I have only a small number of minor suggestions and questions.

General

• Alt text for the images would be nice.

Political awakening

• ¶3 "With Symington's defeat in the congressional election, Agnew became the highest-ranking Republican in Maryland." – I got slightly confused in this paragraph by the juxtaposition of two different elections. It might be helpful here to say "When Symington lost to Democrat Clarence Long in the congressional election...".

Election 1966

• ¶2 "Your Home is your Castle" – Should the second "your" have an uppercase Y?
• ¶3 "Agnew had failed to report three alleged attempts to bribe him, made on behalf of the slot-machine industry..." – What did the slot-machine people want from Agnew?

In office

• ¶3 "Several cities exploded into violence..." – Maybe just "in" rather than "into"?

Republican National Convention

• ¶2 "In the discussions that followed about a running mate, Nixon kept his counsel while various party factions thought they could influence his choice - Strom Thurmond, the senator from South Carolina, told a party meeting that he held a veto on the vice presidency." – The hyphen doesn't work here. Should it be a terminal period? A semi-colon?

I've tried a colon..--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Transition and early days

• ¶5 "many of the commission assignments Nixon gave Agnew were sinecures" – Link sinecures?

"Nixon's Nixon": attacking the left

• ¶2 "while himself remaining above the fray." – A little smoother might be "while remaining above the fray himself."

1970: Protesters and midterm elections

• ¶2 "increasing Viet Cong control of parts of Cambodia, which they used as sanctuaries" – I think "it" would work better than "they" here. The Viet Cong was an organization.
• ¶2 "Feeling that Nixon was getting overly dovish advice..." – Link dovish?

I think it can stand without it. Rogers and Laird were not pacifists.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 "Nixon decided to attack the Viet Cong positions in Cambodia, a decision that had Agnew's vigorous support, and that he remained convinced was correct after his resignation." – For clarity, remove the comma between "support" and "and"?

Since we're jumping in time a bit, I think the comma is useful and should stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Criminal investigation and resignation

• ¶4 "Under increasing pressure to resign, Agnew took the position a sitting vice president could not be indicted..." – Insert "that" between "position" and "a"?
• ¶5 "recalled that he heard the news while on the House floor and his first reaction was disbelief..." - Insert "that" between "and" and "his"?

I don't think it's necessary, it's close enough to the "recalled that".

Citations

• Some of the citations to newspapers are in title case, and some are in sentence case. You might want to choose one over the other and make them all the same.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've changed all of that except the alt text, which I hope to get to tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The alt text is done now too.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

All good. Switching to support, as noted above. Impressive article, easy to read. Finetooth (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Very grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

<My thanks added. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tonystewart14

• I'm curious if there's a reason you add "He died in 1996." at the end of the lead when this is already mentioned at the beginning of the lead.

I just think it rounds out the lede well, finishes telling the story.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Another nitpick is on the "Post resignation" section: Should this have a hyphen instead of a space? Perhaps it's different in a section heading versus in text.
• Final years and death, 2nd PP: Comma after Wednesday
• Legacy, 2nd/3rd PP: Levy is used in second paragraph, then Peter Levy in the third. Perhaps this should be consistent as he was introduced quite a bit earlier.
• Legacy, 3rd PP: "heartbeat away from the presidency" is cliche and not encyclopedic IMO.
• Ref 3: Change 1966 to 1996. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for those. Except where I commented, those are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I went through this article in peer review, and found it very satisfactory. My opinion is unchanged. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Drive by comments I lack any expertise to comment on Agnew's life, but would like to offer the following comments on the section on World War II:

• "He remained on standby in Birmingham until late in the year" - he would have been assigned to an officer replacement holding depot or similar (which by all accounts were soul-destroying places) - saying he was 'on standby' makes things sound a bit more interesting and glamorous than they probably were.

• The source that deals with Agnew's military career (Witcover 1972) describes him as a "casual officer" in Birmingham before his posting to the 54th as a replacement. I can't say that "standby" suggests anything interesting or glamorous to me, rather the reverse. It's a pretty trivial point, not really worth changing, I feel. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• 'Standby' suggests that he was something more than one of thousands of officers cooling their heels and waiting the fill the shoes of a dead or wounded officer. I'd suggest changing this to 'he remained in Birmingham'. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• "In the following months, as commander of a supply and maintenance company, Agnew saw intense action" - how? The commander of a maintenance unit would have been behind the front line and have seen relatively little combat for members of these hard-fighting units (especially compared to his equivalent in one of the battalion's infantry companies). Did he go out of his way to get into action?

• The source is not particularly informative as to details, but I've added a little context. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• At the risk of being a bit nit-picky, the US Army's armored infantry battalions each had a single 'service company', not a 'supply and maintenance company' (see page 2 of [31], for instance)

• Source refers to "service (supply and maintenance) company". Witcover is not a military historian so occasionally his choice of wording might be imperfect. I've changed it to "service company".Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• "his company was pinned down during the siege of Bastogne" - his company was part of a large US force besieged in the town: this wording makes it sound like it was only this unit. The garrison wasn't really 'pinned down' either - it gave as good as it got, with the armored and armored infantry battalions being used in a mobile role.

• As noted above, I've changed the wording - can't comment on your latter point which is somewhat ultra vires. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• ""thirty-nine days in the hole of the doughnut", as one of his men put it" - the Seige of Bastogne only lasted for about a week

• I imagine that the sergeant's comment about "hole in the doughnut" referred to the entire Battle of the Bulge, which did last for about 39 days. The revised wording should cover it.Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd suggest removing this quote, as it's not accurate. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have asked my co-nom's opinion on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• If one of his men said it, then it is worth hearing about because it was how they viewed it, and helps to show that Agnew was not an armchair warrior, given the hard line on Vietnam he would later take.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• The photograph for this section seems oddly chosen given that Agnew was not an infantryman. His job was to keep the infantry fighting. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can find anything better. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this: File:Bastogne JPG01.jpg, an image of the Mardasson Memorial, is better - it's more general, certainly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these observations. I've taken your points on board I think. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919

Who could forget the enemy of pusillanimous pussyfooting? :-) The article looks good overall, so only a few comments from me:

• Last week an IP editor tried to add to the lead the fact that there was a third-candidate in the 66 governor's race. The add was quite clumsy and I reverted it, but the point does seem relevant enough to mention in the lead, considering that he won with less than a majority.
• Speaking of that election, shouldn't the section on it have a "main article" note to Maryland gubernatorial election, 1966?
• The lead and body say he helped win "border states", and the body lists South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky. What definition of "border states" is this? It doesn't match Border states (American Civil War) or International border states of the United States.

I've made it less specific ("key states") in one case, and added a bit to the other. Definition of where states are has varied over time, North and South once met at the Mason-Dixon, not really true today.

• I noticed some MOS:LQ issues -- "for a thousand years." is an obvious example of a phrase with the period inside the quotes, but there are also cases where what appear to be full sentences have the period outside the quotes, such as "I have one utility, and that's the ability to penetrate to the top people". I could fix the former type of case myself, but the latter should probably be looked at by someone more familiar with whether the quotes are full sentence or not.

I've gone through them and made what changes were called for.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Considering that the article is over 10,000 words, I wonder if there are opportunities to trim. Some possibilities to consider (I'm not saying any of these are wrong or offensive, just looking for opportunities to shorten the read without losing anything important -- there may be more opportunities that I didn't spot):
  • Do we need to know the specific address where Agnew's parents lived?
  • Or his salary on the Zoning Board?
  • "though he did not immediately become involved in politics" -- isn't that obvious enough from the subsequent narrative?
  • "as was customary, he sat down immediately after being sworn in, and did not make a speech" -- if it is typical, is it really significant enough to mention?

I don't want to be a nattering nabob of negativism, so that's it for now. --RL0919 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Agnew lived at his parents' house there too ... and people may not be aware of what the VP does at the inauguration. When the VP's inauguration took place in the Senate chamber, he did sometimes make a speech, so I'm inclined to keep it. The specific ones you cite, I'm inclined to keep, but I'll look through for cutting opportunities.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I've done all of these now. Further to cutting, I find from experience that cutting detail doesn't cut many words, it's only when you chop out paragraphs and subsections that these things add up. Thank you for the detailed review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all the changes made look good. Regarding the suggestions to trim, I'm still not clear on why his specific address is a significant point that should be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. That said, I understand it will be a long article regardless of a few specific points that I may consider unnecessary. I didn't spot any other concerns in my standard review checks, so I support this for FA. --RL0919 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It allows you at least to check where it is on google maps, perhaps ... thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Support from John

It looks great! I tool out some howevers and some hemisphere-dependent time referents, and formatted some images. I am minded to support after another pass. Good work. --John (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Just wanted to check if John, Tonystewart14 or Nick-D have anything to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. Maybe, let me have a few more hours please. --John (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I took a further hack at the prose. I think it's generally ok. I have qualms about finishing on the laudatory block quote from Levy; is that essential? I'm thinking of 1d here. --John (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the article as a whole is negative to Agnew, since of course the facts are, and I'm inclined to keep it. It's not that laudatory and to the extent it is, it's useful balance.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, John. As to the final quote, not laudatory at all, I'd say, but more a caution as to how close Agnew came to inheriting the presidency given Nixon's straits, and also a useful reminder that politically Agnew was ahead of his time. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

All right, you've convinced me. I now support. --John (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, for support and for earlier ce. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and support. The only other comment I have is that section headers 5 and 6 are a bit inconsistent with capitalization (Vice presidential vs. Vice Presidency). I'm assuming this is because Agnew is a candidate in the former case and the VP in the latter, but want to make sure. You could even throw in an Oxford comma in "Childhood, education and early career" while you're at it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

I also chipped in with some, meagre, suggestions at PR. It was a great article then and fully merits support now. KJP1 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged, thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks echoed. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: There are one or two dablinks, which may well be justified given their distance apart, but I'd appreciate someone checking them after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 14:34, 21 October 2017 [32].

---

S-50 (Manhattan Project)

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the S-50 Project. It was an effort to produce enriched uranium using by liquid thermal diffusion. Pilot plants were built at the Anacostia Naval Air Station and the Philadelphia Navy Yard, and a production facility at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This was the only production-scale liquid thermal diffusion plant ever built. It could not enrich uranium sufficiently for use in an atomic bomb, but it could provide slightly enriched feed for the Y-12 calutrons and the K-25 gaseous diffusion plants. It was estimated that the S-50 plant had sped up production of enriched uranium used in the Little Boy bomb employed in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima by a week.

Now for the elephant in the room. This article was deleted back in 2006. You can read the weighty deliberations here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

image review

• Suggest scaling up the sectional view slightly. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  Set to upright=1.3 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

A tiny formatting point: in refs 11 and 17 the p. should be pp. Otherwise sources look impeccable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

• "Fears that a German atomic bomb project would develop nuclear weapons first, especially among scientists who were refugees from Nazi Germany and other fascist countries, were expressed in the Einstein-Szilard letter." this reads awkwardly to me; additionally, as I understand it, the Einstein-Szilard letter was concerned with the possibility that Nazi Germany would develop nuclear weapons at all. I think removing the word "first" would improve the flow.

  Sure. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• "because their status as enemy aliens precluded their working on secret projects like radar." this is a wonderful little detail!
• "when a mixed gas passes through a temperature gradient, the heavier one tends to concentrate at the cold end and the lighter one at the warm end": grammatically, "one" in this sentence really refers to "a mixed gas". Either change that to "a mixture of gases" and keep the "heavier one... lighter one" construction, or change "heavier one" to "heavier constituent".

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• "he was able to achieve some separation factor": is this correct? it seems to me like it should be "a separation factor", but I'm not a chemist...

  Yes. Chaged to "a". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Because of the dangers of handling uranium hexafluoride, all handling of it": can this be reworded so the article doesn't use "handling" twice in such close proximity?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• "The lower hot wall temperature due to the reduced steam pressure was compensated for by the ease of operation." hang on, which lower temperature? Presumably this means that the boilers supplied by the navy could produce less heat than those originally planned, but this should be explicitly noted in the article because as it is it took me three readings of this to work out what was meant...

  Yet somehow you overlooked that the pilot plant ran on 1,000 pounds per square inch (6,900 kPa). Made this explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Hoffman ran through the toxic cloud to rescue them": was Hoffman harmed by this?

  He suffered burns. Added this. He went on to become a professor of materials science at the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University, and director of its national measurements laboratory at the National Bureau of Standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Other than these few comments, the article looks good, at least on my first pass through. For an unavoidably technical subject, it's made commendably clear to the non-scientific reader. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave a note to say that I haven't forgotten about this review. I will probably support, but as it's such a technical article I wanted to go through it one last time; I haven't had an opportunity yet though. I will probably be able to do so Friday evening UK time. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat later than anticipated, support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed this at A-class back in April and I've reviewed the changes since then and I'm satisfied it meets the criteria. Another outstanding effort in an outstanding series. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

• "for a fortnight from" - US language article, "two weeks" is much more appropriate.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The S-1 Executive Committee" - thus begins a very long and confusing sentence. Suggest breaking this up.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "in Chicago, although he" - sentence break here.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "resist corrosion by the uranium hexafluoride respectively" - confusing, why would two different materials be needed respectively for a single chemical? Is there a part missing here?

  Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Groves therefore turned down a request" - confused here too, I assume that's because they had already provided more than 236 pounds? Scanning upward I don't immediately see a number. If that is the case, repeating it seems like a good idea, but if that's not the case this needs to be explained.

  Yes. Reworded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the army agreed to fulfil the order" - what is "the order"? And what is "the production process"? If that refers to liquid diffusion in general, I'm not sure what this statement is trying to say.

  No, the process for producing uranium hexafluoride. Reworded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "enriched to 0.86 percent uranium-235" - so did it fail to meet its goal of 6%, or did they just not do that for some reason? This is barely enriched, from .71 to 0.86, and it seems the idea was to go further but there is no explanation.

  For reasons explained below, the racks were run in parallel instead of in series, producing more uranium to a lower enrichment. In theory, using feed enriched to 0.86 will save Log (0.86/0.71)/Log (1.0043) ≈ 44 cascades at K-25. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "nearly 0.9% uranium-235 would cost $3.5 million" - this seems like an almost direct copy of the statement above it, do we need two? And Tolman is repeated. How about "Murphee, Tolman and Cohen estimated that such a plant would require 1,600 columns and cost $3.5 million."

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "structures in the S50 area" - "S-50 area"?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "contract was terminated on 15 February" - is terminated the right word? It just "completed", no?

  It's the correct legal term. Large numbers contracts were terminated around the end of the war. See Smith, The Army and Industrial Mobilization (1959), pp. 635-666 for a description of termination and settlement procedures. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "On 2 September 1944" - this should be part of the next para, not this one.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "were given two weeks' notice" - that their employment would be ending?

  Yes. In Australia our work contracts usually specify a certain notice period be given before employment contract termination. Two weeks' notice is normal (I think it's the legal minimum), but four weeks is fairly common and longer periods are not unknown. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article on Two Weeks Notice points to a movie with Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock. (The absence of the apostrophe did not pass unnoticed.) Is there a more common term in the US? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The S-50 plant reopened in May 1946" - this section is unclear, what exactly opened? Was it just used as a building? Wouldn't much of it still be filled with equipment?

  Just the buildings. Added. Remember that they included laboratories, a cafeteria, machine shop, warehouses etc Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Some follow ups:

• I'm still confused about the UF6 supply issue. It appears that the initial production was at the NRC, and that Harshaw and DuPont set up their own production based on this process. So far so good? Ok but now we get to the part a little down the page where it says "The S-1 Executive Committee decided that no more uranium hexafluoride would be allocated to the NRL, although it would exchange enriched uranium hexafluoride for regular uranium hexafluoride". This confuses me for several reasons:

1. ) didn't NRL still have their own line?

   Much too small to supply the much larger needs of the pilot plant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

2. ) "decided that no more uranium hexafluoride would be allocated to the NRL" - this language suggests that at some point in late 1942 or early 1943 that the NRL was allocated "an order" of UF6. If that is the case, no mention is made of this. But perhaps the UF6 came from the NRLs own line? I think this is the key problem, but it goes on...

   The decision was taken in September 1943. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

3. ) "Between February and July 1943 the Anacostia pilot plant produced 236 pounds" - I assume this was produced using "the order"? It is definitely not clear where the raw material came from.

   The feed was previously given to the NRL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

4. ) "Groves turned down a request for additional uranium hexafluoride over and above that in October" - which October? 42 or 43?It is not clear in context which it would be, and either seems possible. And because of the placement of the "in October" it is not specific, do you mean "Groves turned down additional material beyond what was delivered in October" or "In October, Groves turned down..."

   Groves informed the NRL in October 1943. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

5. ) "army reluctantly agreed to fulfil the order" - the text above this suggests "the order" was fully delivered by this point, but this statement suggests it was not completed by this point? And when is this, October?

   The October 1943 request for more feed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think all of this would be made clear if there is some text about "the order", from who, two whom, and when it was placed.

Slightly altered the wording to: "In September 1943, the S-1 Executive Committee decided that no more uranium hexafluoride would be allocated to the NRL, although it would exchange enriched uranium hexafluoride for regular uranium hexafluoride. Groves turned down an order from the NRL for additional uranium hexafluoride in October 1943. When it was pointed out that the navy had developed the production process for uranium hexafluoride in the first place, the army reluctantly agreed to fulfil the order." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A minor follow-up on another issue "given two weeks' notice" - I suggest expanding this to "given two weeks' notice that their employment would be ending."

Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"Large numbers contracts were terminated around the end of the war" - but this means two possible things. Simply put, was the construction of the plant completed in February? Then it should simply say "construction was completed in February."

"The construction contract was terminated on 15 February, and the remaining insulation and electrical work was assigned to other firms in the Oak Ridge area. They also completed the auxiliary buildings, including the new steam plant. The plant became fully operational in March 1945." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"The S-50 plant buildings reopened in May 1946" - I'd like some clarification here. If they used the other buildings that you mention, it should be mentioned here - or alternately that the main diffusion plant was not used.

The entire area was turned over to NEPA. It needed some space, and the S-50 area was available. A similar situation occurred in the Y-12 area. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Maury Markowitz, have you anything further to add here? I'd like to wrap this one up if we can. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry yes, support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67

• I reviewed this article at both GAN and Milhist ACR, and have gone through the subsequent changes. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comments: The Bowen image is the only one without alt text, so it might be worth adding that after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 19:30, 20 October 2017 [33].

---

Habits (Stay High)

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the song "Habits (Stay High)"—and its remixed version—by Swedish singer and songwriter Tove Lo, both of which became hits in 2014. This is the third time I nominate this article. The past two nominations failed because it struggled to receive reviews from other users, so no consensus was reached. I addressed every comment from every past review, so I think it's ready and I'm open to receive more suggestions. Paparazzzi (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

• There are 8 images in the article. Have proper description templates and are either under fair use or under CC licensing. All but one images have ALT text. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added ALT description to that image. --Paparazzzi (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Great article, and the images are in great shape too. Good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• In the body of the article, I would put EP in parenthesis after the phrase "extended play" so that way you clearly define the acronym for an unfamiliar reader and can use it throughout the rest of the text. I believe the first time you use EP in the body of the article is in the "Background and release" section.
• I am a little confused by the following sentence in the lead (the song under the title "Habits" on 25 March 2013 as her second single.). You say that Lo self-released the song as her second single (from what I originally assumed was the EP Truth Serum), but the next sentence says that the song was released on a different date as the second single from the EP. I am just a little confused by the timeline of events in this scenario. I think you say "as her second independently-released single" instead of "as her second single" that would make help to clarify the chronology.
• Something about the phrase "she got over the breakup after writing the song" seems a little bit too informal, specifically the verbage "got over". Also, would it be more accurate to say that she dealt with the breakup "through" the song?  Comment: I changed "got over" to "recover", since she says in the interview that she "got better" after writing the song.
• In the following sentence (The second version was filmed at a Swedish club for three days), I would say "over three days" as opposed to 'for three days".
• I would link Tove Lo again in the "Background and release" section.
• In the phrase "to re-released it with proper promotion because", change "re-released" to "re-release".
• I am not sure you need the following quote "still [had] a lot left to give" and I think you can paraphrase and change the sentence to the following and preserve the same meaning (Then, the label representatives decided to re-release it with proper promotion as they believe it still had commercial potential.)
• I would suggest adding a topic sentence for the second paragraph in the "Critical reception" section.
• Please add the year in which "Chandelier" was released to the same section.
• Not really a suggestion, but I have respect for you for putting the Roosh V review piece in as it is good for comprehensiveness, but that review does make mad and disappointed. Removed
• You have Kesha linked twice in the "Critical reception" and the "Recognition and accolades" sections. You can unlink the second instance.
• On the same note, you have Queen of the Clouds and studio album linked in two sections as well. It only needs to be linked on its first mention.
• Make sure to include the year in which Queen of the Clouds was released when you first mention it. Same applies to Truth Serum.
• In the phrase (lost to "Blank Space" by Taylor Swift (2014)), I would move the (2014) part to right after "Blank Space" rather than after Taylor Swift.
• Allmusic should be written as AllMusic.
• Would it be beneficial in the "Critical reception" subsection of the "Hippie Sabotage remix" section to separate the paragraph into two parts, with one focusing on the positive feedback and the other on the negative?
• When you mention "Out of Mind", please include the year in which it was released.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope that this receives more attention in this round. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments. I just left one comment above. Thank you so much for your review. If you need something, count on me. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments; I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support from edwininlondon

I reviewed it last time around and the issues that stopped me from supporting have now been resolved. The two music blogs are no longer used as source. Nice work. And admirable persistence. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919

I made a few edits; as always feel free to object if you think I did something wrong. Just a couple of comments:

• Carrie Battan is quoted from a review where she calls the singer "Nilsson". Since the fact that this is Tove Lo's birth name is not mentioned otherwise, this was confusing. Suggest that either you should mention the name prior to this quote, or it may be simpler to just replace "Nilsson" with "[Lo]" inside the quote.
• The "Composition" section quotes several reviewers regarding the lyrical content, and in the process re-quotes a dozen lines of lyrics. More lyrics are quoted under "Recognition and accolades". I'm concerned that this is too much of the lyrics for fair use, which has as one of its criteria "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" (emphasis added). Pop songs generally and this one in particular don't have a lot of lyrics, so overall we've quoted a significant fraction of them. I think we're fine on all the other fair use criteria, and maybe I'm being a bit conservative here, but I would be more comfortable if some of the quoted lyrics could be paraphrased instead. For example, the lyrics about binge eating could be described by saying "as indicated in lyrics about having the munchies, eating Twinkies, and throwing up" instead of quoting the lines directly. I'm not saying we can't quote any of them (we definitely can), just trying to balance against the fact that we are quoting from a short text.

Overall this looks very thorough and appropriately written. --RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Hello, and thank you for your comments. I replaced "Nilsson" with "[Lo]" and paraphrased two of the quoted lyrics in the composition section, including the one talking about binge eating. Have a nice day. --Paparazzzi (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the prompt response. Those were my only concerns, so I support this on prose and comprehensiveness. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Source review requested! Thank you and have a nice day, Paparazzzi (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

@Paparazzzi: Hi there! Sorry for the delay, but I was really busy this week. I have read through the article and I think it meets the FA criteria. Already as I passed it to GA back in 2016, it was of a very high status, but now with the other users' comments being resolved, I can't help but give this my support. You are close to getting this promoted. Best regards and congrats, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments on sources

• Ref 34 carries a "dead link" tag, but as far as I can see the link is working. The external links checking tool does not highlight any other non-working links.  Done
• I noticed a number of inconsistencies in italicization of sources. As a general rule, italics should be used for print sources or their online versions, but not for website publishers. "iTunes Store" appears in both italicized and non-italicized forms.  Done Done. The reason behind this was that many of the sources were listed on the "website" parameter, which automatically makes the words appear in italics
• So far as a general sources review is concerned, aside from the italics issue, formatting generally looks sound and consistent. However, I don't have the expertise to judge whether all of the very large number of sources used qualify as high-quality and reliable; deciding whether sources such as "We Listen Here", "Refinery29", "A Music Blog Yea" and many others is beyond my knowledge. It needs an editor with considerable experience of popular music articles to step forward and do this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments. Regarding the use of Refinery29, We Listen Here and A Music Blog Yea: the sources of the three of those websites were used because they contain interviews made by the singer. They are not blogs, so they look good to me. Still, we need another user's opinion here. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the experienced pop music editor that Brian asked for, but since this has been lingering, I thought someone should at least try to do some next-level vetting. I started with first 25 refnotes to see what it looks like. From that slice, I can see why Brian wants expert help -- this will be quite a slog for anyone can't quickly spot the dubious sources. It required a fair amount of checking to decide that, for example, the A Music Blog Yea site that Brian questioned above is probably OK. From my investigations, I do have concerns about the following:

• We Listen Hear - This is an apparently defunct blog that described itself as the equivalent of a fanzine. There is only one ref sourced to it, and only one sentence in the article that depends on it as the only source, but that sentence is WP:BLP information about Lo's past romantic relationship. This should either be cited to a better quality source or removed.
• Scandipop - This website doesn't seem to give any info explaining who runs it or if there is an editorial process. One ref that is used four times; only once is it the sole source, for commentary on the first video.
• NuWave Pony - This appears to be an anonymous blog. Barring additional info, this is very unlikely to meet WP:RS, much less be appropriate for an FA.
• So So Gay - Has some sort of staff, but I couldn't find any info about editorial process and there is "submit a post" link, which suggests that any rando could post a review. The half-baked website doesn't inspire confidence, nor does this AFD.

Possibly there is other information that would show some of those to be RS, but it wasn't found by me. @Paparazzzi: you might want to consider soliciting at the Songs or Pop music WikiProjects for help with sourcing feedback. Based on the rate of concerns from the first 25, I think a thorough review is needed, and from the time it took me, going through 305 citations is going to be a challenge for a non-expert.

One last note, not specifically about reliability, but I noticed that several web sources were pre-emptively archived even though the original is still active. This is fine, but in such cases you should add '|dead-url=no' to the template so the original link is given precedence. --RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @RL0919:. Thank you so much for the review. I want to say that I removed the websites you mentioned above since they are of doubious procedence, among others that were similar. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, the changes you made to the sourcing were improvements and seem to have resolved the bullets above, so absent some other assistance I'm going to continue to try to grind this out. This time I reviewed through ref 110, with the following concerns:

• Ref 36 -- This is Patrick Metzger's personal blog, which as best I can tell doesn't meet WP:RS. I removed this when it was first added as a "millennial whoop" source, and it was re-added by the same editor.  Removed
• Ref 44 -- Looking at the site for "Relationship Center of Silicon Valley" (since renamed), it's a "healing center" run by two partners, one of whom is the blogger whose post is cited. Effectively this is no better than a personal blog. Removed
• Ref 79 -- Has an access date but no URL; was there supposed to be a link?  Added link
• Ref 104 -- I followed the search instructions given, and the outcome was "Keine Ergebnisse für Ihre Suche..." (no results)  Fixed (the track appears as "Stay High" instead of "Habits (Stay High)")
• Ref 105 -- I followed the search instructions given and got a chart listing, but "Habits" (or anything by Tove Lo) does not appear on it. Comment: I guess you are talking about the Swiss certifications website, it shows the information required.
• Ref 110 -- I followed the search instructions given and got a chart listing, but "Habits" shows at position 48, not position 5 as is claimed.  Comment: You have to select the "Singles Digital – Top 100" chart alongside the date. I tried to add that clarification, but probably for technical reasons the note does not appear on the cite.

I'm pausing there so you can look into the new items; will circle back to continue with refs 111 forward in the next day or two. --RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Thank you so much for the support! I have addressed your comments. Regards, and have a nice day, --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the reason you can't enter a note on the Slovakian entry is because the search instructions are hardcoded in the template. The instructions would need to be clarified by editing Template:Single chart. For now I was able to verify the information, so I've continued moving down the list. Thanks to repetition in already-vetted sources, I was able to make it to Ref 190 with only one issue:

• Ref 141 -- "Discopop" appears to be a personal blog published under a handle; not likely to be a WP:RS. Same blog is also used for Ref 214.

That gets us about 2/3 of the way. Probably won't pick it up again until tomorrow. --RL0919 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: @RL0919: Thanks! Regarding Discopop, it is a blog runned by Mark Savage, who is a experienced editor of BBC News. Because of that, I thought it could be used. I have removed the website for now. Thank you for your support on the article! Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

FA calls for "high-quality" sources, so removal was probably the right call even if this blog could be shown to fall within the lower margins of RS. The remaining sources did not produce any significant issues, just a couple of publisher name tweaks that I went ahead and did myself. It's taken a while, but I believe we can consider the source review done. --RL0919 (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Thank you so much for the source review, I'm really grateful for that . Have a nice day and hope to see you around again, --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Source review done! I don't know what else is needed to promote the article. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: There are quite a few duplinks which someone should look at, but it's not worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:07, 19 October 2017 [34].

---

Rodrigues rail

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an article about an obscure, extinct rail, the closest relative of the likewise extinct red rail, which was featured a few years ago. I've been sitting on this GA since 2012, while expecting Julian Hume to publish a monograph article about extinct Mascarene rails (like those about the parrots and pigeons from there), but now I'm not so sure it will come any time soon, and figured this would be as good a time as ever to polish and nominate it. The article covers pretty much everything written about this bird so far, and will of course be expanded further if that monograph is ever written. FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All links checked and working. The only issue is with ref 4, the link in which goes to p. 123 of the source, when the required p. range is given as 23–24. Otherwise, sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and formats are consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, good catch, I copied the ref from an article about another bird (Rodrigues parrot) which was discussed in that page range of the same source, so I will change it to 122-123 instead. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

• All images are properly licensed, have appropriate description templates, no copyright problems, and although not necessary, ALT text is present too! Support Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Any views on the text itself, Adityavagarwal? FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk Now that I came to know one could do any image review and prose review too, I would check it out and by tomorrow have all the issues listed! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, in theory, one could do both a prose, source, and image review (I've often done prose/image). But I think supports can mainly be given based on prose reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol, yeah! In fact, now that you have mentioned it, I would have done all three for you, but seems like source has already been done. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Strong support from Adityavagarwal

• "...is an extinct species of rail that" you should mention "...is an extinct species of the rail family, that".

Added, but I'm not sure about the comma? FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• According to WP:Overlinking, unlink Mauritius and Indian Ocean.

Removed, though Mauritus here refers to the island alone, rather than the modern country, which includes other islands. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Links to "zoologist", "palaeontologist", and "ornithologist", although not necessary.

Linked, though it seems like overlinking, maybe someone else will remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Any subspecies (I do not think so)? If not, you should mention that.

Nope, multiple subspecies hardly if ever evolve on a single, small island... FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Günther and Newton" I think you should mention A. Newton or E. Newton, as it would otherwise create a confusion.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• "plumage, perhaps flecked with white, it" I think the sentence should break here. "plumage, perhaps flecked with white. It".

Split. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• "had a red beak and legs, and a red, naked area around its eyes." I think this should be "had a red beak and legs, and red, naked area around its eyes."

I reworded it slightly differently, better? FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• The behaviour and ecology section has singular/plural issues

Should now be singular. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• "island's ecosystem is heavily damaged" instead "island's ecosystem was heavily damaged"?

Changed, though it is still damaged. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That is all I have to nitpick. A very well-written article, and a very interesting read. I am feeling to contribute to extinct species! :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Extinct species can sometimes be hard to write about, since little is often known about them in life, and the text can therefore be more about history than behaviour, as is in this article... But I think it's fun to dig through old sources. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

All issues should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Strong support - A very well written article, and an interesting read! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, FunkMonk! I think I should try an FAC of an extinct species after the current common loon and the next alpine pika FACs! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the double support (first time I get that), and feel free to ask for any advice with the extinct species! There are plenty to go around... FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Surely, I would ask you for any help! :D I would most probably pick up an extinct species for the next GAN (which would go to an FA hood), so your help would come in handy there! ;) Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Something like Nuralagus rex, a giant, prehistoric lagomorph, might be up your ally... But I can give you many recommendations in many categories, if you don't already have your sights on something. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Support just a few comments.

• Suggest putting how it became extinct high in the first paragraph. Say the second sentence. Simply that it was through hunting, and possibly the bit about being attracted to red.

I've been wary about this, because the reason for its extinction is explained in more detail in the second paragraph, so wouldn't it be repetitive/redundant? FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• " and was named leguati in his honour. " I might make it clearer this was some time later.

Added date. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the second paragraph of "taxonomy" might be usefully split.

Split. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• "in reference to its behaviour towards red objects" Some mention prior to this of what this is would be helpful. The lede describes the bird as attracted to red objects.

Mentioned "attraction". FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Günther and E. Newton" Why E.? Why not Edward?

In this case it's because his first name has already been mentioned earlier in the text. The "E." is just to distinguish him from his brother Alfred ("A."), otherwise I would only write "Newton" on second occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the overall size of an individual bird or to sexual dimorphism.[8][6] "refs out of order, if you are ordering them.

Haven't given order a thought, but changed around anyway here. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• "According to the contemporary accounts, " I might cut the "the".

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref #2 likely should have the title italicised.

Oops, changed to book template. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all issues should be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

*" the bird is poorly understood" - not fond of understood here (not as if it's speaking a foreign language!), "known" is better.

Actually that's about all I can see that I'd fix....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the typo fixes! I rewrote that sentence, both to avoid a double "known" in the same sentence, but also because the sentence was misleading, implying the bird was only known from accounts, even though bones are of course also known. How does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes much better. all good now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I did a few other changes too, hope it's fine as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Spot check from Cas Liber

• Earwig's copyvio inflated by (appropriately attributed) quotation. all good.
• FN 2 used once, faithful to source.
• FN 7 used 5 time, faithful to source.
• FN 13 used thrice, faithful to source.

All checks out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:05, 19 October 2017 [35].

---

Amy Adams

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

For those of you unfamiliar with the lovely Amy Adams, I hope that reading this article makes you exclaim, "Now that's a proper introduction!" The biography of a perfect lady must be perfect, and I look forward to all the help I can get in giving Miss Adams her next shiny star. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

• Comment fantastic work, although one is allowed only one nomination at a time, and another as a co-nominator. Considering the Chastain FAC is nearing closure, it might not be a big deal. – FrB.TG (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, have the rules been tweaked? I remember when we could nominate a second article when the first has adequate support for promotion. Anyway, thanks for the positive feedback. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, it was always like this. ”An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them.” That rule that you referred to applies to WP:FLC. I’ll be along shortly for the review of the article. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Looking forward to your comments.

I would also highly appreciate it if you could look at the ref formatting for the Chastain FAC, since that's the only thing remaining before its closure. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder, FrB.TG. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get your ping and sorry for taking forever to review this but Scarlett Johansson's (which is also at FAC) expansion kept me really busy. Let's see what we have here.

• I would perhaps mention her six BAFTA nods in the lead, looks like something worth including.
• "She subsequently sought out stronger female parts and played them to positive reviews" - perhaps would be better (or more simple) to just state, "She subsequently played stronger female parts to positive reviews".
• "She did not "have a strong religious pull towards the church" " I think you could simply state that she did not strongly believe in the church.
• "kid" is somewhat informal. Child should be more preferable.

Down to the end of Early life, the rest tomorrow. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: done. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. (Also, excellent work with Johansson. I'll be posting my comments on its FAC shortly.) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward to that.

• "her experience on the film as a "huge confidence booster", but despite" - probably not a good idea to place a conjunction right after another one. Also consider breaking up the sentence.
• "Writing for the Houston Chronicle, Amy Biancolli wrote" - write ... write
• "Adams took another "fierce woman" part after The Fighter in" - The Fighter bit can be cut without detriment.
• "male-female friendship, which she believed was rare in film" - indeed!

(You've seen the film, right? It's so beautiful!) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have, but only recently (perhaps mainly because of Adams and maybe Johansson). It is indeed.

That's it, excellent work! – FrB.TG (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: thank you, all done. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Support a lovely article for a lovely actress. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Support from Changedforbetter

Amy Adams has been one of my absolute favourite actresses since the days of Enchanted, and after reading all the way through this several times simply for the fun of it and because it is one of the best-written prose I've ever read, it has my full support.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That's such a lovely thing to hear. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

The writing here is excellent, and the article appears to be comprehensive. I have a small number of questions and suggestions.

Early life

• ¶1 "After quitting from the army," – Tighten to "After leaving the army,"?
• ¶3 "Although she did track and gymnastics..." – Maybe "competed in" rather than "did"?

1994–2004: Dinner theater and early screen appearances

• ¶1 "made false accusations about her" – This is a bit of a tease. What were the accusations? If you don't think the accusations belong in the article, better not mention them at all.

Okay so this is what the source says: “One of these girls told the director just straight-out lies about me, totally smeared me, and we had been really good friends. I never really knew what the lies were. I only knew I kept getting called in and lectured about my lack of professionalism.… It was me against her, and she had woven a really wonderful web.” It fits in with the narrative of her hating the job and being sacked for it, so I think it's important to mention this.--Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, but perhaps you could insert: " 'I never really knew what the lies were,' she said." right after "made false accusations about her to the director." This would eliminate the tease. Finetooth (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Included the quote, "I never really knew what the lies were. I only knew I kept getting called in and lectured about my lack of professionalism." to give it context. Thanks for the suggestion. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶5 "but despite the film's success and the critic Todd McCarthy of Variety commending her "warm presence", it failed to launch her career." – A bit awkward because "success" and "commending" are not parallel parts of speech. Suggestion: "but despite the film's success and praise for her "warm presence" from Todd McCarthy, a critic for Variety, her performance failed to launch her career." Or something like that.

Personal life

• ¶3 "The following year, she attended a charity event to raise funds for sexually abused children at the UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica." – I'd recommend rearranging this slightly to make the meaning more clear, assuming that it's the event and not the children that are at the med center. Suggestion: "The following year, she attended a charity event at the UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, to raise funds for sexually abused children."

Media image and acting style

• ¶1 "understanding of her character's psychology by creating their back-story" – Singular-plural mismatch. Maybe "the charcter's back-story" would be better even though it repeats the word "character".
• ¶5 "Adams was made the face of Lacoste's fragrance named Eau de Lacoste in 2012, and two years later, endorsed Max Mara's accessories campaign." – Missing word, "she", before "endorsed"?
• ¶5 "In 2015, the actress collaborated with Max Mara to design and promote a line of handbags." – I was surprised by this second Max Mara sentence. Maybe it would help to be more specific about "accessories" in the previous sentence.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, except for that one point.

Thanks, Finetooth for your helpful suggestions. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

All good except for one further suggestion about the false accusations. Switching to support on prose, as noted above, and leaving that last suggestion to your discretion. Very well-done and interesting article. Finetooth (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Finetooth. Took your suggestion about the "accusations", as noted above. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

• "when her father was stationed for the United States Army" -> "when her father was stationed with the United States Army
• "Adams was raised a Mormon in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until her parents' divorced in 1985 and left the church." So both her parents left the church? What about Amy and her siblings?

Their kids were really little when they left the church, and from her interviews, it seems that Amy and her siblings simply followed suit. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Link greeter (I had to google it)
• Link Heritage Square (Golden, Colorado), Dinner theater
• "Adams shot for her first film" You mean she was the cameraman?

This really made me laugh. Changed it. :D

• The muppets are not animation, they're puppets.

Must have been tough deciding on which image to use in the infobox. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: thanks for your comments. She looks adorable in the infobox image, doesn't she? But then, she always does. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

I watched Arrival a couple of weeks ago after seeing this nomination and I loved it; thanks for the tip! I thought the least I could do was give this a read through. :) I have just a handful of comments; nothing too vexing:

• Punctuation should generally go outside of quote marks unless the punctuation is integral to the quote (MOS:LQ)
• What's a "subject satire"?

Refers to a short film, but I've removed the "subject". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence She was cast in the supporting part of a promiscuous cheerleader; the film starred Kirsten Dunst, Ellen Barkin, and Kirstie Alley, and is a satire on beauty pageants. feels a little sloppy, like a series of random facts and the last clause feels like it was just tacked on. It needs work to improve the flow.

Tweaked. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Her character's personality was far removed from her own Be wary of making statements like that in Wikipedia's voice; I'd suggest something like "Adams felt her character's personality was..."

Yep. Changed. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• she worried about how people would perceive her Her personally or her character?

Her personality. She worried that people would think of her as "promiscuous". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• You over-use "saw"; I know you're trying to avoid bland and repetitive sentence structure, but 2009 fantasy adventure film Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, starring Ben Stiller, saw Adams portray is sloppy and too informal. (I was going to let you off for The 2008 Sundance Film Festival saw the release, but I'll mention it as another example).

Changed, for the Smithsonian sentence. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• the sports drama The Fighter I'd suggest "boxing drama" here; it's just as concise but the reader doesn't have to click to find out what the film is about

Yep. Done. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• However, the birth of her daughter prompted Adams to find strength in the passive character "However" is a word to watch and for some reason one that seems to attract disproportionate attention at FAC (I replaced one earlier in the article). I'd let you off for this one—I think it's perfectly reasonable to highlight her change of heart—but just be aware.

Yep, I've had that happen in a few prior nominations. Thanks for the tip, but I've kept the "however" for now. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Several publications expressed disappointment Several publications, or do you think several writers might be better? I'll leave this one to your judgement.

Changed to journalists. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• What does She finds little value in the length of a part mean?

She means the size of her role. Do you think that's a better way to put it? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• I made a few edits, mostly for prose, that you might want to check

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable comments and your helpful tweaks. I'm also very pleased that the nomination prompted you watch Arrival. It's a film that resonated deeply with me. I hope that after the reading this article, you can watch a couple more of her films. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yo're very welcome. I enjoyed reading it. I'm happy with your responses, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

Lead:

• "She was not academically inclined and trained to be a ballerina. At age 18, she found musical theater to be a better fit, and from 1994 to 1998, she worked in dinner theater." The first of these sentences could be ambiguous if one attaches "not" to both "inclined" and "trained". Also, "not academically inclined" may be too much detail for the lead. May I suggest something like "She trained to be a ballerina, but at age 18 found musical theater to be a better fit, and from 1994 to 1998, she worked in dinner theater."
• "The Public Theater's revival" → "the Public Theater's revival" per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Names_.28definite_article.29.

Early Life:

• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" → "the Church..." Moisejp (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

1994–2004:

• "The A.V. Club" → "the A.V. Club"
• "Adams next had a supporting role in Psycho Beach Party (2000), a horror parody of beach party and slasher films, in which she played the teenage nemesis of a movie star (played by Kimberly Davies).[23] She played the part as a homage to the actress Ann-Margret." Minor comment: Flows not bad, but if you could avoid using "played" two sentences in a row it could be even better. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

2005–2007:

• "Disillusioned by her firing from Dr. Vegas, Adams, at 30 years old, considered looking for an alternate career after finishing work on the independent comedy-drama Junebug, which had a production budget of under $1 million." A little bit long (lots of commas and clauses) and a little unclear. It sounds like she was fired from Dr. Vegas but got the part in Junebug, and while filming the movie was thinking it would be her last before changing careers, but maybe this could be clearer. Also, it's implied but not explicitly said later that she changed her mind due to the success of Junebug.

I didn't want to overstate it because there wasn't a direct quote from her saying that "Junegug made me change my mind about quitting". But I did put in a sentence later, saying that: "By 2006, the awards season success of Junebug helped increase interest in Adams' career". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "loquacious pregnant woman": "loquacious" is used both in the lead and here, but I would argue it is quite an uncommon word. Suggest replacing at least one instance with a more common word ("talkative"?). Moisejp (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Moisejp: thank you for the comments. All done, so far. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I like your change about Junebug, it makes things clearer. Thank you. I'll continue reviewing the rest of the article very soon. Moisejp (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

2008–2012:

• "The organization depicted in the film was deemed to be based on Scientology; Adams considered the comparison to be misleading but was glad for the attention the film brought to it." Not very clear. Who deemed it to be based on Scientology? And in the second part "it"=Scientology? Does this mean she's against Scientology and was glad the film got people discussing some of its negative aspects?

For the first part, I've added another ref and tweaked it a bit. Is that better now?

As for point two, it does seem like she's against Scientology, although she didn't really come out and say so explicitly. It's clearly implied though, isn't it? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Although not a believer in method acting, Adams believed that the intense role had left her tense in her personal life." Minor suggestion but "intense" and then "tense" in the such close proximity brings unnecessary attention to itself. Could you change one of the words?

2013–present:

• "When she was first offered the part a decade ago, she passed on it to avoid playing another naive woman." should this be "a decade earlier"? Also readers may be curious why the film project was apparently shelved or postponed for a decade. Moisejp (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Umm...this is a tricky one. The reason I included the "decade ago" part was because it was during the mid-2000s that she was being typecast in the "naive, innocent woman" parts, and she passed on Big Eyes to avoid another one of those roles. If you look at the production history of Big Eyes, you'll see that the project was greenlit with multiple actors and directors for over a decade before Tim Burton and Adams attached themselves to it. Though that would be too much detail for Adams' bio, wouldn't it? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal life:

• "She has spoken about suffering from insecurity and lack of confidence from a young age and later discussed how motherhood had made her calmer." The grammar here of present perfect ("has spoken") followed by simple past in the same time line ("later discussed") seems dubious to me. Maybe just "She has spoken about suffering from insecurity and lack of confidence from a young age and about how motherhood had made her calmer." That could be one way to rephrase it. Moisejp (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Media image and acting style:

• "She finds little value in the length of a part and is drawn towards both leading and supporting roles." I'm not sure what the first part of this means. Possibly it means that when deciding roles she is not concerned with how many lines in the script the character has? Moisejp (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I've finished my first read-through and enjoyed the article thoroughly. I'm quite sure I'll be supporting, but would just like to do one more quick read-through before the end to see if any other small issues happen to jump out at me. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Moisejp: thank you for your valuable suggestions. And yes, please do let me know if anything else jumps out. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Final comments:

• I'm still not sure the Scientology part is clear enough. If you feel strongly it is clear enough ("clearly implied"), then okay. But if there is any doubt, I would take that part out.

I guess you feel this way because she doesn't outright say that the film brings attention to the negative aspects of scientology. But that's okay IMO. She rightfully said that it brings attention to the organization. Whether positive or negative is for the audience to judge, right? The film simply shines a spotlight on it. (Even though I feel that she implied it as a criticism.)--Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• The "decade ago" wording still feels awkward to me. Is there another way to word it? Maybe "mid-2000s" like you wrote above?
• Could you put the extra detail into a footnote about how Big Eyes was postponed multiple times? I would argue that if (the currently included) information leaves readers wondering, it's not good. And if it's too much detail in the main body of the article, it can be put in a footnote.

Right, so I've gone ahead and removed the "decade ago" part because I went back and looked at the source and it wasn't explicitly clear when she was offered the part. We only know that it was before the birth of her child (so that's pre-2010). This removes the ambiguity of the decade-long production halt, I hope. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I see you tweaked "She finds little value in the length of a part and is drawn towards both leading and supporting roles." Thank you for that. But sorry, I didn't specify before but the "finds little value" part of the sentence also feels imprecise to me. Could you try to reword that?

I did. Is that better? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• New comment: In discussing Arrival, I noticed the word intelligent/intelligence is used three times. Could you reduce this by at least one, or two if it's doable (I'll leave it to you to decide the best balance).

• "In her next two releases—the science fiction film Arrival and the psychological thriller Nocturnal Animals—Adams played "emotionally guarded, fiercely intelligent" women to positive reviews."
• "She was drawn. to the idea of playing an intelligent female lead and connected with the film's theme of unity and compassion."
• "and Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times believed that the film was a "showcase for her ability to quietly and effectively meld intelligence, empathy and reserve"."

Since two of those are in quotes, I've changed the second occurrence of the word. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I just noticed this, minor comment: "Adams found little resemblance between herself and her "poised" and "aloof" character and modeled Susan's personality on that of Ford.[113] Stephanie Zacharek of Time found the film to be visually arresting yet thematically weak, but praised Adams and Gyllenhaal for making their character's pain seem genuine." Two sentences in a row with "found". If you could replace one, that would be great.

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all from me. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Moisejp: all done. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. I’ll say again that I enjoyed reading this article a lot. I’m only a little familiar with Adams’ work (though what I’ve seen, such as Her and American Hustle, I enjoyed very much) and this article makes me want to see more of her films. Moisejp (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Moisejp. :) I'm glad you enjoyed it. Do watch more of her films, especially my favorites: Arrival, The Master, Julie & Julia, Doubt, and Junebug. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:00, 19 October 2017 [36].

---

Nights: Journey of Dreams

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  17:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Rosie and Jim are back. The reason why this article failed its previous FAC was due to concerns over the heavy-going prose, in particular its development section. But now that I'm back, and the fact that this article has received some generous copyediting from a couple of people in the past few months, I'm confident this should go more smoothly. I also took this through a GA review, so that's helped smooth things over as well. Nothing has changed with the sources, in fact the source and image reviews passed with flying colours last time but I'll request them again anyway, FAC procedures and what not. JAGUAR  17:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I was a little confused by the following part (but will be perused by "Awakers" which will awaken the player-character should three of them come into contact), and I was wondering if you could provide further clarification. Do you mean when three enemies attack the player-character at once or when the player-character is hit three times by an enemy (meaning one enemy can take out the player-character)? I have never played this game so I found this part to be a little unclear.

• It's when three awakers come into contact with the player at the same time. I've never played this game either but have hopefully clarified this. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Do you think you should make it clearer about which character is control on the ground? It is never made absolutely clear if Will/Helen or Nights is the "player-character" referenced here.

• Rephrased to "players initially control Will or Helen but are required to merge themselves into Nights". The player initially controls the children on foot, but must take control of Nights in order to fly, if that makes sense? JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• The Big Ben image has the following tag attached to it: (This image may not have the proper copyright or licensing information, or there is a conflict of license.).

• I don't know what I done wrong but that tag keeps popping up every time after removing it. I think it's something to do with me adding two separate rationales to one image since it's two images representing one. To solve this I've merged both rationales into one. I think I know someone who does image reviews on requests, so I'll ask him. In the meantime I'll keep my eye on it. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure how it works either. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• You do not have Wii linked on its first use. It is currently linked in the "Design" subsection, but its first use is in the "Gameplay" section (i.e. in this sentence: "My Dreams" connects with the Wii's Forecast Channel, which will change the weather conditions in the player's "My Dream" world according to real-world forecasts.).

• Linked in the gameplay section and unlinked in the design section. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wii remote, Classic controller, Nunchunk, and GameCube controller are linked multiple times.

• Well spotted. Removed duplicates. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• In this part (better known for his musical compositions in the Sonic the Hedgehog series), add a link to the article on the Sonic franchise.

• Added. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Link Sonic Team in the body of the article.

• Linked. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Boss is linked multiple times in the body of the article.

• Removed duplicate links. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just for clarification, in this part (while Will celebrates with his father after winning a football game), do you think it is necessary to clarify that it is football and not American football? Just wondering since I am an American and was wondering if it is a point that might benefit from clarification. Maybe a link would help.

• Linked association football. I had already linked football but I typed in "soccer" to see what it led to and hopefully this should make it clearer. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Game engine is linked twice in the body of the article.

• De-linked. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Add the release years for Super Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess.

• Added. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. My review focused on the prose, and I will leave anything related to source reliability and use to the source review. I honestly did not find much that needed improvement. Once my questions/comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you so much for the review! I should have hopefully addressed all of the above, please let me know if I can do anything else? I'm not too sure how to include multiple rationales in an image (or if I even have to), but I'll request an image review shortly. Hopefully this article is much more refined and smoother than it was last time! JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments, and this article is very strong. I support this for promotion. Good luck with it this time around! Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

• I'm not exactly sure if the sentence In 2010, Iizuka commented that he would be interested in making a third Nights game, should the management of Sega decide to commission one. belongs in the "design" section of development. I think this is definitely a good piece of information to be included in the article, but is there perhaps a different place, where it's a bit more relevant?

• I see your point but I'm not sure where else to put it since there is no "release" subsection. Naturally I would put this sentence at the end of the development section but it's not related to audio and "design" seems like the only suitable place to keep it. JAGUAR  18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I understand. I don't think this is necessarily a big issue though, just something that we could try to fix in the future.

• Nights: Journey of Dreams received mixed reviews. This is a generalized statement lacking a proper reference.

• This is a summary sentence which sums up the general outcome of reviews. I don't think there would be much point in attributing every citation after this sentence, and also I think the aggregate score supports it too. JAGUAR  18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd replace the GameRankings score with the Metacritic score ([37]), per WP:VGAGG.

• Thanks, done. Not sure why I didn't do this before. JAGUAR  18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Good work on this article. Very close to supporting. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: thanks for the comments! I should have clarified everything above. Unfortunately I can't move the sentence out of the design section since there is no other place to put it, and I guess it sort of sounds relevant to design anyway. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. JAGUAR  18:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to support this nomination. I found it an engaging and interesting read. I've never played a Nights game but will try to look for one in the future. Great job on this! Also, would you mind commenting on my current FAC? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Already done! JAGUAR  21:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2

The article looks in good shape but there are some flaws that might make the article better.

• Has there been talks about this game's sales? It might be good for the reception.

• I'm afraid I can't find any sales figures, both reliable and unreliable. All I could find was initial sales figures for the first game... JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of gameplay has six references for a single sentence. It feels like an overlink.

• Oops. So it does! I've cut down three citations. JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• In audio, there is the quote "flying in the air". I've been often told to use references after quotation even though the reference might be in the end of the paragraph.

• I'm always wary of citation overkill since the paragraph is attributed to one ref but I've added one after the quote. JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Other than that, I think the other users pointed the article's biggest flaws. Ping me when you edit the article or you have a different opinion about the issues I pointed. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: thanks for taking a look at this! Unfortunately I can't find any sales figures (an impossible feat for most games) but I've addressed your other concerns. Luckily this article is a lot smoother after going through two reviews. JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Giving you my support. Good luck with the article. I'm pretty sure it can pass its source review too.Tintor2 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review from TheJoebro64

Overall, this looks fine source-wise; however, footnote #1 links to Sega Retro, a user-contributed wiki. Also, the release dates aren't sourced anywhere in the article. I'd remove this, add references for the release dates, and then the sources would pass. JOEBRO64 21:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: thanks for taking a look at this! I've removed the Sega Retro ref. Don't know who put that in there. I've sourced the release dates in the infobox. Let me know if you find anything else. Thanks again. JAGUAR  11:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Great! Nothing else appears to be a problem here, so I'll give this a pass. Nice work. JOEBRO64 19:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

...actually, I already did so and all the points still apply. File:Nights Journey of Dreams gameplay.jpg's rationale suggests that the image is used to identify the work, but we already have an infobox image for this. File:Nights Journey of Dreams comparison.png is a partially non-free montage; the maintenance tag can be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for looking at this again. Gameplay screenshots are essential—I've already included the {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}} per WP:VGIMAGES. The rationales I've used in both images are identical to those found in other FAs. The cover art in the infobox illustrates what the game's cover looks like the gameplay screenshot illustrates what it looks like. Did you want me to rephrase one of them? Also every time I remove the maintenance tag File:Nights Journey of Dreams comparison.png a bot adds it back. I've added a deny bot template to solve that problem. Thanks again! JAGUAR  15:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That template seems fine. The issue with the bot is probably that the current license writeup and nuances are human readable but not bot readable; maybe Fastily has something to say about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• Can we combine the two footnotes in the lead?

• Merged. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• The levels are distributed equally between the two children characters Assume the reader hasn't read the lead and you have to explain everything from scratch. Tell us again what the plot is and who the characters are.

• Per WP:VGORDER the gameplay should only contain snippets of the plot if it doesn't have its own section and is not too complex. Although it says that the gameplay section should come before the plot section, would it be easier to switch the two around?

• That would solve the problem; I note that VGORDER says Here are a few ideas [...] they are no more than suggestions. Do not try to conform to them if they are not helping to improve the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've switched the two sections. It might seem a bit unorthodox but I've seen it done before. JAGUAR  19:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• What does merge themselves into Nights mean?

• I know this will always sound confusing so I rephrased it to make it clear that the player will later explicitly control Nights. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• which will awaken the player-character And I assume that's a bad thing? Why?

• Added that it would end the game. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• What's the boost meter and what effect does depleting it have?

• Added a short explanation of the effects of a depleted boost meter. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• allows two local players to battle each other I assume "local players" means two people in the same room using the same console? Can we link the term or spell that out? Is there any online multi-player option?

• Linked Cooperative gameplay. I think the use of splitscreen further in the sentence would confirm that it would be two people in the same room, but sometimes you can't be sure! There is no online multiplayer for this game—since there is no mention of that in the sources I think it's best to leave it out of the article. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• two children separately meet Nights So Nights has escaped? The last mention is of him being imprisoned.

• Clarified. They do indeed free him. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• originally outlined for the Saturn Suggest writing out Sega Saturn and linking; the last mention was in the lead

• Done. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• 'after the Dreamcast's demise assumes knowledge that's not in the article. If it's relevant to the game, explain how and why the Dreamcast met its demise, and if it's not don't mention it, except perhaps to note that it had been discontinued/superseded/whatever the term is when you get to mentioning the console the game was released on.

• That's a good point. I think explaining how the Dreamcast failed isn't relevant to this game, so I replaced "demise" with "discontinuation". JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• What does to reinforce Sega's identity mean?

• After the Dreamcast's demise in 2001 Sega was no longer a console manufacturer and instead became a third party developer. The interview took place in 2003, which explains Naka's concern that Sega was losing their foothold in the industry. I've elaborated that Naka had hoped using the Nights license would reinforce Sega's identity as a video game developer, which is mentioned in the source. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• he had intended to base the next Nights game around a "special controller interface" Is there anything more that can be said about these plans? Did they go anywhere? And for the uninitiated, what's a special controller interface?

• I think he's referring to a motion controller which ultimately became the Wii, so I reworded it to this. Nothing more is said about the rumour, but the source confirms that the game was going to be released for the Wii (then called 'Revoluton'). JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• What's the relationship with Shadow the Hedgehog and why was Journey of Dreams only begun after that?

• Shadow the Hedgehog was developed by almost all the same staff who worked on Journey of Dreams. Rephrased to "after the release of Sonic Team's Shadow the Hedgehog". Not sure if I could word this better... JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• discontinuation of Sega's hardware Again assuming knowledge outside the article

• Rephrased to "Sega's exit from hardware manufacturing". JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• the upcoming Wii was marketed So the Wii was still in development at this point? It's worth including some of the Sega/Nintendo console history here just so the reader has the full picture. Also, mention Nintendo since the last console mentioned was a Sega.

• Done. I think Sega's hardware developing exit was made clear earlier on in this section, and mentioning some of Nintendo's console history would be straying off course. I think explaining the Wii as "Nintendo's upcoming console" should do the trick. I've always thought that this game was developed in tandem with the Wii along with many others, but nothing can confirm that. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• According to Iizuka, the entire game Sounds like his word is in doubt; perhaps Iizuka told [whoever]..."

• Rephrased. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• with Iizuka affirming that full dialogue Ty to avoid using "with" as a connective like that (I tweaked another one earlier)

• Tweaked. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• You highlight the contrast with Sonic but don't mention how the two are related. Were they developed by the same team? Don't assume the reader knows this.

• Sonic Team are the developers of both Sonic the Hedgehog and Nights. I should have hoped that their name would be self-explanatory to the reader, but hopefully my earlier additions to the development section should have cleared any confusion. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• According to producer Takashi Iizuka, the team understood We already know who he is.

• Removed. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• due to Journey of Dreams being "Due to being" is a lousy way to connect two clauses; not as as bad as "with", but still not FA-quality prose

• Rephrased. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• an orchestral music an orchestral music??? A piece of music, perhaps?

• Oops. Fixed. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Use a phrase other than "according to" once in a while when referring to something someone said

• I've thrown in some synonyms. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• both he and Sasaki produced around 70 percent If they both produced 70%, then they produced 140% between them.

• Added "in between them" at the end. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that helps. In fact, it makes it even less clear. How about "between them, they contributed 70%"? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• The ending feels quite abrupt. Perhaps move the comment about further sequels to the very end just to wrap it up?

• I think WP:VGORDER comes into play here again. I've never seen any video game article end with anything other than a reception section. A legacy subsection would have made a nicer ending, but since this game doesn't have one (nor did it receive any awards, unlike its predecessor) I couldn't end it in any other way. If this game had more information about its actual release I could have added more, but even so it would still have to be underneath the development section. JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• I won't dig my heels in over this, but VGORDER does explicitly say it's a lis of suggestions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've moved Iizuka's comment about a future sequel to the end of the reception section. Unfortunately I can't expand in on it due to limited information. It's a shame that this game doesn't a legacy of some sort otherwise I could have added some sort of satisfying closure to the article! JAGUAR  19:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I made quite a lot of edits, mostly to improve the prose. More, frankly, than a reviewer would normally make to an FAC. Were it a longer article or were I feeling less generous, I might have opposed but I've still left you some work to do. Hopefully these comments and my edit summaries will be a useful guide. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and copyedits, HJ Mitchell—I really appreciate it! I should have clarified all of the above. There were a couple of points which I couldn't comply to as it would conflict with WP:VG/GL, but other than that I've tried my best to address all of your concerns. Please let me know if I've missed anything or if there's anything else you'd like to add. Thanks again! JAGUAR  14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: thanks again for checking up on this. I've switched the plot and gameplay sections around, as well as moving future sequel sentence to the end of the article. VGORDER is a generally useful to me, but it's only a list of suggestions, you're right. JAGUAR  19:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I made one last edit and I think we're there. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinators

@FAC coordinators: , is this one good to go? Wanted to make sure all bases are covered before this title's tenth anniversary in less than two months. JAGUAR  15:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:52, 19 October 2017 [38].

---

Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)

Nominator(s): TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog is a 2006 video game published by Sega for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 consoles. It's best known for its negative reception, often being cited as one of the worst games in the Sonic series and in gaming in general.

However, its story is one that is not widely known. You see, the game that became what is now known as Sonic '06 wasn't even supposed to be a Sonic game. It was conceived as a separate, completely different property. But, when it came time to create a new game in the Sonic franchise, series creator Yuji Naka wanted something big. He wanted to give Sonic a facelift, like how DC Comics had revived Batman for his 2005 outing Batman Begins. Thus, development on Sonic the Hedgehog began. The designers, with the advanced technical capabilities of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, began to create a vast, more realistic world for Sonic and his friends to explore. With these innovations, they created a new character (Silver) and experimented with new ideas never seen before. But it all went downhill from there. Naka suddenly resigned, and there was no one left who had worked on the first games in the series anymore. Then Sega got development kits for a system then known as the Revolution, and it split the game's development team into two: one to work on Sonic '06, and another to work on a completely different game that would eventually become Sonic and the Secret Rings for the Wii. There was now a small, inexperienced development team working on the former and... they rushed it. When it finally came out, critics blasted Sonic the Hedgehog as an insult to Sonic's fifteen years of making gaming history. What was supposed to be the Batman Begins for Sonic turned into the Fantastic Four (2015) for Sonic, and it left a stain that is still felt today.

Since the last FAC, this article has undergone a copyedit courtesy of TarkusAB. We worked really hard -- re-writing the lead, plot, and reception, archiving URLs, etc. ... and I believe it's finally ready. It's reliably sourced, well-written, and it covers all topics. Everything's here. Indeed, I believe this article meets the FA standards. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved

Is there any particular reason to place the game's Japanese title in a note? A majority of the FAs on Japanese video games that I have seen from browsing from the video game WikiProject appears to use the Japanese title in some variation directly in the first sentence. This may be a stylistic choice, but I just wanted to draw attention to it. Removed Japanese name. The Japanese name could be important for inclusion, but since I have never worked on an article like this, I will leave this matter up to more experienced reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Do you think the sentence in the lead about how it is referenced colloquially as Sonic '06 should be placed directly after the first sentence to group the introductory sentences together to have the rest of the paragraph run more seamlessly together? If not, then I would recommend clarifying that these more colloquial titles were given to the games following its release. I would also specify who is referencing the game in this way (I think it is primarily critics and fans and not the Sega and the Sonic Team itself), but some clarification here could be helpful. Moved this to the second paragraph, I think it might fit better there since I changed the wording in the lead a bit. In this phrasing (It was developed by Sonic Team—the team directed by Sonic co-creator Yuji Naka), I would see if there was a way to possibly revise this to avoid the repetition of the word "team" in such close context. The best synonym I could find was "group", which really doesn't sound right. I'll tried to re-word it a bit and give it better flow. For the lead, I would add the year in which Secret Rings was released. Done. Should you specify that the second team was only working on the Wii version of the game? Specified. Could you provide more context for the bonus "Last Story" stage? I could not find information about it in the source cited (I am probably overlooking it for some reason). For instance, who is playable in this version, and how is different from the previous three versions mentioned in the previous sentence? I've added that it concludes the story and that all three hedgehogs are the main characters. For this phrase (Sonic's story focuses on the speed-based platforming seen in previous Sonic games), there should be a link to the Sonic franchise page as this is the first time in the body of the article that you reference the franchise itself. Linked to Sonic the Hedgehog#Common elements. Something about the following sentence reads a little weirdly to me (Another character, Princess Elise, escorts him in some stages by using a special barrier to guard him). I would say "and uses a special barrier", as the "by" seems a little strange in this specific context. She is more so "helping" Sonic "by" doing such actions, but I do not believe she is "escorting" him through these actions. I hope this makes sense. It just boils down to word choice. Sonic actually escorts Elise, I've reworded it a bit for flow. In the final sentence of the first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, reference 2 should go before references 5, 6, and 7. Done. In the second paragraph of that same section, you use the verb "progress" twice in close proximity. Maybe, add some variation there. Changed the first "progress" to "advance". I would revise this (Although every character traverses the same levels, each character's unique abilities allow the player to access different areas of each stage and deny them from accessing certain items.) to avoid the repetition of the word "character". Revised by removing the second use of "character". I am not sure if you really need to do this for this FAC, but it would be more helpful to change the redirect for "Golden Rings" so it jumps right to the appropriate section in the main Sonic article rather than just leading to the top. Fixed; this was because the page had been moved. I think that the following part could be revised to read better (which are lost when they are hit by an enemy or obstacle with no rings in their possession or encounter any other fatal obstacle.). Avoid the repetition of the word "obstacle" and specify the difference between an "obstacle" and a "fatal obstacle" if you can. Changed second "obstacle" to "hazard". In the phrase (friends travel between past, present, and future), I would change it to (friends travel between the past, present, and future). Done. Please add the release years for Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2. Done and fixed order. I would revise the following (before attaining his final hedgehog look over fifty concept designs later) to (before attaining his final hedgehog look following fifty concept designs) for conciseness. Done. I heard somewhere that Veronica Taylor was the original choice for Elise's voice actress before it was changed to Lacey Chabert. I am not sure if it is really true or if there is a source out there going either way, but I just wanted to point this out to you. It says that she voiced her on Metacritic, but that's the only RS I could find; it doesn't say if she was the original choice. Makes sense to me. I just wanted to raise this point as it is something that I heard, but I doubted it was covered in anything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Following this sentence (Sega began pressuring the development team to release the game by Christmas 2006, so with their deadline quickly approaching, Sonic Team rushed the final stages of development, ignoring existing bugs and control problems), reference 11 should be placed before references 14 and 26. Done. For this part (a time of day mechanic), do you mean (a time of day and night mechanic)? Yes. Fixed. Include the year in which Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was released. Year added. Include the release dates for Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1 and Sonic Colors. Done. Again, specify who is referencing the game by its year of release if possible as it is a little vague. Done. Add the year in which Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric and Sonic Adventure were released. Removed Sonic Boom, but added the Sonic Adventure year. Lacey Chabert is linked twice in the article. Unlinked in reception. Sonic Colors is linked twice in the article. Unlinked in legacy. This is more of a question than a suggestion, but have there been any comparisons between the reception of this game and Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric? They were both panned by critics as low points in the franchise and were rush-released before being fully complete and ready for the public. There may not be anything out there, but I was just curious if there was any commentary about this. There was from WatchMojo.com, but they are an unreliable source. I've removed the Sonic Boom comparison. Makes sense; I was just curious about whether or not there was more on this front. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC) This is another question, but I have read that the Sonic Team twitter has poked fun at this game multiple times or completely ignored it altogether. Would this be something to add here? This is a source talking about what I mean right here. Added this; it was actually already sourced in the article. In this sentence (The game's plot was a major point of criticism, journalists considered it confusing and inappropriately dark.), reference 2 should come before references 67 and 68. Done. Shadow the Hedgehog is linked twice. Removed link in reception. For this part (The A.V. Club, Kotaku, Game Informer, and USgamer have called the title the worst game in the Sonic series), the references are out of order. In order now. (I got a bit messy with the refs). Same for this sentence (most have made few appearances since). In order now. For conciseness, I would just combine the following two sentences (The game's plot was a major point of criticism, journalists considered it confusing and inappropriately dark.) into the following phrase (Journalists criticized the game's plot as confusing and inappropriately dark.). Done.

Wonderful work with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. This is certainly an interesting part of gaming history, more so featuring how not to run a franchise or a reboot process. Aoba47 (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I've responded to your comments and resolved the errors. Thanks for the time to review! (I'll comment on your current FAC, too). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments and for taking time to comment on my FAC. I support this for promotion; I hope that this receives more attention and passes this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The1337gamer

Resolved

Quickly glossed over on section of the article: Music. It has major sourcing and verifiability issues. It's entirely sourced from store pages which are not good sources. References 32, 33, 34 and 36 are all Amazon store pages, which are definitely unreliable sources. Anyone can create store pages for products on Amazon because they allow third-party sellers to create pages. These need replacing. Removed. The musical score for Sonic the Hedgehog was composed by Hideaki Kobayashi, Tomoya Ohtani, Mariko Nanba, Taihei Sato, and Takahito Eguchi, and was written in various styles of music genres, such as classical, electronic, rock, and world. - Not supported by citation. No mention of these people or genres. iTunes store pages are a weak source as well. Added the game's credits as the source since they're all documented there. I only used it for this (I don't want to abuse it, as it's a primary source). The main theme for the game, "His World", was written by Ohtani and performed by Ali Tabatabaee and Matty Lewis of the band Zebrahead. R&B artist Akon performed a remix of the Dreams Come True song "Sweet Sweet Sweet", a song originally from their album The Swinging Star. The song was previously used as the ending theme to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (1992). - Not supported by citation. In fact, the citation for this part leads to page with no information on at all. It does, actually. It leads to the official website, where both songs are mentioned (you need Adobe Flash to view the website, didn't know if you knew that). Added a Famitsu source to support the Sonic 2 and Akon info. Silver's theme, "Dreams of An Absolution", was performed by singer Lee Brotheron - No mention of Lee Brotheron at source. Unreliable source anyway. Removed. Two official soundtrack albums were released on January 10, 2007. - No citation for this. In fact, the citation that succeeds this part says the release date is January 22, 2007 which contradicts the date in the article. It is an unreliable source anyway. Both are in the official website, used that instead of iTunes. The complete soundtrack, titled Sonic the Hedgehog Original Soundtrack, features over 90 tracks across three disks. - No mention of three disks in sources. Removed this as well.

--The1337gamer (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: I've responded to your comments above and addressed them. Thanks for taking the time to review. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

Resolved

"following the release of Billy Hatcher and the Giant Egg" - I'd probably mention this game was also published by Sega, otherwise its unclear why you're mentioning it. Alternatively the middle paragraph of the lead is looking disproportionately large in comparison to the other two. It might be better to just drop this. Up to you. I'ne dropped it. "franchise for the seventh generation" - I'd remove the piping and just link to the full article Seventh generation of video game consoles. People unfamiliar with video games will have no idea what seventh generation means on its own. Done. "An unofficial fan-made remake of the game for Microsoft Windows is being made" - I'd be more specific with time frames in this paragraph. At the very least, mention which month in 2017 the segment was released. I'd open with when the game started being developed as well if that is possible. Changed to "currently under development", and added the month of release (January).

That's all I found. Very close to supporting. Freikorp (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Responded and resolved. Thanks for taking the time to review! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to support this now, though you shouldn't use terms like "currently" as per WP:REALTIME, so if you can't give a date for when development started I'd change that sentence back to how it was. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sonic the Hedgehog Next-Gen Box Art.JPG: NFCC rationale is a mite perfunctory; "demonstrate the game in question" isn't achieved by a random screenshot. Maybe the boilerplate rationale works better.

• Improved and expanded upon the Purpose of use, and removed some redundant info.

• File:Sonic 06 gameplay.jpg: That seems fine for me.
• File:SilverConceptScetch.jpg: Ditto.

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Responded and improved the rationale for the box art. Thanks for taking the time to review the images! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  Seems OK to me now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I just realized something. If this passes, it'll be the first mainline Sonic game to achieve FA-status! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

• "Similarly, current series producer Takashi Iizuka would state that "we didn't have any time to polish and we were just churning out content as quick as we could."" - this would probably sound better in past tense rather than future tense: Similarly, current series producer Takashi Iizuka stated that "we didn't have any time to polish and we were just churning out content as quick as we could."

• Done.

• "the game holds a score of 46/100 and 43/100 for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3" - add a (PS3) after PlayStation 3 to signify what "PS3" means later on in the reception section. I know it sounds too simple but some people would ask that you do this for people totally unfamiliar to video games

• Done.

• "Gerstmann claimed the level design was worsened by the game's "frustrating" camera system" - no need to quote frustrating

• Removed quotations.

It's clear that this article is very polished after going through more a number of reviews. I've arrived late to the party but since all I brought up was very minor nitpicking I'd be happy to lend my support now. I think prose-wise it meets the FA criteria. JAGUAR  19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Responded and resolved. Thanks for taking the time to review! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Jaguar

As requested, I'll also perform a source review for this article. I will comb through each source first to see if the content matches the prose in the article, and then I'll check if they're reliable:

• Ref 22 - I don't see Di-O-Matic listed as a reliable source. Can you be sure it is one?

• Official website for the company that supplied Blur Studio with its animation toolkits. Primary source.

• Ref 53 - the publisher of GameSpy is IGN

• Done.

• Ref 59 - rename the website to Computer and Video Games since it always was a magazine in its own right

• Done.

• Ref 64 - the publisher of GamesTM is Imagine Publishing

• Done.

• Ref 67 - I can't be sure if Common Sense Media is reliable. I also doubt that this is the true Bobbi Dempsey. It's more likely that the reviewer was just a regular user? It wouldn't hurt to get rid of this in my opinion

• I've removed it altogether. Common Sense is used on some pages (and by Xfinity on their "parental guide"), but I can't be absolutely sure it's reliable. I've never really given a good look at it because it's been on the page for years.

• Although not mentioned at WP:VG/S, I will acknowledge that Motherboard, being part of Vice, is indeed reliable

• Seconded.

I couldn't find any dependencies content-wise, so other than that I think the sourcing has improved quite a bit since last time. I'll take another look at this once all of the above have been dealt with. JAGUAR  16:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Jaguar: Done! Thanks for taking the time to review. JOEBRO64 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for addressing them. I don't think there's anything else outstanding so I'll be happy to support over the sourcing. JAGUAR  21:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: At the last FAC, David Fuchs opposed this on the grounds of prose and sourcing. I'd be interested in his opinion of the article now. And on a similar note, this still requires a source review which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Follow up: As David Fuchs is currently inactive, I think we need someone else to check his concerns from the last FAC. His comments can be read here. I wonder if czar is available to take a look? And maybe Mike could also have a look (although he might be considering a change of address to avoid being pinged by coordinators!) Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'll add comments as I go through the article. I'm copyediting; please revert as needed.

• The lead says Naka was director, but the infobox says Nakamura. I understand Naka resigned, but the statement in the lead shouldn't be unqualified.
  • Changed to "led", which is shorter and more accurate.

    That helps, since it doesn't contradict the infobox, but wouldn't it be sensible to qualify the statement? E.g. "was initially led by", or "was led by Sonic co-creator Yuji Naka until shortly before release", or whatever makes the most sense? As it stands it looks odd that Naka is not mentioned in the infobox and Nakamura is not mentioned in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

    Added "initially".

• Though positively received in pre-release showings, it experienced a difficult development cycle: this is true, but it might be better to talk about development before mentioning the reception. I'd suggest cutting "Though positively received in pre-release showings" and adding that information to the final paragraph of the lead instead, where it would be in chronological order.
  • Done.
• In the land of Soleanna, Sonic and Tails protect Princess Elise: this is the first mention of Tails; I assume Tails, Blaze, and Rouge are sidekicks? It might be helpful to mention them in the Gameplay section, or else add a word or two to introduce them in the Plot section.
  • There's a footnote about them in the gameplay. I've still added that he's Sonic's sidekick though.
• Sonic the Hedgehog had a troubled development, and multiple frequently discussed features were scrapped before the game was released: I think you can cut this sentence completely. It summarizes what follows, but there's no need to do that; the problems will be apparent to the reader as they go through the section, and are explicitly referenced as "challenges" or "problems".
  • Removed.
• It was initially conceived as an original non-Sonic project, but was reworked into a Sonic title as the developers believed the project's realistic tone combined with the world of Sonic would allow them to create expansive levels previously impossible on earlier sixth generation consoles, and experiment with multiple play-styles.: I don't think this is quite what the source says. Amaike says they were "considering" creating a game set in a realistic world using the physics engine (presumably Havok), so it doesn't appear they had a definite development project. Then his team was reassigned to work on the new Sonic game, and they decided to use those ideas in the Sonic franchise. That's not quite the same as reworking an existing game development project. A bigger problem with the wording is that you say "as the developers believed"; in fact they didn't switch development to a Sonic game in order to take advantage of the engine; it was more or less the other way round.
  • Yeah, the wording there was from when I used another source that said this (later discovered to be non-RS). I've reworded it to follow the source.

    That's better, but now you have "originally...original". I also think you need to say that their early plans included a very realistic world, with a new physics engine; as it stands the reader doesn't know what you're referring to with "realistic tone". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

    Changed the wording to be more understandable and removed the repeat "original".

• The game's title was chosen to signify it as a "move to reset and reinvent the series": the quote is from a review which guesses that this might be the case; I don't think you can state it as fact in this way.
  • Added a footnote to an interview.

    I'm still not keen on using the review quote, which was the reviewer's guess at the motivation, to support this. The interview you've cited is definitely a better source. Relying on Google Translate, I think what Nakamura is saying is that using the original title would give the user high expectations for a major advance in the game, like the change from 2D to 3D technology. A subtitle would create less of a marketing buzz. If that's right, how about rewording it like so: "The title, Sonic the Hedgehog, was chosen to be the same as the original 1991 game that launched the franchise in order to give Sonic fans high expectations for the new game', or something along those lines? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

    I've reworded it to follow what he appears to be saying. Removed the review quote.

• As Sonic Team no longer had the rights to use the RenderWare game engine used in prior games, they used the Havok engine, previously used in their PlayStation 2 title Astro Boy (2004): A couple of problems here. I may be missing something, but I don't see anything in the source given that indicates Sonic Team lost the rights to use RenderWare; that may be just because I'm not familiar with how these rights work. Can you point to the text that supports this? Second, and this may make the first point moot, I don't see any support for "As" at the start of the sentence -- the source's discussion of their use of Havok doesn't say they would have used RenderWare if it were available. Is there any reason to mention RenderWare?
  • It was in the Russian version of the article (which is currently FA). I've removed it.
• As Sonic the Hedgehog was designed to reboot the series for the seventh generation: I couldn't find support for this in the source; can you point me at the right text? I used Google Translate, which may be why I missed it.
  • Added better source.

    I see support for taking advantage of the new generation of consoles, but not for "reboot". I see "revisit his roots" here, but that's not the same thing as reboot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

    Cited Eurogamer, which specifically called it a "reboot".

• the design team created a more realistic setting than previous Sonic games and gave the human characters a photorealistic look: this is the second half of the sentence I queried above; looking at the source I don't see anything that says they created the setting because it was a reboot, or anything about the photorealistic look.
  • Quoted from a new source I've added: To revive Sonic's appeal to both kids and adults, the team is taking the speedster into the more realistic setting of the human world.

    I don't think that addresses the two questions I had. First, I don't see any support for "photorealistic", which is not the same thing as realistic. Second, you say As Sonic the Hedgehog was designed to reboot the series for the seventh generation, the design team created a more realistic setting than previous Sonic games, which means that the reason the team went for realism is because it was a reboot. The first two paragraphs of the Gamespot source say "marrying the classic Sonic elements...with the power of the new boxes", and "The power available, thanks to the new consoles, posed a new challenge, which the team has embraced", but these are just saying that they had new consoles and they used them. There's no causal relationship given. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

    Changed to As the hardware of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 was more powerful compared to the prior generation's consoles and replaced "photorealistic" with just "realistic".

I'm going to stop here as I suspect my lack of knowledge of video games may be causing me problems in interpreting these sources. Once we've sorted these out I'll go ahead with the rest of the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've responded and clarified above. Thanks for your time. JOEBRO64 12:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments. I hope I've addressed them all (I'm still new to the FAC process; this is the first one that's come close to passing) JOEBRO64 22:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. When I review, my goal is to help the article pass if possible; so far I don't see anything that looks like a showstopper, so let's hope we can get you your first star. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

• After its reveal: this seems to be a bit of gaming vocabulary that most people won't know. Can you link to an explanation, or rephrase?
  • Changed to announcement.
• According to former Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske, Naka's departure affected the spirit of the development team, as he was the only remaining member of the team who had worked on the first game: I don't think this is a good paraphrase of Kalinske's comments. Was Naka in fact the only remaining member of the first development team? The source says "The team that initially made Sonic so great – Naka, designer/director Naoto Ohshima, producer Mark Cerny, and others – was gone"; had the others on that team already left, or did they leave to go to Prope? Kalinske doesn't really talk about the team that remained after Naka's departure, so I don't think we can say "affected the spirit". The key phrase is "the heart and soul of Sonic". How about "Naka had been the last remaining member of the original Sonic development team, and with his departure, "the heart and soul of Sonic" was gone, according to former Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske"? I think you'd need another source for Naka being the last member of the 1991 team, though.
  • Removed the mention of him being the last remaining member of the original team (even though it's true, it's a bit off-topic). I've reworded to per your suggestion.
• led the other half to begin work on a new Sonicgame—later revealed to be Sonic and the Secret Rings—for the Wii: I don't think it matters to the reader that at the time this happened the name of the game was not known; it would be more concise to make this "led the other half to begin work on Sonic and the Secret Rings for the Wii".
  • Removed the "a new Sonicgame—later revealed to be", a bit more concise now.
• current series producer Takashi Iizuka stated: What does "current" mean here? If it means that as of today he's the series producer, we need some kind of WP:ASOF indicator. If you know when Iizuka became series producer, we could make this "Takashi Iizuka, who became series producer in 20xx".
  • Removed "current".
• I split the mention of the CGI cutscenes and the voice roles into a separate paragraph as the topic seemed unconnected to the rest of the paragraph. They're still a bit out of place there. This is just a suggestion, but how about moving that paragraph to the Music section, and changing the section title to something like "Media and voice roles"? I don't know if there is standard terminology in video game development for non-software elements.
  • Moved the voice actors part to the music section and retitled it "audio".

    Much better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• "At the Tokyo Game Show, Naka revealed": shouldn't there be a date attached to this, or at least a year?
  • Added that it was in September 2005.
• Suggest introducing the "E3" acronym in parentheses when you first mention it; most people won't know this.
  • Done.

Stopping there for now. I think the reception and legacy sections are much better than some I've seen. Have you looked at WP:RECEPTION? There's some advice there for structuring these sections for readability. You've avoided the "A said B" problem, but in some places you give reviewer names where I don't think they're need. For example, unless Jeff Gerstmann is notable in his own right, I think we could just say "Gamespot" instead of "Jeff Gerstmann of Gamespot". Pinging Czar, who is far more experienced than I am at video game reception writing; Czar, do you have time to look through this section and the legacy section? If not I'll do a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've responded above. Thanks for the time to review. JOEBRO64 19:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I didn't get this ping or Sarastro1's above... I don't think detail like "the game holds a score of 46/100 and 43/100 for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 (PS3), respectively" is useful for a general audience—the qualitative summary is much more helpful on its own (WP:VGG#Reception). "The game was moderately successful commercially"—I wouldn't draw a conclusion like this from a primary source. Sega reports "Sonic the Hedgehog for XBOX360 and PS3 ... sell strongly", so you could say that Sega considered 870k in sales was "strong in the US", but declarative characterization about success is really best left for secondary sources. " IGN called the game's graphics, audio, and replay value"—the paragraph's subject is "presentation", so "replay value" would be out of that scope, right? "Gameplay was also criticized"—use active voice whenever reasonable. "Eurogamer offered similar criticism, finding that the supporting cast annoyed rather than fleshing the game out, and considered the camera system to be the worst he had ever seen in a video game" that middle clause has a tense issue, and wouldn't use "he" in last clause if the subject is the metonymic "Eurogamer". Also could vary sentence structure by putting website name mid-sentence in some cases (rather than always as the first word), but overall, a great job on making the Reception synthetic and fluid, wide and deep, and authoritative without delving into unchecked assertions. "The plot was considered confusing" passive voice and more declarative than "Several reviewers considered its plot confusing". I think I weighed in on the "bestiality" quote before—not sure where, but I still think it's gratuitous. If the games press jokes about the fictional relationship are worth mentioning, I'd stack them as a single sentence (in the Legacy section), but as I attempt to do so myself, I think the "absolute nonsense" line is sufficient. Several bestiality quips from listicles doesn't make the point worth as much weight as, say, the whole game's gameplay reception... Best for encyclopedic tone to reduce/remove it. "Dave Halverson of Play Magazine and Game Informer" did he write for both or did two publications defend the game? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: Thank you for your comments. I've re-worded the reception section a bit and removed most of the irrelevant, off-topic detail about the relationship between Sonic and Elise. (by the way, it was here you first noted this.) I tried to find a secondary source for the sales but was unable to. I reworded it to follow Sega's comments on the sales numbers more closely. I've also given the reception section a little CE, moving some of the website's mentions mid-sentence and fixed a few typos. I also simplified the MC information to simply say both versions have "generally unfavorable" scores. JOEBRO64 19:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

• I think the reception section is structured well, with the paragraph breakdown about right. You have "criticized" or "criticism" nine times in nine consecutive sentences -- you don't have to get rid of all of them, but I'd suggest rephrasing three or four, at least.
  • Removed some the excess "criticized" in the third paragraph of the post-release section (that was a little funky).
• The decision to include Sonic the Hedgehog stages and bosses in Sonic Generations was controversial: is "controversial" the right word? It would mean there was a controversy about it, but it sounds like at least one person suggested it was a poor decision, rather than that there was any controversy.
  • I've changed it to say that it was considered a poor decision by critics and fans of the series.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Responded above. I think I've resolved the two points. JOEBRO64 11:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked the prose a bit more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:43, 19 October 2017 [39].

---

Battle of Groix

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

An article about a largely-forgotten naval battle of the early French Revolutionary Wars. By earlier standards it was a significant victory for the Royal Navy, but by the standards of the war to come it rather paled in comparison.

I have 12 FAs to my name, but none since April 2010. I wrote this in 2012 and moved on to other things, with a full break in 2015. I am now returning to Wikipedia after two years hiatus and felt this might be a good place to start. I've revised and copyedited it and I think it is ready. I can't see any major changes to the criteria in the last 7 years, but let me know if there is anything I've missed. Many thanks in advance.Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jackyd, welcome back -- as it's been a long time between drinks for you, we might get a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing, on top of the regular image licensing check and source review for reliability/formatting, but apart from that I don't think there'd be too many surprises... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I'm in the hands of you fine people - let me know what needs fixing!--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Bridports_Action_Groix.jpg: source link is dead and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Done and found another cool image to use in the process. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ykraps and source review

• There is currently a mixture of British and American spellings. What English variation is being used here?--Ykraps (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be British - I've scanned for American spellings and can't see any but it might be a function of my spell-checker, which is unapologetically American despite my best efforts. Can you let me know where they are? I also reverted a couple of changes you made, one was an alteration to odd capitalisation in a direct quote and the other was to return to the French military rank "Vice-amiral". Also, court-martialed only has one "l". Thank you very much for the copyedit.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it was User:Finetooth who changed amiral to admiral but guilty as charged over the others. I wondered at the time if the caps were part of the direct quote, hence the question mark in my edit summary. With regards to court-martialled/martialed, both dictionaries I own Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. ISBN 0-00-433286-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) and The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) give the spelling as martialled. This is consistent with words like dialled and initialled. Collins also states that martialed is the US spelling. Totaled (Aftermath, 2nd paragraph) should also have two 'L's. Compass points (south-east etc) are generally hyphenated in British English and never all one word. This is mentioned in the manual of style here:[[40]]. 'Maximize' is more commonly 'maximise' in modern British English but both spellings are still acceptable so I'll leave that one up to you. 'Maneuvered' should be 'manouevred' in the translation from the French quote in the last paragraph.--Ykraps (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Which ever of you made the edits, thanks to both for the copyedit. I've checked several versions of "court-martialled" and there is no consistency, so I've gone with yours. Made all other changes. Thank you very much for these notes, much appreciated. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any consistency with "mizzen" either. I always thought it was two zeds but I was looking at a book by Sam Willis this morning where it's spelt with one. I have hyphenated the compass points but if you think I'm wrong you can of course revert.--Ykraps (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Allen, Joseph (1905) [1842]. Battles of the British Navy. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., used to reference the first sentence in the second paragraph of the 'Battle' section, should be labelled as Volume I. Also can you check the page number? Unless you have a wildly different version, I think you'll find it's 418.--Ykraps (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

My copy of this (from 1905), is a single volume and the page reference appears to be correct.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought it might correspond with this version [[41]] and as the digits were identical I thought it was a typo. Obviously not!--Ykraps (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think the text on page 59 of James' The Naval History of Great Britain, Volume 1 supports the statement, "...followed by a purge of suspected anti-republicans which resulted in the death or imprisonment of a number of experienced commanders". Do you have another source?--Ykraps (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Good spot. James references the mutiny, but not the ensuing repression. I've added a new source. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• The first two sentences in the second paragraph of the "Background" section are referenced to page 256 of Clowes but the supporting text to the first sentence appears on page 255. I would suggest either citing those sentences "pp.255-256" or adding a separate citation to the first sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Same with the rest of that paragraph, James p.238 cited but ought to be pp.237-238.--Ykraps (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Background" section, 6th sentence of 3rd paragraph - Cornwallis had ordered the frigate HMS Phaeton to range ahead of his squadron making false signals announcing the imminent arrival of a British fleet. These concerned Villaret so much that at 18:40 he called off pursuit and returned to the French coast... James, to which this part is referenced, says on p.242, "At 6 p.m., as a singular coincidence, there actually appeared, in the direction to which the Phaëton's signals had been pointing, several small sail. The British frigate immediately wore to rejoin her squadron ; and very soon afterwards, as has already been stated, Vice-admiral Villaret, to whom the strange sails must just then have discovered themselves, gave over the chase and tacked to the eastward...", indicating that it was a combination of these two events that caused Villaret to withdraw. Can the sentence be rewritten to reflect this? "This ruse de guerre coupled with the arrival of several sail on the horizon at 18:00, concerned Villaret so much that he called off the pursuit...", or similar?--Ykraps (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Done all of these - are you intending to go though every reference like this? If so thank you, but wow that's quite a job. Let me know if you find anything else.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I was only intending to look a sample but because I have an interest in this type of article, I often find myself doing some extra reading. Fortunately/unfortunately I have the books you have used for sourcing the article. If it's any comfort, given what I've seen so far, I'm not expecting to unearth anything major.--Ykraps (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Villaret's retreat, first paragraph: "It was one of Warren's ships, the frigate HMS Arethusa, that first discovered the French as Villaret led his fleet out from the sheltered anchorage. Lookouts on Arethusa miscounted the French fleet however, identifying 16 ships of the line and ten frigates; Warren immediately sent word to Bridport while ordering his convoy to turn away from the French" is referenced to Clowes p.260 but Clowes makes no mention of 'Arethusa' nor "16 ships of the line and ten frigates". This might be better referenced by James p.244 which does have this information.--Ykraps (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Villaret's retreat, second paragraph: "The adverse southeasterly winds delayed both fleets..." I wonder if delayed is the right word here. To me, a delay is when something is expected to arrive somewhere at a particular time and doesn't. The source gives no indication that the fleets were expected any earlier. Perhaps 'hindered' or 'hampered' might be better? Unless of course they were expected earlier.--Ykraps (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, not 'hampered', I can see you have used that a little later on. 'Frustrated'?,'impeded'?--Ykraps (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Villaret's retreat, second paragraph: "To maximise his chances of catching the French, Bridport specifically ordered his fastest ships HMS Sans Pareil, HMS Orion, HMS Colossus, HMS Irresistible, HMS Valiant and HMS Russell..." Not sure we can say they were the fastest, even if they were; Brenton p.231, doesn't mention that as a reason.--Ykraps (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

However, Clowes p.261, says "...his best sailing ships", so add that as an additional reference and we're good.--Ykraps (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Villaret's retreat, third paragraph: "To ensure that his fleet was in a position to intercept..." Brenton doesn't mention the signals given at 19:00 and 19:25, so again an additional source is needed here, such as James p.245.--Ykraps (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Villaret's retreat, third paragraph: "...The main body of the French fleet was sailing in a loose cluster with three or four ships trailing behind and one ship, Alexandre under Captain François Charles Guillemet far to the rear and only 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) from the British vanguard". Guillemet is mentioned on p.246 of James, so strictly speaking, the citation here is pp.245-246.--Ykraps (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Battle, second paragraph: "As the French crew scrambled to extinguish it, Sans Pareil, flagship of Rear-Admiral Lord Hugh Seymour, reached the ship and fired a broadside in passing..." The engagement between Sans Pareil and Formidable is described on p.246 of James with the casualties on p.248. So again, shouldn't this be pp.246-248?--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Battle, third paragraph: "The entire combat was slowly pulling closer to the fortified rocky island of Groix..." Needs pp.262-263 of Clowes.--Ykraps (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Battle, last paragraph: "...which Bridport was not aware had already surrendered", might be better referenced by James pp.246-247 as Clowes doesn't really make it clear that Tigre had previously surrendered and had to strike a second time to Royal George.--Ykraps (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Aftermath, first paragraph: "Bridport had remained off Quiberon to ensure that Villaret did not return to harass the expeditionary force, returning to Britain on 20 September but leaving the bulk of the blockade fleet off the Breton coast under Rear-Admiral Henry Harvey. The 68-year-old Bridport was forcibly retired in October after an unrelated argument with First Lord of the Admiralty Earl Spencer, but was reinstated in 1796 and continued to serve in command of the Channel Fleet until 1800". The ONDB source only confirms the last sentence. Clowes p.267 can be used for the first bit.--Ykraps (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Aftermath, second paragraph: "Villaret meanwhile gathered his scattered ships and called a council of his senior officers on Peuple to discuss their next course of action". This sentence is referenced to James p.249 but James says the council was held "...on board the Proserpine frigate, in which his flag was flying".--Ykraps (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the sentence, "In common with the battle of the Glorious First of June the previous year, rewards for the British victory at Groix were unevenly distributed" (Aftermath, third paragraph). I can see why you've said that but without a source to verify it, it looks a bit WP:SYNTH.--Ykraps (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Also in third paragraph of 'Aftermath' section, "The name of Alexandre reverted to the former Alexander, and although James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, this claim is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball", needs a source. Winfield, Rif (2008). British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793–1817: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. London: Seaforth. p. 51. ISBN 1-86176-246-1., will do nicely here.--Ykraps (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Not absolutely necessary but I just wonder if some sort of footnote listing the ships might be helpful. There are so many with similar names; Prince George, Royal George, Prince of Wales, Prince, that one could be forgiven for thinking they were one and the same.--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this - let me know when you are finished and I'll address them all in one go.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Jackyd101, I think I’m just about done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - should get to this by the weekend, best --Jackyd101 (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Done all of these except the footnore - there is an Order of battle in the Biscay campaign of June 1795 linked in the infobox and in a hatnote which should help people to differentiate between the ships. Thanks for your comprehensive review. Quite a few of these were cases where the text in question was originally referenced further down the paragraph and then a new reference was inserted between the text and its reference.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Jackyd101 - There are just three other points which appear to have been overlooked: The claim that Sans Pareil, Orion, Colossus, Irresistible, Valiant and Russell were Bridport's fastest ships isn't supported by the source; the meeting on Peuple occurred on Proserpine (This one?) according to the source, and the claim I suggested could be seen as synthesis.--Ykraps (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. Changed fastest to best-sailing and gave source you suggested; added the frigate, good catch on the error (it was this one actually) and I added a source about the concern regarding the 1st of June, which should keep us in line with the facts.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As long as the comparison between the two events is sourced that's fine and if you don't think the footnote is necessary then that's fine too.--Ykraps (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

All my points have been satisfactorily addressed and I am happy that the sourcing meets FA standards: Reliable and of good quality, consistently formatted, and I have checked a good proportion for accuracy and close paraphrasing. Examples below -

• Article: Throughout the day the French vanguard kept up a distant but continual fire on the rearmost British ship HMS Mars, until eventually the ship began to fall behind the others. In an effort to protect Mars, Cornwallis interposed his 100-gun flagship HMS Royal Sovereign between the British squadron and the French force, its massive broadsides driving the French back

Source:(Clowes pp.257-258)…at length, the Mars, considerably damaged aloft, began to fall to leeward. Observing this, Cornwallis signalled her to alter course ... …and then, in the Royal Sovereign, the Vice-admiral himself bore round towards her, followed by Triumph, and delivered raking broadsides… This manoeuvre saved the Mars… Four French van ships, which had bore up hoping to secure the Mars, considered it wise to haul to wind.

• Article: At 06:15, Queen Charlotte passed Alexandre and began firing on Formidable, Linois returning fire against his much larger enemy for fifteen minutes before a fire broke out on the poop deck.

Source:(Allen p.184) At about 6h. 15m. the Charlotte fired her starboard broadside into Formidable, Captain Linois, and a close action commenced.....at about this time, [0630] the French ship [Formidable] caught fire on the poop.

• Article: Bridport gave instructions as he withdrew for Alexandre, Formidable and Tigre to be taken under tow by HMS Prince, HMS Barfleur and HMS Prince George respectively.

Source:(Clowes p.263) The Admiral ordered Prince, Barfleur and Prince George to take the prizes in tow; and the fleet stood away with them to the S.W.

• Article: Following their advice, Villaret decided to shelter the fleet in the nearby port of Lorient to seek supplies and repairs before returning to Brest. He found however that, having sailed without sufficient provisions, Lorient was not equipped for a fleet of such size and Villaret was forced to discharge the majority of sailors as he was unable to feed them. It was not until December and the winter storm season that a number of the ships were able to travel quietly up the coast to Brest, while others were sent southwards to Rochefort.

Source:(James p.253) The ships in the latter port [Lorient] ; having, as stated before, quitted Brest with only 15 days' provisions on board, had been compelled, owing to the poverty of the place, to discharge the principal part of their crews ; disease and desertion had gradually thinned the remainder.

• Article: All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy. The name of Alexandre reverted to the former Alexander, and although James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, this claim is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball. Tigre retained her French name, while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle.

Source:(James p.250) Of his three prizes, the Alexandre, or Alexander, as now again entitled to be called, was scarcely worth anything ; but the Tigre and Formidable were fine new 74s, similar in size to the Impetueux and America captured by Earl Howe. The Tigre was allowed to retain her name ; but there being a Formidable 98 already in the service, the name of the Formidable 74, as if to perpetuate an acknowledged discreditable mistake, was changed to that of the island, close to which, instead of to Groix, the action was supposed to have been fought ...

• Article: Twenty-first-century historians Noel Mostert and Richard Woodman have compared Groix with the battles of Genoa and Hyères fought earlier in the year in the Mediterranean, where in similar circumstances another elderly admiral, William Hotham, had also allowed scattered and retreating French fleets to escape when they might have been destroyed.

Source:(Woodman p.61) Two similarly unsatisfactory actions between British and French squadrons were fought in the Mediterranean, where Vice-admiral William Hotham had relieved Lord Hood. Off Genoa in March Hotham took a French 80 and a 74, and in an action of Hyeres in July...

Source:(Mostert p.164) The French had lost their opportunity off Fiorenzo, the British off Hyeres, where a superior fleet of twenty-three British ships had failed to come to action with a French fleet of seventeen... ...For the British the consequences of Hotham's failure were soon to become apparent. There was nothing better on offer from the Channel Fleet at the Western Approaches. On 22 June, an unusually powerful Channel Fleet... ...Bridport's explanation echoed Hotham's off Hyeres...

Support--Ykraps (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This is a well-written account of an interesting sea battle. Here are my questions and suggestions. I think a map would be especially helpful.

General

• Images need alt text.

I used to have to do this and was wondering if it was still necessary, couldn't see anything about it on the FA criteria page. In any case, done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Even if not required, it's a nice thing to do for readers who can't see the images. Finetooth (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Link aquatint in the lede image caption?

done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• View of the Close of the Action Between the British and French Fleets, off Port L'Orient on 23 June 1795; aquatint by Robert Dodd, from the original by Captain Alexander Becher, RN; published 12 June 1812, NMM – I would omit the publication date and the name of the publisher since those details are readily available on the image description page.

Date reduced, but I think it is important to have the date for context - whether the image is contemporary or not is crucial to its value as an illustration. The Maritime Museum is the owner of the image (i.e. its an image of a print from their collection), not the publisher. I always put the owner of the image in a caption when I use one - its both professional and polite.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• An exact Representation of the Capture of three Ships of the Line, and total defeat of the French Fleet, by a Squadron under Command of Admiral Lord Bridport, on the 23 of June, 1795" E. Godefroy & J. Pass, 1795. NMM.]] – For a more clean image, I would consider cropping the text from the image itself and re-uploading the cropped image to the Commons, and I would eliminate the publisher's name and the publication date from the caption.

See above. Also, I think that the text is an important part of the image in this instance. The print is a composition as a whole, not a simple picture.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Finetooth (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• A map showing Brittany, Lorient, Brest, Groix, and Belle Île would be helpful in understanding the ship movements. It could be a map of any time since 1795, not necessarily an old map, as long as it showed the relevant coastline, cities, and islands.

Haven't found an appropriate one yet. Still looking.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't found one either. This one would do as an appropriately licensed base map to which a few names and a couple of city locations could be added. I don't want to hold things up, so I'm striking. It's something you might consider adding later. Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede

• ¶2 "Several of his ships were too slow however," – I don't think you need the "however".

Background

• ¶1 Link "anti-republicans" to something explanatory, perhaps Republicanism?

I've linked the purge to the Reign of Terror, of which it was a small part, but a link to Republicanism isn't going to be helpful. The people executed were political prisoners from a range of ideological stances from monarchism through a bewildering rainbow of republican factions; most were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and were actually executed on trumped up charges anyway (e.g. sailors executed for protesting a lack of edible food or dock administrators executed for failing to meet impossible work quotas), so the link might actually be misleading.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. Finetooth (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• ¶1 "the French fleet sallied out into the Atlantic" – Delete "out"?

I don't think its a tautology, but sure, OK. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• ¶1 "The febrile atmosphere..." – "Fevered" would be more familiar to most readers, I think.

I quite like the word febrile and I don't think fevered really matches the tone of what was happening - I've compromised with "tense".--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 "French commander Vice-admiral Villaret..." − Elsewhere in ¶2, you have "Vice-Admiral William Cornwallis". I'm not sure whether little "a" or big "A" is preferred. Should they be the same, or is the difference important?

Its actually an important difference - the French ranks of vice and contre-amiral are not exact equivalents of Vice and Rear-Admiral in the Royal Navy, and in the context of this article are proper nouns and should I think be rendered in the original French (note that I refer to contre-amiral, but anglicise it to French admiral when I'm not using it as a proper noun, as they were still collectively admirals). THis is also consistent with my many other articles in this field.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. Finetooth (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 Link Contre-amiral since even "counter-admiral" may be unfamiliar to most readers?
• ¶3 "heading out into open water " – Delete "out"?
• ¶3 "the ship began to fall behind the others." – Delete "the others" as unnecessary?

Done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Groix

• The Manual of Style advises against repeating the article title in a head. Instead of Battle of Groix here, would Engagement be better? Or something else?

That's a new one on me and I'm not sure why its a problem, but sure, changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Umm. Redundancy is the problem. MOS:HEAD contains the guideline I'm thinking of. It says, "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life) or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." In your revision, the word "battle", which is one of the main words of the article title, appears in the subhead "Battle off Groix" and in the sub-subhead, "Battle". Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've made changes as you suggest, but honestly, having read that guideline, I still don't see how having redundancy between the title and section headings is a problem for readers in any way. Seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Villaret's retreat

• ¶3 "The ship was a poor sailer, whose position was worsened by poor handling by Guillemet... " – Since a ship isn't a who, maybe "The ship was a poor sailer, and its position was worsened by poor handling by Guillemet..."

Most sailors would I think disagree with your first statement, but changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The same guys who like to think of a ship as a she? Finetooth (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle

• ¶3 "had been forced out of the engagement due to severe damage to his rigging and sails" – Use "its rigging" here instead of "his" since the damage was to the equipment, not Douglas?

I would humbly suggest that this is okay. It is his ship so by extension, his sails and rigging. --Ykraps (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ykraps; there is a standing convention in a lot of naval histories to conflate the captain with the ship in this way - i.e. as captain authority over the ship's equipment rested entirely with him and thus they were in a very real sense "his". Have no objection to changing it to "the rigging" though if you'd prefer.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No change necessary. Most of my suggestions are minor, and I'm an outsider who is mostly unfamiliar with sailing conventions. Finetooth (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• ¶3 "At 07:14, he drifted past that shattered hull of Alexandre, Captain Guillemet, opening fire briefly before surrendering as the first rate returned it with devastating effect." – Something's amiss here. Remove the comma after Guillemet?

Yep, bad comma. Changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath

• ¶1 "The British fleet had lost 31 men killed and 113 wounded, with Queen Charlotte and Colossus with the heaviest casualties of 36 and 35 respectively." – I'd suggest replacing the double "with" in this sentence. Maybe "The British fleet had lost 31 men killed and 113 wounded; Queen Charlotte and Colossus had the heaviest casualties, 36 and 35 respectively."

Good call.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 "opposed by Rear-Admirals Kerguelen and Étienne Eustache Bruix" – Since you used "amiral" and "contre-amiral" earlier, should "Rear-admiral" be given in a French equivalent, if there is one?

Yes, this was an error, good spot.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• ¶3 "by the Parliament of Great Britain, who voted thanks" – Should Parliament be a "which" rather than a "who"?
• ¶3 "All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy, Alexandre reverting to Alexander (James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, but this is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball), Tigre retaining her French name while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle." – Too complex. Maybe "All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy. Alexandre reverted to Alexander. (James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, but this is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball.) Tigre retained her French name, while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle."

Rephrased.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• ¶4 "in the opinion of French admiral Kerguelen" – Admiral or amiral? To maintain consistency, it might be better to use all-English titles throughout rather than using the French equivalents.

See above about proper nouns (French) and common nouns (English).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography

• To deal with questions like one that Ykraps raised above, it would probably be helpful to include OCLCs for the books without ISBNs. WorldCat lists them. Your edition of Battles of the British Navy, for example, is probably the 9th edition or the revised 9th edition of the Simpkin publication: here. You might also add the full title and the edition info to identify the source more exactly.

Added edition. Not certain which is the OCLC number on the link you sent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of a thicket of stuff to wade through. The trick is to click from the title on the page I sent you, and that takes you to another page specifically about the 1905 9th rev. ed. from which you scroll down to the "Details" section. The OCLC, 85994488, is cleverly hidden there. I added this OCLC to the article. You should be able to add OCLCs to any of the others. Here, for example, is the OCLC list of possibles for Chasseriau. Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the finely detailed review. Comments above, otherwise I think I've done everything you've suggested. Let me know if you have additional comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Done except for the two remaining open questions about the head-subhead redundancy and the other missing OCLCs. Leaning toward support. Finetooth (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - should get to this by the weekend, best --Jackyd101 (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Done these both. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. By the way, I found a map that would work, but needs a red dot on it for clarity. I can't work out the formatting for putting red dots in images not in the infobox though. Can you recommend anything?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If you provide a link to the map, I'll take a look and see what might be done. You'll need to tell me where you want the red dot to appear. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The map is below. The dot should go off the southern side of the island of Groix, halfway up the southern coast of the Breton peninsula. Any help much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed the map itself from this FAC page because I thought it might slow the page loading. Working on a solution. Finetooth (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Modified the base map, uploaded it to the Commons, and installed it in the article. If you want further alterations, just let me know on the article's talk page or my talk page rather than extending the map discussion here at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: really nice work. I just have a few minor formatting suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• in the lead, Lorient is overlinked
• in the body, the following terms are overlinked: Lorient, Brittany
• per the example at Template:Infobox military conflict, I don't think we usually include ranks in infoboxes
• there is some inconsistency in how you display page ranges. For instance, compare "James, p. 245-246" with "James, pp. 237-238" (I think the later is correct)
• the page ranges should probably have endashes instead of hyphens
• Citation 45, Winfield should probably be a short citation for consistency of style

• Thank you and done! Much appreciated--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments.

• What the British admiral did not know however "However" is frowned upon at FAC and this one looks like it could go without any loss of meaning (also when it's used in the middle of a sentence like that, it should be flanked by commas as a subordinate clause)

• Removed.

• a week earlier, but that they were still at sea, Villaret's ships having been blown Suggest changing the second comma to a dash so that "but that they were..." doesn't look like a subordinate clause

• Done.

• Captain Richard Grindall in Irresistible, Captain Sir James Saumarez in Orion, etc: Surely one travels on a ship, not in it?

• As far as I'm aware either is fine - you are literally inside the ship most of the time, so . . .

• but none executed the manoeuvre Why not? Was there not time or was there confusion in the heat of battle? As written, it could be read that the French captains deliberately disobeyed orders.

• That is deliberate - the sources frame it the same way, implying that the captains disobeyed orders but not saying it explicitly. Note that later in the article there is an explicit criticism from Villaret for his captains' conduct.

• Douglas falling in behind his ship in anticipation of a renewed attack, his crew having conducted two uses of his referring to different people in very quick succession; suggest splitting the sentence into two

Both "his" refer to Douglas here, but since its clearly not clear I have reworded it.

• At 08:15 however see my previous comment on "however", and that sentence is long and difficult to follow with the amount of information in it

• Done

• Recommend using Template:Cite ODNB for your ODNB citations.

• Done

• Was there any broader impact on the French Revolutionary Wars or anything else that could just wrap up the end of the article?

• Not on the wider war itself, which was mainly fought on land - the most important strategic impact was that the British dominance of the Atlantic was unchallenged for the next year or so as discussed in the aftermath section.

• No see also? It's by no means compulsory but sometimes it can be helpful.

• Can't think of anything which could go there.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks - I think I've addressed these, let me know if there is anything further. Thanks also for the copyedit. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• You're very welcome. I'm happy with your replies, so support. Nice work, and I hope to see more! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:06, 14 October 2017 [42].

---

Hurricane Fred (2015)

Nominator(s): Auree ^★★ 18:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Although not as intense nor destructive as recent Hurricanes Irma and Maria, Hurricane Fred of 2015 was still a notable tropical cyclone for several reasons. Not only was its formation near the coast of West Africa, which endured heavy storm surge activity, one of the easternmost points for tropical cyclogenesis in the tropical Atlantic, but it also became the easternmost cyclone in the basin to attain hurricane status. Moreover, it was the first hurricane since 1892—and only the second ever—to move directly through the island nation of Cape Verde. Luckily, its effects there were limited to sporadic structural and crop damage, and offset by its beneficial drought-alleviating rainfall. I hope you all enjoy the article! Auree ^★★ 18:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review:

• File:Fred 2015-08-31 1215Z.jpg: Seems pertinent and correctly licensed.
• File:Fred 2015 track.png: Pertinent but license statement needed for the background. I know it's pedantic but it is necessary.

It's been a while since I've dabbled on Wiki: Which license does that image fall under? Auree ^★★ 17:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Same as File:Whole world - land and oceans.jpg, I'd say, for the background. I am not sure what copyright status the output of the track map generator has, I am guessing that @Titoxd: knows? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The track generator output is based from public domain data, the recommended license is public domain, and the uploader of the file licensed his contribution as public domain, so the file is public domain. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I added the license; see what you think. Auree ^★★ 21:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• File:Fred 2015-09-03 1245z.jpg and File:Fred 2015-08-30 1435z.jpg: Pertinent and correctly licensed. Captions supported by text.
• File:Povoação Velha, Boa Vista.jpg: Pertinent and correctly licensed, but I did change the filename as the town is named "Povoação". Caption supported by text.

I see no ALT text anywhere, although it may be hidden in the two templates that are used to transclude some images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Will address this asap. Thanks for the review! Auree ^★★ 17:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I might be blind, but I don't see the requirement for ALT text in the FA criteria? It's been a while since my last FAC but I remember it not being a prerequisite. Auree ^★★ 21:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You aren't blind. I just point out the presence and quality of ALT text as a matter of course when reviewing. ALT text isn't mandatory, if people want to add it they can if they don't want they don't have to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Jo-Jo Auree ^★★ 12:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank! Good to see you're still around :) Auree ^★★ 01:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You too! - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comments Support As usual, you do a great job limiting the jargon.
• Any reason you have a hatnote on the top? The title isn't ambiguous unlike articles where there is no year, so per WP:NAMB there is no need. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Any reason Atlantic hurricane isn't linked somewhere? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Atlantic hurricane now linked in opening sentence. Auree ^★★ 10:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Although tropical cyclones in the extreme eastern Atlantic are typically propelled westward by high pressures from a subtropical ridge,[7]" you probably don't need the "high pressure" bit, since a "subtropical ridge" is by definition an area of high pressure. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I added it because I talk about ridges and high pressure quite often, as that was an important feature in steering Fred's path. Most laymen don't know what a ridge is, so I usually mention that it is an area of high pressure in met histories. Auree ^★★ 10:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Re-reading the sentence again, it makes sense. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Source for currency conversion (I always add a note in my WPAC articles)? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Add TC portal link. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• You link Fred 09/Debbie 61 in the see also. Why? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Link Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, YE! Thanks for bringing up these technical and accessibility points that I would have normally overlooked. I implemented/commented on your suggestions, except for the source/note for currency conversion. Could you clarify what you mean by note? Auree ^★★ 10:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

As for the note for the currency conversion, something like Typhoon Nabi#Notes the second note on that section is an example. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Added! Found a website that has conversion rates for previous years, including 2015. Do you have any more comments? Auree ^★★ 19:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Any reason inches are spelled out in this line: "On the island of Santiago, the most significant impact was due to heavy rainfall peaking at 6.3 inches (160 mm).[46]" You don't spell out feet on its first useage. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 13:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point; I spelled out the first occasions of miles and feet. Auree ^★★ 19:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This reads well. I have a few suggestions and questions, as follows:

General

• Even if not required, alt text for the images would be nice for people who can't see the images. Just briefly describe the essence of the image; e.g., "Map showing the track of the hurricane".

Lead

• ¶2 "though the rain's overall impact on the agriculture" – Delete "the"?

• I assume you're referring to "the" before agriculture? Auree ^★★ 00:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Finetooth (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 "submerging large swaths of residential area" – Should this be plural "areas"?

West Africa

• ¶1 "Along the shores of Dakar..." – Link Dakar here rather than in the next section?
• ¶1 "Victims in the affected region received more than 100 tons (220,000 lbs) of rice and 12 million CFA francs (US$20,000) in relief funds." – Where did the relief funds come from?

• From the government; included. Auree ^★★ 00:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Cape Verde

• ¶1 "were halted soon after squally conditions spread across the islands" – Trim to "were halted soon after squalls spread across the islands"?
• ¶2 "Two inhabitants were taken to hospital when their home partially collapsed." – I'd leave out "but both remained in stable conditions" since we don't know what happened to them later, and we don't know the extent of their injuries.

• They were in non-critical condition, so not seriously injured. I can see how the wording muddles that meaning though, so I altered it a bit. Auree ^★★ 00:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 I would consider unlinking Praia, Sal, and Santo Antão in this section since they are already linked earlier in the main text of a short article.
• ¶3 "Efforts to restore the pier were yet to be completed by May 2017, about 2.5 years after the hurricane, resulting in public protest and exacerbating the island's precarious economy." – I'd trim this a bit, and I don't think you can exacerbate an economy. Suggestion: "Pier restoration was incomplete as of May 2017, about 2.5 years after the hurricane. The delay led to public protest and weakened the island's precarious economy." Or something like that.

• I like it! Auree ^★★ 00:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• ¶4 Unlink São Nicolau since it's already linked earlier in the main text?

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your helpful comments; I fixed most per your suggestions and commented on others. Auree ^★★ 00:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

All good. If a sudden rush of empathy leads you to add alt text later, the angels will sing. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The angels have sung—and inspired me to give it a go. :) Auree ^★★ 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

With so many foreign language sources, mainly Portuguese, my checks have been limited to format, presentation and link checking.

• Refs 3 and 7 appear to be to the same source. In each case, how does this source support the statement cited to it? If navigation of the source is required, there should be notes to that effect

• Good catch. Apparently the NHC changed their directory for the Atlantic outlooks since my last visit. Auree ^★★ 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 8: I think the publisher is Atalantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, of which the Hurricane Research Division is a component.

• Fair point; amended. Auree ^★★ 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 25: The link goes to Discussion no. 30, not 31

• Oops. I checked both discussions just to be sure, and #31 is indeed the one that backs up that sentence. Auree ^★★ 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 30: Check publisher (who does not appear to be Le Soleil)

• Publisher is Dakaractu, which is also noted. Le Soleil is the newspaper that produced the article they're archiving/publishing. I could clarify that in the source? Auree ^★★ 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 42, 49 and 54: I could not get the links to work – please check them.

• Strange, it appears the server is down. I contacted the agency through their Facebook for more information, but if this isn't resolved in a timely manner I will look to replace these sources. Auree ^★★ 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherewise the sources look to be in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks kindly for the review! Auree ^★★ 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources review

Hi there. I've never participated in any FAC, but the user above mentioned his difficulty in doing a source check for the sources in Portuguese so I thought I could help with those. I'm only checking if the information in the article is supported by the sources in Portuguese, I don't know a thing about hurricanes. Feel free to tell me if I'm doing something I shouldn't here in FAC. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 37 - I can't read the source article, it only shows a bunch of headlines. At least for me.

• Strange, it does open for me. I took a screenshot of the article in any case, if you would like to verify the content. Auree ^★★ 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• I am so sorry, that link is working perfectly fine. I was talking about ref 31, the Bissau Digital one, that opens weirdly to me. That was the reason I started this, I couldn't get the very top link to work. Bungled the ref number, though. RetiredDuke (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Totally fine! That article has indeed vanished for me as well. I replaced it with another source that hosted the same article, so you can verify the content now :) Auree ^★★ 17:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 38 c - "a sport center at a gymnasium" - that wording threw me off for a second, I had to check the text twice since there's no tradition of the word "gymnasium" or equivalent in the Portuguese language to mean a type of school like there is in the Germanic languages. The source refers to "cobertura do pavilhão desportivo do Liceu Olavo Moniz". "Liceu" is an old word for "high school", there's no other connotation for it anymore other than the indication that the institution was founded way back. So it was a high school gym/sports facility, I don't know which one is better for the English language.

• Good point; "high school gym" is also simpeler wording. Auree ^★★ 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 39 b - Is that a typo? The source refers to 26 million in losses, not 76 million. Also, I don't believe your wording is correct. That is a press release from the Boavista City Hall, where they say they estimate they will need to spend 26 million in reparations. Then, outside of general repairs and the ones that fall under the responsability of the City Hall, they estimate another 50 million losses in the private sector.

• I rephrased this to better reflect your understanding of the text. Auree ^★★ 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I will continue in a bit. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 42 - Link is dead. May I suggest this alternative for both claims a and b? I know it's not from Cape Verde, but it's a reliable newspaper in Portugal. It supports both claims.

• Great source, thanks! I'd been looking to replace the Ocean Press links. Auree ^★★ 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 43 - There's nothing in the source that supports the claim of "public protest". Must have been a mistranslation because the source consists of bureaucrats and touristic operators expressing their concern about the delay in reparations. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Protest might indeed be too strong of a wording; changed to "concerns". 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 44 - This whole article is about the excessive sand extraction in the island of Sal. The only reference to the hurricane is to say that the situation worsened in the pier area after Fred. Concern is once again expressed, but there's no public protest.

• See above. Auree ^★★ 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 46 - This can also be used to support 42 b, if you prefer a local news source to my previous suggestion.

• I used your suggestion instead :) Auree ^★★ 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 47 a - "prompting residents from adjacent areas to evacuate" - the source does not support this claim.

• It's been a while since I worked on the article but I remember reading something about evacuations, probably in another article. Nonetheless, I cannot retrieve the information right now so it has been altered. Auree ^★★ 23:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 49 - Link is dead.

• Per Brian's source review above; will look to replace if Ocean Press does not reply to my inqueries in a timely manner. Auree ^★★ 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• I see. For 49-a there's this video, the reporter talks extensively about the damage in São Nicolau, including on crops; sadly, he doesn't specify about banana and sugarcane. RetiredDuke (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your efforts; I am going to look into finding replacements for this soon. Auree ^★★ 17:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank goodness, I have found an archived version of the page! It can be viewed here or (under now-Ref 50). Auree ^★★ 18:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 58 - "and a few people suffered minor injuries when a tree fell on their car" - there was only one person inside the car.

RetiredDuke (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• I must've glossed over the text too fast and read the plural "ferimentos ligeiros" to mean that there were more occupants. Auree ^★★ 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I finished the review of all the sources in Portuguese. All references I've not mentioned are good to go. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough check of the sources! It gives me more assurance to know the source contents and their transduction into the article have been checked by another pair of capable eyes. Auree ^★★ 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: & @RetiredDuke: I have found replacements/archived pages for the remaining problematic sources. With that, everything should be up to standard. Thanks again for your diligence, RetiredDuke! Auree ^★★ 18:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

All my concerns have been adressed by now. I also went back and re-read the article in its entirety so I could throw my 2 cents and I found it to be very well-written and easy to follow. I found nothing to quibble about so I support this nomination. RetiredDuke (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Gratitude for your spot-checks of the Portuguese sources, and of course the support. Hopefully this encounter compels you to visit FAC again in the future, perhaps for more Portuguese-related topics :) Auree ^★★ 09:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:08, 14 October 2017 [43].

---

Manchester Cenotaph

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Those who have been following my edits will be shocked to see me nominating yet another war memorial, once again by the same architect, and just 10 miles down the road from the last one! This is one of Lutyens' bigger and more famous memorials, it's the main First World War memorial in England's third-largest city, and there was much controversy surrounding it even before it was commissioned. It was built in a compromise location six years after the armistice to avoid delaying the whole thing any further. This mistake was fixed 90 years later when the tram network was expanded and the memorial moved to the opposite side of the square to stand outside Manchester's impressive town hall. All this means there's quite a lot to say about it!

The article has had a GA review and an A-class review at Milhist, and I'm very much obliged to J3Mrs, KJP1, and Mike Peel for their efforts with research, copy-editing, and photos. As ever, all feedback is very welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• The link in ref 3 is dead, needs replacing
• In WP featured articles, the bibliography is normally placed after rather than before the list of citations - even in your most recent FA! I'm not sure whether there's a specific guideline that covers this, but you are definitely out of step with general prectice. Any particular reason for wanting it this way?

Otherwise, sources look good.Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brian, thanks for looking. I've added an archive URL for the PMSSA link; according to their website, they're having problems with their database. As for the order, I've always found the list of works more interesting and more useful than the specific page numbers. It's the way I normally do it when I write articles but I don't get het up if somebody changes it in the course of improvements to the article, as happened at Norwich. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67

I reviewed this article in detail at GAN and Milhist ACR, and had precious little to criticise then. I have reviewed the few changes since then, but it has not changed substantively since my last review. I believe the guideline Brianboulton is looking for is MOS:FNNR, my reading of which is that it isn't prescriptive about order when all notes and references are combined in one section (as Harry does here and in other war memorial FAs of his). I consider the article clearly meets the FA criteria. Harry is setting the standard for war memorial articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what the guideline says is (my emphasis): "Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." I agree, not prescriptive, but fairly clear guidance I would have thought. When 99.9% are doing it this way, I'd say it was better to conform, but I'm not pressing the point, just curious to know why HJM thinks his way is better. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil

Looking good, reading through

• Tough one, but watch for word usage repetition in the lead.

• 16 usages of the word "memorial"

• Trimmed to 7, including one in the infobox.

• in Manchester, England. Manchester was - The city was

• I'd prefer to keep this one because it's the very beginning of the article and I think the reader needs to be reminded after the opening sentence (wich discusses the era, the architect, and the exact location as well as the city).

• ' The memorial consists of a central cenotaph and a Stone of Remembrance flanked by twin obelisks, all features characteristic of Lutyens' war *memorials*.

• Tweaked.

• The next choice was Piccadilly Gardens, an area ripe for development, but in the interests of expediency, the council chose St Peter's Square - Expedient how

  I was trying not to get bogged down in the lead. It was expedient in that it would still have taken months or years to put it in either of the preferred sites and Manchester as already behind the curve with the British Legion breathing down its neck and they felt they had to build something at that point. There's much more detail in the body.

It only needs an additional word or two - will come back to you later on this. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• 'The memorial was unveiled on 12 July 1924 by the Earl of Derby, assisted by Mrs Bingle, a local resident whose three sons had died in the war. 'The memorial* cost cost - also remove one "cost"
  • Tweaked, and one "cost" zapped; well spotted.

This is a decent series of articles. Will read through more later. Ceoil (talk)

Thanks very much. Always appreciate your input! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Despite the war memorial committee's promise that local labour would be used, the monument was built by Nine Elms Stone Masonry Works of London, at a cost of £6,940. Indeed. Earlier the article says, The committee raised £10,000 in subscriptions and donors were told local firms would benefit from its construction as unemployment was increasing in the city. The final sentence seems a bit tucked away; is there more on this, it seems it might have been highly contentious and political (or social) dynamite at the time. Would be great if you dug and expanded. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It is interesting, but I haven't been able to find any more about it (I looked when I was writing the article a few months ago). On the one hand, it makes perfect sense for Lutyens to hire a reputable stonemason's firm he'd worked with before to carry out the work, but on the other local jobs was one of the selling points.

Fine but you might be more pointed in the telling of the sequenc. Consider moving the earlier sentence to before the outcome. If you can find no more on this, as you have said, then I have doubts about comprehensiveness and breath of research, your research methods, as its too much not to have been noticed by just us two, and we live in a digital age, and major libraries have postal services. I would very much be up for sharing research here. User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• The Despite the war para is long and dense anyway as it is, with a lot crammed in; could you split in tow, or three.
  • Will look at this, leave it with me for a day or two.
• A marble plaque, added nearby - why the comma
  • Because "added nearby..." is a subordinate clause, but the closing comma was missing.
• the surrounding area was made into a garden of remembrance "was made into" isnt into, either converted to with physical alternations as fitting, or "designated"
  • Is laid out as clearer?

Yes, vs "made into". Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• began consultations on moving the cenotaph - City Council's wouldn't stir a cup of tea without having hired a consultant, so one word here is redundant
  • They actually launched a full-blown public consultation; I've clarified that.
• The cenotaph's relocation - The relocation
  • Done.
• Repairs costing £4,000 - Repair work costing Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done. Thank you very much! I'm a little pressed for time at the minute and it'll take me 20 minutes or so to fiddle with that paragraph so I'll come back to it. Much obliged, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thats fine. I wont be looking again until next weekend anyway. Talk then. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, I've split the paragraph and moved some stuff around so hopefully it's more readable now; happy to look at it further if you think it's still an issue. I'm struggling on the local labour point, though. None of the books raise it (and several of them go into quite some detail about the various controversies that plagued the memorial's construction); I've tried searching for local newspapers, but for some reason neither Manchester City Council nor the British Newspaper Archive have the local papers from that part of the 1920s despite having extensive archives for earlier and later periods. The phrase "despite the promise" was added by another editor and although it's accurate in that the promise was made and that the stone masonry was done by a London firm, I can't see any evidence that this caused much fuss. I would have expected Skelton or one of the other modern books to have picked up on it if there was. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mitchell, well thnts ok then. I'm a Support at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. Excellent article and well-written throughout. One very small, not-picking point is all I could find to comment on:

History

• "The memorial was unveiled..." the previous memorial referred to was Rochdale, which caused a few moments confusion.

Whatever you decide won't be a deal-breaker from me, and I'm happy to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, SchroCat. I've cleared this up while splitting the paragraph in line with Ceoil's suggestion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I notice that we don't have alt text. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. But it is not worth holding up promotion over this. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:13, 14 October 2017 [44].

---

Guilden Morden boar

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A comprehensive yet concise article about an Anglo-Saxon boar that was once the crest for a helmet. The boar-crested helmet is a staple of contemporary imagery—think Beowulf or the Benty Grange helmet—yet could be seen today as an artistic invention if not for the three remaining examples. The Guilden Morden boar is small but significant, displayed in the same gallery of the British Museum as the Sutton Hoo treasures and exhibited internationally. This exhaustive article covers the boar from its discovery alongside "a doubled-up skeleton" in 1864 or 1865, to its reanalysis in 1977, to its typographic and artistic parallels. It includes all the relevant literature, which, when offline or otherwise inaccessible, I'm happy to help provide to anyone interested. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto

An interesting little article. A little on the short side, which is fine if it covers all the bases, but I wonder if anything more could be said about:

• The manufacture of the crest. The article says it is cast bronze, but how was it cast? The lost wax process?
• Iconography. Why a boar? Presumably boars are in some way iconographically significant, if they are known from multiple helmets.

The references I have spot-checked all check out. Prose is mostly fine, but I did notice "the boar is part of a number of boar-crested helmets" – in fact, it was part of only one! Perhaps something like: "the boar was probably once the crest of a helmet; a number of other Saxon boar-crested helmets are known from archaeological excavations and artistic depictions"? I also feel like "gains a further parallel in the Wollaston helmet" is fairly clunky, but I don't have any suggestion to improve it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Caeciliusinhorto. Taking your comments in order:

1. Length: You're right that it's short, but it's a small object, and only has two articles devoted to it (Fordham 1904; Foster 1977a). Other articles discuss it in context (boar iconography and Beowulf, for example) along with other items. Especially with the addition of the "Iconography" section (see #3, below), I believe that the article covers all the bases.
2. Manufacture: That's a good question, but there is nothing in the literature. Fordham does not mention manufacture; Foster just says "cast" with some details punched in afterwards; and the BM website, along with the 2013 exhibition catalog, says the same as Foster (probably copying her) without elaboration. I also looked at the articles on the other boar-crested helmets (Benty Grange and Wollaston), which are not helpful. A detailed article (Bruce-Mitford 1974) on the Benty Grange helmet simply says the pieces were cast (again no elaboration), and the simpler Wollaston boar was manufactured differently, by forging a rod of iron.
3. Iconography: Good point. I've added an "Iconography" section which I believe addresses your question, and turned the Beowulf section into a subsection thereof.
4. Prose: Re-worded the section that contained those two phrases. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I made a minor copy-edit to the "Iconography" section. The article is looking good to me, though as FunkMonk notes below, a photograph would be nice if we could get a good one. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Even without the photograph, though, I am very happy to Support this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: my source spot-checks were for accuracy. I wasn't specifically looking for close paraphrasing, though I think if there was anything very egregious I would have noticed it. If no one else does any spot-checks before, I will do some more tonight thinking about paraphrasing as well as accuracy. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, have done a little bit more source checking. No problems with close paraphrasing that I can see. I wonder about ref 52 (Bruce-Mitford 1972, p.122) though, which I don't see supports anything (not that it's necessary, because other references to that claim do adequately support that the Beowulf quote in question does refer to the kind of boars found on the Sutton Hoo helmet). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued checking, Caeciliusinhorto. That Bruce-Mitford citation supports the idea that when boars (plural) in Beowulf are mentioned in the context of helmets, they refer to adornments such as the terminal eyebrow boars on the Sutton Hoo helmet. Bruce-Mitford quotes lines 303–304 (the same ones quoted in the footnote in the Guilden Morden boar article) right after noting that the helmet had boars' heads instead of a boar crest. It's somewhat redundant, since, as you mention, there are other citations that support the same concept, but Bruce-Mitford is an important writer on the Sutton Hoo helmet, and his acceptance of that interpretation carries some weight. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, re-reading this more closely, I see that this is actually fine. @Sarastro1: I am happy that the sources do check out, both for accuracy and for avoiding close paraphrasing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Guilden_Morden_grave_goods_drawing.png: we're certain that the journal itself had no copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria I'm at the library with an original copy of the journal now. The inside of the front cover states at the bottom that "All contributions to Medieval Archaeology are COPYRIGHT. Applications to reproduce them, in whole or in part, should be addressed, in the first instance, to the Secretary, Society for Medieval Archaeology, University College, Gower Street, London, WCIE 6BT." The journal also has a copyright page before the contents, which states "© World copyright—The Society for Medieval Archaeology". (I'm happy to email you this if you would like, having just scanned all the front and back matter of the journal.)

I'm not sure what significance, if any, the above language has. Per the article, the drawing was "made between April 1882 and September 1883." Foster does not state who drew it, but realistically it could only have been Herbert Fordham (d. 1891); his son Herbert George Fordham (d. 1929) wrote about the boar in 1904, but professed to be unaware of various details that were mentioned in the drawing. He explicitly stated that "No further information as to ... the particular objects found is now, unfortunately available", yet had he drawn the drawing, he would have known about the bronze ring and amber bead found alongside the boar. But regardless, the father died in 1891 and the son in 1929, so any copyright based on life + 70 years has expired. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is rather the US tagging - the tag currently in use requires "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice". Is there a different tag that would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I've changed it to {{PD-US-URAA}}, which appears to be more explicit about the criteria needed for a foreign publication to achieve copyright protections in the United States. Medieval Archaeology was not registered in the United States (Copyright Entries), and so failed to comply with the necessary formalities (page 3 of the Hirtle chart). --Usernameunique (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Please see this discussion at the copyright help desk. Bottom line is that the 1977 UK publication did not comply with the formal requirements to establish US copyright, and so not only is the drawing PD is the UK, it is PD in the US. The previous tag appears to have been accurate, but I have updated it with a more succinct one: {{PD-old-auto-1996|deathyear=1891}}. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with many of the points raised in that discussion, but am unsure of the results; the new tag retains the "without copyright notice" verbiage which is not strictly speaking correct (it clearly had a copyright notice, even if that notice may not be compatible with US ones). Perhaps a tweak to the tag wording is in order? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. Per the continued discussion at the copyright help desk, I have included a detailed explanation under "Permission" on the file page. It doesn't seem like there is a perfect template; the current one appears to be technically correct (defective notice=no notice, legally speaking), though I could switch to {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1891}}{{PD-US-defective notice}} if you prefer. The explanation under "Permission" also has the benefit of explaining the other possibility, i.e., that the drawing is considered "unpublished" (and thus PD) in the US. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon, first thing that comes to mind is; why don't we have a photo of this object? Seems to be on public display? FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks FunkMonk, I look forward to your comments. At your prompting I've asked at the BM project page if a photograph might be possible. Including searches on Flikr, Google, and Bing, the only photographs I have seen of the boar are those taken by the BM (shown as an external link in the article) and a B&W photograph in a 1999 book. If the BM project page doesn't work I might email the author of the book and see if he has it in color and would be willing to release it. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope it will bear fruit! Seems odd no one hasn't just gone to that room and snapped a photo for Commons already. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Looking throughout the article, it seems you extensively use direct quotes for pretty simple statements. This disrupts the flow, I think, any reason why this can't just be paraphrased in your own words throughout?

• FunkMonk Just went through and paraphrased about half of them. If still feels too disruptive I can probably find a few more to get rid of. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Direct quotes should be attributed in-text, which i don't think you want to do, so it is probably best to get rid of them all. There are a couple in the intro as well. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I've removed many more, including those in the lead (sans Beowulf). The remaining are attributed by inline citations. Unless I'm missing something, that's acceptable per WP:Attribution#How to cite sources: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable."

Looks much more self-contained now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• "probably about 1864 or 1865," This quote seems especially unnecessary. It is just dates.

I've now paraphrased it. My thought behind that one was that quoting Fordham demonstrates that the uncertainty of the date stems back to the person most closely associated with the boar, but clearly it didn't have the desired effect.

Not when there is no in-text attribution, the reader has no idea who this is quoted from. You could also have said "according to X, it was found around Y Z." FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair point FunkMonk. The uncertainty of Fordham's recollections is reflected in the block quotation a few lines later, so I'll let it lie at that.

• "the son of Herbert, suggested that" I think this could end with a colon before the quote.

Done.

• " although a date more specific than the 6th or 7th century AD has not been suggested for the Guilden Morden boar" Based on what? Also, the infobox only says c. 7th century AD...

Fixed the infobox. The only source that suggests a date is the BM website ("6thC-7thC"). I think it's probably just based on the conservative guess of a curator asked to suggest a date without any guidance in the literature.

• "only five from the Anglo-Saxon period are capable of reconstruction" What is meant by "reconstructible"?

• Well-preserved enough that the original form can be determined. I've clarified it in the article. An example of a helmet that is not reconstructable is the Tjele helmet fragment.

• "sacred to the mother goddess" Anything that could be linked here?

The sources I have just say "mother goddess" or similar, probably taking their lead from Tacitus, who only says "They worship the mother of the gods" without naming her. Searching online was inconclusive; I'll try a book on the Celtic Gundestrup cauldron (will take a day or two to get), and see if it has anything.

Perhaps Mother goddess would be sufficient. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. I'll update it with something more specific it/when possible.

• You should state which languages the two Beowulf quotes are in.

Is it fine if i add this in either a footnote or by explaining in the text that Beowulf was originally written in Old English, or does it need to be in-text with both quotations?

What would be nicest for the reader is something like this[45], where each table has a "title" that states what the language is. So you would have one titled "Old English original", and the other titled "English translation", or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Added to the end of the block quotation. Because the second Old English quotation is only a sentence later, I haven't added a second mention, but will do so if you think it better.

• "a doubled-up skeleton" Not sure what is meant by this.

I presume a skeleton in the fetal position (e.g., second photograph here), but neither the drawing nor Foster elaborate. If you like I could add a short footnote to that effect, but I have not done so lest I run afoul of speculation or OR.

This could be a good place to use in-text attribution (since there is ambiguity), by saying for example "a "doubled-up skeleton", according to X". FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed the "doubled-up skeleton" quotation in the lead; where it remains in the body, it is attributed to the 1882–1883 drawing ("Underneath the images it is noted that the items were 'all found in a grave with a doubled-up skeleton'"), which I think does what you are asking. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• "he Guilden Morden boar is a link between the mythical Anglo-Saxon warrior hero and reality" Only stated explicitly in the intro, which should not have unique info.

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - everything nicely addressed, now I only hope you'll soon get a real photo of this object. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Brief comment from Brianboulton

I think the approximate age of the object needs to be in the lead, rather than just in the infobox. This is important basic data, and at present you have to read quite a way into the article before you find it in the Typology section. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Done.

Sources review

• There are several citations to the work Beowulf. In what form was this source consulted? Did you go to the BM and view it there, or did you use some printed edition? If the latter, details should be given.

• Added the Klaeber text, and indicated that it is the source of the Beowulf quotations.

• One of the Beowulf citations supports the statement in the lead that boar-adorned helmets are mentioned in the work five times by providing the page references. This looks a little like OR.

• It's not OR, and has been published some half-dozen times; Hatto, for example, says "In Beowulf there are six references to the boar as a symbol. ... Five of the six references concern the helmet," and Foster says "the literature contains numerous references to boars and to boar-capped helmets. Beowulf has five instances (Beowulf, 1968, pp 40, 63, 68, 72 and 94)." The purpose of the citations directly to the lines in question is to make it easier for any reader to find them. Foster's reference doesn't help unless someone has access to one particular in-copyright version of the poem, Hatto lists them in confusing order and translates only half of them, and others inexplicably state that there are five, and then only mention a few of them. It was confusing when I was going through the literature, and I figured that being explicit about what lines are pertinent would help others avoid similar confusion.

• Copyright isn't an issue when citing text (otherwise we wouldn't be able to cite anything published in the last 70 years). So you should cite the Foster source, in addition to the work itself. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Brianboulton, I've added another citation to the lead. Previously I think I misinterpreted your comment, thinking you were referring to the part in the "Boar-crests in Beowulf" section which supports the statement in the lead. That section has four citations ("... helmets with boar imagery are referenced five times.[7][8][39][40]"). My point about the source that Foster uses being copyrighted is only that it's substantially less versatile than the line numbers; armed with the lines, one may go to any out of copyright version on Google Books and read the relevant parts. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• One very small formatting point: in ref 9, p. should be pp.

• Fixed.

Everything else looks in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Brianboulton! I have addressed all the issues you raise above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

• Support - I've read through, nothing stands out as a clanger prose-wise. Hence all good on comprehensiveness and prose. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Adityavagarwal

• Strong support - Just two minor issues of dup links and ref ordering, which I have fixed. A very interesting article, and very well-written! Just one little thing I would ask is, why are we having so many citations in the lead? Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Adityavagarwal! The citations in the lead are probably strictly speaking unnecessary, but I include them as a matter of preference. I'd rather err on the side of citing something than not citing it, and especially when things in the lead are stated in different ways later (or just in recognition of the fact that articles change over time), it makes clear what citation supports what fact. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Yep, no issues in having citations in the lead, that is why I supported it and mentioned it as a minor thing. Just wondered about the reason. It is all cool! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

• Great work all round. Just a few minor points:
• In the lede, we do not mention the actual country where the object was found, instead resting on the assumption that the reader will be familiar with the term "Anglo-Saxon" and the location of "Cambridgeshire". Of course, readers can just click on the links, but that will then take them away from this article. I would suggest using something like "in a grave in Guilden Morden, a village in the eastern English county of Cambridgeshire". It just provides that extra level of precision which many international readers will appreciate (I found that the most useful strategy when putting together Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Added.

• There is a duplink to Anglo-Saxons in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Removed.

• It is a shame that we do not have a photograph of the artefact itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that's an ongoing project. See discussion above, and request here.

• "found by Herbert Fordham" - could we have a little further explanation of who he was? Just a few words should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Added.

• "Herbert George Fordham, the son of Herbert," - I think that it would be best to use the surname rather than the forename of the finder here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Rephrased. Was trying to avoid the inherent awkwardness of referring to two people with almost identical names, but think the new phrasing is better.

• No need to have "— Herbert George Fordham" at the end of the quotation if we already state who provided it just before the quote appears. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Removed.

• "at the Sutton Hoo Visitor Centre" - perhaps a link to Sutton Hoo here? And a statement that it is in Suffolk? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Added mention of Suffolk. Sutton Hoo is linked two sentences earlier ("... objects such as the finds from the Sutton Hoo ship-burial and the Lycurgus Cup.").

• "as part of Between Myth and Reality" - it is not made clear what this actually was, so perhaps "as part of Between Myth and Reality temporary exhibition"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Is this not covered by the two references to the boar being exhibited? The article says that "the Guilden Morden boar has been exhibited both domestically and internationally" (emphasis added) and that it was "exhibited from 26 July to 16 October 2013 ... as part of CREDO: Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter" (emphasis added).

• I see your point. I would probably still state "temporary exhibition" to make things 100% clear, but it isn't a key issue by any means. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Rephrased the initial sentence to "the Guilden Morden boar has been shown in both domestic and international exhibitions", making clear (by changing the verb "exhibited" to the noun "exhibitions") that the displays in Britain and Germany were exhibitions. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• "as part of CREDO: Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter (Christianisation of Medieval Europe)" - same issue as above. Best to just make things crystal clear, particularly for those who are not native English speakers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• In "Typology", we have "6th or 7th century AD" and then "sixth through eleventh centuries AD". There needs to be some standardisation here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Crested helmets were in use from the 6th century to the 11th; the crested helmet the boar adorned was from the 6th or 7th century. Rephrased slightly to make that clear.

• Sorry, I did not make myself clear enough there; I mean that we use both textual and numerical names for the centuries; i.e. both "6th" and "sixth". It is that which needs to be standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Got it, have now done so. There is still one mention of the "19th century" in note 1, but as it is part of a quotation I have left it as is.

• "In Celtic times the boar..." - I really think that we need to be very careful here, particularly with wording like "In Celtic times..." I would scrap this sentence altogether, to be honest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• When you say you would scrap this sentence, do you mean the entire part from "In Celtic times" to "with boar-crested helmets"? If so, why would you do so? it's purpose is to demonstrate the early use of, and reason behind, boar-crested helmets. Tacitus, the concept of a mother goddess, and the Gundestrup cauldron are generally invoked in any discussion of boar-crested helmets.

• The thing that particularly irks me here is the wording "in Celtic times". In Britain at least, archaeologists have pretty much entirely jettisoned talk of a "Celtic period" with all its 19th century associations and prefer to speak of the Iron Age, Romano-British period, and early middle ages, in each of which linguistically Celtic populations could be found. I would suggest something like "It has been argued that among linguistically Celtic communities in Iron Age Europe, the boar was seen as sacred to a mother goddess figure". Ensure that it is presented as an argument rather than as fact, too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Celtic Gundestrup cauldron" - the ethno-cultural origins of the cauldron ae certainly debatable; it was found in (linguistically Germanic) Denmark and was possibly produced in Anatolia (as far as I understand). I think that you need better sourcing than Foster on this one. I appreciate that her BAR volume is a reliable source but anything to do with "Celtic" identity and culture is inevitably contested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• The paraphrasing is my fault, not Foster's. She says "The great silver cauldron from Gundestrup, probably depicting Celtic ideology, though its place of manufacture is uncertain, provides further evidence of boar-crested helmets." (I had originally quoted the "probably depicting Celtic ideology" part, but removed it when attempting to remove the many quotations that were earlier in the article.) I'll spend a bit of time looking into this.

• I would recommend just getting rid of the C-word from this sentence, and simply discussing the Gundestrup Cauldron without it; perhaps mention where it was found, in order that the reader may appreciate its pertinence to the Guilden Morden boar. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ages" - again, problematic wording. Perhaps "Iron Age and early middle ages"? Talk of a "Celtic age" has generally been expunged from British archaeology for quite some time now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Rephrased to "the demise of Celtic culture and the advent of the Anglo-Saxons". The point of the sentence is less the particular time periods, and more the fact that two cultures to which the boar was important were separated by a significant amount of time.

• The issue is that concepts of a "Celtic culture", like those of "Celtic people", remain very contested within archaeological scholarship. I think that the only place where the term "Celtic" is still being used completely un-problematically is when referencing the broad linguistic group (and perhaps when talking about post-18th century ethno-cultural and religious groups who very much self-identify as "Celtic"). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Anglo-Saxon times," - I would really reword. Perhaps the "Anglo-Saxon period"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reworded.
• Thanks very much for your careful read Midnightblueowl. I have incorporated many of your suggestions; specific responses with a few questions are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Anglo-Saxon boar symbols "are latecomers in a procession led by La Tène prototypes in the fourth century BC, joined by Gaulish models in the first century BC, and reinforced by late Roman parade armor in the fourth century AD."" - perhaps better to paraphrase rather than going with a direct quotation here, because there is already a quote taking up much of the previous sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• "according to the Roman historian Tacitus boar symbols were worn in battle to invoke her protection" - by whom? A lot of Tacitus' descriptions pertain to specific tribal or regional groups and it would be good to be specific on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• " stable of symbols" - is this the right term to use? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Stable" is being used for its more general meaning as "group" or "collection," which feels fitting especially when used in an animalistic context. But let me know if it reads awkwardly and I'll rephrase.

• Thanks again for your comments Midnightblueowl. I have substantially rewritten the iconpgraphy section (and added an image of a wild boar, Nikkimaria). I believe it now addresses most of your concerns: among other changes the language is now less broad, talk of Celts is all but removed, and more details are given. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Midnightblueowl, do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Just that I would like to offer my support for its promotion. Well done, Usernameunique! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Unless I'm mistaken, this would be the nominators first FAC if promoted. Therefore, we would require spot checks of the sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing. I notice above that Caeciliusinhorto spot-checked some references. Could I clarify that these were checks for accurate usage and close paraphrasing? Also, I strongly agree with Midnightblueowl above that we should be avoiding "Celtic". Nor am I keen on Beowulf's description as "mythical" as there wasn't really much about him that was mythical. Also, never wanting to let a medieval expert go to waste, I wonder if Ealdgyth or Hchc2009 have seen this? (If they don't get chance to respond, that does not have to hold up this nomination, by the way.) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sarastro1. You are correct that this is my first nomination. At your suggestion I have changed "mythical" to "legendary", to remove any supernatural connotations. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review etc. by Cas Liber

• References formatted consistently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Earwigs copyvio good, with one text correctly quoted and attributed inflating the score.
• FN 12 faithful to source
• FN 1 (used 10 times) faithful to source
• FN 4 (used 4 times) faithful to source

All in order Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 19:22, 14 October 2017 [46].

---

Pru (album)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Following the promotion of "Shine" (Gwen Stefani song), I have decided to nominate another music-related article for FAC. This article is about the eponymous, debut studio album by American singer Pru. It was released on November 7, 2000, through Capitol Records. Music critics described the album as crossing multiple genres, with several commentators connecting the singer with a movement of neo soul performers. Apart from the sound, Pru was also noted for using poetry as an inspiration for writing music. After its release, critics wrote generally positive reviews of the album, praising its composition and Pru's voice. The album peaked at number 176 on the Billboard 200 chart. Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)".

Just for clarification, I do not believe that a separate article is necessary for Pru, as this album appears to be the only notable (according to Wikipedia standards) aspects of her career. Following the release of the album, she has appeared to drop from public attention. I believe that this fulfills all aspects of the featured article criteria. Hopefully, this nomination will inspire more people to put up more obscure music-related articles through the FAC process. I look forward to everyone’s feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

• "It was released on November 7, 2000, through Capitol Records" - is there any need for a comma after 2000? I'm not sure if it's necessary after mdy format but it feels like it's blocking the sentence

• There is no real reason for the comma's inclusion so I have removed it. I am not sure how it slipped in there tbh so thank you for catching that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• "It was executive produced by Capital Records executive Roy Lott" - is the repetition meant to be here? Not sure if it makes sense to me

• True. I have reworded it to avoid the repetition. I switched "executive produced" for "managed" as they mean similar things in this given context. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)". "Candles" peaked at number 68" - you could replace the second "Candles" with "The former", but I'll leave this up to you.

• Revised. Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• "The record was completed at Studio 57 and Weight Room" - can the location of where it was recorded (city etc) be mentioned here?

• Added city. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• "sent to rhythmic radio stations in the United States during the week of September 4, 2000" - how about the first week of September? Feel free to ignore if you disagree. I thought that saying the week of a day sounds a little confusing, if you know what I mean.

• Changed as it does sound better. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Despite this change, the song was still released under its original title for vinyl and CD releases" - there was no mention of this album being released on vinyl earlier.

• The album was not released in vinyl; it was only the single in this instance. Hope that clears it up. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• "with a Billboard reviewer writing that the singer was "[p]icking up the lyrical gauntlet" from contemporary neo soul performers" - unlink neo soul here as it's already been linked before

• Removed link. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Those were all of the things I could pick up during my first read through of this article. Overall it's in excellent shape; compact, well written and enjoyable to read. I'll comb through the article again to see if there's anything I missed but I'm confident I'll be supporting once they're all addressed. JAGUAR  18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Jaguar: Thank you for the review/comments. I enjoyed working on something that is very obscure (I have never heard of anyone talking about this album or singer before I created and expanded this article). I have addressed your comments, and I am looking forward to your feedback. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! I have never heard of Pru before, but it was a very enjoyable read and I'm sure she's a talented singer. I've read through the article again but honestly there's nothing else I can nitpick here, so I'll go ahead and lend my support now. It is compact, well written, and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Well done! JAGUAR  19:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Paparazzzi

• "AllMusic's Ed Hogan noted that the songs combined hip hop music, Latin music, contemporary R&B, rock music, and trip hop..." I don't know if you can reduce the use of "music" here.

• Makes sense. Reduced. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ref. 2's archived link shows a 404 message. Ironically, the original link is not dead, so I would suggest to archive it again.

• Archived again. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have already reviewed this article before; these are my only comments. Since they are minor comments, I'm going to support this nomination. Congratulations on this article! Great work as always! Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Media review

• The infobox album image has an appropriate fair use rationale and includes alt text.
• The other image is appropriately licensed and includes alt text.
• The fair use rationale for the music sample is mostly very good. From a little research I can see the 19.3-second length is well below 10% of the song length of 4:42. But it would probably be a good idea to specify that explicitly within the FUR. Moisejp (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Great! Moisejp (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Minor quibble: The sound clip ends quite abruptly. Whenever I create sound clips for Wikipedia I try to use the fadeout feature (I use Audacity, not sure whether the fadeout feature is available on other tools). If it's easy for you to fix, it could be worthwhile. Moisejp (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Moisejp: Thank you for I have added the fade out to the sample. Let me know if it works out correctly. Thank you for your review! Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for that. It still seems quite abrupt to me, however. Maybe try a longer fadeout? Moisejp (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Moisejp: Thank you for your reply. I think that this simply boils down to personal preference (unless there is a Wikipedia policy on this matter). I do not necessarily see the point or benefit in adding a longer fadeout to the sample. Not only do I not really want to go back into Audacity to learn how to make a longer fadeout, the sample will always sound abrupt as it only contains a portion of the song. If I added a longer fade-out, I would also feel like it would not represent the song 100% accurately anymore as a listener may misunderstand the fade-out as part of the song rather than something I added to upload it to Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, fair enough. I agree it's just a minor preferential thing. I'm happy to say the media review passes. Moisejp (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments; I greatly appreciate your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cartoon network freak

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak (talk)

• is the eponymous, debut studio → no comma

• I believe the comma is necessary here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• It was managed by → state "the record" here as you have said "it" before

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• and voice on her demo tape → ...a demo tape

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• its composition and Pru's voice → It sounds better: and the singer's vocal delivery

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• chart. Capitol Records executives had devised an intensive marketing strategy to further promote → chart, aided by an intensive marketing strategy devised by Capitol Records executives. (I think the other part of the sentence should be left out for the lead)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)" → ...a Man) to positve response from music commentators.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• executive Roy Lott.[2] Lott said that → Lott,[2] saying that (There are too many short sentences here, so that's why I suggested this)

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• for her debut album → for her debut studio album

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• citing the track "Hazy Shades" → say "album track" here for context

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• songs to offer some variety → "some" can be removed

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• and mixed by → with mixing handled by

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sample > A sample of Pru's cover of Sade's "Smooth Operator"; the track → Start a new sentence + Link "Latin music"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sampling The Miracles' → Sampling the Miracles'

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hogan, however, interpreted the song as a "juxtaposition of the original message from 'The Track of My Tears'" → Remove "from 'The Track of My Tears'" from the quote as it's not relevant

• I think it is necessary to include the song's title to clarify what is meant by the sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• of the song's lyrics "if a man came my way and I didn't doubt him" directly → of the song's lyrics: "If a man..." directly

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• stronger Latin-inspired instrumental than the original → Unlink "Latin music" here as you have used it before

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The ending of the ninth track "Can't Compare Your Love" → Comma before and after the song's title

• I do not think that commas are necessary here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• record on November 7, 2000, as an → comma is superfluous here

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• She also toured with → Use "Pru" here for alternation

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Capitol Records senior vice president of R&B → Capital Records' senior...

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• debut single because he felt that → replace "because" with "as"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• allusions to The Miracles' → allusions to the Miracles'

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• It was promoted further → other way round

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• where it spent fourteen weeks → ...14 weeks

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Connect the second paragraph of "Singles" to the first, as it's still everything about "Candles". Splitting the critical commentary seems somehow weird

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• publication pointed to the track → publication pointed out the track

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• as one of the strongest on the album → "strongest" is the wrong word here

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The music video for the single → A music video...

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• On its release, Pru received → Upon its release...

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• While addressing the album's many → While adressing the album's multiple

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Colin Ross wrote that it → from which publication is he?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The Houston Press Craig D. Lindsey → add 's

• Revised. The additional "s" is not necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• performances, and described her songs as → performances, describing...

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• of Angie Stone, Amel Larrieux, Jill Scott, and Erykah Badu → just say "Badu" here as already mentioned before

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• was part of the neo soul genre, along with Erykah Badu → same as above

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• spending 32 weeks on the chart. → Alternate to : "leaving after 32 weeks"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: These are my comments. Great work, it just needs a little fine-tuning before having a support from me Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Cartoon network freak: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be improved. Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Everything seems to be fine now. You have my support! Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Everything looks good. All urls are archived and references are from reliable sources. Still, I'm not sure about using direct Google Books scans. Isn't this copyright violations? You could simply leave the source to the magazine.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Thank you for the source review. I have changed the citations to have them to cite the magazine itself, and took out the URLs. Hope that helps as it is important to be considerate and aware of potential copyright violations. Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Good job. I'll make it pass.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you as always! Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I was wrong about the google books links after all. Feel free to add them if you want them.

• Thank you for the clarification and for checking the information. It is important to make sure that all of this stuff follows policy and code so I appreciate that you took the time and energy to check everything out. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon

I'm no music expert, so just commenting on prose. Which I found of high quality. First a meta-comment. I'm inclined to think Pru the singer does deserve her own article. Are there any precedents where it was found the artist was not notable? Anyway, for this article, a few comments:

• Thank you for your comments below. Someone in the future can definitely try to make an article on Pru, but I am just uncertain on whether or not there would be enough information on her outside the scope of this album. Here are the notability requirements for articles on musicians. I have also created a redirect in the past Pru (entertainer) in case anyone wants to try to do an article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• eponymous -> I'm not sure we need this word in first sentence. I'd prefer plainspeak.

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• the fact that she is American is not mentioned in the body

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• After its release, -> unnecessary phrase

• Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• "[m]usic for the [s]oul" -> I'm not a fan of the [], it distracts. Would "Music for the Soul" here really be that bad?

• Sorry about that, I thought I had already removed the brackets. I think it is okay to present it as "music for the soul" as it does not change the meaning dramatically. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Pru offering a "sexy challenge" -> who is quoted here?

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• includes "popping percussion and fluttery flute runs" -> who is quoted here?

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• a "brassy two-step" -> who is quoted here?

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Pru was frequently compared to neo soul artists, such as Erykah Badu. -> who is actually depicted?

• Added clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Edwininlondon: Thank you for the review! I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else that I can improve, and I hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992

• Too many instances with the word "record" in the lead, especially in the beginning paragraph.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Is it "Aaroma" or "Aaroma (of a Man)", need to specify.

• There is already a sentence in the "Singles" subsection (i.e. ""Aaroma" was released as the album's second single under the new title "Aaroma (of a Man)"). "Aaroma" was released a single under the name "Aaroma (of a Man)", but it was put on the album under the original title. Please let me know if there is a better way to contextualize it. I have specified it in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure why "Salsa" is in caps and other genres are not, it should be in lower caps. – jona ✉ 19:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure exactly what you are referencing with this comment. The only instance of "Salsa" that I can see in the article is in the context of "Salsa Interlude" so it is capitalized because it is a part of a song title. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• @AJona1992: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed your comments. Please let me know if there is anything that needs further revision. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

Hi Aoba. These are comments on the first half:

• Lead: "The former peaked at number 68 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Billboard chart." "The former" feels awkward to me here. May I suggest just simply "Candles"?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't suppose you have any sources that explain why the album liner notes give her so few songwriting credits when it sounds like the lyrics were heavily centered on her poetry. If you don't, no worries. It just struck me as being a little surprising.

• I unfortunately do not have a source to explain this. It is interesting as the information does seem somewhat contradictory. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Release and reception: The third sentence of the second paragraph uses a small mid-sentence t for "the Family Stand" but everywhere else in the article seems to use large Ts.

• Changed it to the large T. Thank you for pointing this out, and I am looking forward to the rest of your review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Lead: "Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma", to positive reviews from music commentators. "Aaroma" was retitled to "Aaroma (of a Man)" for its single release." May I suggest this may be too much detail for the lead. How about simply "Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)", to positive reviews from music commentators."

• Revised. I had put in the clarification on the "Aaroma" title as there was some confusion on the difference between "Aaroma"/"Aaroma (of a Man)". I agree with your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Background and recording: "Even though Lott noted her potential as an artist, he said that "[h]er lyrics were the thing that stood out the most for me, and it really was the challenge"." This is confusing to me. Why "even though"? It suggests that what comes before and after are contradictory. Also, I can guess what he may mean by "it really was the challenge" but I'm not sure. Does the source give any more context for that? Or if not, it could be a thought to remove that last bit.

• Revised to hopefully read better. I have remove the last bit as there is not any further context provided from the source (i.e. the source just had the quote from Lott without any real contextualization of it). Aoba47 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• "She interpreted her music as a form of poetry". I'm not sure whether "interpreted" is the best word here. Maybe something like "she considered her music to be a form of poetry"? Moisejp (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that "considered" is a better word; I think I was trying to go for something with my original phrasing that just does not work out. Thank you for pointing it out as I meant to return to this point and had forgotten about it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Composition and sound: "Hogan, however, interpreted the song as a "juxtaposition of the original message from 'The Track of My Tears'"." I see this is a quote directly from Hogan, but I'm not convinced Hogan has correctly used the word "juxtaposition", which is "an act or instance of placing close together or side by side, especially for comparison or contrast". Where "a" and "b" are single things, I would expect "a" is juxtaposed with "b", or "a" and "b" are juxtaposed, but not "a" is juxtaposition of "b". The juxtaposition would be a+b, not just a. So I'm saying I'm not sure what Hogan means here. But if you or other editors disagree with me and think Hogan's usage of the word is valid and meaningful, I'm happy to reconsider. Moisejp (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Revised. Let me know what you think if that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

All your changes so far are improvements. Thank you! More comments:

• I found another instance of small mid-sentence t for band names beginning with "the" ("Lott said the song was chosen as Pru's debut single as he felt that its allusions to the Miracles' song would appeal to listeners of all ages.") and that being three instances that were previously small t, I now regret that I didn't initially recommend you go the other direction and make them all small t. I was thinking it was a matter of preference (and some people strongly prefer large T). But digging around I was reminded that small t actually seems to be Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Names_.28definite_article.29. I'm torn because I don't want to feel like I'm coercing my small t preference on you if you have a strong preference for large T, but then again, it does seem to be MOS policy. How would you feel about possibly changing them all to small t's? Moisejp (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have changed them all back to small t. I do not have a strong preference either way, and the MOS Wikipedia policy makes sense to me. I am happy as long as it is consistent throughout the article. Aoba47 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Singles: "David Dickinson, a music director at WHUR-FM, felt the single would be appropriate for radio and praised its production and Pru's voice.[3] A writer from Billboard magazine praised the lyrics and Pru's vocal performance..." Two sentences in a row with "praised". Not the end of the world, but could be nice to vary a little—for example with "lauded" or "complimented". I don't believe you use either of those in the article currently. Moisejp (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the suggestions; for some reason, I missed that. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• References: Can refs #12 and 13 be combined? Can refs #28 and 29 be combined? Moisejp (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 12 and 13 were used to show that the album was released on different types of medium. I have combined them together through a note. If you possible, could you please specify what you mean about references 28 and 29? Thank you in advance and your help so far. I apologize for my confusion on this part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think the reason Moisejp wants ref 28 & 29, now 26 & 27, to be changed is because he thinks you placed the same reference twice. Maybe in their titles you could specify that the former is about the Billboard 200 charts while the latter is about the R&B Album charts. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification. I have changed the titles to be more specific. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you. I think it is clearer for the reader now. Aoba, I still have a few more comments to make. I'll try hard to finish them off this weekend. Thanks for your patience. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments thus far. I am very grateful to have another person look through this as it has improved the article a great deal. And there is no reason to feel rushed. Take as much time as you need. I am not in a hurry to have this promoted. I simply want it to be the best that it can possibly be. I hope you have a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• ""Aaroma" was released as the album's second single under the new title "Aaroma (of a Man)".[17] Despite this change, the song was still released under its original title for vinyl and CD releases." Kind of confusing. I see ref #17 specifically mentions the name change, but the next sentence is contradictory and confusing. From refs #18 and 19, it looks like it's talking about the vinyl single and the CD single where the name wasn't changed. Does that mean only the cassette single had the name change? If so, can we definitively say the single was "released... under the new title"? Maybe it would be better to just avoid the question of the name change at all—since it is kind of a minor detail in the first place, and because the whole issue seems to create too many unanswered questions. Moisejp (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have remove the sentence about the CD and vinyl releases completely as it does overly complicate matters. I also do not physically own either versions of the single so I am not entirely sure about the accuracy of this. I do admit that I relied on Pru's entry page on Discogs, and the accuracy of that website can be very hit-or-miss. Hope that makes sense and thank you for bringing it up. It seems that the release of the single was a little weird. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• OK. I started to write a long-ish answer about how the images in Discogs can be surely be trusted—even if the info users type in manually cannot—and are evidence that some releases were simply titled "Aaroma" (and that your strategy of referencing the releases themselves should be valid). But then I noticed that they're both labeled "Promo" so I don't think they necessarily reflect what went out on commercial releases. If you've done research and haven't found any other usable sources that there were commercial single releases called simply "Aaroma", then I think what you have now should be good.
• Minor suggestion: Instead of "under the new title "Aaroma (of a Man)" ", how about something like "under the adjusted/modified title..." (or something similar)? Something where the nuance is that it's not a completely new title, it's just been tweaked. Just an idea. Moisejp (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I cannot find anything outside of the Discogs reference to support the Promo releases so I think it is best to keep it out of the article. I have also revised the sentence introducing the "Aaroma" single release as suggested above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aoba. I guess my last comment for you is that the article relies a little bit more on quotes than is ideal, especially in the Conception and sound and Reception sections. As a writer of music articles myself, I know that finding the right balance of quotations vs. paraphrases is not always easy. It's tempting to use quotations liberally—partly because individual quotations can add flavour to the article—but when too many get used it can dilute the article's impact. Lately I always do an editing stage of my articles where I examine each quotation to see how much value/flavour it adds and how difficult it would be to paraphrase (as you know, some are harder than others). While I'm looking at the individual ones, at the back of my mind I'm aware of the the total quantity of quotations in the article. I have an online thesaurus open and I work on making decisions of which quotations I want to try to paraphrase. In my last FAC, even when I'd gone through this process myself, one editor commented there were still too many quotations, and I had to do another round of paraphrasing, being even stricter than my previous round. I see you do already have some paraphrases in the article, so I'm not saying you haven't already gone through a similar editing process yourself. But I'm just saying I urge you to go through the article one more time, examining each quotation for whether it is really necessary and valuable, and whether it would be possible to paraphrase. If you could find at least a handful of ones to change, it would improve the balance of quotations vs. paraphrases of the article as a whole. Here are some that jump out at me as possibly good candidates, but these are just ideas (you may have your own ideas):

• "[h]er lyrics were the thing that stood out the most for me"
• "the repetitious things that are playing on the radio"
• "influence [from] the spoken word scene"
• "Pru is a live performance artist and, being new, we wanted people to get their first impression of her in that environment"
• "aggressive retail marketing plan"
• "open-minded, whimsical influence,"
• "singer with a vision"
• "tongue-in-cheek, cynical 'Bills, Bills, Bills'-type junk"
• ""[p]icking up the lyrical gauntlet"

Again, I'm by no means saying you should change all of these. I'm just saying if I was going through the process of trying to find the right balance, these are some candidates that I might consider as possibilities. Moisejp (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment and advice on how to handle quotes. Going through the article specifically to gauge the use/reliance on quotes is a really good idea and I will definitely keep that in mind for my future GANs and FACs. I have gone through the article, and have reduced the use of quotes. Please let me know what you think, and thank you again for the review. I hope you had an enjoyable weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Great, I'm happy to support now. Well done. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Panagiotis Zois

• In the lead section, wouldn't it be better if you said "Candles peaked" at the end? I mean it's more or less clear you're talking about "Candles" but you do also have another sentence in between.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Repetition of the word "by" in "Background and recording" (p. 1).

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• In "Reception", rewrite the beginnign of "The reviewer continued", or maybe combine it wit the previous sentence (p. 2).

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Besides that, I didn't see anything else wrong with the article. Good job :D. Did Pru ever release a second album or something? PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. I do not believe that Pru ever released or anything following this album; she kind of fell off the map after this unfortunately. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• I made an edit here for my last comment of combining the sentences. Are you alright with the change? PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me; thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• OK now that my comments have been adressesed and my candles have melted, I can support the articles promotion. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Status Update

@Sarastro1:@Ian Rose: I believe that this is ready for promotion. I would greatly appreciate a status update for this nomination when either of you have the time. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Rather unusually, this article seems to have had an excellent sourcing and content review but we are light on prose comments. Scanning through, there was nothing jumping out at me, but I'm not sure that the prose flows quite like it could. I don't think there's anything bad here, but I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look. Corinne, I don't suppose you could give this a quick look could you? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1: Thank you for the response. Just wanted to let you know that Corinne has completed a c/e of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: Given the number of supports, and Corinne's copy-edit, I think we're good to go now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 19:01, 14 October 2017 [47].

---

Lesley J. McNair

Nominator(s): Billmckern (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Lesley J. McNair, a United States Army officer who served as a general during both World War I and World War II. He is notable as the primary architect of the Army as it was organized, trained, equipped, and fielded for World War II. Billmckern (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Some comments from Nick-D

While this article is in good shape, I think that it would have benefited from a Military History Wikiproject A-class review prior to this nomination. In particular, I don't think that it really captures the debates over McNair's performance in World War II. This is a complex topic: from what I've read, while historians tend to strongly approve of some elements of his approach and strongly disapprove of others, what they like and dislike varies considerably! I have the following comments on the World War II section:

• "In addition to Mark Clark, other officers who served on McNair's AGF staff and later achieved prominence included: Alexander R. Bolling; Floyd Lavinius Parks; James T. Duke; Willard Stewart Paul; Lyman Lemnitzer; and Robert A. Hewitt" - does this need to be specified? It's not surprising that some of the officers at this very high level and large HQ went on to achieve prominence during the war.
• "McNair identified difficulty with training National Guard units" - slightly awkward wording
• "He recommended demobilizing the National Guard" - did he really want to stand down the Guard units (and their personnel), or disband the often-dysfunctional Guard units to free up their personnel?
• Regarding the 'Fielding army divisions' section, wasn't one of the goals to have a smallish number of high-quality units rather than a large number of average-quality units? The US Army's divisions of World War II were pound for pound probably the best-equipped of any combatant (for instance, the standard US Army infantry division of 1944 was more mobile and had more firepower than the supposedly elite German Panzergrenadier divisions, of which Germany only ever fielded a small number). I believe that most historians regard the organisational structure as a success.
• The 'Individual replacement system' section seems much too kind to McNair. In particular, the statement that " more recent assessments have viewed it more favorably" isn't supported by the source: its Thomas Ricks quoting with approval a ten year old paper. Recent works continue to be highly critical of this system (in particular, how inexperianced soldiers were posted to combat units while they were on the front lines, leading to appalling and avoidable casualty rates)
• "McNair attempted to improve recruiting into the AGF through improved public relations" - given that the US had conscription and most conscripts were allocated to the Army, why was this necessary?
• The 'legacy' section should note the continuing debates over McNair's role in the war. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Billmckern, how are you going working through these comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ian Rose: I've worked off all but the individual replacement system and the additions to the legacy. I'll try to get to those tonight.
    • Billmckern (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:SandyHookProofBattery1900.jpg: source link is dead
• File:General_Carlos_Brewer.jpg: source indicates that author is unknown
• File:Lesley_McNair.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and source links are dead
• File:McNair-TIME-1942.jpg: not sure about this - press images with the {{non-free historic image}} tag generally require a strong argument in favour of transformative use, and IMO there's not enough discussion of the image to support this
• File:Lesley_J._McNair_Purple_Heart_1943_(2).jpg: where was this first published? And I think "uncredited" photographer was intended, rather than "unaccredited"?
• File:Fort_Lesley_J_McNair_-_front_sign_-_Washington_DC.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sign itself?
• File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg should include a copyright tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Fixed all but individual replacement system. Work continuing.

Billmckern (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: @Nikkimaria: List of fixes:

Deleted line about officers on McNair's AGF staff

Re-worded line about training program for National Guard units

Added additional details on recommendation to demobilize National Guard

Added additional details about success of 90-division program

Added additional details about individual replacement system

Added additional detail about recruiting effort, and note to review individual replacement system section for additional details on why recruiting effort was necessary.

Added additional comments to legacy section about historical debates over McNair's decisions and actions, including individual replacement system, tank fielding, and tanks versus anti-tank guns.

Edited photo captions to remove periods where necessary

Added new source link for Sandy Hook Proof Battery photo

Added additional details about source of Carlos Brewer photo

Changed out File:Lesley_McNair.jpg for another version with better source data

Updated description of File:Fort_Lesley_J_McNair_-_front_sign_-_Washington_DC.jpg to indicate that sign is not copyrighted (Per DoD Community and Public Outreach Division; written confirmation pending)

File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg - I don't know what I'm supposed to do with this. The current design has a license tag for the current design, and one in the data for the original design on which it's based. If there should be more information included, I don't what or how.

Billmckern (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

PS - I also included details about the publication of the photo which shows McNair wearing his Purple Heart.

Billmckern (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any info on the original design? (The immediate source is plwiki - I'm wondering about the original source). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: File:Legion d'Honneur Officier Ribbon.png - How about using this one instead?

Billmckern (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Same issue. If you compare the other ribbons, they include a tag representing the copyright status of the original ribbon design, but I'm not sure what tag would apply to this since it's non-US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: - Well, what's the fix, and how should I do it? I don't understand how to proceed to solve the problem.

Billmckern (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The fix would be to find a tag that does apply. Would any of these match what is known about the ribbon? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags#European%20Union. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Well, one contributor is from poland and the other from the UK, but I don't see a license tag from either that seems to fit. I don't see an EU one that looks right, either. How about PD-shape, which is contained on File:Legion Honour ribbon (II class).svg and File:Red ribbon bar - general use.svg.

Billmckern (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure the design is simple enough to qualify. But it doesn't matter where the uploaders are from: they didn't create the design themselves, it's based on a pre-existing work, right? That's the original design I'm referring to. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I give up. How about just deleting that image from the McNair article?

Billmckern (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I get someone to re-look the Lesley McNair article and see if it's ready for featured status? I confirmed that the sign at the Ft. McNair main gate is not copyrighted, trademarked, or otherwise restricted in terms of making use of a photograph of it. I have no idea what to do to resolve the concern about the Legion of Honor ribbon image. If anyone else is in a position to help with it, I'll be appreciative.

Except for the concern about the Legion of Honor ribbon illustration, I think I've made all the other edits and fixes.

Billmckern (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I have tagged it with {{PD-shape}} Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Some comments from Hawkeye7

I reviewed this article at GA. I have to agree with Nick that this is a complex topic. So don't feel bad about it. And debates over his performance go a lot further than just military historians, being the subject of heated debate among professionals over the years:

• In answer to Nick, whether one of the goals to have a smallish number of high-quality units rather than a large number of average-quality units? No, the goal was to have a large number of average-quality units. But the ground Army was forced to halt at 89 divisions ("the 89-division gamble") instead of the 250 originally envisaged.
• Having fewer divisions led directly to the problem with the divisions being in combat for too long. Replacement shortages led to melting most of the separate regiments into the replacement stream, exacerbating the problem. It also led to divisions being stripped for replacements, which disrupted McNair's training regime.
• US equipment was not invariably better than the enemy's. Case in point is the heavy artillery, which was used because the German medium artillery outranged its US counterparts. . See Mayo, On Beachhead and Battlefront, pp. 202-204. Note that McNair was an advocate of heavy artillery. See Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 233–234
• The individual replacement issue was a vexing one because it would recur in Vietnam. Despite far less intense combat, the divisions slowly degraded. As a result, unit rotation was chosen for the War in Iraq.
• The article is still too soft on McNair's opposition to the heavier tank. See Thomson and Roots, Planning Munitions for War, pp. 280-283 (available online) McNair: "the M4 tank, particularly the M4A3, has been widely hailed as the best tank on the battlefield today ... Other than this particular request, which represents the British view—there has been no call from any theater for a 90mm tank gun. There appears to be no fear on the part of our forces of the German Mark VI (Tiger) tank ... there can be no basis for the T26 tank other than the conception of a tank versus tank duel—which is believed unsound and unnecessary ... there is no indication that the 76mm antitank gun is inadequate against the Mark VI (Tiger) tank."
• The downsized armoured division was resisted, with the 2nd and 3rd remaining on the old establishment.
• Note that McNair doubted the value of the armoured divisions, and suggested reducing their number to six. It became frozen at sixteen. See Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 332–335
• There is also the light divisision schmozzle, and McNair proposal to convert airborne divisions into light divisions.

Source review

• Calhoun's 2015 book is not used as a reference; move it to the "Further reading" section
• Nor is his West Point memorial page
• And the last of the external links. (Remove the ref card)
• FN136 source does not mention the M3 explicitly. Suggest Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, p. 427
• Last use of FN144 in "Tanks" does not support In 1943, Devers and other commanders with tank experience succeeded in convincing George Marshall of the need for a tank with more armor and firepower than the M3 and M4. You need another source, and I think you'll find it was in 1944.

More to come... Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

...Continuing source review

• FN6, 33, 51, 55, 78, 83, 101, 122, 150, 155, 195 - okay
• FN186 - Does not mention the museum
• FN187 - Does not say it was redeveloped as an apartment building. You say that "it was closed and turned over to the German government when the 17th Signal Battalion moved to Kitzingen in 1992". But the source does not mention the 17th Signal Battalion, and although it did in fact leave for Kitzingen in 1992, it was not closed until 1994.
• FN189 - I think it's the Fort Leavenworth Hall of Fame, not the Fall of Fame.
• Zabecki's book has the wrong ISBN. The last digit should bve "8"
• Calhoun's 2015 book should be added to the "Further reading" section; leave the facebook page in the external links
• Link Command and General Staff College
• Link Camp Fuji
• "Seated (right) is Clare McNair's." Remove the apostrophe and the "s".

Otherwise fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I fixed all the source review issues.

I started working to address the other comments. Stay tuned.

Billmckern (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I believe the edits I've made this morning address all your comments here -- airborne divisions, light divisions, armored divisions, and so on. Please let me know what you think.

Billmckern (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Edits made in accordance with details of your 25 August comment.

Billmckern (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus

This is mostly excellent, but I have a few small points.

Early life

• Why do you list his sisters' husbands?
• I think the list of classmates is formatted wrong. You could lose the colon and replace the semi-colons with comma.
• Should "Engineer branch" and "Artillery branch" be capitalized? It seems out of place.

Early career

• Is "temporary captain" the same as a brevet rank?

  No, it isn't. A temporary rank is normally held while serving in a particular posting; the holder recieves the pay, authority and allowances of that rank, but will revert to his or her substantive rank on termination of the posting. They are still in use today. A brevet rank was an honorary title which conferred none of the authority, precedence or pay of full rank. So they were permanent, but useless, although still highly prized. They were common during the War of the Rebellion, but disappeared from the US Army around the turn of the twentieth century. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll follow up with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Coemgenus:

• I listed the husbands only to make it easier for anyone interested in researching the family to keep track of them. I don't think it's wrong, but I'm not married to it, either. I can change it if that's a sticking point.

• Not a dealbreaker, I just thought it was unusual. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Changed to commas instead of semicolons for list of classmates.
• Changed to lower case for engineer and artillery branch.
• A temporary rank is not the same as a brevet. A brevet was honorary - you could wear the insignia and be addressed by the higher title, but the lower rank was the actual rank for purposes of pay, benefits, and seniority. A temporary rank was actual for pay and benefits, but the individual lost the pay and benefits if he reverted to his lower actual rank. In fact, reading McNair's entry in the 1920 West Point Biographical Register just now, I noticed that he was promoted to temporary first lieutenant AND temporary captain while with the ordnance corps. I'll make that edit, too.

• OK, thanks, I was unclear on the difference. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Billmckern (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

World War I

• "In June 1919, McNair was named to the AEF board..." How long did the AEF exist after the war ended?

• @Coemgenus: August 1, 1920. Reference Records of the American Expeditionary Forces (World War I) at the national Archives.

School of the Line

• It might be good to briefly explain what the School was, something like "...one of the faculty members of the Army's School of the Line, a training school for infantry and cavalry officers."

• I think I already did that by explaining that it was the school where field grade officers went to learn how to manage and lead operations at division and higher.

• Yes, I missed that.

Purdue

• "Already a prolific author of professional journal articles on technical military subjects, he authored numerous articles..." I'd change "authored" to "wrote" or "penned" to avoid repetition.

• Fixed

I'll come back with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Let me know if you have other suggestions.

• Billmckern (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Individual replacement system

• "friends and buddies" one or the other should do, no?

• That's really all I have. Nice article, I'm glad to support its promotion. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus: Fixed. Thanks.

• Billmckern (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: This is approaching two months now, and it stuck on two supports. I wonder if Nick-D has any further thoughts about this article? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Support

John F Jamele (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)-- I am the holder of a Master's Degree in US History and have taught Advanced Placement US History for twenty years. In my opinion this article appears very well-referenced and well-written.

Coordinator note: As it stands, I would disregard this support as it does not address the FA criteria; single-line supports are little use at FAC, so this would need fleshing out. Nor is the editor a frequent contributor (see here), which makes this support a little ... odd. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "Recognizing that continuing improvement to innovations including machine guns and tanks made the static trench warfare of World War I unlikely to be repeated, successive Gunnery Department directors Jacob Devers, Carlos Brewer, and Orlando Ward experimented with new techniques, including increasing the speed of artillery support to mobile armor and infantry by empowering Artillery-qualified fire support officers attached to those formations to direct artillery fire, and enhancing accuracy through artillery fire that could be seen and directed by forward observers rather than the unobserved timed fire and rolling barrages that had prevailed in World War I.": Too long.
• "Used to working "hands on"": Rephrase.
• "A variety of other factors, including the entry of the Soviet Union into the war on the side of the Allies, the need to ensure that enough farmers and agricultural workers were available for food production, and the need to maintain a U.S. workforce large enough to handle the production of weapons, vehicles, ammunition, and other equipment caused Army Chief of Staff Marshall to decide that maintaining the Army's ground combat strength at 90 divisions would strike the balance between too few soldiers to defeat the Axis powers, and so many that there were not enough civilians in the U.S. workforce.": Too long. Also, clarify "entry of the Soviet Union" ... are you talking about the start of Operation Barbarossa?
• "high quality" (x3): Avoid quote marks unless you need them, because they can be interpreted at least four different ways. One interpretation here is that they weren't really high quality, they were just called that. If "top candidates" would be accurate, then that's probably clear enough to stand without quote marks.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. I stopped at Awards and honors. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: Edits made IAW your suggestions. Thanks.

Billmckern (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: The images currently do not have alt text. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. Also, the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. The only other issue I can see, based on the discussion above about his controversial reputation among historians, the lead seems light on his legacy and on this controversy. I think I'd like to see these little issues sorted out before we promote. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I just finished addressing these concerns (I think). Please let me know if anyone else has any suggestions for improvement.

Billmckern (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I still see a few duplinks, but it's not worth holding this up any longer. I would still recommend using the tool to find them. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:06, 11 October 2017 [48].

---

SMS Brandenburg

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Another German battleship article - I created it all the way back in 2007. It has obviously been significantly expanded in the intervening decade, with most of the work being done this past April. It went through a MILHIST A-class review after that, and has been waiting for me to have the time to put it up here. As for the ship itself, Brandenburg was the first modern ocean-going battleship of the German Navy, and she saw extensive use through the 1890s and early 1900s. During that time, she was sent with the other Brandenburg-class ships to China during the Boxer Rebellion, but by the time they got there, the rebellion had petered out. She was mobilized at the outbreak of World War I, but due to her age, she saw no action, and she was broken up after the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the Shandong map
  • Good idea.
• Brassey's should be italicized
  • Done.
• File:SMS_Brandenburg_NH_88644.tiff: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Unknown, but per the NHHC, the photos in their collection are PD in the US unless otherwise stated. These kinds of photos were routinely collected by ONI for intelligence on foreign navies, which suggests the photo was in circulation at the time. Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for another classy ship, comments as I read:

Lead

• link I Division?
  • Linked to I Battle Squadron, probably the best place for that to go.

Design

• Can we place the image right, to avoid sandwiching of text?
  • If we do that, it'll be pushed down below the infobox and into the sections below, so it either stays where it is or we'd have to remove it. It would probably fit somewhere in the narrative, but it would be out of place, I'd think.
    • You could move it bolow the infobox, and move the next one further down, it's very general, could go almost anywhere. ---GA
      • G'day Gerda and Parsecboy, if you want an image to go on the right but inside rather than below the bottom of the infobox, you can use the {{stack|float=right|[insert image syntax here]}} template. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Not familiar with the topic, may be a silly question: Do we start two sentences in a row with Brandenburg?
  • I'm not seeing where that is, can you point it out?
    • Don't see it anymore. ---GA

... to 1896

• Do we know more about the illustration?
  • Added the illustrator and the approximate date
• "Wilhelm II." has a dot, in German. I suggest you use that consistently or call him in English. "Wilhelm II" looks wrong.
  • I've always used Wilhelm II (and that's how it's done at Wilhelm II, German Emperor
    • Always learning. I'd understand "William II" and "Wilhelm II.". ---GA
• The red link to the beach helps nobody, - how about Strande which at least has a map. Makes me wonder if a few maps marking where she went would be good?
  • Yeah, but I'd think articles on the bays will eventually be created. How about turning the red link into a redirect to Strande for now?
• "Prinz Heinrich" or "Prince Henry", please.
  • Done
• don't think Wiker Bucht should have a red link, - not even Wike in sight
  • As above, my assumption is that eventually, all place names will have articles, so red links now don't do any harm.
    • For people who are not coloublind it adds unwanted emphasis. I'd unlink for now and link when the article is there. ---GA
• The link to Baltic Sea comes late, which might provide readers with little understanding for German waters with a basic direction.
  • Yeah, though I don't see a good place to move it earlier.
    • add in the Baltic Sea to the first-mentioned bay? ---GA
• "before the ships had to put into their home"? be put?
  • It's a common nautical expression
    • Can you the expresseion to my, I mean: who puts, the ship herself? I'd understand "before the ships had to be put into their home". ---GA
• link Kaiser Wilhelm Canal?
  • It's linked in that section

Will continue later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Boxer

• link marks?
  • Done

WWI

• "rendezvoused" - is that a word?
  • Sure is.
• "Norddeutsche Tiefbauges" is no word, should be Norddeutsche Tiefbaugesellschaft.
  • I got that one. - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks Dan.

Again, thank you! Excellent readable layout of references! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Supoort - do with the minor issues as you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• 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) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Nicely done. I have only two small quibbles, as follows:

General

• Some of the images have alt text, but some don't. It would be good to add the missing ones.

• I've added alt text, to the best of my ability

Boxer Rebellion

• ¶1 "the German Plenipotentiary" – Lowercase plenipotentiary?

• Fixed, good catch.
• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Switching to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources of appropriate quality and reliability. All references consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Oppose Support from Ranger Steve

I'd like to see more background in this article. Parsecboy mentions above that this was the German Navy's first modern ocean going battleship, but that is not mentioned anywhere in the article. The first two sentences of the lead are similarly not expanded upon anywhere else. If this was an FA I'd expect to see a background section explaining why the German Navy decided to build this class of vessel, especially as it's such a step up from their previous designs. There's a clear change in naval strategy represented by this ship which I feel should be explained as well. A word on the evolution of the battleship of the period would be useful too - I'm not expecting a full history of ship design from Warrior onwards, but something to explain what a pre-dreadnought was is necessary per FA criteria 1b (ie. that the subject's context is given). I don't know if there's any information about the evolution of this ship's specific design (or even the designer), but that would be a welcome addition too. For instance, where did the German Navy draw their inspiration for a battleship if they'd never built one? Did they employ foreign assistance? Additionally the obsolescence of the ship is mentioned in the lead but not in the main article.

The Service History section is thorough and detailed, but I think could either be padded out a little, or reworded, to improve a few instances of choppy text (for example "Individual ship training was conducted though April, followed by squadron training in the North Sea in late April and early May. This included a visit to the Dutch ports of Vlissingen and Nieuwediep. Further maneuvers, which lasted from the end of May to the end of July, took the squadron further north in the North Sea, frequently into Norwegian waters. The ships visited Bergen from 11 to 18 May. During the maneuvers, Wilhelm II and the Chinese viceroy Li Hongzhang observed a fleet review off Kiel.[12] On 9 August, the training fleet assembled in Wilhelmshaven for the annual autumn fleet training.[9]"). Regards, Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A small point for this sentence: "The typical routine was interrupted in early August when Wilhelm II and Kaiserin (Empress) Augusta went to visit the Russian imperial court at Kronstadt; both divisions of the I Squadron were sent to accompany the Kaiser." The Russian imperial court was in St Petersburg, not Kronstadt. No doubt the ship went to Kronstadt, but the Kaiser will have gone to St Petersburg. I'd suggest rewording this top clarify. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That kind of background information is better suited to the Brandenburg-class battleship article - in general, class articles should cover the design history, strategic rationale, etc. while individual ship articles should focus on the service history. I have Nottelmann, and the class article will at some point be rewritten based on that, which will cover a lot of what you're asking for in terms of background and context.

Part of the rationale for shorter sentences like that is to counteract my tendency to write longer, more complex sentences - this is especially a problem when translating German ;) Also, I think it gives some variety to the reader.

Good catch, fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I see the class/ship article argument quite often, but I'm afraid I'm unmoved by it. For a start, I see nothing in WP:Ship's MoS to support this style and, even if there is such a guideline, I can't see how it would override Wikipedia policy. WP:SS states that "Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles.". In this case, the content of the class article should be summarised in the ship article. The ship's design fits this exact style, with a link to the class article and a summary of the design in this article; I don't see why this should apply only to the design and not the background. Furthermore, no WP:Ships policy would overrule Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, which requires an article that "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Context for the building of this ship is provided by a background as I've outlined. I cannot agree that the context required for this article to be an FA is provided by a different article that hasn't yet been rewritten to include it. In any case, there's still three sentences in the lead that aren't expanded upon in the article, which fails another policy; WP:LEAD. I'm sorry, but I stand by my comments.

I take your point about sentence structure, but I'm afraid I can't see 9 word isolated sentences that should be part of the previous sentence as FA quality. Regards, Ranger Steve ^Talk 06:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The SHIPMOS is woefully underdeveloped, in part due to the limited number of editors involved in the project - I wouldn't put much stock in what it doesn't say. What's more important is that between a couple of other editors and I, we've written around 150 FAs based on this format over the last 8 or 10 years, which is to say that there's fairly broad consensus that the way we write articles is perfectly acceptable in terms of the FA criteria. This is a complete encyclopedic article. The idea that an entire parent article should be summarized in the child article is a little absurd - any background section will not function in the same way that the introduction to the parent article would. Some—probably much—of the information in the parent article will be left out, and since one must draw the line somewhere, I and others have chosen to draw it where we have. I've addressed the three sentences you pointed out in the lead. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I strongly disagree. What’s more important is WP and FA policy and criteria, which I’ve already outlined. You may think that summarising the content of another article in this one is ridiculous, but you’re going against basic Wikipedia guidelines that are also an FA criteria. Moreover, as I’ve already pointed out, you have already chosen to do it in one aspect of the ship, but not others. An informal agreement that you and a few editors have, which has never even been written down, much less assessed by the community, is not in any way comparable to the agreed FA criteria, which are quite clear.

WP:SS and the other FA criteria state that context is necessary and this isn’t a complete article without it. Although the service history is good, without a background we’re simply told that one day Germany decided to build a new type of ship, without ever knowing why. I’m afraid that without some basic background to establish the context of this ship’s construction I need to switch to oppose. Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You missed my point, which is that you are opposing based on your singular interpretation, one that is not shared by the wider community, based on 150 or FACs over the better part of the last decade. This is not just an informal agreement, but a fairly broad consensus. You are free to oppose the FAC, and the FAC delegates are free to weight your opposition in light of the above. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I haven't. You may have established a consensus between a handful of editors, but there is a more relevant consensus in FA criteria and WP:SS, which is much larger and formalised. "Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit". That is the consensus reached by the wider community, not yours, which you say yourself is between only a couple of editors. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This is getting into WP:IDHT territory, so this will be my last comment on the matter. This isn't a consensus between me and a couple of other editors, but the scores of reviewers who have participated in those 150 or so FACs. If your concerns were felt by the wider community, this would have come up at least once or twice in the last decade. It hasn't. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Equally it's drifting into WP:otherstuffexists, so this will be my final comment. I've read and reviewed this article against the FA criteria and I feel it is lacking in requirements 1A, 1B and 4. I'm not reviewing it against previous FAs, nor am I reviewing it against a consensus so vague that it isn't even written down anywhere; that's simply not how Wikipedia works. The fact that other reviewers haven't critiqued content in other articles is of no relevance to my critiquing of this one. Reluctantly I must oppose. Ranger Steve ^Talk 13:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Switching to Support in light of changes made. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67

I reviewed this article in detail at Milhist ACR in July, and have looked at the changes since, including the additional para of background added after the above discussion with Ranger Steve, the c/e by Dank, and the other tweaks here and there. The sources are all reliable specialist naval and history books. I believe the article meets the FA criteria. I've made a suggestion above about stacking and floating the first main body image to the right inside the infobox if that is desired to avoid sandwiching text. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I notice that a couple of the images are still missing alt text, which would be good to fix. We also have quite a few duplinks which could be looked at and cleared up a little. This tool will highlight any duplication. Neither of these points warrants delaying promotion. Finally, this may be one of those rare FACs which we should frame and display prominently; a disagreement was resolved amicably through discussion and consensus, and I wish all nominations were handled as professionally as this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:39, 11 October 2017 [49].

---

Maurice Wilder-Neligan

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an English-born Australian Army soldier of WWI who rose from the rank of private to command a battalion during the latter stages of the war. A superior tactician, one of his attacks was described as "the best show ever done by a battalion in France". He was also an eccentric character, once chasing his officers off a parade ground on horseback to show his displeasure with their efforts at drill. An administrator in New Guinea after the war, he died there, probably caused by wounds he received during the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• The URAA tag used by most of the images requires you to specify a publication date, but the Australian "expires worldwide" also means the URAA tag isn't needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• so no US licence required, Nikkimaria? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• We have one, if we have any tag that says "applies worldwide" (as the Australian one does). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria then maybe PD-because with a parameter of "Australian Crown copyright expires worldwide"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  You can use {{PD-AustraliaGov}} on Wikipedia or Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7, I thought it still needed a US PD licence as well? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Used to, prior to that OTRS confirmation that expiry applies worldwide - including in US. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ah. Now I understand. I'll remove all the PD-URAA tags. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Why are we linking Bean's name (and the Official History) in the fourth book listed instead of the first?

• Fixed.

• Why is "Bar" still being capitalised?

• That is what the DSO1 syntax does in the postnominals template, so I'm just being consistent with that.

• In the photograph where you say "Portrait of Wilder-Neligan while he was commanding the 10th Battalion", he is only a second lieutenant, and is wearing the patch of the 9th Battalion (black over light blue).

• No, I don't think so. The AWM page for the image refers to him being CO 10th Bn, and it looks like a pip and a crown to me behind the Australia shoulder title. Also, the 10th Bn patch was purple over light blue, and this is a black and white photograph, so it could easily be the 10th Bn patch. He's also wearing two ribbons in the photograph, which, given the timing of his awards, must be the DSO and DCM, indicating that it is post the Fleurbaix raid in July 1916, by which time he was already a captain. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Spot check:

  FN 2a, 2b, 3, 12, 15, 26, 28a, 28b, 49, 54, 62 - okay

  FN24a - AWM site does not say that he was acting commanding officer of the 9th Battalion

• That was odd. I checked, and it was Hill.

• FN24b = Supports that the 9th and 10th Battalions were part of the 3rd Brigade, but does not mention Neligan

• Added citation to Lock, who gives the date.

• Looks good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the source review, Hawkeye7! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment, leaning support – I supported this article during it's recent MILHIST A-Class review and, having reviewing the changes made since then, am confident that it also meets the FA criteria. I have one question/comment before I outright support, however: I see that Wilder-Neligan has been the subject of a recent full-length biography—Peter Holmes' A Magnificent Anzac: The Untold Story of Lieutenant Colonel Maurice Wilder-Neligan (Reedy Creek: Peter Lloyd Holmes Publications, 2013). Not having read the book, I'm not sure of quality or content (though I do note that it appears to be self-published). However, I was just wondering whether you had viewed or considered the source when writing this article? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day Abraham, B.S.. I saw it when I was working through Trove for newspaper mentions, but haven't tried to get access to it as it is obviously self-published, and I couldn't find out anything about the author online. Frankly, I didn't think it would meet the bar for a reliable source in a FA. It is held by a few libraries, including my state one, so I could take a look, but I still think it has the unsolvable issue of being self-published by an unknown, so not subject to editorial oversight etc. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It is quite rare, but sometimes self-published sources will be by a reputable author. Obviously that is not the case here, so I'm happy to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comments Support looking now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

During the fighting from 10–14 August - either "During the fighting from 10 to 14 August" or "During the fighting over 10–14 August".

Do we know any more about his wife and child? How/why did he abandon them - any contact later?

A nice read overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cas Liber. Fixed first one, second one, no we don't. It is a bit weird, leaving his family in London, but I haven't been able to find anything that explains him moving to Australia or returning after the war. Perhaps he was keeping away from debt collectors? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: The debt collectors were certainly after him. I've added to the article talkpage with a newspaper article from 1908, showing bankruptcy proceedings against him, and a substantial sum owing to family and other creditors. The article also has some interesting details of his apparent travels in the pre-War years. Didn't want to add to the article directly given FAC status, but this might be a useful pointer to the reasons behind his sudden relocation. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Euryalus! I've added that detail in. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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) 14:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, as always Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: can I please have dispensation for a new nom? This one looks good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That’s fine with me. Sarastro1 (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: One minor point is that the lead image lacks alt text. But that isn't worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:36, 11 October 2017 [50].

---

Ethiopian historiography

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for FA status because I think it meets all the basic FA criteria. This article has recently succeeded in passing its Good Article candidacy and has seen some massive improvements since then, although it is now stable with very little editing activity going on. There were some disagreements between another editor and I over some of the content and wording of the article, but we have since come to a consensus on how the article should look. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it. The article is filled with a rich amount of historical details that should keep you entertained if you're a history buff like me. I've written and nominated various articles on European and Chinese history for FA status, but this is only the second African-history related article that I've nominated, the first being Ancient Egyptian literature. It's certainly my first nomination focused on a sub-Saharan African country and Semitic culture, two areas of our English Wikipedia that perhaps need a lot of work and still lack critical information. This is my little effort to help remedy that and hopefully spark interest in other editors to follow suit. Let's hope so! Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

• All the 18 images are well-relevant, have proper description templates, and have no copyright problems! ALT text is absent, though.

Looks good otherwise. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: hello. Thanks for reviewing the images so quickly. I wasn't expecting any response anytime soon! I'm glad to hear that everything is in order. Per your suggestion, I have also amended the article to include alt text for each and every image. I hope that you find the descriptions to be suitable. If not, please let me know! Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! No issues, now. It is good to go now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Once again, thanks for the speedy review. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments from Hchc2009

An interesting article! Some initial comments, more to follow:

• "The Church of Saint George, Lalibela and a panel painting inside depicting Saint George slaying a dragon; it is one of eleven monumental rock-hewn churches built in Lalibela, Ethiopia that were allegedly sculpted after a vision by the Zagwe-dynasty ruler Gebre Mesqel Lalibela (r. 1185–1225 AD), in which St George instructed him to do so.[18][19] The city of Lalibela was reestablished as a symbolic new holy site, following the fall of Jerusalem to the Muslim forces of Saladin in 1187 AD, yet archaeology reveals the religious structures to have been built between the 10th and early 12th centuries AD, with perhaps only the last phase carried out during the 13th century AD and reign of Gebre Mesqel Lalibela." - a very long caption, and failed the MOS test for me. I'd advise trimming after "...slaying a dragon."
• File:St. George Astride His Horse, Church of Bet Giorgis, Lalibela, Ethiopia (3268383996).jpg needs a copyright tag for the underlying image (could be done in a similar way to File:Gebre Mesqel Lalibela.png, for example). The other historical images need checking in this regard as well.
• After Zagwe dynasty, the number of images produced a solid wall of images on the right hand side of my screen; I suspect that you should cut one or two to bring it into the MOS guidelines.
• "An engraved book portrait of Ethiopian monk Abba Gorgoryos (1595-1658) by Christopher Elias Heiss, Augsburg, 1691;[72][73] Abba Gorgoryos aided the German orientalist Hiob Ludolf (1624–1704) in the translation of Ge'ez and Amharic, as well as with material for composing a history of Ethiopia.[74][75]" - I'd trim after the first clause
• "File:Painting of St. Abbo, Church of Bet Mercurios, Lalibela, Ethiopia (3308268798).jpg" - needs an Ethopian tag to cover photography of 2D art images (NB: if this is legal in Ethopia, I don't know!)
• "File:Battle of Adwa tapestry at Smithsonian.png" - needs a tag for the underlying tapestry image (or painting, depending on which bit of the file you believe).
• "File:"Yared An (sic) His Disciples Singing A Song In Front Of King Gebreme Skel . . ." (3171512810).jp" - needs an Ethiopian tag to cover photography of 2D art images. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: hello! Thanks for the initial review. Unfortunately I don't have time to address this right now, but hopefully by the end of the week I'll have everything in order. Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: hello? Are you still alive and/or active on Wikipedia? It has been a very long time since you have commented here. I was hoping to see the rest of your review. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

PericlesofAthens' response

@Hchc2009: hello again. I have done several things to address your concerns listed above.

(1) Per your requests, I have shortened the captions for the "File:Bete_Giyorgis_06.jpg" and "File:Aba_Gorgorios,_1681.jpg" images.

(2) I have resized nearly every image after the "Zagwe dynasty" sub-section, and have removed several pictures. Keep in mind, though, that not every monitor and not eevry browser presents the page the same way. Are you viewing this on a mobile device? The page looks fine to me, but I have edited the article per your advice regardless.

(3) I'm not sure what sort of tag I would need for "Ethopian tag to cover photography of 2D art image", so I have simply removed the three images you have mentioned as being problematic. This is perhaps a temporary move until I am able to properly tag those images, but I guarantee that they will stay removed from the article until that happens. I just hope it doesn't lead to an edit war with the editor who added all three of them to the article. Since I added the majority of images to the article in its present incarnation, he might take this as some sort of slight or that I'm deliberately attacking the contributions he has made. I hope that won't be the case. Perhaps he can even help in locating the appropriate tags. I'd like for you to elaborate more on this in the meantime, though.

(4) You wrote that "File:St. George Astride His Horse, Church of Bet Giorgis, Lalibela, Ethiopia (3268383996).jpg needs a copyright tag for the underlying image (could be done in a similar way to File:Gebre Mesqel Lalibela.png, for example). The other historical images need checking in this regard as well." - I think you made some sort of mistake here. These two files actually share the exact same tags (i.e. "PD-Art|PD-old-100" and "PD-1923"). I also think your suggestion here is unwarranted given how this article has already passed the initial image review and inspection of media content by User:Adityavagarwal. I'm willing to cooperate on any further suggestions you might have, but I think your particular point here is moot. Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: well, it appears that User:Soupforone has found some suitable replacements for the pictures that I had to remove. Feel free to check the tags and licensing on these new images; everything seems to be in order now. Kind regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Welcome back to FAC ... you're bringing us an impressive array of underrepresented topics, well-researched and explicated.
• "AD": There were too many of these, enough to constitute a MOS violation (i.e., we don't have any choice in the matter at FAC, at least not without a big hubbub). WP:MOSNUM says: "In general, do not use CE or AD unless required to avoid ambiguity (e.g. The Norman Conquest took place in 1066 not 1066 CE nor AD 1066) or awkwardness (January 1, 1 AD not January 1, 1). On the other hand, Plotinus lived at the end of the 3rd century AD will avoid confusion". I looked carefully, and the ambiguity required to support the automatic addition of "AD" just wasn't there ... it can be there in some texts, but so far, not in this text. I'll keep looking. I'll be back in a couple of hours, feel free to run through the text catching some of these yourself. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• "Historiography became an established genre": "Historiography" is a slippery word, and per my standard disclaimer, I leave these kinds of issues to other reviewers. But this is one I think other reviewers might want to comment on ... can the works you're citing in this sentence be considered historiography themselves? Isn't it the study of those works that constitutes the historiography? - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• Most slashes should be removed per WP:SLASH (at WP:MOS). I normally try to fix these things myself, but there was some ambiguity. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pericles

Greetings! Thanks for taking the time to review the article.

• As for the BC/AD thing, I've had an FA review in the past (Sino-Roman relations) where people griped that I should consistently add "AD" after every date or mention of "century" or "centuries" in that article, to avoid confusion with BC-era dates. I'll side with your view for now, but if someone makes a similar complaint, then we'll have two conflicting if not totally incompatible arguments made by the reviewers. At that point there will be no appeasement for one side of that argument, because there is no seeming compromise to be made. Let's hope it doesn't head in that direction.
  • If there's a complaint, please ping me. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• I have reworded the bit about historiography being an established genre. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Much better, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• I have removed the forward slashes from the prose of the article, per your new suggestion above regarding WP:MOS. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• @Dank: do you have any issues with the sourcing? Choice wording of the prose? The narrative structure? Are there any glaring omissions in your estimation? I'm happy to fix all the minor issues like image captions and WP:MOS related stuff, but I'm more interested in tackling the meat and substance of the article. Perhaps I'm being impatient and you're getting to that point after a thorough read of the article? In either case, thanks for your recent edits. Regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Normally I get my part done pretty quickly, sorry for the delay, I know it's annoying. When I'm done, what you get is a "Support on prose per my standard disclaimer". I know that doesn't sound like much, but it does tend to increase the chances that this will pass FAC, by counting as a support (and a kind of vetting). Also, any support increases the odds that other reviewers will at least read the article. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah! Got it. Excuse me, didn't mean to disturb your mojo, so to speak. Carry on, sir! --Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• 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) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dank: thank you kindly! The article is in better shape thanks to your review. Cheers. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

No spotchecks carried out. The sources appear to be appropriately scholarly and reliable, with a few minor issues:

• You should be consistent as to whether you use "Accessed" or "Retrieved"
• Some publisher locations in lesser-known places are not specific enough, e.g. Abingdon, Westport, Jefferson etc. These should be clarified by adding "U.K." or the US state abbreviation – as you have done with "Lawrenceville, NJ."
• Bizumeh - source lacks publisher location
• Two articles, Jalata and Omer, are behind paywalls, so you should add the (subscription required) template

Otherwise, sources are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: hello! Thanks for taking the time to review the sources.

• I have replaced all instances of "accessed" with "retrieved" instead.
• I have improved the info about publisher locations as you've requested, adding US states where needed and "UK" for British publications.
• There is no "Bizumeh" in the article, although there is a "Bizuneh", which does not require a publisher location, as this is a journal article, not a book. Not sure how you confused or missed that.
• I have placed the "subscription" template next to the Jalata and Omer articles listed in the references section.

I hope you find these changes to be sufficient. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: hello again. Just following up here, since I would like to know your thoughts on the recent changes that I made. Is everything in order now? --Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No outstanding sources issues Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Some comments about the sources:

• Per FAC requirements about consistency in sourcing, Reference 46 [Africanus, Leo (1526). The History and Description of Africa. Hakluyt Society. pp. 20 & 30. Retrieved 2 August 2017.] and Reference 60 [Jeronimo Lobo; Joachim Le Grand, Samuel Johnson (ed.) (1789). A voyage to Abyssinia by Father Jerome Lobo a portuguese missionary: containing the history, natural, civil and ecclesiastical of that remote and unfrequented country. Elliot. p. 198. Retrieved 2 August 2017.] should be converted to harv shortened footnote with the bulk of the citation in the "Sources" subsection and the authors name and page in the immediate citation.
• "Further Reading" should be its own section, not a subsection of "References"
• What is meant by "External sources"? If they were indeed sources used for the article they need to cited and properly incorporated. If not, the title "External links" might be more appropriate.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: nice catches! I have changed "External sources" to "External links", made "Further reading" its own section outside of "References", and have conformed the Leo Africanus (1896) and M. Le Grand (1789) citations with the accepted format. Thanks for pointing these out! Kind regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Very good. I have no further concerns about this article and am happy to offer my support. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: This FAC is approaching 2 months now. I think we can leave it open a little while longer, but I think we need to see something happening soon. I wonder would it be worth approaching some editors and asking for reviews? I can make a few recommendations if you like. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: so far this candidacy has received two supports and no oppositions. That's rather pathetic compared to the early days when I used to submit FACs (c. 2008-2010). This site is a graveyard, either that or the community no longer values quality contributions or cares to review content. Is Ethiopian history so tedious that it's turning reviewers off from the subject? Either way I think this will be the last FAC that I ever submit, and I think it's time for my semi-retirement to be full-on retirement from this website. I was thinking about doing an FAC for my Good article on the Mosaics of Delos, but just forget it. It would most likely just get ignored like this nomination here. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: since I would like to close this nomination and retire from Wikipedia as speedily as possible, I would be very grateful if you could contact those aforementioned potential reviewers for this article. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A few names come to mind: I don't know if Hchc2009 has any more to add. Also, Mike Christie (sorry to ping you yet again!), HJ Mitchell, Finetooth, Brianboulton, Wehwalt and Casliber can be guaranteed to give a quality reviews if they are available (sorry for pinging so many, I'm hoping that at least one of you can spare the time to take a look at this to avoid it being archived). I suspect that the length of the article, rather than its quality, is what is putting reviewers off. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments support from Cas Liber

My ears were burning...aha....I did start to read this when I was on my phone somewhere weeks ago...and got distracted. Anyhoo...will go through and make comments below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The power of the Aksumite Kingdom began to decline after the 6th century ... Why not just say, "The power of the Aksumite Kingdom declined after the 6th century "?

whereas Steven Kaplan argues she was a non-Christian invader and Knud Tage Andersen - need a couple of words on the occupations of these two people, which helps us understand why their opinions are significant

Apart from these two minor quibbles, it reads fine to me, with no prose clangers outstanding and an easy read. The structure and comprehensiveness seem sound, though I confess I am a neophyte in the area...so a tentative support pending others' POV Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: thanks for your input! I have amended the article accordingly. Cheers, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Thanks for the ping, Sarastro1. Pericles, I'd be sorry to see you retire; you consistently write high-quality articles on topics not well-covered by the work of other editors.

I'll add comments as I read through the article. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert as needed.

• The second paragraph under "Epigraphy" might be better placed above the epigraphy section, as an introduction to the "Ancient origins" section; its topic predates that of the first paragraph of "Epigraphy", and it's not about historiography in any case -- it's context-setting.
• Why do we need the sentence about De Lorenzi and the Garima Gospels? It's about the manuscript tradition, but not about a historiographical manuscript. If it's intended to provide context for the information about the Aksum Collection, I don't see the relevance.
• allegedly under Zagwe-dynasty ruler Gebre Mesqel Lalibela (r. 1185–1221), yet archaeology reveals the religious structures to have been built between the 10th and early 13th centuries: why "yet"? The dates are not necessarily in conflict.
• Looking at the paragraph starting "The most common form of written history", I wonder if it could be resequenced a little. The last two sentences give the origin of the genre; the second and third sentences might be better placed afterwards.
• Not necessary for FA, and the sources may not cover it anyway, but I'm curious about the mention of the Solomonic-era hagiographies of Zagwe rulers -- were these similar to the rote hagiographies common elsewhere in medieval literature? I.e. almost useless for historical purposes, consisting only of standard descriptions of miracles?
• In the Medieval Europe/Prester John section, you begin by characterizing Homer as mythology. He certainly includes mythological elements, but since the point of discussing him is that he also is regarded as a historical source, I think it might be better to cut the whole first clause, and just start with "Homer and Herodotus...."
• Is "Prete Ianni" a corrupted form of "Prester John", as it appears to be? If the sources don't say, that's fine, but if they do, it might be worth pointing it out parenthetically.
• How about mentioning in a few cases what language specific works were written in? I began to wonder about this in the "Early Modern historiography" section. Not sure it's needed for FA, but it could be a useful detail.
• Presumably the works Paez translated are mentioned in the earlier sections about the Zagwe and Solomonic dynasties? If so, it would be good to identify them in the later section too. If not, perhaps because Paez's translation is the only surviving version of the text, then I think that should be made clear.
• the Portuguese Jesuit missionary Jerónimo Lobo (1595–1678) would also describe Abyssinia and its denizens: why "would also"? Any reason not to just say "described"?
• At one point you say "the Era of the Princes"; at another there's no "the". I don't know what's standard usage; should one of these be corrected to match the other?
• Donald Crummey (1941–2013), Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Illinois: do we need his credentials inline? And if we do, do we need "Emeritus"? Surely that would only be relevant if he was Emeritus when he published the cited work?
• bore striking historical commonalities: suggest either "bore striking historical resemblances" or "had striking historical commonalities".
• the establishment of the Egyptian abun ecclesiastical office, which encapsulated Ethiopia's traditional orientation toward Egypt and the Middle East: this is a bit too compressed for me. How does an Egyptian ecclesiastical office encapsulate another country's external orientation?
• I also don't follow the thinking in the last three sentences of that paragraph, from "Consequently" on. Why would political tension lead to a laissez-faire attitude? And if there was a laissez-faire attitude (which to me means not hostile, if not actively cordial) then what's the relevance of the conference attendee numbers?
• native and foreign Ethiopianists of the post-1950 generation also focused more on historiographic matters pertaining to Ethiopia's place within the African continent: suggest cutting "also", unless it implies something I am missing.
• This trend had the effect of marginalizing Ethiopia's traditional bonds with the Middle East: marginalizing the bonds, or marginalizing them in contemporary historiographical writing?

-- That's everything I can see. These are all fairly minor points, and I expect to support once they're addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: hello. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I have tried my best to address your concerns and I have amended the article per your suggestions. The only one that I didn't fully address was the concern you had about Pedro Paez and his translations of Ethiopian works. Aside from the Kebra Nagast (which to my knowledge was not translated by Paez), I didn't actually mention the specific titles of royal biographies and chronicles in the previous sections, only when they were generally dated and what they were about. Aside from that, I think the article is in pretty good shape after implementing your suggestions. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. My concerns have been addressed. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad that I was able to address all of your concerns. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I am promoting this shortly, but I note that two of the images lack alt text, and it might be worth checking for duplinks as a few show up; in this case, the terms are far enough apart to justify them I think, but I would still recommend checking. Neither of these issues warrant delaying this any further, and I hope the nominator will continue to bring his excellent and diverse articles to FAC; in future, it is fine to request reviews and it is not canvassing unless you explicitly ask someone to come and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:55, 6 October 2017 [51].

---

Birthday-number effect

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Turns out people unknowingly prefer numbers from their birthday. I consider this the forgotten sibling of the name-letter effect which got FA status earlier this year. I look forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Images. There are none. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Support only a few issues. I enjoyed the name letter, glad to read the sequel.

• "in other countries.[9][10][8][A]" Are we ordering footnotes, or most significant first?
• "overall amount of numbers" I don't think "amount" is proper. I might say "quantity" instead.
• "Japanese tendency to attend to negative features so as to eliminate them.[46]" I'm not quite sure what this means.
• "can't" We shouldn't use contractions.
• " However, young children do not apply this strategy yet and 7 does not come out on top in children of age eight and nine.[12]" I would cut "yet"--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt, for your time and support. I believe I have dealt with your points, but let me know if the one about the Japanese tendency is still insufficient. BTW, I must admit I suspect you smiled when you used a contraction to tell me not to use one. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

This is a very interesting article, and a lot of a great work has been done here. Though I do have to admit that this effect does not apply to me (my birthday is on the 23rd and my favorite number is 47 lol). My review is completely focused on prose, and does not address anything with source use and reliability (which I will leave up to the source review). Once my relatively minor notes/comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. My comments are as follows:

• For the phrase (the Japanese psychologists Shinobu Kitayama and Mayumi Karasawa), I do not believe "the" is necessary.
• For the sentence (By 2017 Kitayama and Karasawa's original study had been cited in over 300 scientific papers.), add a comma after "2017".
• For the sentence (Throughout history societies have had numbers they consider special.), add a comma after "history".
• For this phrase (the researcher Dietz), is Dietz this person's full name?
• I would recommend using Bellos' full name when you mention him for the first time (i.e. Alex Bellos). Other instances where I think full names would be appropriate are the following - "Marketing researchers King and Janiszewski" and "Belgian psychologist Nuttin" - if the full names are known.
• In this phrase (In 1985 Belgian psychologist Nuttin), add a comma after "1985". Make sure there are commas after the "In this date" construction as I have noticed a few more places that require commas, but I do not want to list every instance here.
• "Name-letter effect" is linked multiple times in the body of the article.
• Instead of "hiraganas", I would use "hiragana". Japanese does not use a plural form so using the -s construction here just looks weird. I am also a little hesitant about the descriptive phrase in front of it (each of the 45 Japanese alphabet letters) as it can be interpreted as saying that hiragana is the only part of the Japanese alphabet when there is also kanji and katakana. I would see if there would be a way to rephrase that part to avoid any confusion.
• For this phrase (For the letter experiment they asked 219 Japanese undergraduate), add a comma after "experiment".
• I am not certain about the way the paragraphs are split in the "Results" subsection. Is there any reason why the first sentence is made into a separate paragraph?
• Please use the full names for these people: Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell. Same goes for Bosson, Swann and Pennebaker and Koole, Dijksterhuis, and van Knippenberg. Just make sure that when you introduce someone for the first time in the article, that you include their full name. There a few other instances not mentioned, but I do not want to make my comments too repetitive at this point.
• I am not sure about the policy related to this, but in the phrase (Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell used US undergraduate students), I would use "United States" in full for the first instance the country is cited in the article and then use US for the rest of the instances just to make it clear what you are referencing.

Hope this helps out at least a little. Aoba47 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much for your detailed review. I believe I have dealt with all your points except for two remaining issues to discuss:

• first names: if I knew the first names of all researchers then full names in first use would be good. As it happens, for 6 I can't find their first names: Dietz, Wiegersma, Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell. Which is a lot less than I thought. So I could do it. My policy was to only give full names of the original two, and then just last name for everybody else. But I'm open to change it, although it does make for quite a mouthful at times: "Similarly, Jerry Burger, Nicole Messian, Shenabi Patel, Alicia del Prado, and Carmen Anderson investigated the .." What do you think?
• US undergraduate students: I read the policy on MOS:US as you have to spell out the full country if other countries are listed, but should use abbreviated form elsewhere. I do indeed find "US undergraduate students" stylistically better.

Let me know your thoughts and thx again! Edwininlondon (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my points; this was a very interesting read. I have never heard of this before so it is cool to learn something new. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide commentary on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• There are a couple of MoS formatting issues:

• Where the citation is to a page range, the correct format is pp. not p.
• Within page ranges, a ndash rather than a hyphen should be used (as in ref 58)

A large number of refs are affected by one or other or both of the above: 19, 27, 19, 30, 36, 38, 39, 45, 46, 49, 53, 58, 62, 78, 81 – possibly others.

Otherwise all sources look of appropriate standard and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Brian. I have fixed the pp and hyphen problems. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

A very interesting article, well-done. I liked its earlier companion article as well. Here are a few suggestions or questions, nothing big:

Lead

• ¶3 "A study into the liking of products..." – Substitute "of" for "into"? I'm not sure you can study into something.

• ¶3 "The name-letter effect has been replicated In dozens of follow-up studies in different languages, cultures and alphabets this name-letter effect has been replicated, no matter whether participants selected their preferred letter from a random pair, or picked the top six of all letters in the alphabet, or rated each individual letter." – Something's gone off the rails here. Delete the incomplete sentence that begins the sequence but retain the link to name-letter effect in the subsequent full sentence?

Results

• ¶1 "only a 0.03 difference with the mean" – Perhaps "from the mean" rather than "with the mean"?

Application

• ¶1 and 2. In two places, the citations need to be reversed from [63][36] to [36][63].
• ¶1 Number Preference Task and Letter Preference Task appear here with initial caps, but in the preceding section they appear as "the number-preference task and the letter-preference task", all lower-case and hyphenated. Should they be the same throughout?
• ¶3 "...recommend that the task involves both letter preference and number preference, that it is administered twice, and that the instructions focus on liking..." – I think that changing the verbs a bit to "...recommend that the task involve both letter preference and number preference, that it be administered twice, and that the instructions focus on liking..." would be preferable.

Wider implications

• ¶3 "Over 200 participants of online survey..." – Insert "an", as in "an online survey"?
• ¶4 "born on 14 May would get an ad with a DVD-player" – Maybe "ad for" rather than "ad with"?

Footnotes

• Footnote B is supported by two citations, [18][5]. Those should be flipped to [5][18].

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reading and commenting, Finetooth. I believe I have addressed all your points. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything looks fine. I'm switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I noticed "He construed product names for a DVD", but I was wondering was this intended to be "constructed"? Maybe I'm missing something. In any case, it's not enough to hold up promotion. (Note: There was no image review as there are no images in the article) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:39, 6 October 2017 [52].

---

Miriam Makeba

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC), Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs)

This article is about a musician and activist who who had a lasting impact on music and popular culture in South Africa and abroad. It has been through an extensive rewrite and expansion over the course of this year, and went through a detailed GA review a few months ago. It has been looked over by Midnightblueowl, who is co-nom, and also by Graham87. I feel it is comprehensive, and has used most of the heavyweight sources in this area. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – I'm far too close to the article to !vote on this nom, but as an early major contributor to this page, and a big fan of her work, I can certainly attest that it covers her fascinating life story very comprehensively now, using the best available references. Graham87 11:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Image review by Nikkimaria, hatting for length. Vanamonde (talk)

File:Miriam_Makeba_welcome.png: possible to translate the description and source information? File:Miriam_Makeba_(1969).jpg: tag provided at source doesn't match tag provided here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: thanks for the review. I have asked for help with translation, let's see what comes of that. For the other image; I notice the author name did not match, and I've fixed that; was there another mismatch that I missed? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Yes: on our image description page we have a CC BY-SA tag, but I don't see that on the source page - they seem to use a PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: Got it. Does that mean I can simply replace the CC BY-SA tag with the PD tag and state that the source states it is public domain? Or do I need to try to figure out why the source claims it is public domain? Because the latter option seems beyond me. Also, what do you wish me to do with this translation? Copy it into the image description? Vanamonde (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Yes to the last question. On the first: ideally either we would know why they think it's PD, or we have a PD tag specific to that source (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Custom_PD_license_tags). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: Well, this page seems to suggest that they consider everything in their collection to be PD. This is supported by a document linked on the side, which says that as a matter of principle, everything on the National Archive website is PD, and "made available with a CC0 waiver". Now I am relying on google to translate said document, but it seems quite clear cut to me. I'm not certain what tag this translates to, I'm afraid. I have added the translation to the image documentation. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC) If that is the correct reading a CC0 tag would apply, but I'm not sure whether the "percent open" row indicates that not all of the collection is PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Even if that were the case, our image also carries a PD tag; would that not take care of it? I cannot find any more specific image documentation, so if you are still dissatisfied, I guess I will remove the image. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC) The image currently has a CC BY-SA tag, which isn't the same as CC0/PD. What about asking the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Sure, I'll ask them, though they haven't edit for three weeks and do not seem very chatty in any case. That wasn't what I was referring, to though; at the source link, there is a PD tag for the image: and I guess I'm asking (since I genuinely don't know) why that, combined with the statement on the archive homepage, isn't good enough for us. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC) The option there would be to set up a custom PD tag, as we've done for some other libraries and archives. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC) I realize I am not making much progress here, but creating such a tag would be well beyond my abilities. Is this something you could help me out with? If it is something that will take a while to do, would you prefer me to remove the image, or to switched the tag for a CC0 tag, as an interim measure? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Nationaal-Archief. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Many thanks, Nikkimaria. Image tag updated. Vanamonde (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I have no comment on the general question. The translation on the "Welcome" image is as follows: "Airport reception for the singer (sic) Miriam Makeba (Jacob Ori at left), 1963." Source of the image is Leora Slutsky (Ori), presumably a relative of Jacob Ori. The other page upon which this image appears is the Hebrew Wikipedia article for "Jacob Ori (Licht)", who was an impresario, and presumably was responsible for bringing Ms. Makeba to Israel for performances. Note that "Ori" is a Hebraization of the Yiddish-German "Licht", meaning "light"; such Hebraization of Yiddish names was pretty common in Israel's pre-State and early State eras. Ori is almost certainly the family name he went by in Israel. I hope this was helpful. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Many thanks, StevenJ81. Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC) References

Support from John

• Interested in under the apartheid regime, black people were legally prohibited from consuming alcohol. I don't think it was as simple as that; see [53] for example. John (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• You may be right. We have multiple sources for that statement, but I do not see any reason for those sources to be mentioning an amendment to the law that occurred later. I have modified the sentence to read "under South African law at the time, black people were legally prohibited from consuming alcohol." Vanamonde (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, that's a bit better as obviously apartheid was only brought in post WW2. But the source I found has the "Durban system" bringing in municipal monopolies on alcohol from 1908 and says "In the 1930s even the Witwatersrand abandoned its prohibition policies in favor of the beer hall system." I think this is another interesting data point. --John (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it's an interesting system, isn't it. My gut feeling is that in addition to racial discrimination there was an interest here in controlling the supply of alcohol, and preventing home-brewing by black people: but I suspect that's a bit too much detail here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. My feeling is that the article wouldn't be harmed by omitting this detail or perhaps putting it in a footnote. After all, most of us still live in jurisdictions where selling home-brewed beer is illegal. --John (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Fair enough: footnote added. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Makeba sang with the Skylarks when the Manhattan Brothers were travelling abroad; later she travelled with them as well. This is ambiguous; does the "them" refer to the Skylarks or the Manhattan Brothers? --John (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• It was the Manhattans. Clarified.

• Other than that it is all looking good. I took a few wee hacks at the prose. I created The Skylarks (South African vocal group) to get rid of that irritating red link in the lead. --John (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, John, I've addressed the two points you raised. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I now support the promotion of this candidate, at least on prose. --John (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle

All together a very content-rich article. Glad to see an African biography FAC.

• "She married Stokely Carmichael, a leader of the Black Panther Party, in 1968: as a result". The colon here seems unnatural. I think it would be better if it was just a period between two sentences.

• Done

• "Miriam spent the first six months of her life in jail. As a child, she sang in the choir". Since you end the former clause talking about Makeba's mother, it would be best if you then put Makeba's name in place of the pronoun in the next sentence to avoid confusion.

• Done

• "Her talent for singing was remarked upon during her schooldays." "[R]emarked upon" is an ambiguous phrase. The source says "praised", so that or something similar would be better. If there is another source that is more specific (i.e. who was praising her and what did they say) that would be best.

• I've reworded a little: other sources don't seem to say exactly who did the praising, because her early life has received very little attention. I'll look again, but I'm not hopeful.

• "and sang in church choirs, in English". I'm no MOS expert, but is that comma proper?

• I think so? It reads naturally to me

• "Her mother successfully treated her cancer." How? The source isn't very specific; it only notes that the treatment was "unconventional". Do other sources have more detailed information? I must express my hesitance to believe such a vague claim.

• You're right. I've removed it pending further support.

• The Independent article "Miriam Makeba: Singer banned from her native South Africa for fighting apartheid" says the Sunbeams/Skylarks was created by Gallotone Records, but this Wikipedia article reads that she founded the group. The Independent implies that the Skylarks were put together in such a fashion to purposefully not have any "mention of royalties, management or intellectual property" on purpose (this Wikipedia page does mention her lack of royalties). I see that the Al-Ahram Weekly weekly notes she founded the group, but gives less detail. On its face, I'm inclined to believe the Independent; I think the Al-Ahram just summarized too much. At any rate, this discrepancy should be resolved.

• I would agree with your assessment, and have modified the text accordingly. I suspect Nkrumah meant "founder member", but that's only a guess.

• The Independent article also says, "In 1953 she recorded her first hit "Laku Tshoni Ilanga" with [the Manhattan Brothers]." This seems relevant to include.

• Done

• "The record became the first South African record to chart on the US Billboard Top 100." Seeing as this is the first time the United States has been mentioned in the body of the article, it might be better to list the name instead of the acronym.

• Done

• "During its recording, she and Belafonte had a disagreement, after which they stopped recording together." Is there any further information on the nature of this disagreement?

• I'm afraid the source does not say; most sources don't mention it at all.

• "Makeba later stated that it was during this period that she accepted the label "Mama Africa"." Any information on the origin of this phrase?

• I'll dig further, but it seems to have emerged gradually; hard to pinpoint it.

• "In 1973, she had separated from Carmichael". This should be reworded (the past tense is already stated once), probably by dropping the word "had".

• The reason for the "had" is that we're jumping back in time, having discussed the Soweto uprising (1976) just before this.

• "She worked closely with Graça Machel-Mandela, the South African first lady, for children". The phrase "worked...for" is rather vague. Perhaps, if accurate, it could read "worked closely with Graça Machel-Mandela...advocating for children"?

• Done

• "and has been described as having a sensuous presence on stage". Seeing as she is now dead, might bit be better to say "and was described"?

• Done

• "She wore no makeup and refused to straighten her hair for shows, thus establishing a style that came to be known internationally as the "Afro look"." Was she the first person to do this, or was she just among the earliest to do it? If the latter is true, the text should perhaps read "thus helping to establish a style".

• Yes, that's probably safer: though the sources do her a fair amount of credit, it would be a really extreme claim to say she was the very first to exhibit this style (and I'm fairly sure she was not).

• "The prize has been called the "Nobel Prize for Music" in Sweden." This information seems more suited for the article on the Polar Music Prize than here, especially considering the source has nothing to do with Makeba and describes the prize as it was awarded to other artists in 2010.

• I guess it's there because nobody has heard of the prize and the linked page is inadequate. If you still think it irrelevant, I will remove it.

• "Google honoured her with a Google Doodle on their homepage." This information needs to be cited and the date on which this occured should be given.

• It was in fact cited, the citation was just not at the end of the sentence: I've moved the refs there.

• Citation number 87 [Tobler, John (1992). NME Rock 'N' Roll Years (1st ed.). London: Reed International Books. p. 427. CN 5585.] should be changed to harv sfn style as per FA criteria 2c on consistent citations with the bulk of the reference in the "Bibliography" section and a shortened footnote used as the direct citation. The same goes for citation number 98 [Stanton, Andrea L.; Ramsamy, Edward; Seybolt, Peter J. (2012). Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia. SAGE. p. 318. ISBN 978-1-4129-8176-7].

• Done

• Citation number 2 [Allen, Lara (2011). "Makeba, Miriam Zenzi". In Akyeampong, Emmanuel K.; Gates, Henry Louis Jr. Dictionary of African Biography. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-985725-8.] refers to the Dictionary of African Biography. This needs to be in harv sfn fashion as well. I recall this book as having page numbers. If these are available, they should also be cited. If not, I recommend using the following citation: {{sfn|Allen|2011|loc=Makeba, Miriam Zenzi}}.

• Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Many thanks: I've addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to offer my support. Yes, I do believe the comment on the Polar Music Prize should be removed from this article, but other than that all my comments have been addressed. Best of luck! -Indy beetle (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Indy beetle. I've removed that particular sentence. Vanamonde (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

No spotchecks done. In general, subject to the case discussed below, the sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. A few issues:

• Refs 80, 95 and possibly others (check): BBC is not a print source and should not be underlined.

• I think you mean italicized? In any case, that's what the template does: not sure if I can get around it, or whether I should.

• I've just gotten around it by replacing work= with publisher=. I've also done some other tweaks to the refs for consistency. Graham87 06:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 91: "Tony Hollingsworth" is indicated as the author, but the article is actually written by Peter Elman – Hollingsworth is the publisher. What makes Hollingsworth a reliable source? A lot of the text reads as Hollingsworth promotional material.

• Fair point, this is some of the little text that predates me. Source replaced.

• Ref 110: p. should be pp. (per ref 152)

• Fixed.

• Ref 144: The title, "Zenzi Benga - the Musical" does not appear in the source. Is this the intended link, or is the title wrong?
  • @Brianboulton: I'm responsible for adding that ref and I can confirm it was the intended link ... the title of the website seems to have changed along with the title of the musical. Graham87 14:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• In the bibliography, for books you should be consistent about including publisher locations.Brianboulton (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Removed the few that were there.

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the review: your points have been addressed, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all is well now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment in regards to spotchecks: I can verify that the information taken from citation 9 [Ewens, Graeme (11 November 2008). "Obituary: Miriam Makeba". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 March 2012] and citation 15 [Lusk, Jon (11 November 2008). "Miriam Makeba: Singer banned from her native South Africa for fighting apartheid". The Independent. Retrieved 12 March 2015] is accurately represented in this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Edwininlondon

(It seemed appropriate to put one of her albums on while reviewing. Big fan.) A very fine article. Just a few nitpicky things I could find:

• on which Makeba sang for 18 months. -> that is quite a feat

• yeah, I guess it could be read that way. I've reworded, let me know if it's still an issue

• described as a "groundbreaking Afropop gem -> attribution would be good

• Done

• Touré wanted to create -> Which one? I assume not the president

• Actually it was the president. Does it still need clarification? He's mentioned by his full name in the previous sentence

• Her use of the clicks -> link: this is not the first use of clicks

• True...but it is the first one that's not specifically the song or in quotes, and MOS frowns on links in quotes.

• Her self-presentation been characterised -> has been? was?

• Fixed, thanks...

• and American music." -> I suspect punctuation should be the other way round ". Check whole article for consistency among fragments and whole sentences

• My understanding is that if the portion quoted ends in a period, then the period should be within the quotes...have I got that wrong? Entirely possible, I could never remember the finer points of grammar, I just go by instinct.

I always look it up, but by the time I get back to my edit page I have forgotten it again. Here are two examples from [MOS:LQ]: Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo." Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo". Edwininlondon (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Edwinlondon: Thanks, that makes sense. I've made the fix, which I think was the last one. Vanamonde (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• It debuted in the US with performances in St. Louis, Missouri and at the -> debut happens only once, so a bit of rework is needed here.Edwininlondon (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• True. Fixed.
• @Edwininlondon: Thanks for looking this over: I believe I've addressed your points. Vanamonde (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Edwininlondon: Pinging you again, since I messed up the previous ping: did you have any further comments? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

All fine. I support. Nice work.Edwininlondon (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:23, 5 October 2017 [54].

---

Sea mink

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a species of mink that went extinct in the 1800s, and everything about its behavior and biology comes from skull fragments and stuff fur traders said   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Very pleased to see this here.

• "It was found on the New England coast and the Maritime Provinces, though its range may have stretched further south during the last glacial period. Conversely, its range may have been restricted to solely the New England coast, specifically the Gulf of Maine, or to just islands off of it." Perhaps you're a little too firm in the first sentence?

added "probably"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• "and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." If you mean the century, perhaps "the late 19th century" would be less ambiguous?

I always thought they were synonyms, is there any sort of difference between 1800s and 19th century?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Debate has occurred regarding whether the sea mink was its own species, or a subspecies of the American mink. Those who argue that the sea mink was a subspecies often refer to it as Neovison vison macrodon.[5][6]" I wouldn't start with this. I think starting with the initial description date would make more sense

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• The second half of the paragraph (beginning at "Another study conducted in 2000") could do with some attention. It's a little repetitive, and I'm not really keen on "the study said".

I removed the use of the word "said" and I used the authors of the studies instead of just saying "the [year] study"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think "refuted" is a little strong; unless we have a clear consensus in the literature that a particular claim has been refuted, I think "challenged" or something might be better.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Pausing there, sorry- a little distracted... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A few more thoughts:

• Would it not be typical for the range section to go below the description section? Description often goes above taxonomy, as well, but I quite like a taxonomy section first.

I always do it Taxonomy --> Description --> Range --> Behavior, but in this particular case I felt that Range was sort of needed after Taxonomy if people got confused, and could easily reference it. Also I kept bringin up info about its range in the Description section, so it seemed necessary to have it beforehand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• "914 millimetres (36 in) from head to tail, with the tail being 254 millimetres (10 in) long" What does your source say? I'm guessing 36 in and 10 in; if this is so, 914mm and 254mm is false precision.

It's in millimetres, I just set the sig figs to 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem, then; sorry! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• "a hybrid by a 1966 study" As before; you have also have a few references to "a 2000 study"

the 1966 study's only mentioned once, so I figure to just leave it as "1966 study," but I fixed all the repeating study mentions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• "It was described as having course fur that was reddish-tan in color, though much of it was faded from age most likely." Are you talking about the mounted mink?

yeah, I made it more clear   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• " The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than American minks, such as the wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." This sentence is all over the place.

fixed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• "and hard-bodied marine invertebrates like the American mink, though in greater proportions" The American mink is not a hard-bodied marine invertebrate!

I reworded it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• "proceeding 1860" Surely you mean preceding? Or do you perhaps mean following?

no, I meant after 1860. Is "proceeding" not allowed?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't use it like that; I'd say "following" or simply "after". Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hope this is useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

is there any sort of difference between 1800s and 19th century? ...No... There isn't. This suggestion is confusing. TimothyJosephWood 18:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"The 1800s" is ambiguous between the decade at the start of the 19th century and the 19th century itself. Thus, the phrase "became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." is ambiguous between "became extinct some time around 1808-9" and "and became extinct sometime around 1880-99". Is this clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have always referred to 1800-1899 as the 1800s, also I find 19th century confuses some people because they might confuse it with the 1900s, but I'll do it if you insist   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

• File Herring Cove (10105704513).jpg misses ALT text.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• File:The Canadian field-naturalist (1988) (20332897078).jpg needs a copyright tag.

it looks like it has all the right licensing displayed already   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my bad, I thought we should have had a CC there, but I guess it is fine. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks great otherwise! Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Nicely done. I bring no special biological expertise to the article, but I have a few suggestions about the prose.

Lede

• ¶1 "The justification for it being its own species is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur." – Slightly smoother might be "The main justification for a separate-species designation is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur."
• ¶1 "Likewise, its actual size is speculative, based largely on tooth remains." – Delete "Likewise"?
• ¶2 "or to just islands off of it." – Trim to "or to nearby islands"?
• ¶2 "As it was the largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders than other mink species, and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." – Trim and smooth? Suggestion: "Largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders and became extinct in the late 1800s."
• ¶2 "in the late 1800s" – This claim matches the lede but does not match the claim in the final section of the article.

Taxonomy and etymology

• ¶1 "The skull fragments used to first describe it were recovered from Native American shell middens in New England like most remains of the sea mink, however a complete specimen does not exist. Most remains are skull fragments as well." – The claim "does not exist" makes the assumption that no one can ever find one. I would also smooth this a bit. Suggestion: "Prentis based his description on skull fragments recovered from Native American shell middens in New England. Most sea mink remains, nearly all of them skull fragments, have come from middens, but a complete specimen has never been found."
• ¶2 Link paleontology?
• ¶2 "Furthermore, Graham reported that Mead et al. assumed..." – I wonder if it's strictly necessary to repeat the "et al."?
• ¶3 "The sea mink had various names given to it by the fur traders who hunted it, including: the water marten, the red otter, and the fisher cat." – Flip to active voice and trim? Suggestion: "Fur traders who hunted it gave the sea mink various names, including water marten, red otter, and fisher cat."

Range

• Since you link Massachusetts, you should probably link Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Nova Scotia.
• ¶2 "Mead et. al concluded..." – Maybe drop the "et al."?
• ¶2 "Alternately, the sea mink may have just evolved after the last glacial period in order to occupy a new niche." – The phrase "in order to" suggests that the mink evolved thoughtfully. Suggestion: "Alternately, the sea mink may have evolved after the last glacial period and filled a new ecological niche."

Description

• ¶1 "...though its relatives and descriptions given by fur traders and Native Americans give a general idea of what this animal looked like and its ecological roles." – Smooth a bit? Suggestion: "though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles."
• ¶2 "...however this was found to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid by a 1966 study." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "...however, a 1996 study found this to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid."
• ¶4 "Mead et al. that concluded that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism." – This refers obliquely to a report in a way that is not quite grammatical. Suggestion: "Mead et al., concluding that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands, suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism."
• ¶4 Maybe drop the "et al." here too?
• ¶4 "The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than the American mink, as they had wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." – Tighten to "The sea mink's wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades suggest that they crushed hard shells more often than did the teeth of the American mink."?

Exploitation and extinction

• ¶1 "eventually led to their extinction, which is thought to have occurred anywhere from 1860 to 1920." – The lede says "late 1800s." They shouldn't be contradictory.
• ¶1 "using an iron rod with a screw on the other end" – Would "the far end" make this more clear?

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

fixed all the above   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. That's what I call a quick turnaround. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. I enjoyed reading this. Finetooth (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Vanamonde

• Some inconsistencies in capitalization style: some refs use title case, others do not.

I'm not really sure what a title case is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just realized this is still an issue. See [55]. Essentially, you have "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference", but "Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates". You should make this consistent. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• What makes scotcat.com a reliable source?

The author is part of the Catfish Study Group which is a journal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Other sources are either high-quality scholarly sources, books from reliable publishers, or what appear to be reliable natural history publications.
• Earwig's tool does not flag anything of substance. I googled a few randomly selected sentences, and found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors.
• I performed a spot check on the source used for the phylogeny; the source supports the content.
• I also spotchecked the Manville 1966 source. I have some minor concerns with its use:

• "Its closest relative is the common mink (N. v. mink), which also inhabits the New England area." is cited to Manville. N.v mink is a subspecies of the American mink, Neovison vison. Therefore, unless N.v. is a polyphyletic taxon, this sentence makes little sense. If it is a polyphyletic taxon, then we need a source to say so. Overall, I'd say the claim here is doubtful, and should at least be attributed in the text.

It's saying that the closest mink subspecies to the sea mink is the common mink, not that the common mink's its own species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I mean: if the sea mink were its own species, then it cannot, by definition, be more closely related to one subspecies (N.v. mink) of another species (N.v.) than to other subspecies of the same species. This only makes sense in light of the source's conclusion that the sea mink was not its own species, and was also a subspecies of N.v.mink. So, you need to mention that, or remove that sentence. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC) (Corrected, for the benefit of anybody reading later. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC))

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am not certain how you derive "The sea mink was the largest of the minks. However, as only fragmentary skeletal remains of the sea mink exist, most of its external measurements are speculative and rely only on dental measurements." from the Manville source, though I may be missing something.

there're a couple of other sources lined up there, the Sealfon one says that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• "and the carnassial teeth make a more acute angle" Not an error, as such, but should specify angle with what.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Remains of toad sculpins, ocean pout, and garden banded snails were the most common around their dens." That's not quite what the source says: the snails are reported as part of their diet, but not because of their presence on middens.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Again, not necessarily an error: the source reports the fish eaten as "horned pout (probably Macrozoarces americanus)" which appears to be a mismatch between common name (which, on WP, redirects to Brown bullhead) and the scientific name (which, presumably, you used to link to ocean pout.

Yeah, common names change but the scientific name is generally the one you wanna trust with species identification   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe I missed something, but where does Manville specifically say "however, these kills are speculated to be of large American minks."?

oops, it's only for the 1894 kill. Manville's describing the specimen collected in 1894, and at the end concluded that it's an American mink   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• If you are relying so heavily upon Manville, it's probably worth mentioning his conclusion that the Sea mink is a subspecies of the American mink. This would also help resolve my first point.

• That's all I have for now. If I find the time, I may check the other source, too. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Looks okay now. If I have more time, I may do another spot check, but I don't think that should be required for promotion. A general note: Dunkleosteus, you do fine work with neglected marine mammals, but this is the second time in two reviews that I have flagged issues with interpreting phylogeny. May I ask that you be a little more careful in the future, and possibly ask for advice before somebody flags it at FAC? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking now......

• Add descriptor of who/what Prentiss was.

I just added a wikilink to his wikisource page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I meant describe him...like, "American doctor and naturalist" or something similar before the first mention of his name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• last 2 sentences of first para of Taxonomy and etymology section repetitive....? Streamline?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ok this segment: The sea mink was hunted to extinction before it was formally described by scientists. Subsequently, its external appearances and behaviors are not well-documented, though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles. - has unnecessary emphasis as you've already told us (twice) that it has become extinct. Hence, it should be something like "As it vanished before it was formally described by scientists, its (external) appearance and behaviors are not well-documented. However, descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, as well as the physique/morphology of its relatives, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological role. (note also that "external" is redundant, and appearance should be singular).

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to mention that it was hunted to extinction again as you did so in the previous section. It comes across as laboured otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand why you've chosen millimetres rather than centimetres (I think most laypeople think in the latter as default measurement)

the source gave it in mm so I just did it but I changed it to cm   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• The last recorded kill of a sea mink was made in Maine made in 1880 near Jonesport, and the last known kill was made in Campobello Island in New Brunswick in 1894 - I don't understand the distinction between "last recorded" and "last known"

there isn't I was just worried about repetition, but I can change it if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

In which case if you want to include both you could say, "the last two reported kills were..." or somesuch. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• In the Exploitation and extinction I'd flip the material in the first para, so that methods of killing come before last killings and vanishing.

I just ordered it in level of importance, people're gonna wanna know when they died out before how they died out   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but it sounds funny as it sounds like the hunters are trying to kill them...when they are all already dead....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I can split it off into a different paragraph if that'll make it better, but I've always layered it thematically because the reader's most likely looking for a time of extinction, and they're not gonna want to sort through a wall of text on killing minks to get there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't help. I think I am not so opposed to it to make it a deal-breaker..so I can agree to disagree on that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I can't see anything else jumping out at me prose-wise nor can I see anything missing..so a tentative support from me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - this looked good when I GA reviewed it, and it has obviously been improved, so here's my support to get things going. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:27, 5 October 2017 [56].

---

Referendum Party

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a minor British political party which stood in the 1997 general election. A single-issue party, it was devoted solely to Euroscepticism. After it dissolved, many of its candidates switched to the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which subsequently helped to force UK membership of the European Union as a major domestic political issue and resulted in the 2016 referendum on the topic. The recently GA-rated article therefore provides an interesting slice of history for those wishing to understand the current situation that the UK finds itself in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brian Boulton

An interesting article – I'd completely forgotten about this short-lived forerunner of UKIP. I'll need to read it through more carefully, but for the time being I'll make a few comments on the lead:

• In the opening paragraph: "Specifically, it wanted a referendum on whether the British population wanted to be part of a federal European state or whether they wanted the EU to revert to being a free-trade bloc without wider political functions." Much clunking there, with three "wanteds" in the sentence. More importantly, the sentence muddles the question the party wished to put to the British people which, according to your wording in the main text, asked them to choose between being part of a federal state or "to return to an association of sovereign nations that are part of a common trading market". The British people could not by referendum determine the nature of the EU; thus, if they voted for the latter option they would be choosing to leave the EU and return to a non-EU bloc such as EFTA (of which it had been a member between 1960 and 1973).

• Good points. I've changed the wording to "Specifically, it called for a referendum on whether the British people wanted to either be part of a federal European state or revert to being a sovereign nation that was part of a free-trade bloc without wider political functions." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Third paragraph: " psephologists argued that it deprived the Conservatives of a victory in several parliamentary seats, and thus helped Tony Blair's Labour to defeat John Major's Conservative government." You need to delete everything from "and thus helped..." Labour's overall majoriity in the 1997 election was 176 and its lead in seats over the Conservatives was 253. You estimate that the Referendum Party deprived the Conservatives of from 4 to 16 seats; even the higher total would scarcely have dented Labour's majority.

• I was humming and harring about this when I put it in the lede. You have confirmed my initial concerns, so I shall remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• "it was recognised as Britain's most successful minor party in recent years". I would dispute use of the word "successful", even if cited sources use the term. The party put up more candidates and gained more votes than other fringe parties of recent times, but since none of its candidates came remotely near to winning a seat (only four achieved even 7 percent of the vote), how can it be called "successful"? You could say "its performance was recognised as the best by a minor party in recent years" or some such wording.

• I've removed this wording, but in its place I have added a new sentence to help retain some of the original meaning: "It stood candidates in 547 constituencies, the most that any minor party had ever fielded in a UK election." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Change link to Democratic Party

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• There are a few oddities of language:

• The British are a "people", not a "population"

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• "it gained 811,827 ballots, representing 2.6% of the national vote". We don't use the word "ballot" in the individual context, we say "votes". Thus: "it won 811,827 votes, representing 2.6% of the national total".

• Also changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• "it failed to attain any MPs in the House of Commons" → "it failed to win any seats in the House of Commons"

• I was a little cautious that readers in countries without parliamentary systems might be unfamiliar with the term "win any seats", but I am okay changing it unless someone else pops up to endorse my concern. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll add further comments in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments from me

• Lead

• Add the words "shortly before that year's general election" to the end of the second paragraph

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Background and ideology

• First line: the verb "transformed" used in this sense is transitive, and therefore needs an object. Thus "transformed itself"

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• You should very briefly explain that this transformation created a political union, membership of which involved some loss of individual national sovereignty. This was – and still is – the heart of the Eurosceptic argument.

• I've added an additional sentence to this effect. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• "a Member of Parliament (MP) elected " should be "Members of Parliament (MPs) elected", and you should delete the redundant "then"

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence beginning "It also claimed that..." is likewise redundant, as the same exact point is made in the following sentence which includes the Goldsmith quote.

• I've rejigged the wording slightly so that we now have only one sentence rather than two, as opposed to simply deleting one of the two sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Early growth

• This is an unsuitable title, since the section covers the whole history of the party up to the 1997 election. I suggest "Establishment and growth"

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• The word "little" occurs twice in the first line. (One could be "limited")

• I have replaced the second instance with "limited". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Third para: generally, paragraphs should not begin with a pronoun. You could simply delete the "Its"

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• 3rd para second sentence: the "it" is ambiguous, and would should be replaced by "the new party"

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• the words "for his party" after "endorsements" seem unnecessary

• Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• 1997 general election

• 2nd para: close repetion of "The Referendum Party". The second could be replaced by a pronoun

• Removed the second instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• You should also avoid "...candidates. Candidates...". You could merge the second and third sentences, to read: "... its selection of candidates, who had only one interview..." I'd also replace the words "before becoming the official party candidate" with the more concise "before acceptance".

• These are good ideas. I've amended the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• You might mention who carried out these interviews.

• Unfortunately, it does not specify this in the RS we have. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• 5th para: "these positions" should be "this position", since only one has been mentioned

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• "enter...enter into": the second could be replaced by "engage in"

• Good idea, changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Another suggested sentence merge to avoid verbosity: "The electoral threat posed by Goldsmith's party was taken seriously among the Conservatives, among them Major, Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd, Brian Mawhinney and Michael Heseltine, who launched vitriolic..."

• I've merged the two sentences as you suggest, although I have not followed the exact wording as I wanted to avoid a repetition of the term "among". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• "putting forth": "putting up" is idiomatic

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Results

• A minor confusion re deposits. In Brit electoral law a candidate's deposit is returned if he/she gets 5% or more of the constituency vote. You say that 46 RP candidates achieved this, but later: "42 of their candidates gained a sufficient number of votes that they had their deposits returned". Both figures can't be right. A further nitpicky point is that sentences should not begin with numerals (MoS).

• Hmm, you are right - there is a discrepancy. I've double checked the two RS and the Wikipedia article does accurately relate the information contained within them. I'll try and delve a little further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've done some delving, and that has simply raised more questions. Carter et al say, quite clearly, that "42 saved their deposits." That would be supported by the data from the PoliticalResources website (here), which says that of the 547 Referendum Party candidates, 505 lost their deposits (which leaves 42). At the same time, McAllister and Studlar state that "There were only 46 constituencies where the Referendum Party's vote reached 5 percent or more", and when examining the list of Referendum Party results at our own article (Referendum Party election results), I can count 46 instances where the party secured over 5%. So 42 or 46? Perplexing. Perhaps, for some reason, there were four candidates who did secure over 4% of the vote but did not retain their deposit... are you aware of extenuating circumstances that result in such a situation? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'll look at this again in the morning – got to go to bed now! Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've looked, and the answer is simple: our article, and perhaps other sources, have rounded percentages up/down to one decimal place. In four constituencies where the RP percentage is shown as 5.0, the actual figures was slightly smaller: Cambridge SE 4.995, Havant 4.955, Richmond Yorks 4.957 and Tiverton/Honiton 4.999. This explains the discrepancy between 46 and 42. How you deal with this in the text is up to you – personally I'd amend the sentence cited to McAllister and Studlar to read: "The party's best results were in four constituencies where it achieved more than 7% of the vote." Or you could simply delete the sentence. But the statement that "The party gained over 5% of the vote in 46 constituencies" clearly has to go. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• That explains it! Thanks for figuring that one out Brian. I have amended the McAllister and Studlar quote in the manner that you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• You should state the amount of the deposit. It is £500 according to this

• But was it £500 back in 1997? The PDF dates from 2009. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• It's been £500 since 1985. This may not qualify as a RS, so I'll try to find something better. But it isn't a critical point. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Here is a reliable source that confirms the deposit was £500 in 1997. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Brian. I've added a few words, linking to the reference that you provide, referring to the cost of the deposit at the time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• As a matter of interest, can you provide any gender division between the 547 candidates? My instincts tell me that they would have been overwhelmingly male, since we generally are the more obsessive-minded. The information might exist somewhere.

• I share your suspicions, and indeed, the list of names over at Referendum Party election results does suggest something of a sausage fest. However, the RS do not seem to specifically provide us with any breakdown of the figures. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• My OR indicates that between 70 and 75 of the RP candidates were women – about 14% of the total. That's about par for the course in nineties terms, roughly in line with the Conservatives, who only achieved 19% in 2005, and as recently as 2010, 24%. But none of the reliable sources I've comsulted seem to cover this question, alas. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Although failing to win any seats, they..." Better if you replace "they" with "the party".

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Legacy

• A brief explanation of Goldsmith's death should be provided, as this was the reason why the movement disbanded so rapidly. He had been terminally ill during the campaign, and lasted a mere eleven weeks after polling day. His ODNB entry provides a source - if you don't have access I'll deal with this for you.

• Good idea. I've used the ODBN entry to provide an additional sentence on his terminal illness and death. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Other issues

• The article is light on images, for obvious copyright reasons, with only Farage gawping in the bottom right corner. In view of Goldsmith's closeness to the Referendum Party – its sole begetter, financier and leader – it would in my view be justifiable to include an image of him in the lead, under a fair use rationale. I would strongly support this. I suggest you have a word with Nickimaria who is an image guru. See what she advises.

• Personally I'm doubtful that we will get away with using such an image, but I'll drop Nickimaria a line at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Midnightblueowl, perhaps now would be the time (by the way, it's Nikkimaria, with two "k"s) as the main outstanding check here seems to be an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Nikki, as this appears to be otherwise ready to promote, would you mind weighing here? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

There, I'm done. I will see no reason not to support when these issues have been considered. I've much enjoyed this first-class article, a timely reminder of the nineties. it's been a pleasure to review it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Postscript: A candidate representing the "Referendum Party" stood in the Kensington and Chelsea byelection held on 25 November 1999, long after the party had disbanded. Details p. 268 here. I guess this was a rogue element and nothing to do with Goldsmith's party, but you could mention it if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have added a brief sentence about this in the "Dissolution and legacy" section. It's interesting, if perhaps fairly tangential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note: There's a couple of points I'm waiting on, but the nominator seems to be absent at the moment. I will be away from wiki myself for several days after today, but I'll check in as soon as I'm back. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your comments Brian; if there is anything else then please don't hesitate to let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: Excellent and informative. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would encourage you to add ALT text for the images.

• Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• For the James Goldsmith quote box, there is an extra space between the citation and “1994”.

• Well spotted! Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure how currency is linked in articles (as it was never really necessary in any of my projects), but do you think it would be helpful to link the first instance that the pound sterling symbol is used in the article?

• That makes sense. Link added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• You typically include a short descriptive phrase in front of a person’s name upon their first mention, but you do not include one for James Goldsmith. Do you think one would be helpful, not only for clarity, but also for consistency? I would also include phrases for John Curtice and Michael Steed, again for clarity and consistency.

• Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• This may be a silly request, but do you think it would be necessary to put UK in parenthesis following your first mention of “the United Kingdom” in the lead and the body of the article as you have done for EU with “the European Union”.

• I was wondering this myself. I'll add the acronym in. Certainly, it can't do any harm. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Do you think that you should include the link to single-issue politics in the body of the article (i.e. “a classic single-issue party”)? I have seen that the link is used in the lead, but not the body of the article.

• Good idea. Link added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• At the start of the “1997 general election”, you use “the United Kingdom” in full while you primarily use “UK” throughout the article. I would recommend changing that instance to “UK” for consistency.

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please include the full title and link for MP (i.e. Member of Parliament) in the body of the article. You only use the full title and link in the lead, and you only use the acronym unlinked in the body of the article. I have received notes in that past that everything should be linked on the first mention in the lead and body of the article (and please correct me if those comments are not correct as I have seen some mixed responses to it).

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this list. Unfortunately, as an American, I have very little knowledge on this matter (or any political topic outside of American politics) so I cannot check for anything else beyond questions on prose. I hope that my comments help out at least a little. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read the article and for offering your comments, Aoba47. I have responded to every one of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments! This was a very interesting read, and you have done a great job with this. I really do need to learn more about world politics; maybe, one day in the future, I will work on a more politics-based article or list. I support this for promotion. If possible, could you look at my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or if it falls outside of your interests. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Interesting article on a party of which I was probably aware but have long forgotten:

• "which was experiencing high rates of unpopularity" I might say "which was becoming highly unpopular" or maybe "increasingly unpopular"

• I've gone with "increasingly unpopular". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• "a Member of Parliament representing Britain's Conservative Party" do MPs represent parties? Is that the proper term?

• I've always thought so, although if you think that there is a more appropriate term then I would certainly be interested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Goldsmith's intervention in British politics has been compared to that of the multi-millionaires Ross Perot in the United States and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.[6]" It would be more effective if you could say "was" rather than "has been". Surely there were comparisons at the time.

• On that I am not sure. It may have been that the comparisons were only made by later academics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Its new headquarters was in London.[13]" I might see if this very short sentence can be merged into the one before or following.

• Merged into the preceding sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• "It also sought to attract the support" I would say "The party" rather than "It"

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• "the politician George Thomas," he was titled by then though I'm fine with it either way.

• We initially gave his title although I presume that he is more widely known by his actual name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Goldsmith's party was the biggest spender on press advertising in the 1997 campaign;[32] it spent three times as much as the Conservatives and five times as much as Labour on press adverts." I would strike the last three words. It's implied.

• I see your point, however I can also see the possibility of the latter half of the sentence being misunderstood that they spend three times as much as the Conservatives and five times as much as Labour on the entire campaign, rather than just press advertising. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Goldsmith talking directly to the camera to promote a referendum." rather than the last four words, I would put a comma and "arguing for a referendum".

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• You might toss in the date of the 1997 election.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments, User:Wehwalt! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde

I reviewed this at GAN, and think it's a high-quality article worthy of promotion. I just have few quibbles over wording. Feel free to revert any copy-edits I make.

• "The party's sole policy was for a referendum to be held" I'm uncertain if "policy" is the right word here: I somehow think of "policy" as applying to things you have control over. "objective"?

• Changed to "objective". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• "having greater political functions" tad vague

• It's complicated, and to be honest I'm not really sure if it is best if the prose starts getting expanded at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sure, but you don't need to extend much, if at all: even saying "political authority" or "regulatory authority" or something like that would be better than "political functions."

• I've gone with "political authority"; that works nicely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• "that it resulted in increased German hegemony in Europe." Hegemony is a strong word here; control, perhaps? could also lose the "resulted in".

• I've gone with "dominance"; do you think that that works better? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, better.

• I wonder if there is a link we can add to Perot's campaign at "Perot in the US"

• I've added a link to Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992 (wonderfully, that's an FA!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• May be worth adding a footnote to explain the three other colors in the election results box not mentioned in the caption

• I did not really want to add too much on Northern Irish politics to the article, but I have now added a short sentence: "In Northern Ireland, where it did not stand, domestic parties took all of the seats." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Okay

• "Much of this press coverage was negative" not entirely clear what the "negative" refers to here; the party, the EU, or the referendum

• I've gone with "Much of this press coverage took a negative stance toward the EU". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can we find a link for by-elections?

• Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• uncertain whether "adverts" is an accepted abbreviation or a colloquialism: it sounds odd to me, but that doesn't mean much.

• "Ads" would certainly be an colloquial abbreviation but I am not so sure about "adverts". I could change it to "advertisements" if you think it important? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'd say "advertisements" would be better: "adverts" just makes me pause in my reading, which is ultimately what we want to avoid, right?

• Sure thing; I've changed the two uses of "advert/s" to "advertisement/s". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• "making it the largest minor party to have ever contested a British general election." I think how you phrase it in the lead is better.

• I've changed the prose in the body to match that in the lede on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Is it common to use "Labour" as a description for multiple party members: as in, "they are Labour"? Otherwise, the parenthetical (65 of them conservatives...) needs rewording.

• Yes, in the UK it is. It's not very common to see "Labourites" or anything like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Link or explain "psephologist", perhaps.

• I've added a link rather than an explanation because at this juncture ("analysis by the political scientist John Curtice and psephologist Michael Steed,") it would be very difficult to smoothly insert a description without it looking very messy indeed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I just realized the year is actually never mentioned in the last section, and I think it needs to be, for folks skipping to the section; maybe with GOldsmith's date of death.

• Good idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support A worthy candidate for promotion. Vanamonde (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Curlymanjaro

As you know, we've a shared interest in Eurosceptic parties in the UK. This article is exemplary; just one point for you to think about:

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but in his speech to the 1997 Referendum Party conference, Goldsmith alludes to the group having previously supported membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) (See here at 56:05). Perhaps this is worth noting? Curlymanjaro (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of this being mentioned in the academic texts, so we would probably have to rely on the Primary Source for this information, which I don't really know is a good idea or not. Given that the Referendum Party only had one policy (i.e. the referendum), I'm not sure whether EFTA membership was necessarily a policy or part of Goldsmith's own personal belief. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability. Formats are consistent and accurate. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Referendum_Party_Logo.jpg: we have rationale for a non-free image here, but I'm not sure this would qualify for copyright protection - I'd think {{PD-logo}} would apply
• File:Goldsmith_in_Referendum_Party_Campaign_Video.png: advise against using that historic images tag - either {{non-free biog-pic}} or the non-free screenshot tag would be better fits. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki; I have amended both image rationales as per your recommendation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This FAC has been open for a little over a month, has had its source and image reviews completed, and has received four statements of support. Time to wrap it up? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: The free use image of Goldsmith is lacking alt text; I'd be grateful if someone could take care of this as all the other images have it. But that isn't worth holding up promotion for. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.