Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2013

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 10:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Following on from my article about the Rudd Concession, this article covers Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence (generally abbreviated to "UDI") in 1965, another of the most important events in the history of what is today Zimbabwe. The white government ministers who signed it saw themselves as emulating the Americans' Continental Congress in Philadelphia; most of the world, however, saw the Rhodesian UDI as a dreadful, racist, illegal parody of 1776, made all the more bizarre by the inclusion of "God Save the Queen" at the end. Whatever one's opinion on the Rhodesians' motivations, to paraphrase a journalist of the time, one must acknowledge the guts this tiny and obscure country had to pit itself against almost the entire world.

I wrote this from scratch over the past few months, largely in userspace, and today (21 July) it achieved GA status following a review from Lemurbaby (talk · contribs), who considered this well-researched, comprehensive and easy to read and understand, even for those without much prior knowledge. I feel the article is at least close to FA status and so have brought it here for consideration. Like most of my articles, this one is written in South African English, which is in its written form basically the same as British English, but with a slightly expanded vocabulary. A few exclusively local words (such as indaba) are defined inline. I hope you enjoy the article. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments It's good to see such a detailed article on this significant topic. It's probably going to take me a few goes to comment fully on the article, and here's my first lot of comments:

• "felt scandalised" is a bit awkward

• have changed to "was indignant" —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• In regards to the first couple of paragraphs, my understanding is that the British placed bounds on the independence of Southern Rhodesia as the colony/country had a very small white population and the British didn't consider that this was a viable basis for a fully independent country. Is this correct? It would be good to explain the British Government's original motivations.

• This understanding is basically correct, yes. I've added to the opening that NIBMAR was "the result of recent geopolitical and moral shifts on the world stage", does this help? —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant the first couple of paras of the 'Background' section: could you flesh out why the British placed these bounds on the Rhodesian Government? (which seem to have amounted to some 'reserve powers' which could - theoretically - have been used if the Rhodesian government went off the rails). Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK I've fleshed this out. Hope this is better now —Cliftonian (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The 1923 constitution was drawn up in non-racial terms, and the electoral system it devised was similarly open, at least in theory. Voting qualifications regarding personal income, education and property, similar to those of the Cape Qualified Franchise, were applied equally to all, but since most black people did not meet the set standards, both the electoral poll and the colonial parliament were overwhelmingly white" - surely it wasn't an accident that the franchise conditions happened to exclude the black majority from holding any political power. I'd suggest explaining the racial motivations here.

• OK. I've added a bit here, hope it helps. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• That helps Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "This economic growth owed little to foreign aid" - I imagine it owed a lot to loans from British banks and investments by British firms (which bankrolled much of the empire), as well as South African sources of finance. I don't think that foreign aid was significant anywhere at this time.

• You're probably right. Have removed the sentence anyway, don't think it added much. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Black schooling, medical facilities, salaries and lifestyles were very good by African standards" - how did they compare to white standards?

• It says in the previous sentence that standards for whites were far superior. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Salisbury became increasingly minded that independence had to be secured before Britain went to the polls, and preferably at the same time as Nyasaland" - this is a bit awkward

• I've changed to "the Southern Rhodesians stepped up the urgency of their efforts, hoping to win independence before Britain went to the polls, and preferably not after Nyasaland". Is this better? —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd suggest replacing "stepped up the urgency" with just "stepped up" Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• In regards to the 'British government stance' section, surely public attitudes in Britain also played a part. By this time most British people realised that the Empire was dead and continued colonalism pointless at best, and there was growing opposition to the racist attitudes of the past.

• I didn't give too much stress to it as this focuses on the government view, but it is referred to; we mention the "moral shifts" of the Wind of Change, and liberals in Britain worrying about Rhodesia perhaps slipping towards apartheid. I'm not sure that most British people had come around to these views quite yet in the early 1960s; I think this came more over the next decade or so, but I might be wrong. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, but both sides of British politics were paying attention to domestic views. The Labour Party had a pretty clear position, and the Tories seemed rather conflicted but lacked room to manoeuvre. It would be good to explain why this was the case given that the conditions set by the British, and especially their unwillingness to compromise on the need for majority rule, formed a key part of the crisis. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Working on this. I'm having real trouble trying to get this in without making it too long and wordy. Something along the lines of British public opinion being basically uninterested in the Empire by 1964 or so, the former line of "British stock" tying the Empire together being abruptly abandoned around 1960 and replaced with the idea of racial equality tying the Commonwealth together, also perhaps mention the UK moving away from Australia/NZ and towards joining Europe? What do you think? Maybe also mention sympathy for the white Rhodesians in the UK was largely based on the former idea of Britishness tying the Empire together, Rhodesians being more British than the British, fighting in WW2 etc —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• In regards to the 'Southern Rhodesian government view', were any significant elements of the white Rhodesian population calling for black majority rule at this time? (or at least recognising that white rule was unsustainable in the long run). What was the view of the leaders of the black community?

• Off the top of my head a few prominent whites opposed UDI (Roy Welensky, Ahrn Palley for example), but I cannot think of any who called for black majority rule immediately. Some, such as the former liberal PM Garfield Todd, recognised that white rule was ultimately unsustainable. Among the general public, most whites supported the RF line. Most of the whites who supported the idea of black majority rule also favoured a very gradual transition, so they often ended up voting for the RF anyway. Black politicians such as Josiah Gondo opposed UDI and white rule but still supported black participation in the political system as opposed to the armed struggle advocated by black nationalists. Black tribal leaders supported the government. At this point the black nationalist movement was almost entirely urban; the rural masses began to be politicised in the late 1960s and by the late 1970s much of the countryside supported the nationalists, but in the run-up to UDI this was not the case. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(up to the 'Road to UDI' section) Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• What's an ""A"-roll seat"?

• There's a footnote next to that explaining. Briefly, the 1961 constitution attempted to slightly increase black political participation by creating a "B" roll with lower franchise qualifications. The "A" and "B" rolls were superficially a non-racial construct but in practice the "B" roll was about 90% black and the "A" roll was about 90% white. At election time there were 50 "A" roll constituencies and 15 "B" roll districts, with votes in each modestly influencing the other. The RF never contested the "B" roll seats. In the 1965 election, which is the one we are discussing here, the RF won all 50 "A"-roll seats. Somewhat ironically this is why there was now a black Leader of the Opposition, Josiah Gondo—the only opposition MPs following the RF's victory were those holding "B"-roll seats, and if I remember correctly of those 15 all were black apart from Ahrn Palley (who was a white man of South African Jewish stock). —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I missed the note. I'd suggest including a flavour of this in the body of the article though. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Rhodesia was again excluded from the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference in 1965, and growing discontentment over the UK's refusal of aid, the Lisbon mission, the informal arms embargo and other issues combined with this to cause the Rhodesian government's sense of alienation from Britain and the Commonwealth to deepen" - I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences as it's a bit wordy

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(up to the 'Draft, adoption and signing' section) Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why did the Minister of Tourism and Information prepare a draft declaration of independence? (was this feasibly within his ministerial responsibilities, or was he acting on the base of his personal views)

• The source doesn't say. It seems to me that it might well have come within his purview as Minister of Information. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK. It also isn't unusual in small British-style parliaments for ministers to personally do things link this which are entirely outside their portfolio. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• The court decisions on UDI seem extraordinary: the judges basically ruled that UDI had to be recognised as they couldn't do anything about the government (which seems to be an abandonment of their duty to provide a check on the government). Can anything be said about the judge's personal motivations for these decisions? - I presume that they were all in favour of UDI.

• I agree that the March 1968 decision was rather odd. I think you're right that a bit of background on this might help, so I'll try to get something in on it. Here's a bit of information, mostly just off the top of my head. The Chief Justice in Rhodesia, Sir Hugh Beadle, actually opposed UDI when it occurred, and was, until 1968, the legal adviser to Sir Humphrey Gibbs, the British Governor (with whom he lived at Government House), and an important mediator between the two governments. When he then announced that he and the other judges recognised Smith's administration as the de facto government, he was summarily expelled from the British fold. Wilson concluded that Beadle had been a die-hard RF supporter all along. This article proposes a theory that Beadle genuinely was trying to mediate at first, but then concluded that compromise was impossible and decided to back Smith. Hector MacDonald, another of the relevant judges, is similarly sometimes depicted as an RF zealot, but again the truth seems to be more complicated (here is his obituary in the Times; I can't read all of it as am not a subscriber). He became Chief Justice in 1977, and came in for scathing criticism in Smith's 1997 memoirs because of his role in the 1979–80 transition period, during which he assisted Muzorewa at Lancaster House, backed the British proposals, swore in Mugabe as Prime Minister and then abruptly left the country. Angered by how Smith had presented him in the book, MacDonald then released a short text in which he damned UDI as an illegal folly. So, yes, as is common in Rhodesian history, the whole thing is pretty convoluted. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• It seems I misunderstood the March 1968 verdict; I've revised it a bit, hope this is better. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is there any reaction from (for example) the British legal establishment on these decisions you could note? I don't want to suggest cluttering the article, but these decisions aren't the types of judgments which British-style courts traditionally make, and seem to be rather political. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Will have a look at this, perhaps a sentence or two might fit in well but I agree we risk cluttering. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Will you be able to add anything here? (this is my only unaddressed comment) Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was on base without the books and I just got back now. I've added quite a bit more here on the judgements in Britain and Rhodesia and how it all came about; what do you think? I hope it's a bit clearer now. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• That looks good to me (and there's no need to apologise!). Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Did the British royals ever respond to the Rhodesians' declaration that Queen Elizabeth II was the queen of their country? (I suspect not). It seems an odd situation. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not directly, so far as I know. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed, and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the very helpful review and the support, Nick! :) —Cliftonian (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (all issues Done):

• File:Rho-udi.jpg has 2 problems: "Source of this particular image unknown" - images don't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Additionally the uploader was recently banned for alleged copyright violations. Is it possible to upload a new image of this document with a clear and untainted source history? Note: The fair-use argument itself is OK.

• I've found what seems to be the original source at the website of Rhodesians Worldwide, which is a monthly journal distributed internationally and currently based in Arizona. The link's here. I'll upload a new version of it momentarily. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've uploaded a new version at File:Rhodesian UDI document.jpeg. Hope this is better —Cliftonian (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• File:Ian_Smith_1950s.jpg - source info "Cropped from scan of Federal-era group photo, circa mid-1950s" should be more detailed - where does the original group photo come from? Please provide either a link or some more background details. (replaced)

• Will look into this one —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about this —Cliftonian (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, finally sorted this. I'm sorry to have taken a long time over this. The image that was there before I found online, and I haven't been able to find it again so I had to try to find another one. I've now found an image that is both better and of more certain origin. The new image is an official photograph of Smith as a Federal MP, published in 1954 in a journal called Federated Rhodesia-Nyasaland. I hope that this is satisfactory —Cliftonian (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for searching for a better alternative - old photographs are often tricky. The source information is fine, PD should be OK. Updated status accordingly. GermanJoe (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks very much for this Joe. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• File:Signature_of_Ian_Smith.svg - source info missing, suggest to use summary templates for better structure.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• proclamation box - a mere formality, but should have an immediate source as (kind of) quote. I am also not sure the complete text is really needed here, maybe some excerpts and a link to Wikiquote or Wikisource would be better.

• I see no reason not to have the full text there. The document and its text are ultimately the subject of the article, after all. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'll leave the quote length to other content editors for more input, but please add an immediate inline citation to the "quote". GermanJoe (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK no problem. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Coat of arms and flags - i'll ask for some help about those. They seem to lack basic copyright tags, but i'll have to check the exact background rules (ignore for the moment).

• Okay, let me know what procedure is for these. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed those myself, the PD-status should be clear enough for FA now. GermanJoe (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Other images OK, fair-use for infobox and newspaper OK. GermanJoe (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for this GermanJoe. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Support – a few passing comments, none of which detract from my support:

• You sometimes use the formula (characteristic of tabloid newspapers) "British colonial Governor Sir Humphrey Gibbs", "Rhodesian Cabinet Secretary Gerald B. Clarke" and "scientist Jacob Bronowski" and at other times use the traditional construction, "the historian Robert Blake" and "the British Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Duncan Sandys". The second is recommended by the style guides I regularly use, and is, I think, clearly preferable.

• Yes I agree. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Titles – you are inconsistent with piping: e.g. you pipe the whole of Lord Gardiner, but not of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, whom you render, slightly jarringly, I think, as "Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

• Yes. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Full stops in people's initials: "R A Butler" but "J. R. T. Wood". Modern British practice would be the former (and has been for decades), though I have no idea what modern practice in southern Africa might be.

• Let's go with the former. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Final steps to UDI
  • "rumours of an upcoming Rhodesian UDI – "upcoming" suggests a routinely scheduled event; perhaps "impending" or "imminent"?

• Yes —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• • "Smith travelled to meet Wilson personally – not sure the adverb is wanted here

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Replacement of national symbols
  • "the London Times" – italics noted but this is still iffy. Better to say "the London paper The Times."

• I think just to put "as The Times put it" is good enough; I think most will realise from the context we mean the London paper. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't comment on images (not my strong suit) but the text of the article is balanced, well written, throughly referenced with a good range of sources, and full without being overfull. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for this very helpful review Tim, and for the kind words and the support. I hope my changes to the article are to your satisfaction. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments Quite impressive. Some few suggestions on Domestic Reactions:

• You have captured the African nationalist reaction, what was the reaction from (white) political opposition to the RF?

• I've added a bit about Ahrn Palley's angry protests in the Legislative Assembly at its first post-UDI meeting on 25 November. Does this help? —Cliftonian (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is it worth giving more details on the church reactions - for example the Anglican bishop of Mashonaland (Ken Skelton) denouncing UDI from the pulpit of Salisbury cathedral, some three days later? Did any major church leaders back UDI? Babakathy (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not so far as I know. The Dutch Reformed Church, which as you probably know had links with the South African government of the time, did not protest and helped Smith with petrol and the like, but I don't think they ever publicly endorsed it. I've added the denouncement from the pulpit as I think it's a quite impressive image to include, though according to Wood it was Cecil Alderson, not Ken Skelton, who made this speech—Skelton was Bishop of Matabeleland, not Mashonaland. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments and the kind words. I'm glad you like the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why do some newspapers/journals/magazines have both location and publisher, others only one, and some neither?

• Because I'm silly. Fixed this —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure the Wood source qualifies as a newspaper or journal article, unless that's a republishing? BBC probably not either

• OK, I split these off into online sources —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Don't italicize chapter titles

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Check consistency of wikilinking - for example, Clarendon is linked in Palley but not Morgan. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks for this Nikkimaria —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments, leaning to support: A very well-written and clear account of a largely forgotten piece of Commonwealth history that threatened to tear Britain apart during the late 1960s and early 1970s (and was much debated at that time in student circles by, among others, the very youthful BB). I assume that this is part of a series of related articles; we have recently had the Smith biography, and I sense others in the pipeline. I have only a few points and questions, and a few suggestions:

• Many readers won't be familiar with the Latin term sui generis

• Okay, have removed it —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Use of obscure term – "metropole", even with a link – does not make for easy reading

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think in the background section you need to emphasise earlier than you do how small the white minority was, numerically - around 5 percent of the population. This puts into better perspective the inequalities in the society.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Federation - referendum: who was entitled to vote? I suspect an overwhelmingly white electorate, but this needs to be clarified.

• OK yes —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• As Welensky was knighted in 1953, he should be referred to here (in 1956) as Sir Roy Welensky. Likewise Whitehead (knighted 1954)

• Yes —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's "Macmillan", not "MacMillan" - needs amending throughout

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am unhappy with the assertion that, in the early 1960s, the bulk of the British Conservative Party was "generally also in favour of decolonising". It was more a case that Conservative governments had no alternative but to go along with decolonisation - the party rank and file, however, hated it.

• OK, I've reworded to say just that the party was following a decolonisation policy —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Somewhere in the summaries of the respective stances of the British and Rhodesian government it should be mentioned that the basis for the apparent inconsistency in giving independence to the relatively inexperienced Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia governments was the principle of majority rule.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Malvern dismissed the indaba as a 'swindle'"; this could do with a word of explanation. Why was Malvern suddenly sounding like a liberal?

• He was becoming unnerved by the RF's direction; he said they were "dangerous" and "getting totalitarian with everybody". He called the indaba a "swindle" because he said the chiefs no longer had any real power. I've put this in the article.

• I don't think "escapade" is the right word in the context you are using it.

• OK, have put "episode" —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• When you record that the RF won all 50 A-roll seats, it would help to know how many seats there were in the parliament (I apologise if this information has already been given).

• It's in the footnote next to it. There were 50 A-roll seats and 15 B-roll seats. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Rhodesian unworkability" - I can guess what is meant by this, but it's an odd way of putting it. Is it part of a quote from Wilson?

• No it isn't. Let's try "Rhodesian inflexibility" —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think Smith asserted that UDI "defended Christendom", which would have been excessive even in those times. You quote him earlier a saying that UDI was "a blow for the preservation of justice, civilisation and Christianity" – a somewhat more modest claim.

• Maybe that was bad wording on my part; fixed —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that "flabbergasted" confirms to the norms of encyclopedic formality.

• OK, have put stupefied —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• "This breach of the UN sanctions, passed by the U.S. Congress on the back of anti-communist Cold War considerations and Southern white supremacist leanings..." - are you sure of your grounds for the latter part of this statement?

• Actually no I'm not. The source says that the bill was proposed by "segregationist Senator Harry Byrd" and that it was "a law grounded apparently in anti-communism [that] bolstered the forces of white supremacy, to the delight of several white Southerners in Congress"; but it doesn't explicitly say that it was passed on the back of white supremacist leanings. I'll leave it in for now, but what do you think? —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• The present wording rather implies that the US Congress approved this breach of the UN sanctions policy because of its white supremacist leanings. I don't think this is the case. That the move pleased Byrd and his group of white supremicists is more or less incidental; I believe that Congress would have approved the measure had there been no racial dimension. I suggest you amend to something like: "This breach of the UN sanctions, passed by the U.S. Congress on the back of anti-communist Cold War considerations, was warmly welcomed by Byrd and other Southern white supremacists. It aided the Rhodesian economy until 1977..." etc. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes I think you're right, this is better. Thanks for this. didn't include "Byrd and other" as we didn't introduce Byrd himself, only the amendment. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I will be happy to add my support when these few issues are settled. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the review and the kind words, Brian, they are very much appreciated. I hope my replies above are adequate. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have upgraded to full support. I think the article now is fully deserving of promotion, and congratulate you on a clear and comprehensive account of this interesting bit of postcolonial history. It is surprising how strong was the "kith and kin" aspect among British Conservatives, almost to the extent of trumping all other considerations in terms of Rhodesia's future. That phrase occurred again and again in the debates of the 1970s, and Smith's name was cheered to the rafters at every Conservative Party conference. I'm glad to have been of some assistance. Brianboulton (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the review, the support and the very kind words and encouragement, Brian, as always. I'm glad you like the article and found it interesting. As I have told you before, if ever there is something I can lend a hand with, please don't hesitate to let me know. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. This is an excellent article - informative, fully cited, and well written. Ctatkinson (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the support and the kind words CT! —Cliftonian (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. I've been reserving my opinion on this one until I was able to read over it several times, checking some of Cliftonian's facts against other research. This article has been structured remarkably well, the writing exceeded initial expectations, and (fortunately) I couldn't quite find any factual trivialities to nitpick! Excellent work. --Katangais (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the very kind words and the support Katangais! I'm glad you like the article. Keep well now! —Cliftonian (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2013 (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) 13:54, 10 August 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

Dresden Triptych

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoria

Very small but very beauitful and innovative 1437 triptych altarpiece, which had a significant influence on following generations of Netherlandish painters, but which is now sadly in poor condition. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco 1492

Note that this is well outside my general subject area, so my questions may be quite basic.

Dresden Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister - Per WP:SEAOFBLUE, splitting these links would be nice.

Yes, done (not by me). Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

ALC IXH XAN - What language is this, if a language and not a code?

Mixture of Latin and Flemish, but as its a play on words not strickly either. Will clarify in a note. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Virgin Mary - You have "Marian" earlier, which could be construed as the first mention. Or you could link to a general article on Marian art with the first "Marian".

the Christ child - Since we're linking Mary, may as well link Christ/Christ child

Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Why the link to miniature (illuminated manuscript)? I don't think a triptych would fall under "manuscript"

Done (not by me). Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

we know that Philip the Good owned at least one. - One of this triptych, or a miniature for personal devotion?

One miniature. Clarified now. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

a typical 14th-century - if van Eyck painted in the 15th century, why would he use a format common to the preceding century?

Child Christ - Isn't Christ Child more common?

Indeed. Switched around. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

on northern artists of 12th and 13th century Italian artists - Can't parse this.

Done (not by me). Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

– unlike Robert Campin who favoured domestic settings – - value of the comparison not yet clear

Domestic vs ecclesiastical interiors. Will draw out. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

HIC EST ARCHANGELUS PRINCEPS MILITAE ANGELORUM CUIUS HONOR PRAESTAT BENEFICIA POPULORUM ET ORATARIO PERDUCIT AD REGNA COELORUM. HIC ANGELUS MICHAEL DEI NUNTIUS DE ANIMABUS JUSTIS. GRATIA DEI ILLE VICTOR IN COELIS RESEDIT. A PACIBUS. - No translation?

cn tag added

Brough back and translation cited now. Ceoil (talk)

VIRGO PRUDENS ANELAVIT, GRANUM SIBI RESERVAVIT, VENTILANDO PALEAM. DISIPLINUS EST IMBUTA PUELLA COELESTIBUS, NUDA NUDUM EST SECUTA CHRISTUM PASSIBUS, DUM MUNDANIS EST EXUTA ECT - No translation?

That's it for today, another three paragraphs for tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Crisco for these; working through....Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Another three tomorrow? Jesus your a hard man. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• D'oh, meant another three sections to look at — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well thats grand. I think we got most of you points with a few straglers to be worked on. The issues re the frames I'm still thinking about, dont have a solution yet, and might have to confer with some of out image guys. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, looks good. I note a couple of other (fairly heavy) changes, but they all seem in order so no comments on them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the search for translations of the inscriptions threw up two unexpected sources. I should be finished incorporating them by this time tomorrow night. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• One of these I now have access to and for comprehensiveness needed to be incorporated. The translations for the inscriptions are now added and a few other bits here and there. Victoria (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• In #Architecture there's hidden text saying "such as". I agree with it very much. Any examples?

• Yes, added a bit. Victoria (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is particularly noticeable with the positioning of the throne in comparison to the Lucca Madonna and the van der Paele panel. - Shouldn't this be combined with the earlier paragraph?

• Yes, done. Victoria (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• You link Genoa in the lead, but don't link it in either of the first two in-text mentions.
• Before 1754 the triptych was thought by Albrecht Dürer, until the German historian Aloys Hirt in 1830 established it as a van Eyck. - This and the preceding sentence may be worth merging
• Margaret - What's with the Easter-egg link?

• We don't have an article about her, this one about her portrait is as about as much as we've written about. But I'll leave this to Ceoil to sort. Victoria (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• The 1436 work - You just said it's "circa" 1436
• Any more details on the individual restorations?

• Added a small amount from the sources I have available. Victoria (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the mid-19th century, at the time of the rediscovery of the Early Netherlandish painters, the Dresden catalogues first attribute it to Hubert van Eyck and a few years later to Jan. - Role of restoration not clear here

• Don't think there is one. Many of van Eyck's paintings were first attributed to his brother Hubert. I'll add something in about that - it's a good point. Victoria (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can't find anything simple (beyond a few hundred or so page monologues) that spits this out. See what Ceoil thinks & what he has in his sources. We might just be able to add a note. Victoria (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Asking about restoration because the version I read was "Van Eyck signed, dated and added his device to the central panel, a fact only discovered when the frame was removed in the course of a mid-19th century restoration", followed by the bit about Hirt attributing it to van Eyck. (Which I had assumed was connected). Interesting about Hubert/Jan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good catch and fixed now. Victoria (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

All images showing the frame should be cropped; the frame is a 3D object and thus scans/photographs would not fall under PD-Art. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the frames are crucial to the form and the inscriptions. Will let someone else who knows more about this figure it out, but would like to keep them. Victoria (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think for several of them you could remove it (the first case with Mary, for instance, doesn't seem relevant to the text next to it). For the overall image, the only thing I can think of which would allow you to keep the frame is taking a picture of the triptych yourself (or having someone upload a free image). Fair-use is a no-go because the image is replaceable. (Or maybe Google could release the scan in the public domain?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Mary doesn't have the frame (that's St. Catherine reading the book) and it is relevant to the text in that section. I made the crops specifically to show the inscriptions on the frames - the frames, inscriptions and painting are all an integrated piece. I'll wait for Ceoil to weigh in, but I'd prefer not to have this become FA if we have to remove the frames. Sorry, but there you go. Anyway, I've made most of the other changes. Still trying to figure out which language van Eyck spoke in the 15th cent. Some sort of Flemish/Dutch/German. Will add that if any of the sources mention it. Victoria (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• D'oh, that's what I get for closing tabs. We should have some Wikipedians in Dresden who'd be willing to take a picture, and you could still use the (non-frame including) bits from Google for the details. I note (on memory here), however, that your earlier diptychs do not seem to have had an issue with the frame. Do you have links to the reviews on hand? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Madonna in the Church/archive1. The first had a TFA around Easter - can't remember, was gone and missed it. Some museums allow photographs, others not, so don't know about that. But just let's wait and see what happens with this. Victoria (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've croped the (two, as opposed to several) lower images formerly with frames; thinking about the lead pic; off the top of my head having an article that discusses the inscriptions at lenght but does not show them is lacking. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the border still showing in 'Dresden Triptych Detail Archangel Michael with Donor.jpg' is a painted imitation of a bronze frame. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. Re: Frames: I think (though I'm not sure, someone could certainly school me otherwise) that the flat portions of the frame would be PD themselves and thus a crop showing only that would be okay... but not too sure of that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looking for something entirely different I just found this book showing the frames, and this from the Met too shows it with the frames if that makes a difference. This is almost always shown with the frames it seems. Victoria (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd expect that, which means losing the frames would be a blasted shame. The only wiggle room I can think of, aside from treating the flat portions as a separate work of art (i.e. having them in their own files or whatnot) is to argue that a flat scan does not show enough originality to draw a new copyright; this is, it seems, a fairly weak argument, as scans of coins and other almost flat objects still need to be self-made on Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Very good article, I'm already tapping the "s" key in preparation for my !vote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for these Crisco - very good review. I've caught a few, for the others will need to trawl through the sources to look for answers. Victoria (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Done what I can from the sources I have. Ceoil will prob get the rest. Victoria (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• What I wrote above about Jan and Hubert is, unfortunately, a gross oversimplification and hard (impossible!) to find a source without using entire chapters of books. I'm thinking it might be best to leave for now, (it's mentioned in the other paintings as is), and then spin out in the biographies when they're written. Victoria (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, no problem there.

• Support on prose (and mostly on images). We need to try and work out those frames though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  Oh thanks! The frames are intergral to the work, and excluding them would lead to a very incomplete article. I'm weary about having a local editor in Dresden take a pic for the lead; because the work is so small it would really need a professional to bring across the granularity and colour scheme, otherwise it could mislead in all sorts of ways (see the talk of Mona Lisa for an indication). I think a fair use justification of the google image is the only option here, but still thinking it through. Thanks for the thoughtful look over though, the page has improved a lot since you gave openions. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just noticed this! Thanks Crisco and thanks for the thoughtful questions. The frames really are important I think it's like the dustjacket of a book or any other page where at least a single FUR is allowed. It's not been an issue on Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych and Madonna in the Church and the frames are as important on those works, though I think even more important here because they were made protect the piece and have for these many centuries. Victoria (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• How are you ordering sources by the same author in Bibliography
• Check consistency of punctuation/ordering in Bibliography - compare "Tabard Press. 1980" and "Chaucer Press, 2004" and "1999. London: Harvey Miller Publishers"
• Is Luber 1988 or 1998? Is Heath 1998 or 2008?
• FN36: page?
• No bibliographic info for Harbison 1997 - should this be 1991 or 1995?
• Fn2: link formatting
• Apollo should be italicized
• Be consistent in whether journals/magazines include publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All done now. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikkimaria for the source check! Victoria (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've not finished reading this yet, but I have picked up a few issues in the lead:

• The sentence "It is the only extant triptych attributed to van Eyck, and the only work that is not a portrait signed with his personal motto" is somewhat unclear. It could mean (a) every other van Eyck work is a portrait signed with his personal motto, or (b) that this is his only non-portrait work that is signed with his motto. Clarification requested.

• Its the latter and have made this clearer. Ceoil (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• It needs to be clearly stated at the beginning of the lead, and in the lead image caption, that this work of art consists of more than is visible in the illustration. I was a little nonplussed by the reference at the beginning of the second paragraph to "The paintings on the two outer wings..." since there is no previous indication that these outer panels exist.

• Yes. Added to the lead "It consists of 5 individual panel painting; a central inner panel, and two double sided wings.", and mentioned the closed view in the lead caption. Ceoil (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think the non-specialist reader might welcome some use of less technical expressions, e.g. "monochrome" for "grisaille", to reduce the necessity of having to hop out of the article to read links.

• Grisaille explained in the lead ("painted in grisaille, which because of its near-monochrome colouring, gives the impression that the figures are sculpted"). The 'description' and 'architecture' sections are riddled with terms, I'm not sure how much explanation is desirable here, again, thinking. Ceoil (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• The word "distinct" is an unnecesary embroidery

• Removed. Ceoil (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In the final section "Attribution and provenance" I just happened to notice "Before 1754 the triptych was thought by Albrecht Dürer..." Personally I'd prefer "Until", but you definitely need "to be" after "was thought".

It was attributed to Dürer only for a period though, so I was couching and being deliberatly vague. Reworded as "For a time until 1754", but not mad about it, thinking....Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the sources again. Victoria (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Rewrote a bit. Victoria (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I will post any further comments later. Am much enjoying the article. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, working through these. Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

More comments: Not through yet, but I'm well on the way. These are mainly minor fixes relating to links, prose etc. I may have the odd general point to raise when I'm finished with the nitpicks:

• "The outer frames, originally painted in grey and yellow marbling, was later overpainted....": "frames ... were" or "frame ...was", not "frames ... was"

• fixed Victoria (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "coat of arms" should be linked (actually, this first appears in the lead)

• fixed Victoria (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Consecutive adverbs ("typically subtly") never read well, and I wonder if this phrasing could be revised?

• fixed Victoria (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "However in his sacra conversaziones after 1436, van Eyck showed only "only vestigial traces" of this symbolism." First, "sacra conversaziones" should be linked here, rather than at second mention. Secondly, I'm not sure of what "this sybolism" is refering to.

Likewise it was not clear to me what symbolism Lynn Jacobs is seeing; we are told where she sees it, but not what it is.

• Worked on this somewhat. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe there is an accepted format for articles on works of art, but to me it would be more logical to place the description before the sections on condition and iconography. It would help to make better sense of these sections.

• I see this is already done. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "painted marble frames" - does this mean actual marble, painted over, or a painted representation of marble?

• Explained better in the "condition" section, so removed from here. Victoria (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think encyclopedic detachment means that formulations like "we know that" should be depersonalised, and expressed in a way that indicates how it is known

• Yes; it should be "art historical research..." - working... Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, that was my mistake and now removed. Sorry, didn't post here. Victoria (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...a colour scheme which, Peter Heath describes as lending to a "sense of airy silence". Odd phrasing, "lending to"; if this is Heath's wording, it should be included within the quote. Otherwise, I'd drop the "to".
• "The banner is adorned" → "This is adorned"

• Reworded as holds towards the donor a banderole[7] adorned with a phrase from, but not delighted, might revisit tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why the capital in "lowly in Heart"?

• Yikes. Fixed Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "the aisles brilliantly convey spaciousness" - this is POV language, that needs to be neutralised, unless it is quoted from an expert in which case it should be attributed or cited.

• Yes, after consulting the source, removed. Victoria (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Madonna of Chancellor Rolin" needs to linked on first, not second mention
• "Arnofini Portrait" should be "Arnolfini Portrait" and should be linked
• I think there should be some consistency in Catherine's nomenclature. At present she is variously referred to as "Catherine", "St. Catherine", "Catherine of Alexandria".
• "brushwork" is one word

• Four above done. Victoria (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "What is meant by "closely described buildings"?

• Reworded as higly detailed. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and finish tomorrow Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these Brian and no rush. I took care of some of the above and Ceoil will need to address a few. I've moved the condition section back where it had been. The iconography section has been problematic and will take a few days to think about, but for now I've re-combined with the description (which I think works) - it's never an easy section to integrate. Victoria (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Last comments

• "His bowl-shaped hair cut..." Replace the pronoun "His" with "The donor's..."
• "in his earlier van der Paele..." → "in van Eyck's earlier van der Paele..."
• "van Eyck extends to placing them..." → "van Eyck extends by placing them..."
• "from the Byzantine art" or "from Byzantine art"?
• The phrasing "the incarnation of the coming of Christ" doesn't make sense to me. "Incarnation" means the assumption of bodily form, hence we can have "the incarnation of Christ", but not the incarnation of the coming og Christ.
• Architecture section": Should begin: "The depicted church..."

• All the above icorporated thanks. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "is the only commissioned work to contain van Eyck's motto"; in the lead, it is "his only non-portrait signed with his personal motto", which is different.

• Clarified as the latter. I think the confusion arised from the fact that in general there is no surviving documentation on on any of the portrit comissioners. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I suggested earlier some reorganisation in the order of sections, which I see you have implemented. I am now wondering if the "Provenance and attribution" section ought to precede the description?. I personally would find it helpful to know, at the beginning of the article, the general history – where the work originated, where it's been for 600 years, how we know it's van Eyck's, etc. I won't press this issue if you see it differently, but it may be worth thinking about.

• Rather than relying on a formula we were playing around with the format towards the end, as individual paintings have different histories and points of interest/importance. I wondered if having the the "providence" and "condition" sect closely follow would be revealing, esp given that a long prov often implies poor condition (dismantling, later retouching and so on). In the end could not establish, there are long gaps in the history, and have now made simplier. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall, this article is an excellent account of a fascinating work of art, and with attention to the points I've raised, should soon be ready for its FA star. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• There are a few o/s, slightly tricky, issues from the above; will let you know when complete. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think all covered now. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Support on basis of responses as above. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Brian for taking the time to read, for the excellent (as usual!) review, and for the support. Working on this article and through this FAC has been a pleasure. Victoria (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ceranthor's Comments

Lead

• It is signed and dated 1437, and now in Dresden at - Should probably repeat the is or add another verb after and. Reads awkwardly as is.

• Yes, fixed. Victoria (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• In this work, damaged coat of arms on the borders of the interior wings have been identified with the Giustiniani of Genoa, an influential albergo active from 1362, and who established trade links with Bruges as early as the mid-14th century. - Not sure why and who is used when who is fine. In that case you should remove the comma there, too.

• I tried it, but the albergo clause is an appositive and so needs punct - I've tried dashes instead. Victoria (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Description

• Given this miniaturist scale, the triptych probably functioned as a portable devotional piece, or (altare portabile).[3] - Not familiar with this format... using or then putting it in parentheses?

• Yep, fixed. Victoria (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Since the first and third quotes are cited, the second one should be cited too for consistency. That is, after this sentence: However in the sacra conversaziones after 1436 van Eyck showed only "only vestigial traces" of the diguised symbolism his earlier works were infused with.

• It's all from one single long quote on the same page so prefer not to overcite here. Plus this section might not stay, so have left for now. Victoria (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Saints

• This must also be the case here, but which incident is lost.[25] - I have no idea what this means.

• Have made this a bit clearer. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

General

• Lots of commas that aren't necessary. I'm going to cut some of these out because they are just strikingly excessive, but to keep with the style I won't mess with them too much.

• Weeding out. This is my habit, I admit ;) Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• A few grammar mistakes here and there. I'm fixing them as I go, so no worries. :)

• Yes, and thanks for those. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, how I love to read your guys' articles. Very dense article, so I'll probably take a while to get through it. ceranthor 22:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Ceranthor, and thanks for the copyedits. I got a few of these; one of us will be back for the rest soon. Victoria (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

More Ceranthor Comments

Architecture

• The nave is very narrow, barely wide enough to contain her, and walled by a colonnade joined by entablatures and capped with rounded arches. - needs an is after and

• added an is after and Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• There are a number of implied spaces out of view; the central panel alone contains two on either side of the pillars, others lead from the balcony above the throne, as well as unseen exits to hallways behind each inner panel.[38] - The part after "as well as" does not grammatically fit the rest of the sentence.

• No it does not. Restructured and rephrased now. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• A set of east facing windows, barely visible behind the throne, are similar to those in the Rolin Madonna.[29] - Very awkwardly phrased.

• Simplified. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Van Eyck pays close attention to the fall of this daylight, - Not sure fall is the correct word here.

• Reworded as to the saturating effects and gradations of the light. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Donor

• who named their trading house in Paris for St. Catherine and whose daughter, also Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. - Lots of whos here. Too many!

• Reworded. Victoria (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll probably run through again for any other missed tweaks. ceranthor 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Great. These are most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - If I find anything else I'll post it here, but I shouldn't let niggling concerns subtract from this awesome article. Great job! ceranthor 23:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your astute suggestions, copyedits and <cough> support are greatly appreciated. Thanks a bunch for giving over the time. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for the review and support! Thanks too for the comments and the copyedits. I'll give it another run through again tomorrow to check for little things and niggles, as soon as I'm able. Victoria (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• You're very welcome!

I'd also like to point out that the references are neat and seem to check out fine. ceranthor 13:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comment – I've corrected a few typos (but please check my changes); there remains one word I think is probably a typo, but I wasn't confident enough to change, viz "imitiation", which may perhaps be a technical term rather than a typo. I'll read this article more thoroughly and return with comments on the substantive content. I rather think I'm going to enjoy it. More soonest. – Tim riley (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tim much appreciated. I've not yet had a chance to swing through today to catch typos (they're endemic with us, and I've fixed the one mentioned above) but will get to it as soon as time permits. Looking forward to your review! Victoria (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Tim, resuming review:
• Lead
  • First line – however many "ors" you've got between the brackets you need a singular verb for the singular noun: "The Dresden Triptych (or blah, or blah, or blah………) is the name given…".

    I've tweaked, hopefully okay now. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I am embarrassingly inexpert with hyphens and I oughtn't to pontificate, but the absence of one in "left hand wing" looks odd to me.

    added one there but it's a blind spot (blind-spot?) for me, I think perhaps confused by different usages between Am Eng. and Br. Eng. Will consult Fowler. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "That the frames are so richly decorated with Latin inscriptions indicates ..." – what a treat to see such an old-fashioned and stylish construction! Loud cheers!
  • "There is a lack of" – i.e. there isn't any or there is very little? Not clear.

    Fixed. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "so the identities" – "so" is not a conjunction; you need "and so" or some such here.
  • "damaged coat of arms on the borders of the interior wings have been identified" – not sure how to make this right, but the singular noun and the plural verb clash with one another. Either coats of arms have been or coat of arms has been.

    Had to refresh my memory by consulting sources - two sets of coats of arms and I've fixed accordingly. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Provenance and attribution
  • "the mid to late 15th century" – more hyphen questions. You have mid-14th century at the end of the lead, which I think is right. There are several more adverb–adjective–noun phrases later ("her heavily folded dress" etc) that may need a hyphen too, but I say no more on that point, and suggest you seek the expert attention of one of WP's guardian grammar and spelling angels. (I can think of two first-rate ones if you're stuck.)

    See above. I can think of two myself and will consult there, but think this is a nut I should be able to crack and it's frankly one that bothers me. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    Add: Fowler's says that American English uses fewer hyphens (hence I suspect my blind spot for this issue) and that the main point is consistency. He also says he would avoid a construction such as "early-19th-century poetry". I think I'll let others weigh in here - there are still some inconsistencies but I'm afraid I'll make them worse rather than better. Victoria (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    Gowers quotes another authority as saying, "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad," and adds, "I have no intention of taking hyphens seriously". Who am I to disagree with that great man? But I still think you should consult someone who is willing to take hyphens seriously. Tim riley (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    I've found a nice and clear list of rules in a grammar book from my shelves and I've followed those, mentioning the rules in the edit summaries and now I'll know where to find them! Thanks for bringing this up - it is an issue that often confuses me. I hope it's better now. Victoria (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "After Charles'" – you need to decide whether to use the British or American form of possessives of words ending in s. At present you have American "Charles'" and English "Goes's" etc. I need hardly add which I prefer, but then it's none of my business.

    Fixed per Br. Eng. 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "IOHANNIS DE EYCK etc" – I greatly admire the way you have dealt with the difficulty of reconciling capitalised originals with that daunting document the WP Manual of Style. Very nice indeed. Not sure you need initial caps in every word of the translation, though.

    See the Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych - this is how the all sources present the inscriptions and we've decided to follow. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    • Fine.

  • "the word "complete" (complevit)" – but the word was "completed" a few words earlier.

    Good catch. Fixed. Victoria (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

More anon. This article is a treat, and I feel an urge to type "Support" straight away, but I shall sternly refrain until I've finished a line-by-line scrutiny. – Tim riley (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Concluding batch of comments and adding support

• Donor
  • "places it … at least by the end of the 15th century" – unclear: by earliest or latest?

    Good point, fixed. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Description
  • "in so far as" – some people (not me) get aerated about this and insist it should be "insofar as". I'm away from home and haven't got Fowler etc to hand where I am. I merely mention the point.

    Per Fowler's, should be "in so far as", so I'll leave as it. (Had to look it up myself). Victoria (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Frames
  • "It retains its original frames" – the opening "It" is a bit blunt for the opening of a new section. Perhaps "The Triptych"?

    Fixed - left over from reorganizing. Thanks for catching. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "during travel and when in situ." – I wonder if it is necessary to say this, as the thing can never have been anything other than in travel or in situ. Merely a suggestion, and certainly not something I'd make a fuss about.

    Probably worth keeping because it was made to be portable but leaving to Ceoil. Victoria (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "Hec est speciosior… Two points here. I don't propose to say how many years it is since I had to study Latin, but "hec" (for "haec"?) looks very odd to me. Quite expecting (and perfectly content) to be told I'm wrong. Secondly, I wonder if you have considered making the Latin quote and the translation into a block quote? As it is, I find them a bit tiring to the eye as full lines within the text.

    Clicking twice on the lead picture enlarges it enough to the see the "HEC" in the upper left of the center panel. 15th Latin, I guess. Or maybe simply done so for reasons of space. I have put the long quote back in the notes; agree. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Virgin and Child
  • "Peter Heath" – I think this is the first time he's been mentioned, and perhaps a word or two of introduction might be helpful, e.g. "the art historian Peter Heath" or "Peter Heath in his 2008 study" or some such. Ditto with first mentions of other authorities mentioned in the text.

    Am weary of this in general - have implied that anybody giving an openion is an art historian; otherwise the clarifications will be dully repetitive. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

    Fair enough. Tim riley (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "makes her seem larger spatially" – I'm probably being dim, but how else, other than spatially, can something or someone seem larger?

    Clarified a bit and attributed to the source. Victoria (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "is roughly in scale to the figures in the wings" – are things "in scale to"? "In scale with" looks more natural to me. Once again, merely a tentative suggestion, to be ignored if you disagree.

    'in proportion to. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "and although his body" – if I correctly read this sentence you mean "but" rather than "and".

    Tweaked. Victoria (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Saints and donor wings
  • Permit me to say that I read the first two paragraphs with something like excitement. This is precise and evocative prose. If, for some reason, you had been unable to provide photographs of the Triptych the reader would still have had a jolly good idea what it looked like, and what its effect on the viewer.
  • "bowl-shaped hair cut" – as mentioned above, I am away from my books, but I think fairly confidently that "haircut" is one word rather than two. You may like to check.

    Yes, fixed this. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "adds credence in the belief" – I struggled with this: do you mean it "adds credibility to…"?

    Changed per Fowler's. Victoria (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Architecture
  • "Each of the capitals have" – "Each of the capitals has"?

    Yikes! Thanks for catching. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "They are decorated" – the capitals or the small baldachins?

    Actually the apostles - needs to be rewritten. Will do. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "in the van Eyck's Rolin Madonna" – remove either the definite article or the possessive, I'd say.

    Thanks again for the catch! Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "He often used light as a visual symbol to represent God's ethereal presence." – Ought this to have a citation?

    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That's my lot. I hope some of it is useful. I found this article not only informative, but strangely moving in parts. I avoid commenting on images, if I can, but the prose seems to me to meet all FA criteria. Have gladly added my support, above. – Tim riley (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the nice words. I find this piece of art to be extremely moving and have enjoyed writing about it. Victoria (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim for the detailed look and help. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Images: Just to note that Crisco qualified his support pending that the issue of the 3D frame is resolved...this is being worked through on the talk with some valuable imput and thoughs from people with knowledge of the issue from both point of view. We seem to have a workable solution; but it's not fully bedded down yet, but note the effort on improving the new suggested lead image [3]. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Support with Image comments by Ruhrfisch. I have read the article and find it meets the FA criteria. My only question is if it is known how the painting survived the Second World War, to be looted after by the Soviet Army? Given the destruction of Dresden in February 1945, my guess is that it was stored in a safe location outside the city during much of the war, perhaps in a salt mine. If this detail is known, it should be added.

As for the images, there are 10 in the article (counting the tiny one in the Van Eyck navbox at the bottom). Of these 10, 7 are clearly free under {{PD-Art}} given the age of the artworks shown (and all portions of the 10 images showing paintings are free). The problem is the original frame, whose three-dimensional nature means that anyone photographing it has made a copyrighted work. The lead image, which shows the whole altar front and frame is freely licensed as {{CC-by-2.0}} from Flickr (note - I found it there and uploaded it). The remaining two images each show small amounts of the frame and are included here under WP:FAIR USE claims, which I support. They are File:Dresden Triptych Detail Archangel Michael with Donor.jpg (which shows how the inner edges of the frame were painted to appear to be bronze) and File:Dresden triptych Catherine and frame 1.jpg (which shows more clearly the relation between the paintings and the original frame). I think a de minimis argument would also be valid here, in that to show the relation between the paintings and their original 576 year old frame, a tiny fraction of the total frame has to be shown. The current free lead image (showing frame and all) is the best free image of the frame available, but is of poor quality for showing any detail in the paintings or frame. I think it might help to link to the complete Google Art image using {{External media}}. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Ruhrfisch. What you are saying re the lead image is hard to hear, very much so, as my focus in the last 2 years has almost been exclusively in the area of 15th century art, mostly triptychs, but I respect you and have always seen you as a clued in straight shooter. Re the war, no mention in the sources I have, but its a very good point. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch for helping with this. I appreciate it immensely. Victoria (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Ruhrfisch's summary, have stricken my "mostly" above. Good job everyone! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well not really, but carry on! Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the necessary fair use rationales have been added and files re-uploaded here from Commons. I think this is what Crisco is asking for. Hopefully everything is now taken care of. Victoria (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2013 (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) 06:42, 10 August 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

Hyderabad, India

Nominator(s): Omer123hussain (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this article for featured article because; after a positive review in last FAC it was not attended by other reviewers and was archive-5, currently its a Good article and peer reviewed for twice along with the comprehensive contribution by Dwaipayan (talk · contribs) and Stfg (talk · contribs). The article is about a heritage and traditional city, also known for its historical Bazaars and modern economical growth. Omer123hussain (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment – Has one of the delegates given the green light for this nomination? The last nomination was only closed just over a day ago, and at the bottom (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hyderabad, India/archive5) states "Because it hasn't generated much comment, you can re-nominate before the usual 2-week period following the archiving if you choose to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)" It hasn't been two weeks. – Shudde ^talk 12:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I have re-nominated because the archive summary says "before the usual 2-week period following the archiving", so hoped we may get some reviewers, and its not worthy to wait until the end of 2 weeks. Earlier nomination was archived because, the article got only one reviewer and since last two weeks it was not attended by any other reviewer. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Shudde, I presumed that the delegate's closing comment in the previous fac was a green signal itself. So I encouraged Omer to go ahead and re-nominate. Did we need to explicitly ask the delegate for permission to re-nominate?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No need to ask, Ian gave his permission. Graham Colm (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah sorry completely misread that! I shouldn't edit to late at night think. - Shudde ^talk 10:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles looks to be close to FA quality. Not happy with the sourcing though. I hate bloated text in the references like 157 176. You should put those in note format, see Nostradamus for example.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. (They are now FNN 139 & 158). These are very long quotations from the sources, both of which are available online without a subscription. I suggest deleting the quotations completely. --Stfg (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks for both of your advices. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding the EFNs isn't a good idea. The effect of that is to keep the quotations but separate them from their attribution. We don't need the quotations at all, because we can access them from the sources. The way you had it two edits ago (which I've restored) was best, imo. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood your point. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Does the historical component occupy rather too large a role in the lead compared with the main text of the article?

• We reduced the main text from the history section due to article size, probably thats why the text in the lead remain large. The summarized text in the lead is essential because the city had been center of south Indian politics, which still continues with the Telengana issues. Please advice :)

• Not sold on the religion table: does it make the proportions easier to understand?

• Removed religion table.

• Below the poverty line.

• Done.

• "A third of the slums have basic service connections and 90% have water supply lines." Isn't water a basic service connection?

• Done with some changes.--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• "18% are very poor, with an income of 20,000 (US$340) per annum"—what, exactly 20,000? Or up to?

• Wikilink "very poor" as Below Poverty Line (India), and 20,000 is attached with Indian Rupee symbol ₹, we keep that symbol to avoid repetation of "Indian Rupee". Hope it served the purpose.

• That's not what Tony asked. He was referring to the use of "income of 20,000" as an absolute number; what we wanted to say in the article was income of 20,000 or less, and that meaning was not evident in the earlier construction. Now, it has been changed to "up to", as sugegsted by Tony.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me :)

• Caption: "Optimist and Laser dinghies are sailed during the Hyderabad Sailing Week Regatta at Hussain Sagar"—could "are sailed" be removed?

• Done.

• "The Charminar, Mecca Masjid, Charkaman and Qutb Shahi Tombs are other existing structures of this period; among these the Charminar has become an icon of the city. Located in the centre of old Hyderabad, it is a square structure with sides 20 metres (66 ft) long and four grand arches each facing a road."—Could you switch around the semicolon and the subsequent period?

• Done. This was an excellent catch!--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Who invented this way of doing ref tags? [107]:16–17[111][112] ... it's a bit disruptive with page numbers, don't you think?

• It seems so. This was done using the rp template, which is used when the same source (but different page/page ranges) are used multiple times. What could be a solution?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Per MOSNUM, no space between $ and the value.

• Done.--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Lit and music sections: could you check for opportunities to paragraph? Maybe they're too cohesive to allow it—I didn't read them properly.

• Sorry but I could not catch what exactly you are advicing here. May you plase be more specific. Sometime I am poor to understand western style of english communication.--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• What Tony meant was the literature and music subsections are large single paragraphs. If possible, can those subsections be split into two or more paragraphs? --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your specifications, splited into two paragraphs. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Cuisine section seems weak and short. It couldn't be trimmed and tacked onto another section, could it? How much of these features are not unique to the city?

• It is possible to merge the section with the opening paragraphs (unnamed) of culture section. However, Hyderabadi cuisine is a well-known subset of Indian cuisine, and we thought it deserves a separate sub-section. The content of this section is pretty much unique to the city. The common parts (the usual Indian cuisine) is not discussed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Cricket"—no cap, please.

Done

• The top pic in "Transport"—could be from any city in the subcontinent, yes? I'd prefer larger images, and perhaps fewer. I've enlarged a few of the beautifully detail-rich pics already. I hope you don't mind.

• Yes, that traffic jam of auto-rickshaws could be from any city of the subcontinent. However, not every image could be unique to Hyderabad, as it shares many characteristics with other cities. That being said, I have no sense of photographs, and hence, cannot say about its quality. If you think it is of low quality, we can surely remove it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I replaced the image with the map that represents the city streets, connecting the IRR along with ORR. This will also solve the issue of street map, as said below. Hope its correct. --Omer123hussain (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sister cities—oh please. This is a free trip for privileged politicians and a pretty empty concept all over the world. We have national flags, a table ...?

• I personally agree with removing the sister-city list. Are you suggesting to remove it?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agree to remove.

• Removed the table.

• The street map: meaningless even when enlarged as I've done. I wonder whether it could be centred and put to 450px or more? But this may not be suitable to your plan. I'm concerned that users with poor connections will find it hard to access the original size if they click (and many readers won't know they can click).

• It was adviced in earlier FAC to keep one map as a tradition of wp FA articles. Please advice if we shall remove it or continue ? :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Removed the map and added a street map in section "Transport" that represents the city streets, connecting the IRR along with ORR.

Overall, promising. Nice work. Tony (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, will try to attend the remaining advices by tomorrow evening. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Omer, I do hope you're planning on continuing your good work on India-related articles. They're in critical need of improvement, given the size of the potential readership. A few more things:

"With the invention of railways in the 1880s—do you mean "introduction"? Weren't railways invented in the early 19th century? I changed it, but can you check? That large caption could be trimmed if it's partly dealt with in the main text; and are the four factories shown in the pic?

From the late 18th century on. The airport is odd listed as being established from the late 19th century—in fact, that list could be introduced by "During the early 20th century"?. "Topography" section (and elsewhere?), can you go with imperial or metrics as main units, not both? Doesn't India use the metric system? Tony (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right it should be "introduction" of railways, will trimm and shift the text in the main section in suitable sentences.

Will request Dwaip to attend the metric system advice. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, India uses metric units. I have changed the two instances in topography section where imperial units were used as primary unit. I think that was an error, because the article uses metric units as the primary unit. I did not catch any other deviation from that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Review by Quadell

This article is well-written, clear, and reasonably complete. It's full of high-quality free images, and every important statement is sourced. Still, there are numerous problems, mostly involved with details of images and formatting. There is one remaining problem with an image, and several problems with sources. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved issues

Images. There were numerous minor problems with the image description pages that I fixed, and I even moved File:Hyderabad Town Hall.jpg to Commons. But the following image issues remain. For File:Hyderabad Airport.jpg, it appears the version given as the source and reviewed by FlickreviewR is not the current version of the image. Removed image. File:Mah Laqa Bai Maqbara.jpg has two license tags and flikr-review notices, for no discernable reason. Replaced with another structure. File:Hyderabad mills.jpg is claimed to be PD in countries "where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less", but there is no information about when the author Deen Dayal died. Updated authors dato of death in image. File:Jummat-ul-wida.jpg has not been human-reviewed or categorized on Commons. Replaced the image with all properties. After my previous image review, one image was replaced with File:Falaknuma 1900.jpg. Unfortunately, this image also has a problem. It claims that the author (photographer) died more than 100 years ago, but the author is unknown. Since the photo was taken in 1900, it is certainly possible that he was still alive in 1914. So the tag is wrong, and needs to be fixed. (The image is legitimately PD in both the U.S. and India, and can be used; it just needs to be correctly tagged.) Fixed (replaced the image). --Omer123hussain (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC) The new image is fine. The old one would have been fine, too, if correctly tagged. Sources. I agree with Tony that the footnote-colon-pagenumber formatting (e.g. [50]:93) is distracting. See the systems used at Clemuel Ricketts Mansion, Pisco Sour, Myotis escalerai, or any other FA. Hi. The problem is converting to any other system would mean a total overhaul. In this article, we have not used a seperate "bibliography" section; the styles you mentioned use a seperate bibliography, and then use sfn template or no templates. I personally have the experience of using such method (for example, in Mother India). It looks significantly better. However, this article uses another templete, rp. That is an acceptable alternative, per MoS. Of course we do have our individual preferences, but I find this artricle follows MoS in this regard. Changing the style would involve huge amount of time. That being said, I am not the main contributor to the article. If Omer thinks he has the time to overhaul the whole reference system, he can; but I strongly believe that would be a waste of time.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Hi, -I suggest, if it is acceptable as per Mos, then we shall move with rp template, any way those are hardly used in 20-30 places. But if it is should and must to remove to meet FA status, we will remove it. Please advice. --Omer123hussain (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Fixed Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC) I don't understand reference #2. Why are the four publications (dated 1959, 1996, 2005, and 1996) subheaded under McCann (1994)? Similar question for footnotes, 8, 17, 18, etc. Do multiple sources support the same statement? If so, a hierarchy should not be implied; instead, this can be handled by multiple footnotes. Alternatively, if the sources were separated from the references as in Myotis escalerai, you could handle this situation as in footnotes 7 and 21 in Myotis escalerai. Well, earlier those were individual footnotes. However, during one of the FACs (or may be peer reviews), some editors suggested bundling of footnotes wherever possible. If we do not bundle the footnotes, the sentence would have five footnote superscripts. So, for the sake of easy reading, editors suggested to bundle if possible (when multiple sources support the same statement, or, same theme). Your suggested methods are great alternatives, and aesthetically soothing. However, the method used in this article is an acceptable alternative.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Footnote 131 seems like broken formatting. Fixed. In my opinion, there is no reason to link to the Google Books entry for a title (e.g. "Concise dictionary of world place names" in footnote 1) when there is already an ISBN that can take you to Google Books or any other provider of information for the source. You should only link the title when the actual text is available online, but this is not the case for the linked titles in many of the footnotes. Fixed Comment from Stfg (source page numbers) The recent change away from using Template:rp for page numbers has led to multiple errors. for example, in the Transport section, we had ... roads occupy only 9.5% of the total city area,<ref name="Wba ci rep" />{{rp|79}} and this has now been changed to ... roads occupy only 9.5% of the total city area,<ref name="Wba ci rep" > p. 79</ref> This doesn't work, because ref name="Wba ci rep" has previously been declared to refer to page 93. Indeed, if you follow the link to FN51 here, it takes you to a reference to page 93. Page 79 has been lost altogether. When we have references to several different pages of a source, the only ways to cope with it are: (a) use short footnotes, (b) have a separate ref (with a separate name, if named at all) for each page number referenced, or (c) use {{rp}}. It is impossible to solve it with a simple mechanical change like this morning's. Any change from one of the above three options to any of the others is inevitably a major piece of work. I have to ask: are there solid, documented grounds, for example in the MOS, to object to this use of template:rp, or are we dealing here with a question of mere personal taste? --Stfg (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC) (Perhaps I should have added that the above remark is in the context that WP:CITE#Citing multiple pages of the same source seems to explicitly endorse the RP method. --Stfg (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Unless someone with more experience in FACs chimes in to tell me otherwise, I think I've come to the conclusion that my dislike of the rp format is just my own (strong) preference, and not a valid reason to object. I'll revisit my review above in light of that. – Quadell (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC) I also concur that the recent changes described above, while intended to improve the formatting, have in fact stopped the footnotes from functioning. I'll see what I can do. – Quadell (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC) I have now changed the references in the article back to the previously used (and functional) RP syntax. – Quadell (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Many thanks, Quadell. --Stfg (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC) (I concede that using RP format, while unappealing to this reviewer, is fully in line with out MOS. Similarly, the use of a headed list of citations, as in reference #2, looks misleading to me, and few other FAs use it. However, it is acceptable according to Wikipedia:CITESHORT#Bundling_citations. These objections have been withdrawn.) There are a few nitpicky problems with the image captions. Every caption needs to be either (a) a complete sentence, or several complete sentences, with correct punctuation and grammar, or (b) a noun phrase that does not end in a period. "A mill with a canal connecting to Hussain Sagar lake." is not a sentence. Either turn that fragment into a complete sentence, or rewrite the caption another way. Please could we check the MOS on this one. That noun phrase is followed by a complete sentence, and my understanding of MOS:CAPTION, where it says "If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period", is that it allows captions of this kind. --Stfg (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Ugh, I don't like it, but you're right. (I learn more details about the MoS by doing these reviews!) – Quadell (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "Falaknuma palace constructed by the Paigah noble, the palace is inspired by Andrea Palladio villas" needs proper grammar as either a full sentence or a noun phrase. Changed to "The Falaknuma palace, constructed by the Paigah family, was inspired by Andrea Palladio's villas." --Stfg (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "A clickable map representing the Intermediate Ring Road that connects the Inner Ring Road with the Outer Ring Road." either needs the period removed, or needs to be converted to a complete sentence. Period (and intial article) removed. --Stfg (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't find much room for improvement in the prose. Well done.

Spotchecks by Quadell

I did a very thorough review of sources for statements in this article. (Late update: I should specify that all footnote numbers refer to this version.) For most cites I checked, the statement is fully supported by the source or sources, and is reworded without plagiarism. These include footnotes 5, 6, 23, 52b and c, 67, 75, 94, 105, 123, 126, 143, 148, 160, 173, 192, 206, 226, and 234. However, the following footnotes have potential problems:

• 22: The first sentence "The Constitution of India, which became effective on 26 January 1950, made Hyderabad State one of the part B states of India, with Hyderabad City continuing to be the capital." is not supported by the source, nor is it found in the sites for reference 23. It needs a correct source. (The second sentence, "In his 1955 report...", is supported by the source.)

• Fixed.
  • Fine. I cleaned it up a little further. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• 47: The link appears to be dead. It's a rather important source, listed as the only cite for 4 long sentences regarding the GHMC. Is there a source that can replace it?

• Replaced with a live URL.
  • The new link seems to support all those statements. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• 52a: The source mentions the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, but does not mention military camps.

• Fixed --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• 90: The source does not mention a connection between English and white-collar workers.

• Removed mention of white collar workers.
  • That was probably the best way to deal with it. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• 137: The first reference (a) specifies page 9, which is correct. The second (b) does not specify a page number, but it should specify page 25. The full listing of the source says "pp. 9–25", which isn't necessary, since each cite should list the page number. In both cases, the facts were present in the source, without no problems.

• Fixed.

• 183: The claim that "the major Urdu papers include The Siasat Daily, The Munsif Daily and Etemaad" is not in the source, and needs a correct source.

• Fixed.

• 202: I couldn't find any mention of the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India at that source. Did I miss it?

• Indeed we may chose not to give a reference to this at all. This is not a controversial thing, and can be supported if challenged.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I actually found a source [5] from Jawaharlal Nehru University that lists the institutes in that sentence and the next, and I've updated the article accordingly.

• 216: I can only find Shabbir Ali mentioned at that site. The ten other sportspeople from Hyderabad are not sourced.

• We had wikilinked the sport persons names, and removed the citations as they were bulk. If it is necessary we will apply those please advise. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, I am content. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Support (as last time) - the article looks lighter and more polished now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

SupportComments. I think this is excellent, and much improved over the last couple of years. i have a couple of minor points:

• "On 1 November 1956 the states of India were reorganised by language group. Hyderabad state was split into three parts, the modern states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The nine Telugu- and Urdu-speaking districts of Hyderabad state that make up the Telangana region were merged with the Telugu-speaking Andhra State to create Andhra Pradesh". This is a important bit of modern Indian history, but the citation for this sentence is pretty obscure and not political history. Can a stronger citation be found for the notion that the reorganisation was language-based? Eg. what do Ramachandra Guha or Stanley Wolpert say?

• Hi, thanks for your update, Fixed the above point.(applied additional citations).

• "communal tension and riots..." 'Communal' has a particular meaning in the context of the subcontinent, and wonder if an appropriate link can be identified, perhaps Religious violence in India.

• Fixed

• There appears to be no information on the general size or scale of Hyderabad prior to the 1971 population figure in the demographics section. Is nothing historical available?

• Good point, will try to find such with reliable source. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Could not find any citiation online, will be thankful if some one could help us in this matter. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• In a not-so-extensive search, I also failed to locate anything, except a graph that approximately showed the population growth of the city. The graph is at page 13 of this document.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• If there's nothing to be found, then there's nothing to be done. It would be good if we knew what the source for that graph was, but i don't think it is enough on its own. I had a quick look in Guha's India After Gandhi, but it only has a population figure for Hyderabad state in the 1940s (16 million).hamiltonstone (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed (find one and applied book source, but it does not have ISBN ? ) and added census of 1951 and 1961, hope it works. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic article and just about ready to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Yep, significantly improved, happy to support now, well done to all involved!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

• I'd expect to see all paragraphs ending with citations -- some under Neighbourhood, Culture, and Education do not.
• You have a few duplicate links; some may be justified because of the article's length but pls review using this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done so and have removed all duplicate links detected except for a duplication of Karnataka, because the two links to it were quite far apart and the second, being in the Art and handicraft section, may be quite useful. --Stfg (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed paragraphs to end with citations. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2013 (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) 13:35, 10 August 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

Starfish

Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because we have been working on it for some time and believe it reaches the required standard. We have recently had the benefit of a detailed peer review by Axl. Thank you Axl! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cwmhiraeth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear why a picture of a red-knobbed starfish is included in the "Diversity" subsection in "Evolutionary history". It isn't explicitly described as belonging to one of the orders. On the other hand, there is apparently a picture of a cushion star, but I am unsure which part of the picture is actually the starfish. I suggest removal of the picture of the cushion star; use the picture of the red-knobbed starfish as the explicit representation of Valvatida. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the cushion star image with the red-knobbed one. This better aligns the other images to the section to which they refer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Evolutionary history", subsection "Diversity", subsection "Living groups", "Brisingida" mentions several types of plates. Can information about these different types of plates be included in the "Anatomy" section? Axl ¤ [Talk]

I have better explained "plates" in the Anatomy section and have edited "Brisingida" to remove reference to actinal and abactinal which are alternative names to oral and aboral. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

From "Evolutionary history", subsection "Diversity", subsection "Living groups", "Paxillosida": "Papulae are plentiful on their aboral surface, they possess marginal plates and have sessile pedicellariae." What does "sessile" mean in this context? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed wording Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

From "Evolutionary history", subsection "Diversity", subsection "Living groups", "Spinulosida": "They have numerous groups of low spines on the aboral surface." Perhaps "short spines" rather than "low spines"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In "Evolutionary history", subsection "Diversity", subsection "Living groups", the example species for Paxillosida, Spinulosida, Valvatida and Velatida are lacking references. Could you add these please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

As examples, I did not think they needed references, but I have added them anyway Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

From "Human relations", subsection "In legend and literature", paragraph 3: "In 1900, the New Zealand scholar Edward Tregear documented The Creation Song, which he describes as "an ancient prayer for the dedication of a high chief" of Hawaii." Is the origin of the scholar (New Zealand) really relevant? It could initially be inferred that the legend is from New Zealand, but is not until the end of the sentence that the source in Hawaii becomes evident. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

From "Human relations", subsection "In popular culture": "Like the other songs on the second record of the album, For Little Ones, it was played with acoustic instruments, ostensibly for children, according to the album's liner notes." Is this really relevant? I'm not sure that the lyrics quote is helpful either. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed lyrics. LittleJerry (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

From "Human relations", subsection "In popular culture": "In the "silly and lame" 2006 Australian-American teen fantasy comedy film Aquamarine, the eponymous mermaid gives each of the two protagonists Hailey and Claire a live starfish earring. The starfish are voiced by Emma Roberts (Claire's), Joanna Levesque (Hailey's), and Sara Paxton (Aquamarine's)." Why is the quote "silly and lame" included? Is it necessary to list the actresses who voice the specific starfish? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed both.

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

From "Human relations", subsection "As food": "but on "Huamobel" the people cut them up." What/where is "Huamobel"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

added "the island of".

That helps a bit, but it's still vague. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Rumpf published the description in 1705. He was based on the now-Indonesian island of Ambon, so Huamobel was presumably also in the Indonesian/Malay archipelago. How about "the unidentified island of"? The account is of interest because it is rare and by an authoritative figure. Happy to edit it as required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried a Google search for "Huamobel" and found only mirrors of Wikipedia's "Starfish" article and Rumpf's original description. I don't think that "unidentified" would be better. Let's leave the current text as it is. If other reviewers raise the matter again, we can reconsider. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

OK

From "Human relations", subsection "As food": "squeeze out the black blood." "Black blood"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That was the original description as quoted; we don't know which semi-fluid substance he may have meant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that. I have changed the single quotes to double quotes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

From "Human relations", subsection "As food": "Packets of dried starfish, "ヒトデ乾燥品 小袋タイプ 150g" are sold in Japan." Is the weight, "150 g", relevant? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

From "Human relations", subsection "In industry and military history": "Starfish Prime was a high-altitude nuclear test conducted by the United States of America on 9 July 1962; the device exploded 250 miles (400 km) above the Pacific Ocean with a yield equivalent to 1.4 megatons of TNT." I don't think that the latter half of the sentence is necessary. A wikilink is already included for interested readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's my full review of the text finished. I'll try to check through some of the references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I'll make a start on the reference checking.

1. Sweet, Elizabeth. Asterozoa: Fossil groups. All three statements are verified. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

4. Wray, Gregory A. Echinodermata: Spiny-skinned animals. The source isn't explicitly referring to adult animals, but I think that this is a reasonable conclusion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There are several references to Edward Ruppert's book, Invertebrate Zoology, that I am unable to check. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

10. Carefoot, Tom. Pedicellariae. a. The source does not mention "compound ossicles". Nor does it describe waving on stalks. Indeed one of the examples implies the absence of this. b. The source does not describe "several groups of starfish" with pedicellariae. On the contrary, the source states that they "are found mainly in a single Order of sea stars, the Forcipulatida." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added an extra reference for a. and replaced the reference for b. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. The new reference is Ruppert's textbook, which I am unable to check. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

16. Cavey, Michael J. Specializations for excitation-contraction coupling. The source is behind a paywall; I am unable to verify the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

25. Lawrence, John M. Chemistry and Ecological Role of Starfish Secondary Metabolites. A large section of text is referenced to this source. The statements are verified in the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

30. McClary, D. J. Reproductive pattern in the brooding and broadcasting sea star Pteraster militaris. The source is behind a paywall so I am only able to view the abstract. a. The statement is verified in the abstract. b. Not verified in the abstract but I am unable to view the whole paper. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the reference for b. to one you should be be able to see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have done that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I replaced #30 but the numbering had changed. Extra reference now added to supplement #31 (to Ruppert, which you can't access either.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. [I included the author and title to help avoid that potential misunderstanding. :-) ] Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

35. Hendler, Gordon. The biology of a brooding seastar, Leptasterias tenera, in Block Island. The first statement is verified in the source. I don't think that the second statement is verified though. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the second reference, it mentions "cold adaptations" but I have removed it anyway as it was a duplicate reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

39. 41. Beach, D. H. Spawning pheromone in crown-of-thorns starfish. The first part of the statement is not verified in the source. The second part of the statement is verified. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought it a self-evident statement but I have rephrased the sentence concerned to better reflect the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to this statement: "In the tropics, reproduction may occur throughout the year but in temperate regions there is usually a particular breeding season." The statement is certainly not self-evident. After closer inspection of the source ("Letters to Nature"), it is possible that there may be content behind a paywall that I am unable to access. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that sentence is not self-evident (but is widely known). I have been unable to find a reliable source for it as it was so I have rewritten it and provided a new reference. This is reference #41, Thorson, and the point appears in the paragraph numbered 20. If you think this is unsatisfactory I will remove the sentence entirely. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The new reference (Thorson) states "The tropical species of marine invertebrates breed (in contrast to temperate and arctic species) within such different seasons that their larval stock, taken as a whole, is more or less equally distributed in the plankton all the year round." That's not quite the same as the current text. How about this: "In the tropics, different species have their own breeding seasons throughout the year as a plentiful supply of phytoplankton is continuously available for the larvae to feed on." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In "Life cycle", subsection "Sexual reproduction", the sentences at the end of the last paragraph use the same reference. There is no need to duplicate a reference in consecutive sentences. The same occurs at the end of the "Larval development" subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

45. Fisher, W. K. Asexual reproduction in the starfish Sclerasterias. The statement is verified in the source. (I am moving the position of the reference to include mention of the discs.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

47. Edmondson, C. H. Autotomy and regeneration of Hawaiian starfishes. I can't seem to find verification for the first statement. The other three statements are all verified in the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

See page 11 of the pdf file for the first statement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

49. Eaves, Alexandra A. Reproduction: widespread cloning in echinoderm larvae. The statement is verified in the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

52. McAlary, Florence A. Population structure and reproduction of the fissiparous seastar, Linckia columbiae Gray, on Santa Catalina Island, California. The pdf link does not seem to be working for me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Nor for me. I have replaced it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

53. Mladenov, Philip V. Purification and partial characterization of an autotomy-promoting factor from the sea star Pycnopodia helianthoides. A moderately large chunk of text is referenced to this and another source. However I do not find the statements supported by the source. The source describes experiments with this autotomy-promoting factor, which isn't even mentioned in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have rearranged the sentences, added mention of the autotomy-promoting factor and added an additional reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

54. Hayashi, Yutaka. Effects of ionic environment on viscosity of catch connective tissue in holothurian body wall. The latter two sentences are supported by the reference. However the rest of the text is not supported. (The reference describes physiology in sea cucumbers, not starfish.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It now just supports the last two sentences. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

54. Encyclopedia.com. Asteroidea (sea stars). Both statements are verified in the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

61. Wagner, S. C. Keystone species. The statement is verified in the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

68. Global Invasive Species Database. 100 of the world's worst invasive alien species. The statement is verified in the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

72. Mah, Christopher. Sea star defense. Both statements are verified in the source. (Incidentally, the website uses a photo of the crown-of-thorns starfish from Wikimedia Commons without providing appropriate attribution.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

94. Matsubara, M. The phylogenetic status of Paxillosida (Asteroidea) based on complete mitochondrial DNA sequences. The statement is verifed in the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

110. Janies, Daniel A. Echinoderm phylogeny including Xyloplax, a progenetic asteroid. The first two statements are verified in the source. Due to my display settings, I am unable to view the phylogenetic tree in the article. (The three statements are in a row in the text, so there isn't any need to duplicate the reference. A single reference at the end should be sufficient.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Extra references removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

118. Tregear, Edward. The Creation Song of Hawaii. All three statements are verified in the source. (Again, the references are in a row in the text, so there is no need for duplication.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Extra references removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

128. TVguide.com. Aquamarine: Cast & details. The link doesn't seem to be working. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Replaced the dead reference Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

133. Bos, A. R. Population dynamics, reproduction and growth of the Indo-Pacific horned sea star, Protoreaster nodosus. I am only able to view the abstract, which doesn't verify the statement. However the abstract does state "Potential effects of ornamental collection on the sea star populations are discussed." A Google search about the species' conservation status does imply that collection by humans is adversely affecting the population, so it is likely that the source verifies the statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that my review of the references has slowed the FAC process. I am stopping my review here. With only a couple of minor outstanding points about the sources that I checked, I am happy to support the article for FA status. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Axl, for all your work on improving this article and its referencing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata

I'll start with a source review, and have more substantive comments about the article later. Sasata (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• the accessdate format of ref#1 is different than the rest; the publisher should be given ("University of Bristol)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• ensure the author name formats are consistent throughout (e.g. "Richard Fox" v. "Knott, Emily" v. "O'Neill P.")

Been through them with a microscope! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• ref#3 needs the date

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Tree of Life" or "Tree of Life web project"?

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• in ref #7, should "Daily Mail" be italicized? (and "The Guardian" in ref #120?)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• all of the occurrences of "et al" should be changed to "et al."

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• ensure all subtitles are capitalized (or not) after the colon (e.g. compare ref 11 v. ref 27)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• space missing after pp in ref#14, also #20 (check throughout)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• page #'s missing in ref#16 (and should include middle name initials to be consistent with others)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• refs#17, #27, #41, #81, #83 have title in title case, unlike most other journal articles (check throughout for other instances)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• author for ref#19? (see "Contact" page)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• what makes Madreporite Nexus a RS? (i.e., who is Jonathan Dale?) (note that this is not italicized in ref #53)

Replaced reference Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• ref#26 should be properly formatted as a chapter in a book (i.e. give the authors, and use the "chapter" parameter of cite book template)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• convert double hyphen to emdash in ref#28

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• link to ref#30 takes me to the FSJ main page, rather than directly to the PDF; needs issue#; Field Stydies->Studies

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• doi for ref#34 available here

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• link in refs#45 & 46 takes me to the abstract, so is redundant with the doi

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• ref #47 is a student conference poster presentation, so probably does not qualify as a high-quality RS for FA

Replaced reference Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• ref #48 should link directly to the PDF rather than the abstract

Is that OK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• ref #49 is available online from BDH here, or as a direct link to the PDF here; similarly, might as well link directly to the PDF in ref #50

Is that OK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• formatting for ref #54 is off (perhaps it's not in a cite book template?); author first name?

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• page range format is different in refs #63, 66, 71, 72, 74, 76

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• check capitalization of title in ref#75

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• full author names are available from the doi link of ref#76 (I suspect this is the case for several others as well where only initials are given); also, Tang is listed twice

Done #76 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• page # for ref#78?

The Google book does not give page numbers. I have added the chapter number, and the link takes you to the page with the information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• missing author in ref#82

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• publisher location given in refs#85 & #117 but not for most other books

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• refs #1 and #88 are identical and should be combined

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• check formatting of ref#90

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• italicize Xyloplax in ref #107

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• isbn for refs#116 & 117?

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• link in ref #122 does not work for me – perhaps a typo in the url?

Seems OK to me Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• italicize binomial in refs#122, #123

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• remove link in ref#123 (just leads to the abstract, which is available in the doi link); full first names of authors are available

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• check capitalization in ref #124

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• should inform us of whatever Asian language is used in ref #125

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• include publisher in ref#130 (Duke University?)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• need space in author initials, ref#132 (also check the "Further reading" section for additional instances)

Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I question the reliability of ref#133 (looks like a wiki to me)

Replaced Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• any idea if MilHist considers Uboat.net a RS?

Replaced reference Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• consider converting the isbn's to the recommended isbn-13 format (a conversion tool is available here)

Done, a useful tool Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• some of the web pages used as sources for the "Human relations" section look like they might benefit from being archived (who knows when they will go down?), to prevent future deadlink accumulation

I'm not aware of how such archiving is done. Can you give any guidance? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Using WebCite. Sasata (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I distrust further reading sections … there's probably 100's of books/articles that could go in there; perhaps some could just be integrated into the article text? If you must include, make the formatting consistent with those in the References

Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. I will start at the end of the list in case any reference numbers change during the process. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have been through and dealt with the references on this list. Many of the reference numbers have changed as a result. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Lead: suggest links to opportunistic, life cycle, regeneration, coral, fossil

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Taxonomy: There's no discussion of the taxonomic history. Who named the class, and in what year (include a link/citation to the protolog if available online). How did Linnaeus (or other biologists prior to De Blainville) classify these organisms? What is the etymology of the name Asteroidea?

Done (not sure about Linnaeus etc. (my computer seems to have contracted a virus and has gone sluggish) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "are characterized by the possession of" perhaps "are characterized by having"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The subphylum includes the two classes Asteroidea," missing "of"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• link Calliasterellidae and Trichasteropsida

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think the wrong "ossicle" is linked

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Anatomy: "but the number varies with group." -> "the group"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "and a thin coelomic myoepithelial layer which provides" needs comma before which (check throughout article for other instances)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• check throughout for duplicate links; I see dups in this section for ossicle, Valvatidea, Focipulatida

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• links: interstices, gas exchange, ampulla, grazers, estuarine, pigmented, photoreceptor cells, glucose, galactose, glycosidic, biological activity, pheromone, conspecific

Fixed. Expect for ampulla as I don't know if its Ampulla of uterine tube or Ampulla of ductus deferens. Also "biological activity" is not in the article, only some source titles. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I piped that link wrong, I meant pharmacological activity. Sasata (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Linked that. LittleJerry (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ampulla not linked because there is no suitable page and it is explained immediately afterwards. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• calcareous is linked previously, so no need for a wikt link

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Astropecten, Luidia, coelomic, pyloric should be linked on 1st occurrence

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "each one composed of 80–200 simple ocelli. These are composed of" repetition

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• what does circumoral mean?

Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The ecological role in starfish of these chemicals" awkward construction

Fixed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "supplement the pedicellariae in the prevention of other organisms" perhaps "supplement the pedicellariae to prevent other organisms"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that this article is not used as a source, as it seems to be a major recent review by well-known experts (it's also open access, so you could use some of the images within if so desired)

I'm looking at this. Can images be used from any open access article then? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Only if they are marked as CC-BY-SA ("which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium"); this would not be the case if they are CC-by-NC-SA (noncommerical uses only). Sasata (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have incorporated this source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• there's no mention in the article about the widespread use of Asteroidea species in studies on development and reproduction. What species are most commonly used? Why are they used? see PMID 20536323

I have created an "In research" section and will expand it further Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• some of the sources used for the discussion on tube feet adhesion physiology seem rather … old. Do any of these more recent studies PMID 15549719, PMID 20228353, PMID 15939770, PMID 15961742 update our knowledge?

I have added a recent secondary source Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• WP:Secondary encourages us to use secondary sources when possible in preference to primary sources (and we should be mindful of this as it is a requirement of a FA). I see several uses of primary studies in this article that might be replaced with more recent reviews. Examples:

• "The Antarctic Labidiaster annulatus uses its large pedicellariae to capture krill, while the North Pacific Stylasterias forreri uses its pedicellariae to snare small fish.[15]" sourced to a research paper from 1975 – are these facts not mentioned in Lawrences's 2013 textbook?

Done. It doesn't mention Stylasterias forreri though. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• "In some species such as Nepanthia belcheri, a large female can split in half and the resulting offspring are males. When these grow large enough they change back into females.[31]" sourced to a research paper from 1982 – can it be cited to Lawrence?

Lawrence cites the paper for the line "Asexual reproduction by fission occurs in Coscinasterias and other genera...." on page 37. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Brooding is especially common … in smaller species that produce just a few eggs." does this really need to be cited to a primary research paper from 1984?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• these are just examples; I would ask that you check all of the older citations to see if they can be replaced with more recent secondary sources (and I realize this will not be possible nor desirable in all cases)

In the case of "Ecological role", Paine's studies are cited by Lawrence. LittleJerry (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In many instances, my Ruppert has mentioned a fact and then I have searched for the relevant research paper, often ancient because it was basic research. Are you telling me not to bother in future and just use the textbook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced some of the aged references. With regard to #47, Edmondson 1935, I think that should stay. He is reporting experiments he has done on regeneration and the date they were done seems irrelevant. His results are more likely to be quoted than contradicted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "† Calliasterellidae, with the type genus Calliasterella from the Carboniferous and Devonian periods.[103][104]" the first citation is to a 1910 paper, in German, that does not appear to be accessible on the internet. The second citation appears to cover all facts in the sentence completely, so the first is unnecessary (I assume it's the protologue, in which case it would be more appropriate as a source at the target article)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Most species of starfish are gonochoristic, there being separate male and female individuals." noun +ing

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Some species are simultaneous hermaphrodites producing eggs and sperm at the same time" perhaps better with a comma after "hermaphrodites"?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Yet other starfish are sequential hermaphrodites."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Protandrous individuals such as Asterina gibbosa" A. gibbosa is a species, so should not refer to it as an individual

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "the young starfish obtain their nutrition" -> "obtain nutrients/nourishment"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "In the tropics, different species have their own breeding seasons throughout the year as a plentiful supply of phytoplankton is continuously available for the larvae to feed on." I'm not sure I'm parsing the first half of this sentence correctly: is it saying that species have their own unique breeding seasons (because timing is not dependent on food resources), or that, in the absence of limiting food resources, all species have breeding seasons that extend throughout the year?

Rephrased to clarify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "a pheromone which serves" article still needs an audit of which/that usage

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10.09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "This behaviour is called pseudo-copulation" previous instances of word-as-word have been enclosed with quote marks (e.g., The developing young are called "lecithotrophic"). There's other instances throughout the article, do a search for "called"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Single arms that are regenerating a whole individual are called comet forms." change to "Single arms that regenerate"?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "and may live to the age of 34." seems an odd way to give a lifespan estimate for a starfish; how about "and has a maximum recorded lifespan of 34 years?" or similar

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• link electrolyte

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "the short-spined pisaster from the West Coast of America, may use a set of specialized tube feet to dig itself deep" why "may"? Is this not known for sure?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "ability to adapt to different environments gives them great ecological importance." is it possible to give importance?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• micro-organisms no hyphen, according to our article; later, macro-organisms could just be replaced with organisms

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "knock-on effect" is (I think) a UK expression, perhaps "unintended effect"?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• link benthic

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "is one of a very few echinoderm"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Invasive Species Specialist Group list" ->Group's

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Other species concentrate on protecting their vulnerable tube feet" don't think "concentrate" is the best word choice here, how about just "Other species protect their vulnerable tube feet"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• ensure short-form binomials use a non-breaking space (check throughout)

Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "when P. ochraceus was exposed to … they were relatively unaffected." needs agreement

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "It is thought that their survivability is due to the nodular nature of their skeletons," The phrase "It is thought" sounds weaselly, especially as it is sourced to a primary research paper that represents the conclusion of three scientists

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "very rich accumulations" -> dense accumulations?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "some limestones from this period are composed almost entirely from fragments from these groups." I don't think the phrase "composed from" is typical English usage

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• link sister group

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "A large eighteen-armed member of Brisingida" eighteen->18

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "inflexible disc and between six and 20 long, thin arms," "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures" per MOS:NUMERAL

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• link molecular evidence

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Among the "uncreated gods" described early in the song are the male Kumilipo ("Creation") and the female Poele, both born in the night; a coral insect, the earthworm, and "The starfish was born, whose children were starry"." The punctuation in this sentence has me confused ... is the earthworm the coral insect? What is the significance of being born in the night? I don't understand what I'm supposed to take away from the quoted part ... the starfish has star-shaped offspring?

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• link Malay

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• organization->organization

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The 1988 album Starfish by the Australian alternative rock band The Church made the band's name" Does "made the band's name" mean "made it popular"?

Improved but see below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• the "In popular culture" section reads like a collection of sourced trivia (which may act as a magnet to invite well-intentioned readers to add their own favourite starfish factoid…). Is there any underlying theme to the use of these animals in pop culture?

Removed section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "many species are toxic, as the body wall contains saponins[71] and tetrodotoxins." are saponins and tetrodotoxins always found together in many toxic species? If not, the sentence needs to be reworded.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The Amakusa TV company markets an ebook called "Cooking Starfish in Japan", available in English and Japanese," Is it important for this article to indicate the multi-language availability of this ebook?

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "A similar phenomenon exists in the Indo-Pacific for species like Protoreaster nodosus." like->such as (unless species that are similar to Protoreaster nodosus is actually meant)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from PumpkinSky
  • Images, not a FA requirement, but can we get an English translation of File:Pédicellaires_d'_Acanthaster_Planci.JPG? Otherwise the images are fine.PumpkinSky talk 12:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work, very nice. PumpkinSky talk 12:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. There is now a description in English for the image you mentioned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim Very good article, a couple of niggles before I support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• You have made a creditable attempt to explain why some authors and bands have chosen the Starfish name, but it's not clear to me whether the Watts and Orbell books have any connection beyond the title, similarly the 1988 album.

The "Human relations" section is Chiswick Chap's contribution and he is on holiday. I have reduced and rephrased the paragraph about books but I can remove Watts and Orbett completely if you want? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why have you given the kanji characters for dried starfish? This is usually only done for eg biographies of Japanese people. Here it seems almost a case of "we know this, so we will put it in", rather than any real point. It's also inconsistent, you haven't done it for the Japanese book or given the Indonesian original for "black blood".

Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The first point isn't a bit deal, rather than wait on a minor issue I'll support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- Could you just check your duplicate links and see if they're necessary? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2013 (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) 13:27, 10 August 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

Pirates of the Caribbean: Armada of the Damned

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Armada of the Damned is an action-adventure role-playing video game, developed by Propaganda Games based on the Pirates of the Caribbean film franchise. It takes place well before the events of the films, and was the first attempt to create an open-world Pirates game. Sadly, Armada was cancelled just several months shy of its intended release date. However, a lot of information about this game exists so I was able to craft this nice mid-sized article about it. It took me five days to finish it and take it from what it was to what it is now. Hope you enjoy reading it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from JDC808

Support

• I did some copy-editing throughout. I changed some tenses and such since the game was canceled. If you disagree, let me know. --JDC808 ♫ 03:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm okay. I was confused whether to use past or present, so I'm good either way. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

References

• IGN is no longer owned by News Corporation. They're owned by Ziff Davis Media now. --JDC808 ♫ 03:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. How did I miss that... Thanks! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the one disambiguation link for you. I don't see anything else. Nice article. On a side note, I was really looking forward to this game (as I'm a big fan of the films) and was disappointed when I heard that they canceled it. --JDC808 ♫ 04:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Me too. I raged a lot when it was cancelled :( — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Status

• "An early gameplay screenshot of Armada of the Damned." → Not very convincing of a caption. The description page does more for me, with: "The first official screenshot for the game Pirates of the Caribbean: Armada of the Damned".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have improved it. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Much better.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Great article!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• How much of the game was actually complete when it was cancelled? Nergaal (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  I wish I knew. I guess we'll never know, sadly. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• Image review:

• File:Pirates of the Caribbean Armada of the Damned.png looks {{PD-Text}} to me.
• File:AOTDScreenshot.jpg needs to be much smaller to pass fair use. I'd suggest maximum 300px wide.

• Reduced now to 300px wide. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Prose review

Addressed comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• • A couple issues still present, and I'd like to see David's issues with representation of sources dealt with before I support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Support now that David's issues are dealt with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• Oppose, per 1c.

Images

• File:Pirates of the Caribbean Armada of the Damned.png - this could be shrunk significantly to be lower rez without impinging on legibility.
  • That image is likely PD-Text, as mentioned above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

References

• Source refs all look to meet reliability and quality standards. However on doing some spotchecks I found some issues with referencing:
  • The player was to take the role of James Sterling, a pirate captain whose main mission was to travel across the Caribbean Sea and make a reputation for himself. - small thing, but ref 2 doesn't mention his first name.
    • My bad, the first name "James" is mentioned here. Added the ref. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • More concerning, the references to the same ref later on in the section don't cover all the prose, such as Land combat was similar to most western role-playing games, focusing on real-time combat rather than turn-based gameplay. (IGN mentions only Fable).
    • I read that somewhere. Though, I removed it until I can get the ref back in place. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • According to game director Alex Peters, Armada of the Damned's character development was very different than the film series. isn't directly stated in ref 9.
    • This line was rewritten when it was copyedited. Its original meaning is that Armada's characters were developed unattached from those who appear in the film series. I have rewritten the sentence to match its original meaning. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Although the studio used Epic Games' Unreal Engine 3 to develop Turok, it is unknown which engine was used for Armada of the Damned. is not verified by the two sources used in the same paragraph.
    • Yeah. This is an assumption of mine, given that no source explixitly stated which engine was used, but it is known that Turok was developed with Unreal Engine 3. What should I do? Put a ref to "Although the studio used Epic Games' Unreal Engine 3 to develop Turok"? or deleted it all? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Nevermind. I just added a ref to support the first part (Turok using UE3). Gonna see if I can find, by miracle, the engine used on Armada, though I doubt it (I would have already found it). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I was unsuccessful. No source states which engine was used. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I think it's kind of odd to say "it's unknown", because that's essentially using the absence of sources to prove a statement. I'd remove the line about the game engine entirely. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Okay, I removed it :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend going through the entire article again to double-check for issues like this, though I believe it is likely to be the biggest issue in the gameplay and development sections. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I am going to check the references again and fix. I must have misplaced some references here and there, and I may have added text that is true but not verifiable, so it might have to be removed. I'll do this tomorrow. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Darkwarriorblake

Overall an interesting read, a shame there is not more information about it. There are two repeated links in the article body, in the Development section "action adventure" and "roleplaying" are duplicated from the gameplay section. My biggest gripe is that not of the references are archived, so inevitably the article is going to become unreliable as sources die off. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I will archive them soon. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from New Age Retro Hippie

I'm not actually participating, but I must note that I feel the image used in the article's body doesn't make me feel more "educated" about what I'm reading. Is there a better screenshot that can be used? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

I think any outstanding points above can be resolved post-FAC if necessary -- tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2013 (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) 05:02, 10 August 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

F.C. Porto in international club football

Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A month has passed since the previous nomination was closed due to lack of consensus; in over six weeks, it had two reviewers and only one provided his support. Here's hoping that this second nomination can attract more feedback from the community. Thank you. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment (Leaning Support): Awesome article, but I have some questions & comments. Please reply the following...

1. Lead: Is it possible to split the second paragraph in the lead? I made a "proposal edit" in the page.
2. Structure: Why is there not a "See Also" section?
3. Content: Wikimedia commons has content for FC Porto. There is a little tag you can add (check Peru national football team's external links section).
4. References: Is Footballzz.com a reliable source? Are there no better sources we can use?
5. Suggestion: It would be great if you could create a History of F.C. Porto article. This doesn't affect this review, but I think you have much potential to make a great article on that (based on your work here).

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you so much for your constructive comments. Here are my replies:

1. I analysed your lead edit proposal, but I feel it kind of broke the more chronological flow of the prose. Therefore, I reverted to the previous version but I divided the paragraph in two as you requested.
2. I didn't feel it was necessary to have one. Do you have any related content link suggestions that are not already in the article?
3. Added the Commons content tag.
4. I'm not sure how reliable one can consider it, but I could not find anywhere else a table with the overall stats for each possible international official competition that Porto has ever played. Sadly, a great club like Porto lacks a proper history and statistics section on their own website. At best, I could leave only the UEFA source which lists per-season stats, but it does not include Fairs Cup and Intercontinental Cup participation stats.
5. An overall history article would be top, indeed, but also an herculean task that I'm not undertaking, at least in the near future. But I appreciate your suggestion. Parutakupiu (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a "see also" section to the article. Readers of your article are likely interested in reading about how other European clubs do on international competitions (particularly the other top Portuguese teams).

Since you are using Fotballzz.com for uncontroversial statistics that other sources are unlikely to cover, I think it should be accepted for the time being. Better sources may be available in the future, but there is no reason to deny the current FA quality of the work over that one source.

Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well thought, but an issue rises here: why only those clubs? I agree with the other two top Portuguese clubs, but why only those foreign clubs? The best would be a link to Category:Football clubs in European football, which includes every European club with a similar page but it appears it's not usual or advisable to place links to category pages in see also sections. Regardless of this, thank you for your support! Parutakupiu (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – I reviewed the article at the first FAC, and don't have much to add this time around. One thing I noticed was the presence of two references in the lead, with information not present in the body of the article. In general, information in the lead should also appear in the body as the lead summarizes the rest of the article. I'd recommend adding the facts about the other major Portuguese teams and Porto winning the two competitions in their first appearance later in the article. Also, the reference Marshal pointed out doesn't strike me as reliable either. Otherwise, I like the article and would be inclined to support it. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Added those two situations in their respective section in the article's body. Concerning the reference, I refer you to the reply I provided to MarshalN20, just above. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The mention of the other Portuguese clubs' titles isn't cited in the body. Can the reference you had in the lead be placed here? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
      • But I did that (see here). Or are you talking about sourcing? Sorry, maybe I did not understand your point... Parutakupiu (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, adding a reference is what I meant. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
          • OK, added references for the European titles of Porto's rivals and another one stating that, until 1987, Porto were the only "big three" without international titles.Parutakupiu (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Support – I'm satisfied with the reference you provided, and accept that the other citation I mentioned is probably the best that can be found, although I'm still not thrilled with it. On balance, I think the article meets the FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - probably a general one that applies to football articles in general - in the collapsible match boxes there are bare URLs for the reports field. Keith D (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The template is made to add links as bare URLs and, as you mentioned, it's a common thing in football-related articles. If you think it's truly important, I can try to format it into a citation template, somehow. Parutakupiu (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I have resorted to adding a ref next to the report link to give a full cite for this. May be others have ideas how to get round this? Keith D (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Removed the report links and in turn added ref templates next to the venues. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks that addresses my comment. The location of the ref seems odd but I can live with that. Keith D (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I moved the ref tags back to the first column, just after the competition name. I previously placed them after each final venue because there the tags did not disrupt the relative position of the data value within the collapsible box, but now I understand this does not happen with higher screen resolution. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Support – I am OK with the change made. Keith D (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments – This is an impressive entry on Porto's European history. While I have no qualms about its comprehensiveness after a quick read, I am a tad concerned about the sourcing of the article and certain elements of prose.

• "Their opponents were Celtic, who had eliminated Porto's city rivals Boavista in the other semi-final to advance to their first European final since 1970.", the source does not confirm the bit in bold.
• "This was Mourinho's last match for Porto; a week later, he was presented as Chelsea's new manager", again the source is just a collection of Mourinho quotes after his first press conference. Instead you should cite the this article.
• Source to confirm "Hired during the pre-season, Dutch coach Co Adriaanse..."?
• "A two-goal draw in Manchester", a two-all draw perhaps?
• "The 2009–10 UEFA Champions League edition", not sure this is the correct word.
• "He took his technical team to London, except assistant coach Vítor Pereira, who agreed to become the new Porto head coach", the source does not confirm that AVB took his staff with him, rather Pereira became the new manager.
• For the matches listed below, what do the green and red backgounds signify? I know this is obvious to a football editor like myself, but it should cater also to the oblivious. Moreover, Porto drew with Once Caldas, so shouldn't the background be yellow? Or does it take into account extra time and penalties? Make this clear somewhere.
• Although this isn't a requirement, it would be nice if there were direct quotes from the previous managers/players to bring the article alive, instead of it being a full-on narrative. See the Liverpool article for subtle ways to incorporate this, if you decide to do so. - Lemonade51 (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Lemonade51. I made all the changes you requested, with special relevance to the ones demanding a more adequate citation sourcing. Regarding the use of direct quotes, I used them sparingly in the second History sub-section and more in the quote parameter of a few citation tags (which you can see in the references section). I can see if I can find testimonies from other relevant participants. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- noticed a few paragraphs don't end with citations, which they should at FA-level; pls review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that. I've added the citations. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Image review: Images all have appropriate free licenses and aren't lacking any necessary details.
• Source review:

• Are you sure you have the right ISBN for Almanaque do FC Porto 1893–2011? I can't find the book using that number.

• It's the correct ISBN, as displayed on the book cover and on this or this bookstore. In fact, I also don't know what's happening but it does seem that the book is no longer recognized or found through this ISBN. What should be done in this case? Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a general comment, what is the point in listing acronyms for Union of European Football Associations, Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation, etc. when you never actually use the acronym to shorten the name? It's just visual noise in the Citations section. It would make more sense to write "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF)" on first use and thereafter refer to it as only "RSSSF".

• True, it was pointless. Just left the first spelled-out instances of publishers and then used the acronyms in the following appearances. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Prose spot-check:

• "The expansion of the European Cup to include champions from other countries" Countries other than... who?

• Well, since I cannot find reliable sources to confirm the expansion and which countries entered the competition for the first time in that year, I rewrote that part. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• "but fell in the next round before 1860 Munich" The "fell before" is awkward English. "Fell to" is standard.

• Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Winning an "aggregate victory" or "losing on aggregate" is jargon that needs linking or explanation.

• Linked "aggregate" (to Playoff format#Total points series (aggregate)) in its first appearance. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• "having squandered a 4–2 aggregate lead during the second leg" No clue what this means.

• Rephrased. Hope it's clearer now. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Reactions to the draw predicted an easy task for the English team" What draw?

• Second round draw. Fixed. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Two goals from Fernando Gomes granted a 2–1 home win, but the away goal proved crucial to Real" What is "the away goal"?

• A link explaining that was given just after, but I rephrased that part to point the reader directly to the explanatory link. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• This sounds more like sports journalism than an encyclopedia article: "this win meant that Porto were no longer the only "Big Three" club in Portugal without international silverware."

• I'd prefer to keep that piece of information. Any suggestion on how to make it read less journalistic? Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• "who had led Leiria to their best ever league finish" Hypenate "best-ever"

• Added. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't find the writing to be particularly accessible. A lot of knowledge is presumed—jargon is not always linked or explained. Additionally, there are many places where you write as if the reader has already read the linked sources and is now reading your summary (see for example the "reactions to the draw" and "the away goal" comments above). I think this could benefit from a run-through by an unfamiliar person to create a task list of jargon and unclear summary of sources. I'm sure this article is a very enjoyable read to a European football fan, but I was too often lost to enjoy it. --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Laser_brain. I admit that flaw of mine, as it's such a common topic for an average European football enthusiast like myself. It gets easy to forget that not everyone understands the specifics of football and its rules and technicalities. I will attempt to trace and simplify other examples of such jargon that may have been overlooked. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Laser_brain, I have made another copy-edit run-through in an attempt to weed out jargon language. If you wish, please review my changes to assess if I was successful. Thank you. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The writing looks much improved and more accessible. I considered my comments addressed. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to solve such a relevant issue. Thank you for pointing it out. Cheers, Parutakupiu (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2013 (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) 00:32, 10 August 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This article covers the acquisition and service history of the Royal Australian Air Force's small, but effective, fleet of six C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft. These aircraft began to enter service in 2006 and have provided a significant expansion of the RAAF's ability to move cargo across long distances. Somewhat unusually for a recent Australian defence acquisition project, the aircraft were delivered on time and on budget, and are well regarded throughout the military.

The article passed a GA review in April and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in June. I've since expanded and copy-edited it, and am hopeful that it also meets the FA critera. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Thomson titles should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just made that change - thanks Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments: looks quite good. I made a couple of minor tweaks and have the following comments/observations:
  • everything looks referenced to me;
  • no issues with repeatlinks that I could see;
  • images look correctly licenced to me, but I could be wrong;
  • "the ADF deployment to East Timor in 1999" --> perhaps link to INTERFET?
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • perhaps add a link to Operation Slipper?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "Japanese Self Defence Force" v. "Japan Ground Self Defense Force" (spelling of Defence/Defense);
    • Standardised on the names used in Wikipedia articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "maneuverable" --> "manoeuvrable"?
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • are there issn or oclc numbers that could be added for the "Aero Australia" and "Australian Aviation" works? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks a lot for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco 1492
• Images:

File:JGSDF truck being unloaded from a RAAF C-17.JPG - Fine

File:RAAF C-17 Afghanistan.jpg - Fine

File:RAF RAAF USAF C-17s 2007.jpg - Source points directly to the file itself rather than something which supports the US Military attribution; needs fixing

Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

File:RAAF (A41-206) C-17A Globemaster III on display at the 2013 Avalon Airshow.jpg - Fine, I've never known Bidgee to have issues with copyright vios

File:RAAF Boeing C-17A Globemaster III CBR Gilbert.jpg - Fine, assuming OTRS is correct

• There's a lot of whitespace in your references section. Any way to avoid this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed I think Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm still getting white space. I think it's the Commons box. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) currently - Information may date, suggest "as of"
  • I intend to actively maintain this article, so that should be OK. I try to avoid the somehwat clunky and maintaince-intensive 'as of' except where necessary. The RAAF should operate six C-17s for the next 25 or so years, and I'll update the other section when other capabilities come online. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• aggressively marketed - How
  • The source doesn't say (it refers only to the C-17 having "been the subject of strenuous marketing in Australia by Boeing"). I'd guess that this involved lobbying decision makers and taking out advertising in the defence media and at airports, but no source explains this. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Airframe - Just the frame itself, or a bare bones yet flight capable aircraft, or ...?
  • It was somewhere along the production line and had not yet been completed, so I think that 'airframe' is the appropriate term. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• on the 23rd of the month - Perhaps "the following week" or "seven days later"?
  • • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The Australian Government ordered a further two C-17s in 2011. ... At the ceremony held to welcome A41-210, Smith announced that the government intended to order a further C-17. The $A160 million contract for this aircraft was signed in March 2012," - First sentence contradicts the last; the purchase was, formally, in 2012 by the looks of it
  • Good point: fixed (the government or Boeing could have technically backed out at any time until the contract was complete, though it was basically a done deal from the time it was first announced) Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• scheduled closure of Boeing's production line - might be worth noting that the C-17 line specifically is scheduled to close
  • Good point Nick-D (talk)
• fly-by-wire controls - Got a link?
  • Linked Nick-D (talk)
• That's it for today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Minister Smith stated - No need for the honorific
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Any comments on safety record?
  • Much like the C-130 article no sources identify any problems at all, or comment on there being a good safety record. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• What was the fate of the aircraft which was being maintained at the time of the floods? Did it get damaged? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It was moved onto high ground and not damaged: I've just added this. Thanks for your detailed comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose and images. Very good job, Nick. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "one of a several": one of several
• "to evaluate the different options": to evaluate the options
• "Amberley was selected over Richmond as the base for the Globemasters as its runways and engineering facilities are better able to support large aircraft.": The change in tense is a judgment call ... it's fine if the decision was made very recently. 2006? Personally, I'd go with "were". - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• " a further C-17": What do you think of "another C-17"?
• "at this time the supplies were then": redundant
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dank: I've just made all the changes you've suggested. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Passed at GAN and supported at MilHist ACR. Rather than check changes since then I've reviewed and copyedited again from top to bottom; outstanding points:

• The Australian Government ordered a further two C-17s during 2011 and 2012. In February that year... -- Um, in February which year? I assume 2012 but suggest spelling it out...
  • Oops: I forget to update that when I made the tweak above. I've fixed this. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Also in March 2011, Minister Smith announced that the Australian Government would probably provide C-17s to transport humanitarian supplies to Libya if the United Nations requested assistance. -- This leaves me wondering about what eventuated; if they weren't in fact needed, suggest saying so.
  • No C-17 was ever dispatched, but no source says this. I've tweaked 'announced' to 'stated' to tone this down. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Structure, referencing and supporting materials all look good. Nick has pretty well written the book on how this sort of article should be put together, well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your review Ian Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support -- very well-written, highly informative and exceptionally detailed (while making good use of summary style and thus not very lengthy either). It was fascinating to read about the C-17 procurement process, its introduction to Australian service, and its many missions to date. Interesting also to read specific details such as the equipment carried to Japan for earthquake relief, and even about how one of the C-17s fortunately escaped flooding! It seems the above comments, and earlier reviews + copy-edits have helped this article approach FA standard.

The only area of improvement I can see, from reading the article text only, is the last paragraph of the "Delivery" section which starts with, "The Globemasters have been credited with significantly increasing the RAAF's airlift capabilities." Perhaps it would help to more clearly specify who is crediting the C-17s with that--even though the subsequent sentence factoids make the first sentence self-evident, it might be more clear to say "Aviation journalists" or something. Moreover, the last two paragraphs of "Delivery" might not quite match the "Acquisition>Delivery" subheading. That section's paragraph #1 is on the timeline of the deliveries; paragraph #2 is on the additional orders; paragraph #3 is on the maintenance program; paragraph #4 is on capabilities. Those latter two paragraphs seem a bit out of scope of a "Delivery" title, which perhaps 1) could be tweaked--not sure if that title is preferred to remain untouched, or 2) be placed under a separate subheading. That's my impression from a simple read-through--perhaps one may have a different or better view on this area.

Otherwise, this is a great article, and I'm happy to support. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. I've tweaked that paragraph to be specific about who's praising the C-17s. In regards to the ordering, the last paragraph is about the effect the delivery of the aircraft has had, and was a way of working their statistics in. I agree that the para on maintenance doesn't sit entirely comfortably in this context, but as the aircraft are still pretty new to service there isn't much to say on the topic yet (see McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service#Maintenance and upgrades for what this could eventually become). I've tweaked the section heading to 'Delivery and sustainment' though to better reflect its content. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the details, and those tweaks address my comments quite nicely! Again, great job on the article and I'm happy to support. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2013 (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. Graham Colm (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [10].

---

Hurricane Elena

Nominator(s): Juliancolton (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Elena was a perfect storm of sorts. Nearly every aspect of its life was an anomaly, from its inexplicable strengthening *over* the island of Cuba to its multiple unpredicted shifts in direction that created the largest game of cat-and-mouse in U.S. history, as well as the largest peacetime evacuation. And to top it off, it struck on Labor Day. A forecasting, political, and disaster management nightmare, the storm continues to fascinate researchers and weather enthusiasts, and has been one of my favorite events to write about. I believe this article is by far the more comprehensive and engaging account of the storm in existence, and with the help of multiple other users who allowed me to fine-tune the text and sources, I'm confident this represents some of the project's best work. Thanks for looking! Juliancolton (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Welcome back to FAC!
• "late August and early September 1985": I'm no authority on linking, but that looks like an EGG problem to me. What do you think of this? "during the 1985 Atlantic hurricane season, in late August and early September."
• "after traveling lengthwise across the island with no major effects": As a layman, I'm not sure what "effects" would mean, other than "damage".
• "up to twice": There's nothing logically wrong with that phrase ... I just don't see it much, perhaps because people are expecting something more dramatic than "twice" after "up to". Maybe: ", in some cases twice in a matter of days"
• "Despite the highly dynamic situation at hand,": I'd delete this, I think you've made that clear already.
• "swept through communities and mobile home parks well away from the coast": Some readers may need help understanding why you put it this way ... maybe (if accurate): "caused extensive damage in communities well away from the coast, particularly in mobile home parks" [more coming] - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• "due to the storm's effects.": delete or reword. In general, WP:Checklist#because may be helpful.
• "0000 UTC": WP:MOSTIME says to use a colon (and examples with UTC follow later) ... thoughts?
• "situated": FAC reviewers often object to this word, since it's often used superfluously. Probably best to lose it.
• "turned toward the east": Any objection to "turned east"?
• "center rapidly filled": Clear enough to me, but I'm wondering if some readers need "with clouds"
• "Mississippi and Louisiana and despite the weakening": comma needed
• "thunderstorm activity which spawned heavy rains": "heavy thunderstorms"
• "degenerating a remnant low": degenerating to a remnant low-pressure system, maybe
• I made it down to Hurricane_Elena#Preparations. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the initial comments and warm welcome. Took care of that stuff and looking forward to more suggestions for improvement! Juliancolton (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

A former user, User:Hurricanefan25, who has since been blocked from Wikipedia for various reasons I will not discuss, read over Hurricane Elena and made some comments that will be useful to the FAC. Per request, I will be posting those comments below. Since he is blocked, he will not be able to respond to the fixes himself. Below are his comments. I would also like to note that although I am a participant in the WikiCup, these are not comments that were initially made by me, and thus I do not take credit for these comments. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that there's a lot of comments (mainly due to the fact that there were 51 paragraphs, 10 alone in Florida!), but most of these are extremely minor (and in many cases, influenced by my personal opinion) and can be fixed easily. There's no need to leave replies to all of these; objections would be enough. And yes, JC, I feel that Elena is certainly long enough. It took forever to write this up. :/

Lede

• Capitalization of "weekend" in "Labor Day Weekend" is unnecessary.
• "with no major effects" → "little impact"?
• "Despite predictions for Elena" → "Despite predictions that the hurricane/it/&c" or something similar
• "The hurricane's unpredictable shifts in direction created what was called the largest peacetime evacuation" – "called the largest peacetime evacuation" implies that that an individual or organization stated that word-for-word; if that's the case, quotation marks are necessary; if it isn't, however, then "considered" might be a more appropriate word here.
• "Evacuations occurred in sequence to follow the storm's forecast positions" – "in sequence" is confusing
• "residents and tourists along portions of the Gulf Coast were forced to leave up to twice" – clarify; I can understand the meaning of this, but at first glance, "leave up to twice" left me befuddled
• "Elena's slow movement off western Florida" → "off of"
• "especially in cases of old or inadequate construction" → "especially to those with old or inadequate construction"
• "well away from the coast" → "well inland"
• "destroying their reefs" – if the reefs are home to these oysters, this is fine, but if that isn't the case, switch to "it" – this statement is currently describing the oysters, not the bay
• "The rest of the state's coast also sustained considerable damage, and the inland pecan and soybean crops were severely diminished in Alabama and Mississippi." – was the harvest "diminished," or was there severe damage to the crops?

  They don't seem mutually exclusive... Juliancolton (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Over 13,000 homes were damaged in Mississippi, and 200 were completely destroyed." – personally, I'd use "and of those"

  It's hard, because the 13k is a rough number, but the 200 are additional to the 13k+. Juliancolton (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• "two in Texas due to rip current drownings" → "drownings in rip currents"

Meteorological history

• "At 0000 UTC on August 28, while situated over the Windward Passage, the disturbance developed into a tropical depression" – slightly awkward wording; rearrange the sentence
• "newly designated" – hyphen is necessary

  I've always been told otherwise, actually. Juliancolton (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• "However, its central barometric pressure continued to deepen" – "Despite that" might be more appropriate in this case
• "midday on August 28" → "at noon," and remove the preceding comma
• "striking between New Orleans, Louisiana, and Biloxi, Mississippi, area" → "stricking (with)in an area between New Orleans, Louisiana, and Biloxi, Mississippi"
• "slow drastically in forward speed" – "forward speed" seems unnecessary; it's unlikely readers would believe the wind speed would be decreasing

  Eh, I've had problems with readers confusing that before, unfortunately :/ Juliancolton (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• "moved very quickly" → "moved rapidly"
• "After the passage of the upper-level system early on August 31, however, steering currents became extremely weak" → "However, after the passage of the upper-level system early on August 31, steering currents became extremely weak"
• "Elena slowed to quasi-stationary movement in the extreme northeastern Gulf of Mexico" → "became nearly stationary"
• "At its closest" – approach?
• "hurricane's first forecast destination range" – "destination range" sounds a bit strange...

  Yeah, it's not ideal, but I really can't think of any other way to word it. Thoughts from anybody? Juliancolton (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• "its center rapidly filled" – meaning? :S
• "despite the weakening" → "despite its weakening"
• "Elena persisted for several days before degenerating" – parallel structure; degenerating → "it degenerated"

Preparations

• "in conjunction with its arrival in popular tourist destinations" → "arrival at popular tourist destinations"
• "Evacuations and the hoisting of weather advisories" – "hoisting" makes me think of flags
• "inadvertently occurred in stages to keep up with Elena's shifts in direction" – what's the meaning of "stages" here?
• "Collectively, it was the "largest number of people ever evacuated", according to Robert Case." – either define "it" or don't use "it"
• "many stayed relatively local" – "within the vicinity" might be a better wording, IMHO
• "Heeding the advisories" – I don't believe warnings = advisories, even thesaurus-wise
• "Offshore oil rig personnel" → "Personnel on offshore oil rigs"
• "and simultaneously lines" – comma after "simultaneously"
• "the first serious hurricane threat in 20 years (Hurricane Betsy caused catastrophic flooding in and around New Orleans in 1965)" – parentheses are generally discouraged in written prose, AFAIK
• "As such, evacuations had begun" ... "as Governor Graham had recommended" – passive voice
• "A mandatory evacuation was then issued overnight for ten more coastal counties encompassing 573,000 affected individuals" → "which affected 573,000 individuals"
• "In the greater St. Petersberg, Pinellas County, area alone" → "In the greater St. Petersberg–Pinellas County area alone"
• "in what was a United States record" – it's pretty apparent Elena was affecting the U.S.; "in what was a national record"
• "put a strain on facilities, highways, and disaster plans" – "disaster plans" really doesn't fit in; the strain on was the actions occurring as a result of the plans
• "shortened lead times" is stated because there was little time to prepare, right?
• "increased awareness of available resources" – awareness, not usage?
• "Post-storm phone surveys indicate" → "indicated"
• "9 hours out of the expected 15" – "out of the" → "rather than the"
• "With over 200,000 individuals recorded in" → "recorded to be in"
• "the duration of the storm became an issue for evacuees becoming "restless"" – "evacuees became restless as a result of the duration of the storm" or a similar wording might be better IMO
• "Although successful, the process was noted to have encountered issues such as time constraints and staffing shortages" ... "when the storm had begun to retrograde" ... "number of evacuees staying in shelters had already decreased" – passive voice
• "had one day or less reprieve" → "less of", passive voice as well
• "entire storm event" – a storm is an event, so I don't believe "event" is necessary here...
• "1.25 million people from Florida had evacuated at some point" – passive voice

Impact

• "assessed the worst of the hurricane's effects to have been focused around" → "determined the worst of the hurricane's effects focused around"; "to have" is passive/unnecessary
• "with documented impacts" → "with impacts documented"
• "Elena also had an impact" – PV
• "rolled in high seas on August 29" – what's the meaning of "rolled"? Just turned slightly, or tipped over?
• "Exxon had already evacuated the platform" – PV
• "(the same pipeline broke two more times during the 1985 hurricane season)" – parentheses discouraged
• "A large aspect of the hurricane's devastation" – "major" might be better IMHO
• "virtually destroyed the most important sites" – sites of what?

Florida

• "along the Atlantic coast of Florida, by August 31." – "on", remove the comma
• "By then, the low-lying coast near Apalachicola had already begun to flood." – PV
• "resulting in moderate to heavy rainfall amounts" – rainfall amounts can't be "heavy"; "producing moderate to heavy rainfall"
• "Apalachiacola" should be "Apalachicola"
• "the precipitation was of a less significant nature" → "the precipitation was less significant"
• "further away from the hurricane's center" → "farther"; farther = physical distance
• "Still, those totals represent a relatively dry storm" → "represented"
• "interior southern Florida" = "interior portions of southern Florida", right?
• "precipitation there was generally inconsequential" sounds like the precipitation didn't cause damage, when it should imply that it had little effect
• "Official gust reports include 75 mph (121 km/h) at Cedar Key" – "indicated winds of [...] at [...]"
• "Winds in Franklin County were estimated (unconfirmed)" → "Winds in Franklin County presumably approached [...], according to estimates"
• "The storm's effects were not limited to the shore, as fallen trees" – stick a "however" after the comma
• "Though Hurricane Elena never crossed Florida's coast, its drawn-out interaction with land agitated large swaths of the state's western shore." – "agitated" is rather flowery; "impacted" might be enough
• "were generally from the south or southwest" – "generally blew from the south or southwest"
• "quasi-permanent alterations" – again, "alterations" is a bit flowery, and IMHO, "impacts" or a similar word might work better
• "overwashing shifted the southern part of the island up to 330 ft (100 m) from its original settlement" – in which direction? Literally upward?
• "which was formed in 1921 after a hurricane" – link to the article, remove "was"
• "which had grown narrower very gradually" ... "As a result, Clearwater Beach had become connected" – PV
• "which lasted until 1991" – not an event; "existed"
• "likelihood of nearly continuous maintenance" → "likelihood of the necessity of nearly continuance maintenance"
• "with some damage" – weasel word alert! "damaged" might work if its severity isn't specified
• "allowing both the winds and the tide to enter its interior" seems like unnecessary detail IMHO
• "initially preventing residents from returning home" – residents of Cedar Key, located elsewhere, returning home, or individuals on Cedar Key prevented from returning to the mainland?
• "and at the height of the storm, over 500,000 of its residents were without electricity" is relatively unrelated to the statement preceding it; it might be a better idea to move it near the beginning of the paragraph
• "islands such as Dog Island, but mainly limited to poorly constructed buildings" → "; however, [it was] mainly limited..."
• "spawned several tornadoes over central Florida" – "several such tornadoes" might be a better wording, given the preceding sentences
• "Seven people were treated for non-life-threatening injuries, and later that same day, another tornado touched down over downtown Leesburg, with much less damage." The first part of the sentence describes the first tornado, the second describes a second one; perhaps the first portion could be merged to the previous sentence?
• "although it may have been hit" – PV

Alabama

• "as it accelerated toward its Gulf Coast landfall" → "as it accelerated toward the Gulf Coast"
• "were estimated to have reached" – PV
• "and concentrated damage closer" → "and damage concentrated closer"
• "cutting soybean production by 10%" – "reducing" is a better word for this, IMO
• "Farms had still been in the process of recovering" – PV
• "Further inland" → "Farther inland"

Mississippi

• "Several weather stations clocked sustained winds" – were the previous wind gusts not reported by stations? If they were reported by stations, then + "other"
• "city's buildings had been damaged" ... "by the time the storm had cleared" – PV
• "fed by broken natural gas pipe" – a gas pipe or gas pipes?
• Add an "in" in "particularly Gulfport and Biloxi"
• "generated beach erosion" → "caused beach erosion"
• "the hurricane took a large toll on pecan and soybean crops and farms" – shouldn't the "and" be an "on"?
• "Mississippi Power Company was responsible for 80,000 customers without power" – they didn't cause it; maybe "The storm left 80,000 customers under the jurisdiction of the Mississippi Power Company without power"?

Louisiana

• Meaning of "by nature of its northwestward track" is unclear
• "chiefly near Bogalusa" – "chiefly to areas near Bogalusa" might be clearer (the "to" is a personal preference)
• Oh yes, people are electric. "Throughout the state, at least 40,000 electric customers lost power" – "electric" is unnecessary per "lost power"

Elsewhere

• "Clinton to the south" → "To the south, Clinton"
• "experienced freshwater flooding Floodwaters" – period
• "one person died after a swollen creek swept her car off a bridge spanning it" – clarify that this was in Mountain Home

Aftermath

Florida

• "for all federal, state, and volunteer agencies" – "all" is unnecessary
• "Marking an early end to the annual "tourist season" ..." → "The hurricane created a 13% drop in visitors between October 1984 and October 1985 in Pinellas County, marking an early end to the annual "tourist season", which generally ends after Labor Day weekend; tourist spending fell accordingly."
• "residents were allowed to return to their neighborhoods on a by-town basis" – I'll assume that means some residents were barred out? If so, then you could prepend "certain" in here
• "obstructed evacuations" – well, most individuals /did/ evacuate; they alone wouldn't have prevented the evacuation as a whole from occurring
• "Power was mostly restored" → "Power was restored to most areas", given the situation at St. George's Island
• "service there was to take several additional days to restore" → "there, service was expected to be restored after several additional days"
• "which went into affect less than a month after the storm" – specific date?

Central Gulf Coast

• "and nighttime curfews were established in several cities" → "and as a result, ..."
• "estimated as many as 3,000 homes" → "estimated that..."
• "their occupants forced to" → "and as a result, their occupants forced to..."
• "Still, resources such as food and ice start to run short" → "started to run short"
• "able to reopen" → "which reopened" – they /were/ open for business, right?

That's everything I could find. (Comments made by HurricaneFan25)

Thanks HFan for the comments (and to TAM for posting them). I've addressed the first couple segments for now, and I'll get to the rest in due time. Juliancolton (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Followup – I've gone through this entire list of suggestions and corrections (thanks again!) and implemented most of them. There are several stylistic comments I disagreed with, and I'm too lazy to respond to each of them individually, but they don't have much of any effect on anything I don't think. Juliancolton (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support, with the caveat that I did the GA review and a subsequent A-class review. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "clarification needed" tag needs to be addressed
• FN5, 34: should use endash
• Compare formatting of FNs 32 and 65
• FN75: AP shouldn't be italicized. Same with FN114, 122
• FN136: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. I fixed everything except the page for ref 136, which I'll look for. Juliancolton (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (USGov, NASA, NOAA, Florida Photographic Collection, own work). Sources and authors provided.

• File:Florida counties map.png - added source link (no action required). GermanJoe (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Support – Phew! That one was heck of a read. I'm impressed with this one Julian, awesome job. Following the comments from Hink, I have no further concerns and I'm happy to support this! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- A belated welcome back, Julian. Just a couple of things:

• Although the article has had the requisite image/source checks, since it's been almost two years since your last FAC I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which I'll request at WT:FAC.
• While that's happening, be good to see someone outside the hurricane enthusiasts fraternity (whose expert opinion is highly valued BTW) continue where Dank left off to ensure general readability, absence of jargon, etc.
• A fair few dup links show up using the checker; some may well be justified given the article's length but pls review and drop those that aren't absolute necessary. Note that the script highlights the second and subsequent links of the same term, not the first. Grand Isles for instance shows up twice, meaning it's been link three times in the article.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the "welcome back" and comments! I've installed that link checker (which seems very useful) and made an effort to reduce unnecessary duplicate links (mostly cities). If it makes any difference, I felt like no time at all had passed when I started this article on the path to FAC. :) Juliancolton (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Source check
  • Did a partial spotcheck of statements sourced to this revision from refs 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 28, 31, 32, 35, and 55.
    • This source gives windspeed in knots, but it is given in mph/kph in the article. Given that a hasty conversion gives the actual mph as 126mph instead of the stated 125 mph in the article, I think it's reasonable to leave the conversions to the template and give the original speed as presented in references; this conversion occurs other places, such as citations to ref 11 where original data was given as meters.
      • (non-author comment) the NHC rounds 110 knots to 125 mph, so we round to 125 mph, so all hurricane articles who intensity was 100 knts, we use 125 mph. This may explain some of the conversions. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Basically ↑. If the measurement starts out as an approximation or a descriptive threshold, it gets rounded to the nearest 5 to stay true to form. Otherwise it would be converted more faithfully. Juliancolton (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The line The unpredictable nature of the hurricane, in conjunction with its arrival at popular tourist destinations on the Labor Day holiday weekend, severely complicated preparations along the Gulf Coast. to me does not seem to be adequately covered by the citation to p252 Barnes[11]
      • Eh... I think it does. The statement sums up what the entire page of the book says (multiple turns, huge amounts of people owing to locations in line of fire). It's not a cut-and-paste from the source, true, but there's nothing inaccurate or unsupported in "my" sentence IMO. Juliancolton (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • though noteworthy damage occurred across large areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, with impacts documented as far west as South Padre Island, Texas, and as far north as Kentucky. Nine deaths were attributed to the hurricane in four states and on the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and 134 people along Elena's path were hospitalized, many of them due to storm-related stress. does not appear to be adequately sourced to [12] (as a note, adding page numbers for some of these references would greatly help. For example, it's difficulty to source particular statements in ref 55 because page numbers are not given to correspond with those in the PDF.)
      • Well, most of that snippet is descriptive summary material derived from simple calculations/reckonings based on the rest of the article, kind of like a mini-intro. It's my understanding that those kinds of things don't need to be sourced. The only thing the given ref was intended to back up was the injury count (though admittedly I used the wrong refname... oops. Fixed that, but the rest of my rationale stands). Juliancolton (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the spotcheck. I'll look into adding page numbers for some of the more extensive sources. Juliancolton (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I hate to be pushy as I appreciate everyone's work here, but is there any chance you (or another reviewer) could finalize this source review? I'm going away next week, and if the article does indeed suffer from fundamental sourcing issues, I'd like to have some time to work on improvements before my absence. Juliancolton (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. I have no problem with this being considered a Featured Article.--12george1 (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. Don't see why this isn't a featured article.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 15:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I went to carry on with the source checks but, with all due respect, I'm not going to wade through a 33-page PDF (ref 59) to find the supporting text for one statement in the article. I won't go so far as to say the article fails 1c, but it's certainly not easily verifiable to interested readers. If the delegates are not satisfied with the amount of source checking David did, you may have to add page numbers to get anyone to finish it. --Laser brain (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've started adding page numbers to the longer PDFs to make everything more readily verifiable. Should be done by tomorrow. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll be more than happy to finish the source review when you're done. Nice to see you back in action. --Laser brain (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Should be good to go, and I do agree that the article is better for having seen these fixes. Looking forward to any additional suggestions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Additional source spot-check

• Ref 59:

• Article text: "Along the predominately marshy coasts of Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus counties, erosion and structural damage were much more limited, partly due to the local southerly or southeasterly wind direction."
• Source text: Failed verification. Page number given supports "marshy", but page does not support the rest of the statement.

• Ref 63:

• Article text: "leaving the bridge with unspecified damage"
• Source text: OK.

• Ref 86:

• Article text: "The center of Elena passed 30 mi (50 km) south of mainland Alabama as it accelerated toward the Gulf Coast, impacting the state's two-county coast and offshore islands. Wind gusts at Dauphin Island, situated much closer to the hurricane's eye, were estimated to have reached 130 mph (210 km/h)"
• Source text: Failed verification. Source is a broken link.

• Ref 87(d):

• Source text: "An unofficial and early estimate of losses on the island was $30 million."
• Article text: OK.

Based on the 50% failure rate, I'd say there's stuff to do. I ran the external link checker and ref 86 is the only broken one. --Laser brain (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm missing. :/ Page 2 of ref 59 (direct link) certainly backs that statement about the marsh coast. See the first and third sentences of the second paragraph, which define the geographical area, then the first sentence of the third paragraph, which says damage in this area was limited. Seven reasons to explain why are then listed, including (3) which explains the wind direction. Ref 86 worked recently for me so I'll look for a replacement link right away. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see. It's an incorrect citation. You want to cite page "ii" which is the abstract. I was looking at the actual page "2" of the PDF, which if you select from the drop-down is just a chart. --Laser brain (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to list them all here, but I did another batch of four spot-checks and didn't find any issues. I think if we can update that PDF link we're in a pretty good spot. --Laser brain (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for following up. How's that? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:19, 1 August 2013 (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) 01:43, 3 August 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [13].

---

Djaoeh Dimata

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I'm pretty sure it's ready. Unlike our previous Indies film FAs, this one had absolutely no involvement from Roekiah (who had been three years in the grave when this was released) or Kartolo. Djaoeh Dimata was the first domestic feature film released in the Indonesian archipelago in five years, following the Japanese occupation and first few years of the Indonesian National Revolution. As such (and surprisingly to me) it got decent coverage in Dutch newspapers, allowing this article to go into further detail than any other sources I've found. After a GA review from Jimfbleak and a PR from Cassianto, SchroCat, Sarastro1, and Wehwalt, I think the prose should be quite shining. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Images are both fine, copyright-wise. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikki! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Support and minor comment. I did the GA review, and I can't see any new issues. I just wonder in the first line of Plot if "is" is more natural than "rendered"? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking. Went with "thus". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Per resolved comments at peer review. I believe this article to be well referenced, comprehensive and with an excellent level of prose. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Cas! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my comments at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • And, as always, thanks for your tireless efforts at PR (and writing). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed at the PR and my very minor issues were addressed there. Another good piece of work. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: Another peer reviewer who came away very happy after reading another excellent article. Good work! - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, both of you. Always glad for your feedback. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - a nice article about an interesting topic, just some minor issues and questions:

• lead "... cost [almost] 130,000 gulden." => almost (lead) or approximately (main text)?

• Just under, by the source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Forgot to fix in the article; done now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Plot => I am usually all for brief plots, but this section seems rather short. 1-2 more sentences would help to add some more flow to the plot's narrative. Also Djauhari Effendi's role could be introduced (see below).

• Not in sources (none of the contemporary sources give more). The film cannot be consulted as, even though a copy survives at Sinematek, it is 1) not in wide circulation (not on Youtube like Darah dan Doa, for instance, and rereleases of early Indonesian films are few and far between [the earliest I've seen are from around 1970]) and 2) likely in terrible condition (if we look at other films from around this period, Srigala Item had to be excised because of rot and Lewat Djam Malam took $200,000 of restoration to bring it back to viewable condition [and even then there was still damage that could not be fixed). I don't have any secondary sources which state explicitly what condition Djaoeh Dimata is in, though I could call Sinematek if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Production "...the Dutch cinematographer, A.A. Denninghoff-Stelling," => just checking, is the full name unknown? Should use full name, if possible.

• No full name in any of my sources. This is, in itself, not unusual: G. Krugers and Flip Carli's first names seem to have been lost to history as well. Contemporary newspapers that I've read tended to not give the first name of Dutch people mentioned, just their initial(s) and family name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...The film starred Ratna Asmara [(wife of Andjar)], ..." => the statement doesn't mention the character roles for the other actors, why only for Ratna Asmara? (it's all in the plot anyway, except the last one).

• That's not her character: she was married to Andjar, though Asmara seems to have been a shared stage name rather than a family name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Duh, brain fart - all those strange names confuse me. GermanJoe (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The film starred Ratna Asmara (wife of Andjar), Ali Yugo, Iskandar Sucarno, and Djauhari Effendi," => can Djauhari Effendi's role be mentioned in the plot? All others are already included.

• Not in sources. Djauhari could be removed rather than begging a question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe a footnote? But fine either way, no biggie. GermanJoe (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...constructed by artistic director [H.M. Angin]" => full name available?

• Hajopan Bajo Angin (confirmed here), seems the contemporary newspaper got the second initial wrong. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Principal photography was conducted on sets constructed by artistic director H.M. Angin in SFPC's studio in Jakarta. The company's equipment was of good quality, but conditions were detrimental to filming; a contemporary report notes that one take, done inside the studio, was ruined by the sound of a passing car." => source(s)? The next sentence has 3 split sources, so it's unclear which source fits here.

• Rescued (actually has a still showing Andjar behind the camera too, but shame that's a Dutch newspaper). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Release "Djaoeh Dimata was released in late 1948, the first domestic feature film since Berdjoang. Despite this [large chronological gap] ..." => specify the gap (again) to clarify the context. Berdjoang is mentioned already, but 5 paragraphs earlier.

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• "film critic Usmar Ismail writes that it did not stray from the formula which had been introduced by Albert Balink in Terang Boelan (Full Moon; 1937) and since proven popular: songs, beautiful scenery and romance." => please double-check for close paraphrasing. Would a direct quote of the original thoughts be better here or is it a summary of a longer analysis?

• No close paraphrasing, but upon rereading he doesn't seem to have explicitly pointed out said formula (though it's clear that he's looking at Terang Boelan's indirect influence through the Chinese film producers; have clarified . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• "A review in the Jakarta-based ..." => can you name the author instead to avoid 3 "review" in a row? Also the source link didn't work for me (dead?).

• Anonymous, all of 'em. Source is working for me (1). Have tried a bit of rephrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Andjar went on to direct two [further] films ..." - further is redundant with "went on".

• Reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing really critical (and sorry, if some of those points may have come up during PR already). GermanJoe (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• One more in Release "One in the Jakarta-based Het Dagblad found the film to have many weak moments ... " - just checking (my Dutch is non-existant), any good examples of such moments or specific criticism mentioned in the source article? A bit vague at the moment. GermanJoe (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• The article mentions unspecified technical difficulties as hurdles, but they don't specify and shortcomings (and camerawork is technical anyways). Added "unspecified". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - thanks for the quick tweaks and explanations above. It's unfortunate, that nothing more is known about such movies, but the current article seems comprehensive and well-researched. GermanJoe (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed :-( Thanks for the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - Everything looks good, except the Mooney ref seems to state the wrong page number. It should be F1, for page one in the Financial section. --Laser brain (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Got that. It's actually spread across two pages (F1 and F2, apparently) so I've just added the F. Thanks for the source review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, I'm in the habit of watching films whose articles I review. This seems hopeless though—I can't find a home video release of this film anywhere (at least in the English-language web). Is there any hope of seeing the film? --Laser brain (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have very little hope of that (even for myself) for reasons I've explained to GermanJoe above, although I can contact Sinematek Indonesia if really necessary. The earliest Indonesian film which is readily accessible is Darah dan Doa (1950), and that's mostly because a group uploaded the full film onto Youtube; there don't seem to be any VCD or DVD copies available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I also note that the only WorldCat entry for a fiction film with "Djaoeh Dimata" or its variant spellings as the title is a 1964 Malaysian film; any other video entries appear to be related to kroncong music. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2013 (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) 16:20, 2 August 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [14].

---

Terry-Thomas

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC) & Cassianto^Talk 09:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Cad, bounder, rotter and an absolute shower! Terry-Thomas was one of the most colourful, popular and best-known comedians of post-war Britain. A broad and rich career on stage, television and radio, he exported his portrayal of the silly-ass Englishman from British films such as Private's Progress, Carlton-Browne of the F.O. and I'm All Right Jack to Hollywood, where he depicted an upper-class English twit in a number of films, including It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and How to Murder Your Wife. From the height of fame and considerable fortune he was struck down with "perfidious Parkinson's" which ended his career early and drove him into poverty, where he survived on charitable hand-outs. A good peer review here saw the odd wrinkles ironed out. We hope reviewers enjoy reading about such a colourful character as much as we have enjoyed writing about him. – SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC) & Cassianto^Talk 09:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support based on my PR. I'll have to recuse myself from looking at the images, having uploaded several myself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Crisco, for all your time and efforts in PR, here and in the work you did with the images: all very much appreciated and your efforts have gone a long way to making this article what it is today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed entirely. Thanks Crisco! -- Cassianto^Talk 13:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN22, 69: page formatting

• Done. I caught another one too. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated, and if so how

• Now sorted - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• FN241: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Now added (it wasn't in the original LexisNexis results, but I've picked it up directly from the Guardian archives). Many thanks NM for taking the time to look through: it's very much appreciated. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. I had the pleasure of peer reviewing the article. It was then plainly well on its way to FA quality, and is now there, in my view. Other must comment on the pictures (I am too ignorant of WP's rules about images) but the text meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. It is full but not overfull, the proportions are judicious, the referencing scrupulous and the prose a pleasure to read. Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your very thorough peer review: the standard the article enjoys now is as much down to the generous participation of the three reviewers as it was our efforts. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Review by Sarastro1

Comments: I've got to the end of the war section so far, and it is a very good read. I've found a few prose issues, mainly over redundancy or phrasing. But nothing major. More to come later. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead:

• "He spent several years appearing in smaller roles, before wartime service with Entertainments National Service Association (ENSA) and Stars in Battledress saw him sharpen his cabaret and revue act, and build an increased public profile.": This use of "saw" is something I find rather clumsy and I think it is best avoided. What about "He spent several years appearing in smaller roles, before wartime service with Entertainments National Service Association (ENSA) and Stars in Battledress sharpened his cabaret and revue act, and increased his public profile."

• Thanks for the review. I went for: "He spent several years appearing in smaller roles, before wartime service with Entertainments National Service Association (ENSA) and Stars in Battledress. The experience helped sharpen his cabaret and revue act, increasing his public profile." -- Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "His time with ENSA helped him develop a successful comic stage routine upon his demobilisation": Not sure about this. "helped him develop" sounds a bit uncomfortable, and I wonder if the demob part could be moved to the next sentence, where it may fit better.

• Done. I have gone with: "The experience helped sharpen his cabaret and revue act, increasing his public profile and proved instrumental in the development of his successful comic stage routine. Upon his demobilisation, he starred in Piccadilly Hayride on the London stage was the star of the first comedy series on British television, How Do You View? (1949)." -- Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "He appeared increasingly on various BBC radio shows": Perhaps better as "increasingly appeared"?

• Swapped round. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "He had his most creative period during the 1950s": Maybe "His most creative period was the 1950s".

• Either was good with me, I went with yours. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "From the mid-1960s he appeared increasingly": This phrase already used in the lead.

• True. How about: "frequently starred"? -- Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Early life:

• "He led a generally happy childhood, but regularly felt that his parents harboured a secret desire to have a daughter in his place.": "regularly felt" does not quite work for me. Perhaps "often felt" would be better, but I would be inclined to replace that phrase with something like "but believed that his parents secretly desired a daughter in his place".

• Yep, now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The performances seldom worked, and his father became increasingly distant with his family.": Minor point, but would "distant from his family" work better? "Distant with" sounds like an error (although it probably isn't, and I understand the intention). Depending on what was happening, "removed from" would also work.

• I've gone with "removed from" - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Terry-Thomas became interested in the stage, and regularly attended the Golders Green Hippodrome to see the latest shows. It was there that he developed an interest in fashion": interested … interest. Also, we could perhaps cut back to "There, he developed an interest…"

• Both points addressed - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "It was the latter subject which later earned him an expulsion from the school for his frequent and inappropriate use of ad lib during lessons. As well as drama, he also took up a position in the school jazz band, first playing the ukulele and then percussion. Together with his ability to play instruments, [Additionally,] he often performed comedy dancing routines to the band's music.": Redundancy?

• Yes: re-worked along your lines - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "and relished in the association with his upper middle class school friends": Maybe "relished his association with upper middle class school friends"?

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "His confidence at school grew, causing him to mature more quickly.": This doesn't quite seem to fit with the surrounding sentences, and comes a bit out of the blue. Did he lack confidence? And more quickly that what/who?

• Re-worked this bit to provide a little more background and sense - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• "his more grown-up manner impressed": grown-up seems a little unencyclopedic.

• Now "mature" - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "His characterisations soon came to the notice of the company's management who prompted him to enrol in the company's amateur drama club, where he became a popular member.": Is this important?

• Not really: cut - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1933 he left Smithfield Market to work with a friend at an electrical shop. The employment was brief and he eventually took to selling electrical equipment as a travelling salesman.": Maybe "In 1933 he left Smithfield Market to work briefly with a friend at an electrical shop before he became travelling salesman of electrical equipment."

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "In his spare time he began playing the ukulele with a local jazz band called the Rhythm Maniacs for whom he played the ukulele": Repetition

• Yes, trimmed - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Together with his musician's role, he took up dancing and formed a partnership with a sister of Jessie Matthews.": Redundant?

• Ditto! - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Early performances:

• "who introduced him to the idea of also working in the industry"

• Nice spot! -- Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Second paragraph: Lots of repetition of "changed"

• Done. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Second World War:

• "he made sure that he was sent on tour to France where his girlfriend was due to perform": As we have not met this girlfriend, and at first I thought I'd missed someone, maybe just "a girlfriend"?

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "and his hearing was still problematic, following the damage caused during the filming of This'll Make You Whistle": Do we need to repeat how it was caused in this section? It was only a few paragraphs ago.

• Yep, removed - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• How was he able to get compassionate leave to perform? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• This was a question raised at PR too: unfortunately there are scant details, except that he lied! - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Provisional support: I wasn't going to finish this tonight, but got engrossed in reading the rest, so here are my final comments. Nothing at all major, and happy to switch to full support when these nitpicks are addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Early post war work':

• "Terry-Thomas compered the show, as well as appearing in some of the sketches, including his own "Technical Hitch" routine.": Is the comma after show needed?

• No: now removed - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Piccadilly Hayride ran for 778 performances and culminated on 17 January 1948": Culminated implies some sort of climax, and I wonder if it is the right word.

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "along with his wife": Alongside, rather than along with?

• Alongside it is - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "noted for being the first comedy series on British television": Noted by whom? Also, this is quite a big claim and I would be more comfortable with a source which was not about Terry-Thomas. Biographers are well-known for inflating their subjects' claims to fame, and while there is no reason to doubt this, perhaps a more independent source would be a good thing. But this is not a huge deal for me either way.

• I'll dig something out on this as I think others have also said this - SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• New and independent source now added (there are also some others which repeat the claim) - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The series, which was also written by Terry-Thomas": As this seems rather important, maybe move the fact earlier in the section?

• Yes: I've re-worked this, with this being at the front of the section. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• "with the final episode being broadcast on 11 June 1952.": noun plus ing. Maybe just "The final episode was broadcast…"

• Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "on the small screen": A touch too informal?

• Changed - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

British film years:

• "In February 1956 Terry-Thomas appeared on Desert Island Discs, and chose two songs from his "Technical Hitch" routine as part of his selection": I'm struggling to know why this is important enough to include, particularly for a potentially international audience!

• I think Desert Island Discs is known internationally to some extent and it's certainly a mark of some distinction in the UK (well, two appearances, maybe!) Are there any other international reviewers who can advise on this too? If there are others who think it's superfluous, then we'll take it out. - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Do we need to make it clear that his films were comedies, or is it obvious enough?

• I think it's just obvious enough, and I'm not sure where we would put the information if it was to be included. If you can suggest a good place to add it, then I'll drop it in, just to cover the point for those who don't know him. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• "his desired characterisation was that of a silly-ass sergeant major, but the role was written as a strict, alcohol- and prescription drug-dependent Army officer instead": I'm not quite clear on this. Who "desired" that characterisation? T-T? Or someone else. Perhaps "silly-ass" needs some quotation marks. And I think "instead: may be redundant.

• Copy edited. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "with Terry-Thomas becoming thoroughly prepared and organised in future": noun plus ing.

• I figured this was redundant, so deleted the whole line. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Graham McCann considered, each actor "highlight[ed] what was special about the other"": Without context, I'm not too sure what this means.

• Clarified. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "something he found trying on his nervous system.": Slipping into editorial voice here? And maybe too informal?

Breaking into Hollywood:

• "Alongside How to Murder Your Wife, 1965 saw two further releases ": Another "saw".

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

European cinema:

• "The rest of the year saw him": Saw…

• Yep, reworked. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Again, I'm unconvinced by the need to include Desert Island Discs.

Screen persona

• "Terry-Thomas was happy to do his own stunt work, which he did for films such as A Matter of WHO and Bachelor Flat; he later said "I like to do my own stunts"": I don't think we need the quote AND the sentence before it. One or the other would suffice.

• I struggled over this during the writing: now re-worked, I think! - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

• The "amiable bounder" quote is used twice, once in each of the first two paragraphs.

• Good spot! Interestingly it's from two different sources; I've removed the second and re-worded - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Terry-Thomas's anecdotes, stringing several stories together, were later used by Ronnie Corbett in his monologue spot in his series The Two Ronnies.": As written, this suggests that Corbett stole his anecdotes! Maybe replaced "were later used by" with "later inspired".

• Yep: done - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

General

• This is very readable, but the only sections which are a little harder work are the film sections, which maybe become a little list-y. My preference would not be to reference so many of his works, but this is not an issue which affects my support and do not feel that you must take any action here. Great work. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks Sarastro1 - a great review and one we'll diligently work through! - SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: There is one unaddressed point (about confidence at school) which I tweaked myself, and the Desert Island Discs does not bother me either way. This is a great piece of work which I think comfortably meets the criteria, and I am happy to support now. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's great: many thanks indeed! I've tweaked the confidence point to provide a little more background - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wonderful news, thank you for taking the time to review. As always, your review is much appreciated. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-1923, PD-US-no-notice, own work). Sources and authors provided.

• Tweaked some summaries and a caption for clarity.
• "No notice" images have backside of photograph with initial upload for verification - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many, many thanks GermanJoe: your help here is much appreciated, as was your advice earlier on the intricacies of international copyright! - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks Joe :) -- Cassianto^Talk 22:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: I did a fairly lengthy peer review which I knew hadn't picked up everything, but others have since stepped in. I have also made a number of small alterations during my final read-through. This article is a good, enjoyable read which deals with the subject very thoroughly. There is, however, one sentence still bothering me: "His time spent in the British film industry had served him well, with the film historian Geoff Mayer writing that "his creative period was confined primarily to the period between 1956 and 1960". The two halves of the sentence are unrelated, and neither part adds anything significant to the article. Why not cut it? Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have cut the line out Brian. Thank you very much for the review and your extensive work at peer review. As always, your involvement has been invaluable. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's wonderful: thank you so much Brian for your work on this, both here and at the PR. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations There's no value in wikilinking big generalist publishers such as BBC Books or Cambridge University Press. It doesn't help anyone who's checking a reference. (Template:Cite_book/doc#Publisher says "may be wikilinked if relevant", and these have no special relevance.) Colonies Chris (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi CC, Yes, it's more a matter of consistency, with all the others being linked. I have found it helpful in the past to have the links in place, and having them there does no harm in a biblio. - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what use any of the publisher links could possibly be. I just identified a couple of the most obvious, but none of them have any particular relevance to the subject. And if one did, that link would stand out better for not being surrounded by others that are irrelevant. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris, thanks for coming back. I appreciate that you don't see the use in them, but others—including me—have found them useful in the past. As these links are in non-prose sections, and therefore less likely to break the narrative flow, then having them causes no problems to the reader and could help some. Unless others feel strongly about removing them, I'd prefer to see them remain. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me about how a link to a generalist publisher such as these could be useful when checking a reference? Colonies Chris (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I am not sure why you are pushing this point so much: I have said that if others feel strongly about the links being there then I will reluctantly take them down. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pushing it because overlinking not only does no favours to our readership, it erodes their trust that the links we provide will help them improve their understanding of the topic. WP:BTW suggests we should ask ourselves "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?". I suggest that the likelihood of anyone gaining benefit from these links is very low indeed. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already said that I have found them useful in the past. I've also said that if others comment on it, then I will reluctantly remove the links, which I think are acceptable under the MoS. I think we should leave it there for the present until others say otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur with SchroCat. I also find them very useful. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Schro and Cass. Personal preference: unlinked publishers not required by MOS or WP:FA? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(←) So now a couple of people have said that they find links to generalist publishers in the refs useful - could someone please give a concrete example of how it's useful? Colonies Chris (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No because it is not relevent to this FAC. We have decided to keep them as they are, and that's what is going to happen. Let's move on. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Until it is a codified requirement according to the MOS (which would mean all FAs should follow it) your issue is not one that must be actioned. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Is an infobox required/preferred? EddieHugh (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The MOS states that they are "neither required nor prohibited" for any article, which is a factor the FA procedure observes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2013 (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) 16:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ian, Manh thanks for your edits and the close - and many thanks to all those who took the time to comment earlier. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No prob; given the number of experienced reviewers I'd intended just to spotcheck prose in the lead and a para or two in the body, as I would before any promotion, but got hooked and speed-read the whole article (he was always a favourite, along with Sellers and co.) and there was only one section where I felt the prose could stand small improvements. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [15].

---

Boletus badius

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC) & Sasata (talk · contribs) 07:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sasata (talk · contribs) and I are nominating this for featured article because it has been reviewed and worked on pretty thoroughly..and we feel we've done everything we can think of. So folks let us know what else we need to do to get this to its best. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber, Sasata. To the nominators: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Be consistent in how editions are formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments nitpicks only;

• is smooth and coloured in similar though paler tones to the cap - hard to parse.
• Review of the genus Xerocomus strongly suggested it was polyphyletic, and the genus was not accepted by some mycologists. The stickiness of its wet cap distinguishes it from other species classified within the genus, and hence it has been left in the genus Boletus pending further research.[10] - too many instances of the word genus ;)
• a larger group informally called anaxoboletus within the Boletineae - are they called "anaxoboletus within the Boletineae"? Maybe punctuation needed.

That's it for now; looks to be well sourced, comprehensive and it reads well. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Ceoil; I've smoothed out the bumpy prose above. Sasata (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy to support, the article was an interesting and accessible read. Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim just a few niggles before I support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• in prolific numbers—prolificly?

hmmm, I feel the former carries a more vivid and engaging tone. I am still pondering though.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not a big deal either way Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• as thus—thus or as such

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• līmātǔlus—why the stresses? Not normally given in Wikipedia articles, not done elsewhere in this FAC

they were in the Latin dictionary - as this is discussing the original word as used in Latin rather than the botanical usage...but I see your point. accents removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• FeSO4—name of compound missing (I don't mind if you have ferrous or iron(II) sulphate)

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why the US sulfate rather than the suggested BE sulphate? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

forgot - fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Mucor, Sepedonium sp., Paecilomyces sp. and Diasporangium sp.—either need a sp. after Mucor, or, better, Mucor, Sepedonium, Paecilomyces and Diasporangium species

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• According to a Turkish study, the mushroom has excellent antioxidative properties—stated as if a good thing, discredited science now, see the linked article.

• I changed this to "In laboratory experiments, extracts of Boletus badius fruit bodies have been shown to have significant antioxidative properties in vitro". ("significant" is a wording used by the source, as was "excellent"). I'm not sure what you mean by discredited science, nor which linked article you refer to. Sasata (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Discredited" may have been a bit strong. It used to be thought that anti-oxidants in foods had beneficial properties (and food companies still promote that), but that's long been proved incorrect, as explained in the antioxidative article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• but I could distinguish from the only example I have seen, nor could I—Doesn't make sense. My Latin is very rusty, but he seems to be saying that he tried to distinguish it but couldn't

yes that was my understanding as well...but my Latin is rusty and that was google translate. I will double check with someone whose Latin is less rusty.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I got an answer. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see my "O" level latin wasn't entirely wasted! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• No other concerns, supporting above.

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth. Looks good. I will have a detailed look later.

• There are a few duplicate wikilinks in the Taxonomy section.

got 'em Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

... More to come Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• "... pigment that concentrates radioactive caesium ..." What does it do with non-radioactive isotopes of caesium?

not sure - the paper deals exclusively with radioactive isotopes.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article on caesium, it seems to be an uncommon mineral and I daresay this mushroom would concentrate any isotope but doesn't normally encounter the stuff at all. Its only when it falls from the sky and happens to be a radioactive isotope that it gets the chance. I guess bioaccumulation occurs when an organism has no metabolic pathways to deal with a product it meets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can generalize like this; this particular mushroom accumulates radioactive caesium because it contains a pigment, norbadione A, that specifically binds to it (which is why it is being researched for possible use in bioremediation of contaminated sites). As to your original question, my guess is that it also would bioaccumulate non-radioactive caesium, but this has not been discussed in the literature probably because is is not very toxic and so not of great scientific interest. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In terms of will it bind to a element the isotopes do not matter. If it accumulates radioactive caesium it will accumulate caesium. The main difference in the exact nature of the accumulation is the relative "speed" of the reaction. Lighter isotopes are used in biological chemical reactions at a slightly higher rate than the heavy counterpart. This is the basis of isotopic fractionization and its use in illuminating nutritional strategies. Erik Hobbie is pretty active in this work.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• What is "porcini"?

an Italian term which has become the most popular common name for Boletus edulis - hence the clade is B. edulis and close relatives and called by the authors the porcini clade. At some stage in the future, once the genus is fractured the term will redirect to the (much smaller) genus I think... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, "porcini" is used, even in the food industry, to refer to B. edulis and close relatives. In the scientific community porcini=Boletus sensu stricto, which now formally includes more than it did in the 2010 Dentinger paper (he had Xanthoconium separans as outside the Boletus s.str.). We formally returned separans to Boletus and two other species.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• "... Swedish naturalist Elias Magnus Fries. Rolf Singer ..." - I think it is unfortunate finishing one sentence with a name and starting the next one with one like this as it is easy to overlook the period when reading the passage and be confused.

that is hard - my initial thoughts are that any rewording make the flow more ungainly. Do you think it is better now Fries is de-linked and Singer remains blue? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• You could wikilink ventricose and cheilocystidia.

both linked - the latter one is a duplicate link to cystidium, but is worthwhile given the esoteric nature of the word Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The variety glaber has a smooth (glabrous) stipe" - How does this differ from the stipe of the main variety?

• I have added a few details about the stipe surface texture of the main variety, so the interested reader should now have no problem distinguishing the two. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The bay bolete is common in coniferous and less commonly mixed woodlands in Europe, from the British Isles, where it is abundant throughout, east to the Black Sea Region in Turkey." - This sentence is a bit complex. Would it be better to say about the British Isles, "throughout which it is abundant"? And maybe Region should not be capitalised.

'Black Sea Region' seems to be all capitalised on a quick google scan Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The North American distribution extends from eastern Canada west to Minnesota and south to North Carolina, where it fruits from July to November." I don't think the distribution can fruit!

• Good eye, fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• "... have had an effect on populations in China," - Does it occur in mainland China as well as Taiwan?

yup - added mainland China Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The tendency for the pores to absorb water means that wiping rather than washing is recommended before using in the kitchen." - I would say "use" rather than "using".

gerund overload in sentence reduced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Polish studies found that although the mushroom bioaccumulates mercury and cobalt from the soil, occasional consumption of mushrooms should not exceed maximum allowable intake doses." - I find this sentence ambiguous. How about "... occasional consumption of mushrooms should not cause maximum allowable intake doses to be exceeded"?

• That's much better, changed. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's all the rather trivial prose concerns I have at the moment. Altogether, a very nice article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• The points I raised have been satisfactorily addressed and I now support this candidacy on grounds of comprehensiveness and prose quality. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Support. The prose doesn't seem as a choppy as it was just after the GA review. Answers all the questions, well sourced and formatted. Again (to reiterate from the GA review), the only worry would be the lack of mention of some described forms/varieties. I'm not going to withhold my support on that point, but I do wonder whether there is a place in the article for them. J Milburn (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's funny - the prose of this article was stubbornly choppy and seemed to require more tinkering than normal to smoothe out (still with some chores above!). I will be at the uni library today which might be good in terms of finding more about subspecies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been reluctant to mention them in this article because they don't seem taxonomically relevant: they are mostly historical, and I have been unable to find reference to most in my more recent literature. I wouldn't be adverse to including a line like: "Other historical varieties and forms that have been described include ..., ..., and ...; these are not considered taxonomically significant.<refs to IF/MycoBank pages> Does that sound reasonable? Sasata (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2013 (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) 16:31, 2 August 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [16].

---

Charles-Valentin Alkan

Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this Good Article for Featured Article status because I believe it meets all the FA standards. I am grateful to other editors who have constructively queried aspects and corrected my terrible typing. Also to those editors who participated in the GA review. 2013 is the 200th anniversary of Alkan's birth and I hope this would be an appropriate celebration.Smerus (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments for corrections/alterations

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

Some comments in passing:

• Ref 152, isn't that radio broadcast copyrighted on YouTube? To my knowledge we don't accept direct copyrighted references but you can reference it without the youtube link.
• Ref 153 Obituary of Smith in The Guardian, 8 July 2004, accessed 16 May 2013. Italicize The Guardian.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - have corrected ref 153. Re ref 152, it doesn't seem to be copyrighted on YouTube, but this is not vry clear - Apparently it is from a 1997 (?commercial) Japanese video. I am trying to find the name of the publisher and any other details, and will then substitute these.--Smerus (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I now find this is from a Japanese TV broadcast of 1997. Although it is not clear from YouTube itself, I would guess this to be in fact a copyright video and therefore to cite it would probably infringe WP:YT. I am not sure therefore how to cite it otherwise, as I cannot identify the original broadcaster or broadcast date. In fact I contacted Hamelin himself about it and he doesn't know details of the source, though he tells me he stands by the comment (but that of course counts as WP:OR). It would be a pity to cut the quote out; I should be grateful for further advice from anyone out there.....--Smerus (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You should state the programme title and the Japanese TV channel and year/date if possible that's fine "The introduction to the talk can be found here on YouTube (accessed 17 May 2013); the other sections are also available on YouTube.\3 isn't acceptable please replace with a proper citation to the 1997 TV episode without the url.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

OK have done this.--Smerus (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead -

• "in which city " a city in which?
• "The latter includes his Symphony for Piano Solo (Op. 39. nos. 4–7) and Concerto for Piano Solo (Op. 39 nos. 8–10)". What key were these in for reference sake?
• "Virtually all of his music is for the keyboard." I'd be inclined to merge that which seems a little out of context with "During this period he published, amongst other works, his collections of large-scale studies in all the major keys (Op. 35) and all the minor keys (Op. 39)." Virtually all of his music is for the keyboard.
• "He was himself fluent in Hebrew and Greek, and devoted much time to a complete translation of the Bible into French." Don't like the "He was himself", I'd word it as "Fluent in Hebrew and Greek, he also devoted much time to a complete translation of the Bible into French."

Prodigy

• Citations needed for child prodigy and "the records of his auditions survive in the Archives Nationales in Paris."
• Sometimes the tense seems a little odd. "At Charles-Valentin's piano audition on 6 October 1820, when he was nearly seven (and where he is named as "Alkan (Morhange) Valentin"), the examiners comment"

Given that it happened nearly 200 years ago speaking in the present tense seems odd, I'd rather you spoke in past tense throughout and say "the examiners commented".

• "One of Charles-Valentin's pupils there, later to become his bête noire, Antoine Marmontel, wrote of the school:"

I'd shuffle this and write it as "Antoine Marmontel, one of Charles-Valentin's pupils there who was later to become his bête noire, wrote of the school:"

• "leading Paris salons" I'd write is as either "leading Parisian salons", or "leading salons in Paris". I've reworded and also changed the word Parisian to in Paris below where it seems more appropriate to do so.
• "He was probably introduced to these venues by Zimmermann." Had to double check again who Zimmermann was, can you just add "by his tutor Zimmermann" just so people don't have to check?
• Tim Riley might wish to offer his opinion on this but I see you use "amongst" a lot, and I vaguely remember than he picked up on something like that in my article and encouraged the use of "among" and "while" instead of "whilst". I'll ask him about this.
  • And now asked. I try to follow the old saw "prefer the short word to the long" - thus I always favour "while" and "among" rather than "whilst" and "amongst", and, if asked, I recommend them to anyone who wants my views. But it's not a matter of right or wrong. De gustibus etc. I am on record as full of praise for the article, and I remain so. Tim riley (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's all for now, don't wish to overwhelm you. I will continue in another sizeable chunk later.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 13:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Concerto/Symphony for Solo Piano use progressive tonality, as they form part of a set of études in all minor keys. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have caught up with all of these I think, many thanks. I gave an additonal cite for 'prodigy' but the other matters in the paragraph are all covered by the cite at its end. The progressive tonality of the minor key etudes I have dealt with in a note (note 9) when they crop up later in the artcle, as I think this would be too heavy for the lede. I have taken advantage of Tim's dispensation to leave my - sts in situ. Thanks to you, TQ,and Tim - I await the next episode.--Smerus (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both. Moving on..

Early fame -

• "Elegant social circles", do you mean "eminent/distinguished social circles"? I think it fits better with what you're trying to say, I'd favour distinguished I think.
• "It is not clear exactly when he first met Frédéric Chopin, who arrived in Paris in late 1831." Citation would be good here.
• "which was to result in an extended and often intimate correspondence which has only come to light in recent years.[29] Like virtually all of Alkan's correspondence, this exchange is one-sided;" Again the tense, was resulted and was one-sided.
• "in recent years". How recent, when? I'd rather see something like "since the 1990s" or whatever.
• "all his papers" - I think it should be "all of his papers"
• "the Twelve Caprices, that were published in 1837 as Opp. 12, 13, 15 and 16" . I think you can remove "that were" here.
• ". In January 1836, Liszt recommended Alkan for the post of Professor at the Geneva Conservatoire, which, however, Alkan turned down," "In January 1836, Liszt recommended Alkan for the post of Professor at the Geneva Conservatoire, but it was declined by Alkan" would read better.

Square d'Orléans -

• I'd rather not have a French article link in the article. Can you create a brief stub on it, I'll aim to add to it within the next few days if you do.
• "From 1837, Alkan lived in the Square d'Orléans in Paris, where, amongst other celebrities including Marie Taglioni, Alexandre Dumas and George Sand, Chopin was also to settle himself." I think "From 1837, Alkan lived at the Square d'Orléans in Paris, inhabited by numerous celebrities of the time such as Marie Taglioni, Alexandre Dumas, George Sand, and Chopin himself." reads better without the where, amongst, including and also to settle.
• By 1838, at 25 years old, Alkan had reached a peak of his career. -Citations needed I think for a strong claim, it should by "the peak" of his career rather than "a peak" also.
• "At this point, for a period which coincides with the birth and childhood of his son, Élie-Miriam Delaborde (1839–1913), "Alkan never either asserted or denied his paternity of Delaborde, which, however, the world at large seemed to assume." Seems a little sudden, no mention of a relationship or the boy's mother to put this in context, or was it an illegitimate child? Was the child living with him? The impression I got from the lead is that nobody was certain it was even his. I think in introducing this you need to clarify this. Coincided - past tense also. I'd rewrite "Alkan neither asserted or denied his paternity of Delaborde, but the public assumed that it was his son".

Thank you, I believe I have now covered the above tranche, except for a ref for Chopin's arrival in Paris and the Square d'Orleans artice, both of which I will deal with shortly. 'A peak' is right, as he then went into retreat, and launched himself successfuly again 6 years later as the article describes, and the citation supports. Note 4 deals with the mysterious mother of Delaborde. --Smerus (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I see, that's fine, good job.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 17:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Alkan's return to the concert platform in 1844 was greeted with enthusiasm by critics, who noted the "admirable perfection" of his technique, and lauded him as "a model of science and inspiration", a "sensation" and an "explosion"." This sentence needs a citation with all of those quotes, if it is the citation on the next sentence I'd move it up, the attending celebrities including Liszt, Chopin, Sand and Dumas sentences is less in need of a citation.
• "To the period 1844–48 belong a series of virtuoso pieces, the 25 Préludes Op. 31 for piano or organ, and the highly original sonata Op. 33 Les quatre âges.[47] Alkan also published in 1844 his piano étude Le chemin de fer which is believed to be the first representation in music of a steam engine." I'd rewrite it as "Between 1844 and 1848, Alkan produced a series of virtuoso pieces, the 25 Préludes Op. 31 for piano or organ, and the highly original sonata Op. 33 Les quatre âges. In 1844 he also published his piano étude Le chemin de fer, which is believed to be the first representation in music of a steam engine."

Retreat -

"In 1848 Alkan faced a major disappointment when he was passed over for the position of head of the piano department in the Conservatoire upon Zimmermann's retirement; Alkan expected, and lobbied strongly for, the appointment, and was supported by Sand, Dumas, and many other leading figures; but Daniel Auber, the head of the Conservatoire, replaced Zimmermann with the anodyne Marmontel,[50] which the disgusted Alkan described in a letter to Sand as "the most incredible, the most shameful nomination." I'd write it as something like "In 1848, Alkan was bitterly disappointed after the head of the Conservatoire, Daniel Auber, replaced Zimmermann with the anodyne Marmontel as head of the piano department, a position which he had eagerly anticipated after extensive lobbying, supported by Sand, Dumas, and many other leading figures. A disgusted Alkan wrote in a letter to Sand that Marmontel's appointment was "the most incredible, the most shameful nomination", and Delacroix noted in his journal...

• "Chopin, on his deathbed in 1849, bequeathed to Alkan for completion his unfinished work on a piano method, a measure of his respect for Alkan" "completion his unfinished work", you mean "to complete" his unfinished work?

Hokay up to Music now, I've taken the liberty to make some of the more minor changes I'd have alerted you to here. Final installment coming when you're ready!Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 17:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

References -

• Check consistency of name formatting in each source. Surname first then first name as you've mostly done. Some like Jack Gibbons, Gabriel-Marie Legouvé and P. McCallum are not written like this, only appears to be a few of them which are inconsistent with the other though.
• Ref 143 - can you retrieve the original publisher and book it was taken from,and state accessed via WikiSource.

I've now covered all of the above. Bring on the next round!--Smerus (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Third and final round!

Music -

• "Brigitte François-Sappey points out the frequency with which Alkan has been compared to Berlioz, both by his contemporaries and later." "Hans von Bülow called him "the Berlioz of the piano"; whilst Schumann, in criticising the Op. 15 Romances, claimed that Alkan merely "imitated Berlioz on the piano." But sentences I think it need a citation.
• "They indeed both created individual, indeed, idiosyncratic" - Remove indeed.

Style -

• "Like Chopin, Alkan wrote almost exclusively for the keyboard." citation just for the fact that it is a strong claim.
• "; as examples," -Just "such as" will suffice.
• "although he may often take them to extremes as he does with piano technique. " -tense
• Not quite sure what you mean by "convinces for reasons that apply ", can you reword?
• "gives hints of the obsessiveness which some have detected in his personality." Who? Seems a little vague.
• "Alkan's earliest works indicate that in his early teens he "was a formidable musician but as yet ... industrious rather than ... creative"." - he was, according to Smith - can you attribute this quote?

Selected recordings -

• Close gap between full stop in second sentence.

Revisiting references again -

• Ref 133, needs space between bracket
• Ref 135, convert to page note Legouvé (1828), pp 182-3, move book to bottom, remove google books and accessdate.

External links -

• Seems a lot of links to me, again the links to youtube, although constructive, I don't thinkFAs should really link to videos on youtube unless they're actually uploaded by the pianist themselves, as a lot of musicians have their work uploaded on youtube against their approval. Can you check that all of the videos linked are not vios, if they are, I'd remove the web performances myself, you may wish to ask somebody else on that as they might not agree with me.

Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 17:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now dealt with all of these. Very grateful for your thoroughness. As regards the YouTube links, the pieces were all uploaded by the pianists themselves, except for the Powell pieces, which were uploaded by me with his permission from the music festival I organise in Slovakia. I can confirm therefore that there is no element of copyvio. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'm very impressed! Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 20:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Support I'm happy with the changes made. I still think it would be a good idea for one or two more pairs of eyes to give this a thorough going over, but I'm content with what you've written at least. Your perseverance with it deserves to be rewarded! Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 20:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by PumpkinSky

• Format of the web references is not consistent at all. PumpkinSky talk 14:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look to this. Now sorted, I think.--Smerus (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Sorry, no they're not. At FA level you have got to be consistent. Compare these samples:

132^ Interview with Hamilton on Pianomania website, accessed 15 May 2013.

152^ The introduction to the talk can be found here on YouTube (accessed 17 May 2013); the other sections are also available on YouTube. (there is a cite video template you can use for videos, suggest you use cite templates for all web refs)

81^ See letters translated in Alkan Society Bulletin no. 88 and Alkan Society Bulletin no. 89, accessed 9 May 2013.

162^ Alkan Society website discography, accessed 29 June 2013.

PumpkinSky talk 12:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have rewritten note 152 in any case, so as to avoid any problems with copyright per WP:YT. I believe the others are consistent, but maybe there is something I haven't spotted? --Smerus (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the web refs in Yogo sapphire, maybe a visual cue will enable you to see what I'm talking about. PumpkinSky talk 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Although this article does not use the same formats as Yogo sapphire, I believe I have now made corrections to all weblink citations so that they are consistent with each other, and so that they meet with the requirements of MOS, namely:

• URL of the webpage
• name of the author(s)
• title of the article within quotation marks
• name of the website
• date of publication
• page number(s) (if applicable)
• the date you retrieved (or accessed) the webpage (required if the publication date is unknown).

--Smerus (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Better, but not there still. I really don't know how else to explain this to you...I've never seen the word "website" actually written out before in a ref. In one ref you have that word linked with the title, in others you don't, just one example. Try comparing to Koala too.PumpkinSky talk 17:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks for introducing me to the very interesting articles Yogo sapphire and Koala,which I enjoyed. I have now been through all the weblink citations again and ensured that the relevant page is liked and the word 'website' is not. Beyond this things get a bit esoteric. I have seen the word website written out in a link in an FA article, and it is not explicitly against MOS. So that aspect just becomes a matter of taste between you and myself, and I side with with myself on this occasion. It's also a bit difficult for me if you cannot specify your other concerns (if any), but of course if there remain any issues which contravene the MOS standards as listed above I will gladly deal with them.--Smerus (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me just one article promoted to FA within the last year that has website written out? (not something from 2004 when standards were essentially nonexistent) So here are more specifics, since you asked for them...

• 7^ See examples in Conway (2013b)....why not Conway (2013b), page numbers (like the other ones)
• 12^ François-Sappey(1991), 303–5.....needs a space after y
• 30^ As he makes clear in his will; see Luguenot (1997), 26....why all this non standard talk in multiple res? Just cite the ref.
• 36^ Revue et gazette musicale , October .....this needs a language parameter
• 60^ Hans von Bülow, "C. V. Alkan: Douze ....this needs a language parameter
• 68 The death certificate is cited in full in François-Sappey (1991), 310.....again, why all this non standard talk in multiple res? Just cite the ref.
• 72^Eleff (2012)....needs page number
• 81^ Gibbons (2002)...this is a web ref, why is it formatted like a book ref? More web ref inconsistency
• 83^Conway (2012), 207. See also Conway (2003a) and Conway (2003b)....just list them or make them separate, they don't need "see also" and "and"
• 84^ see Kessous Dreyfus (2013), 70....why "see", nothing else is in this format. The ref itself and the Hiller ref need language parameters
• 91^ See Kessous Dreyfus (2013), 47–173 for an exhaustive analysis of these works and their origins....no need for the hyperbole, just list the ref
• 109^ In the television documentary Super Virtuoso, broadcast on Japanese television, 1997.....What network? Where'd you get this? Did you watch it yourself in 1997? If so, that would be WP:OR. This is like saying "CBS documentary 'Night Fear' in 1985". It doesn't wash.
• 116^ Smith (2000) II, 21, where it is mentioned that it was frequently in the programmes of Harold Bauer and Adela Verne. Bauer recorded the piece on a piano roll – see Anon, "Discography (6) - Piano Rolls and Miscellaneous", Alkan Society website, accessed 29 June 2013....again, just list the refs, the explanations aren't needed
• 133^ Gabriel-Marie Legouvé, La Mélancolie, in French Wikisource, accessed 16 May 2013....I'm not sure if wikisource is allowed as a ref or not, I'll see if I can find out
• 139^ Rosar, Fanelli...another web ref formatted like a book, it's format also doesn't match its cousin ref 81, both of which don't match the other web refs
• 145^ Kaikhosru Sorabji, "Charles Henri Valentin Morhange (Alkan)", reprinted in Alkan Society Bulletin 87, 5–8,accessed 29 June 2013....needs a space before accessed.
• 146^ See Anon, ...what's anon mean?
• 149^ Searle (1937)....page number?
• 150^ The broadcast in November 1963 celebrated the 150th anniversary of Alkan's birth....and you got this info from where? Same basic issue as ref 109.
• 151^ Richard Shaw, "Ronald Smith: Heroic pianist and champion of the music of Alkan", The Guardian, 8 July 2004, accessed 16 May 2013....this is a web ref where you don't say "website", more inconsistency.
• 152^ See Anon, "An Alkan Discography", Alkan Society website, accessed 16 May 2013...what's anon?
• 154^ See Anon,"Michael Finnissy: History of Photography in Sound", Ian Pace website, accessed 4 July 2013....anon?
• 155^ Hamelin (2005)...page number?
• 156^ Volumes 1 and 2 (of 3) have been issued by Toccata Classics....this doesn't wash as a ref, you need a reliable source
• 157^ See Prosseda (2013) and Lebrecht (2012)....again, why say see? just list the refs. you've said see twice but not the other 160 or so times
• 160^ Anon, "An Alkan Discography", Alkan Society website, accessed 29 June 2013.....if anon means anonymous, just don't list it "anon", it's understood if there is no name. this you'd done about 5-6 times yet not multiple other times.
• and yes, the word "website" needs to go, it's superfulous and redundant. If you disagree, we can get a ruling from a FAC coordinator.PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have started on these. Not in fact that I agree with you on all points, but I have better things to do than waste time on getting rulings on petty matters. The article Richard Wagner was promoted to FA in March 2013 and has 'website' in a couple of places. There were storms of arguments over the article as a whole, but no one raised that particular issue.

Two or three particular points:

• 109^. As you can see from Dr. Blofeld's comments above, this was originally referenced to a YouTube clip which is still available at present. Evil as I am, even I don't resort to WP:OR. Dr. Blofeld advises that citing this could lead to copyright problems. Same applies to ^150, where however I was able to source the date and radio station. Your opinion on this would be valued.
• Please let me know re Wikimedia. As the poem is of course well out of copyright, it didn't occur to me that this would not be permissible.

Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The biggest issue is you're not consistent and you're supposed to be consistent. I tried to mildly point this out but you forced my hand. Since you consider me petty and a waste of your time, I won't waste my time here anymore either. PumpkinSky talk 20:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have chosen to misunderstand me. I hope it was sufficiently clear that the 'waste of time' referred to challenging your opinions, not to you or to the opinions themselves, to which I am in the course of acceding. I should still remain grateful fo comments on 109^ and ^150, from you and/or form any other editor.--Smerus (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now adopted all the recommendations of User:PumpkinSky, save for ^7, where I have added page nos. but left 'See examples', to make the reference clear. I have also made further similar changes to those recommended by PumpkinSky where I have found them. There remain two issues on which I would be grateful for guidance:

• ^ 109 (now ^107) and ^150 (now ^149) - see above
• ^132 Wikimedia source - see above.

--Smerus (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now dealt with the remaining citation issues. 109^ I have had to delete - and alas the quotation it refers to - as I cannot ascertain its copyright status. For the quondam 150^ (now 148^) I have found a different and acceptable citation. As regards the Wikimedia source, the material, which was written in the 1830s, is out of copyright and can be cited from there.--Smerus (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Andy Mabbett

I have concerns about the hard-coding of the size of the lede image, which I have explained on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I am seeking a consensus on image issues in the article on the talk page.--Smerus (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

now resolved using 'upright=' parameter on pictures, avoiding hard-coding picture sizes. (See article talk page).--Smerus (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria

Image review

• Caption of Style image needs editing for grammar
• File:Square_d'Orléans.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, include a licensing tag for the building as well as the photo. Same for File:Syna_Nazareth.JPG
• File:A-F_Marmontel.jpg: source link won't load for me, is it broken?
• File:Quasi-Faust_fugue_-_Alkan.png: the uploader is not the author, so the licensing tag is incorrect. Same with File:Quasi-Faust_-_Alkan.png
• File:Main_gauche_1.png: use creation not upload date. Same with File:Le_festin_d'Ésope_theme_complete.png
• File:Wiki_naxos_8.553702_01_02.ogg: uploader is not author. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. I think these are all fixed now. I found and entered in Wikimedia a different source for Marmontel; as you say, the orginal link appears broken.--Smerus (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Double sharp

Can we have a clearer pic of the fugue from Quasi-Faust that is actually readable (like the one at IMSLP?) Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have changed as you suggest. --Smerus (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton: Most interesting account of a somewhat lesser known (at least over here) French composer. My comments are largely confined to prose and presentational nitpicks, and the following list relates to the first third of the article. I have also made a number of minor corrective edits:

• As a general prose point, the subject should be named on first mention in each paragraph, rather tham being introduced by pronoun. This first occurs in the second paragraph of the lead. This sentence anyway needs adjusting – I suggest: "At the Conservatoire de Paris, which Alkan entered before he was six, he earned many awards".
• The "was, however" in the second sentence of this paragraph is inappropriate and should be removed.
• There's another dubious "however" in the third sentence of the paragraph. I would reword here to "...he began to adopt a reclusive life style, while continuing with his compositions virtually all of which..."
• "amongst" → "among"
• "he devoted much time to a complete translation of the Bible into French." I imagine this was a new translation – there must have been French-language Bibles before this date?
• "Prodigy section", first paragraph: consistency required in tenses. At present, "noted" and "was" conflict with "is given", "is referred to" etc. Best to stick with the literary present, as the records still exist,
• "In 1829, at the age of 15, Alkan was appointed joint professor of solfège – among his pupils was his brother Napoléon". Can this be true? Napoléon (born 1826) was three years old.
• "In this manner Alkan's musical career was launched well before the July Revolution of 1830." What is the significance of this information? The subsequent "However..." also looks redundant
• "In 1832 Alkan performed in his first Concerto da camera..." Perhaps be a bit more precise: "Alkan played the piano part in a performance of his firat..." etc
• General observation - too much info is being unnecessarily enclosed in parentheses. Very few of these parentheses are justified.
• Just "Chopin", not "Chopin himself".
• Is it possible to avoid the double "...ing" in "considering writing", e.g. "thinking about writing"?
• The sentence beginning "On 23 April 1837 Alkan took part..." is too long, and should be split.
• The absence of any information about Delaborde's mother is curious. Otherwise, why is Alkan's paternity assumed?
• "He also published in 1844 his piano étude..." → "In 1944 Alkan published his piano étude..."
• "which is believed" is a little vague, and invites the query "believed by whom?" Maybe amend to something like "believed by critics"
• Why is the sonata Op 33 "highly original"?
• Presumably Meyerbeer was impressed after attending an Alkan recital?

More to follow as I work through. Brianboulton (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Very many thanks for your corrections and suggestions, which I shall now begin to work through. Alas Alkan is not much better honoured the other side of the Channel than he is on ours, but things are looking up a bit this year!--Smerus (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I have now covered all these, except for the July Revolution and Delaborde. The 'highly original' I have just cut, as it is dealt with later under 'Music' where the piece is discussed. I had in mind, with respect to the July Revolution, that it was the changes in taste which the 'bourgeois monarchy' brought about which fuelled the 'pianomania' in Paris in the 1830s and 40s from which Liszt, Chopin, Alkan and many others benefited. I can enlarge on this in a sentence or two, as I think that the outbreak of 'pianomania' is highly relevant; but will need of course to find appropriate citation(s); so I will come back to this. As regards Delaborde, his paternity was, as I suggest, something which everyone 'knew', although there is no documentary evidence. In fact there is some suggestion that Alkan may have had a fling with Sand before Chopin appeared on the scene; remaining a good friend, he had perhaps with Sand's help fostered the child with one of her relatives (or, alternativley, according to a bold theory of Alkan's great-nephew, Sand was Delaborde's mother). What we do know, which is suggestive, is that: Alkan taught Delaborde as a child; that he followed his career; that Delaborde is the only 'non-family' individual who was left a bequest in Alkan's will; that Delaborde performed and edited Alkan's works; and to this may be added that they both kept parrots. But none of this is exactly encyclopaedic for our purposes; so it may be best to leave as currently stated in the article, with the referenced comment that his contemporaries assumed Alkan to be the father.--Smerus (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the above. My comments continue:

• Concerning Marmontel, whose wording is "anodyne"?
• "It is at this time" is a very poor construction; there is no clear indication of what is meant by "this time". Can you give a rough indication, eg. "In the early 1850s..."?
• "with occasional interruptions due to health". "Due to" is also pretty horrible, and you need to indicate whose health, e.g. something like "caused by Alkan's health"
• "...his death was caused by a bookcase falling on him in his home, which toppled over as he reached for a volume of the Talmud..." - reads as if his home toppled over. I'd rephrase, e.g. "his death was caused when a bookcase toppled over and fell on him as he reached for a volume of the Talmud..."
• "Certainly it appears that his aversion to socialising and publicity, especially following 1850, were self-willed." This is editorial opinion, and needs to be rephrased neutrally.
• Similarly, "Doubtless it was this spirit of anomie that led him to reject requests in the 1860s to play in public, or to allow performances of his orchestral compositions" is an opinion that needs to be attributed.
• "very probably" → "probably"
• "...many of his habits (for example, preparing his own food) indicate that he practised at least some of its obligations, such as maintaining the laws of kashrut." An example, followed immediately by a different "such as", makes for clumsy prose. I would simply delete the parenthetical example.
• "the Paris synagogue" - was there only one in the city (later you have "main Paris synagogue")?
• In "Judaism" section, three successive sentences begin "Alkan..."
• "Jewish topics" - would "Jewish themes" be better?
• "melodic tropes" - will your general reader understand? Suggest pipe to Trope (music) - not that that opaque article is much help.
• "at his decease" → "after his death" (plain English always preferred,, though I often err myself)

The remainder of my comments, on the Music section, wil have to wait a little longer. Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Have dealt I think with all of these in accordance with (if not always to the letter of) your suggestions. 'Jewish themes' might suggest that he used actual Jewish melodies for all these pieces, so I have used 'Jewish subjects'. 'Anodyne' was my word, have replaced with 'mediocre' which I think is not controversial. 'Certainly' and 'doubtless' sentences I have toned down - the second is anyway supported by the citation from Smith. I await your further comments at your leisure. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Music section: A few final comments:

• "a proposed monograph? Since Sappey cites it, I'd say it's actual rather than proposed.
• Self-referencing, e.g. "Alkan's interest in Jewish music has been mentioned above" should be avoided
• Phrasing such as "Alkan even went so far as to ensure that the pieces in each of his sets followed precisely..." etc suggest a POV towards the composer which needs to be removed. Thus: "Alkan ensured that..."
• Some possible problems with musical terminology, e.g "enharmonic equivalent". Is this the same as "enharmonic modulation", and will the general reader be able to understand?
• The first part of the Schumann quote: "a considerable flavour of [Eugène] Sue and [George] Sand" is a bit clumsy and quite difficult to follow. It might be advisable to paraphrase this part and begin the quote at "One is startled..."
• "when a series of virtuoso works was issued" → "after which a series of virtuoso works was issued"?
• "The sonata is structurally innovative in two ways. Not only is each movement slower than its predecessor, but the work anticipates the practice of progressive tonality, beginning in D major and ending in G-sharp minor." Again, it's a question of tone; the phrasing is not quite neutral and is suggestive of an editorial viewpoint. This could be resolved by: "The sonata is structurally innovative; each movement slower than its predecessor, and the work anticipates the practice of progressive tonality, beginning in D major and ending in G-sharp minor."
• Could we not have a hint of the nature of Kreutzer's description of the lost symphony?
• "seem to stand outside the barriers of time and space" – who is being quoted here?
• Is the "pedal board" the same as the pédalier?
• it may be advisable to repeat the links on Petri and Sorabji, neither of whom have been mentioned for some considerable time.
• Maybe 10 example names of pianists who "amongst others" have recorded Alkan's work is excessive?
• A suggestion: the frequent use of the preposition "amongst", rather than its simpler form "among", is not conducive to smooth prose flow. I think I've altered one or two – you could perhaps look at the others.

One last suggestion. Alkan comes across as austere and somewhar unapproachable, not the sort of chap you'd seek out for a night's fun and frolicking. So I was quite pleased to learn, from Hugh Macdonald's biographical article in Grove Music Online, that Alkan "particularly enjoyed the patronage of Russian aristocratic ladies, ‘des dames très parfumées et froufroutantes’, as Isidore Philipp described them." So, a human being after all. A fascinating article, very informative and well put together. I will have no difficulty in supporting when the final adjustments are made. Brianboulton (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks yet again. I still have a couple of adjustments yet to make, re Kreutzer, and another (and I think) better example of Alkan having a night out on the town. 'Pedalboard' I have now linked, for clarity. As regards 'enharmonic' - I can't really find a better way to put this. F triple sharp is the same note on a piano as G sharp - they are thus enharmonically equivalent. F triple sharp is thus the nominal leading note in a hypothetical key of G double sharp, which is the logical key to which Alkan's development has led the music at this stage. - although of course G double sharp is the same as A natural. But G double sharp and A natural are 'theoretically' different - and indeed, had a double-sharp pipe or key existed before equal temperament, they would have been de facto different by a few cycles per second. An intellectually lazier composer would have written the note as a G sharp; but Alkan wanted the player to think of the note in the context of the keys he was moving through, in which G natural had no place. If the successor note was a G (either flat, natural, sharp, or double sharp), then the preceding note had to be a form of F (correspondingly natural, sharp, double sharp or, as here, triple sharp). This is all a bit too esoteric for the article I think :-}.--Smerus (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(irrelevant hair-splitting warning: would personally analyse it as an appoggiatura to ♯ of A♯ minor)

What would certainly be interesting: is he the first composer to actually use triple sharps? (off topic: any sightings of triple flats outside Roslavets?) Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Double sharp: I haven't seen a triple sharp (or triple flat) earlier than this, but wouldn't dare to make a claim without a citation. I did consider 'appoggiatura' - but as I think you suggest, that argument doesn't belong here.--Smerus (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Brian: I think I am now done with your comments so far - have added re Kreutzer and personality. And I earlier dealt with the July Revolution. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: My various issues have been properly considered and I think fairly resolved. Am more than happy to welcome another composer to the FA pantheon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Brian.--Smerus (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Toccata quarta

I have (at least for now) just one small comment to make: in the passage "descended from a long line of Jewish ancestors in the region of Metz", what is the purpose of "long line"? Every human being has a long line of ancestors, and I don't see why the lack of immigration on part of Alkan's ancestors should be emphasised in the article (if that is indeed what the passage is saying). Toccata quarta (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well what I meant was that his lineage could be traced through many generations in that region (i.e. that they were not of relativlely recent Polish-Jewish immigration to the region in the 17th and 18th centuries). I will rephrase to clarify.--Smerus (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall comments

Support – I reviewed this article for GA and said then that it was more FA than GA quality. I don't comment on images if I can help it (knowing too little of WP's laws on them) but the text seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. The article is clear, in lucid and pleasing prose, well proportioned, and thoroughly referenced from suitably varied sources. As for full coverage of the subject, I like to think I know a thing or two about classical music but this article was full of facts I didn't know, and I am very pleased indeed to have made its acquaintance. – Tim riley (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

• Pls check your dup links with this script -- some might be justified by the space between them but others (e.g. Cesar Franck) shouldn't be necessary.
• Not a stopper I suppose but would've thought we could go with "among/while" these days rather than "amongst/whilst"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will check both these points.--Smerus (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All now dealt with as recommended.--Smerus (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2013 (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) 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.