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 10:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

The Diary of a Nobody

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The Diary of a Nobody is a seminal work in comic English fiction, much imitated over the years in terms of format and characterisation. The putative diarist, Charles Pooter, is the epitome of all who take themselves and their small lives too seriously; Adrian Mole and Bridget Jones are among his more recent descendents, though arguably somewhat less engaging. It's comedy without malice; the book has never been out of print, and if you haven't read it before I hope this article might inspire you to do so (free, online of course). Particular thanks to the peer reviewers for the improvements they have engendered, especially to Ssilvers for lending his Grossmith expertise to the task. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Support had my say at the peer review. Excellently done and I plan to read it if I ever have time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Image review. Mostly OK

• File:Grossmithsor01.jpg I'm not convinced by the license tag. It is surely not a US work. No evidence of publication but this is plainly a publicity shot.

That's it. Other images look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the Grossmith image with one that has incontrovertible pre-1923 publication information. Per Tim's point below, I will see wheter it's possible to squeeze Weedon in (there is a photo from the same source). Thanks for your help with this, and with the review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Support – I too took part in the peer review. I have known and loved this book for more than forty years, and the Grossmiths are home territory for me. Despite this I could find precious little to quibble about at peer review and can find nothing now. I learned a fair few things, as well. The nominator has shrewdly avoided (as I wouldn't have done) falling into the trap of overloading the article with an excess of quotations; the choice of three of Weedon's drawings is similarly judicious. (I did just wonder on rereading if there might be room without too much of a squeeze for a picture of Weedon, as we have one of George.) The balance of the article is good, the content comprehensive, the referencing thorough and widely-sourced, and the prose a pleasure to read. Meets all FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review help and these comments. As you will see from the above, I am investigating the possibility of squeezing an image Weedon in. Can you suggest where, in the article, you think it might best fit in? Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What about this one? Just uploaded. Could go where GG is at present on his own. Tim riley (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a superb image and entirely appropriate. I have replaced the GG pic with this; many thanks for finding and suggesting it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Support: I also participated in the peer review and was pleased to be able to suggest a few changes, mainly to the background section about the authors. The article is a neat and efficient, yet readable, description of the novel, its literary reputation, cultural influence and adaptations. It is well written, well organized, nicely illustrated and covers its subject throughly. May I also say that this is the type of article that shows Wikipedia in its best light: there is nothing like this on this topic elsewhere on the internet or even in print encyclopedias. Well done to Brian Boulton and the other contributors to the article! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in getting the article up to standard; I needed your and Tim's particular knowledge of the Grossmiths to polish up the background detail – and as you can see, above, Tim is still on the case! Your support and encouraging words are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Support per Tim and Ssilvers. I had meant to participate in the PR on this but I'm sorry to have not got around to it. Looking at it now the article is in really fine shape. As is typical of Brian's work, the prose is excellent. The article is well organised and discusses the Diary thoroughly. I see no problems with sourcing, neutrality or anything like that. I've made a few tweaks here and there but nothing major. Here are some very minor nitpicks, which don't affect my support:

• In the plot section maybe make clearer for international readers where some of the places being referred to are: while we don't want to unnecessarily clog up the prose (and it is clear from the context that most of them are in or around London), it should perhaps be mentioned that Oldham is in Lancashire and that Broadstairs is a seaside town (hence the Pooters spending their holiday there)
• Maybe find a replacement for the word "engaged" in "engaged with theatricals" as it directly follows "engagement" at the end of the previous paragraph
• Shouldn't the image captions have wikilinks in them?

I can't see anything else to mention right now, but I will be looking over the next few days and if there is something I will add it. Well done Brian and everybody else who helped with this! —Cliftonian (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support and positive comments. On the points you raise:

• Oldham: it is wikilinked; I'm not sure that adding "in Lancashire" will be any more helpful to international readers, who would probably need to use the link anyway.
• I have added that Broadstairs is a seaside town - it also is wikilinked
• Replaced "engaged" in the theatricals context
• Where the caption is directly adjoining linked names in the text, as is the case with the Grossmiths, Birrell and Waugh, it does not seem necessary to link again in the captions, and I don't normally do it. If someone else thinks otherwise, I would not make an issue of it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, all that looks good to me. Well done again on this really admirable piece of work. If there's something else I can help with please do let me know —Cliftonian (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by the Dr

Lead

• City clerk. Not sure why it is capitalized, if it's London I'd say London clerk.

• Capitalisation of "City" as shorthand for the "City of London" is commonplace, but may not be obvious to non-British readers so I have followed your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"a City of London clerk" -- can this be changed to "a clerk ... in the City of London? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Inconsistency in number form, fifteen, 12. Should be 15 I think seems as you adopt the over nine digit form elsewhere in the article.

• Done Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• " mature collaboration" -what is meant by a mature collaboration?

I think it is clear that this means that it was their only collaboration as adults, in contrast to the youthful collaboration that we mention above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I see.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Repetition of the word modest.

• Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Authorship and origin

• My opinion is that this is a little excessive and some of it isn't really relevant to the book. I understand that some of it is relevant to the artistic development and influence, but I'd expect a relatively short summary for their career backgrounds and context, or a higher percentage of material directly related to the book's development. For instance I'm not sure sentences like "In May 1888 he played alongside Henry Irving at the Lyceum Theatre" do much to help the article about the actual book. I'd condense this section a bit, the middle paragraph especially. Just a suggestion anyway, there's obviously a reason why you thought it was all relevant.

• I feel that background information on the lives and activitiies of the authors is useful, particularly as both led interesting lives, though obviously we don't want to overdo it. I see that Ssilvers has trimmed this section a little, and I have trimmed and polished it a bit more. I hink that should do. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

BB, I think that your additional trimming left the Weedon information unbalanced, so I removed the Tony Joseph quote, which I believe would be misleading without the Findon quote to balance it. I'd rather have them both back, as I had left it -- your choice. Also, I think it is necessary to make clear that George continued his piano career "at the same time" as he was starring in the Savoy operas. Finally, if the clause following the conjunction is an independent clause, then you need a comma before the conjunction. If you remove the "he", then you need to remove the comma, which I have done in two places. Finally, there is a long sentence in the middle of the George paragraph (that you formed by combining two sentences) that includes too many thoughts and causes a little problem with chronology. Here are the facts: George prolifically wrote his own piano sketches and songs. Separately, he wrote operettas that were performed as curtain raisers at the Savoy and also some other comic operas, including Haste to the Wedding (1892). George "became" the greatest comic entertainer in two ways - first, as the G&S leading man from 1877 to 1889, and second as a phenominally successful piano sketch entertainer from 1889. Any thoughts about how to clarify? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the middle of the George paragraph to what you wrote before my further trimming, except that I have replaced "At the same time" with "While appearing in the operas...". I am slightly bothered about the close repetition of "writing", and may find an alternative, though I don't have time at the moment. Please feel free to tweak further for clarity, though I don't think we need add any significant material. Brianboulton (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. To eliminate one "writing", you could make "writing and composing" just "composing". Or "penning"? "creating?". Similarly, you now have the word "operas" in two sentence in a row. How about "while starring in these..."? But none of these is essential. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it for the moment. One can fiddle about for ever (I often do) without any real improvement. Fresh eyes in a few days might provide inspiration - we'll see. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Synopsis

• I see City linked this time. Can you change both to London?

• See above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• "keen anticipation" Both words have the same meaning, much anticipation?

• I must disagree here. One can anticipate events with a dull dread, e.g. a looming visit to the dentist, a performance of Bartók's Violin Concerto, a discussion about infoboxes... (you name it!). Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, just never heard of anticipation being anything but keen!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• What is meant by ""fast" habits"?

• It means vaguely disreputable, the sort of thing that "respectable people" don't do. I would have thought the term was clear in context, but I'll see if an alternative might do the job better. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Certainly not! One used to have fast habits oneself, though regrettably they've slowed to a standstill nowadays. Eheu fugaces! (Anonymous edit by Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC))

Lower sections look flawless to me.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review and suggestions, most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Looks a sound article now to me. Nicely done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – unreservedly. I have read the book and believe this article to be a true, accurate and through account of the subject matter. Flawless! --Cassianto^Talk 10:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I've made some very minor tidies: please feel free to revert anything you think weakens the article. Only one further minor comment: the British Library have the Christopher Matthew's book as first published in 1978, rather than the 1979 you list. An excellent piece, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• To the above two, many thanks. The Matthew date was my error, as the source clearly shows the initial publication as November 1978. As to "flawless", I don't honestly think that could ever be applied to any WP article, but hopefully we can aspire to produce work without significant flaws. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, although this nomination is hardly suffering from lack of support. Interesting, thoroughly prepared, and of the quality I have come to expect from Brian. --Laser brain (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Andy, it's always good to hear from you. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Source Review - as requested, I have reviewed the sources used in the article. The sources are fine with two minor possible exceptions.

• Current ref 12 (to abebooks.com) is used to cite the sentence "Audiobook versions have been available since 1988.[12]" While I like the used book website, I think that WorldCat is a better source, and it shows a 1982 audiobook version as the earliest one (not 1988). See here
• Is this a typo? Should it be "p. 32" (not "p. 3.2"?) Current ref 19 is "Untitled". The New York Times. 19 December 1892. p. 3.2."

PS In the interest of full disclosure, I cropped the image of Daisy used in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have altered ref 12 source to WorldCat per your suggestion, and have corrected the year to 1982. The NYT page no 3.2 is correct. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - I have also read the article and find it fully meets the FAC criteria. Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the sources review and for the support, also for earlier images help. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 15 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) 04:38, 17 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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

Old Church of St Nidan, Llanidan

Nominator(s): Bencherlite^Talk 14:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

An article about a church that was mostly demolished in 1844 when a new church in a "debased barbarous style" was built to replace it. (Progress, eh?) Despite this - or perhaps because of this - I found a surprising amount to write about it. Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) has given it a copyedit and Tim riley (talk · contribs) made some useful comments at its peer review. I think it's close enough to FA standards to make it worth having a go for the star. Thanks in anticipation for your comments. Bencherlite^Talk 14:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Support – As mentioned above, I peer reviewed this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is concise, but seems to contain all the relevant facts; it is well illustrated and properly referenced; and I found it a delight to read. A small gem! Tim riley (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tim, for your kind words and your earlier help. Bencherlite^Talk 14:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim excellent article, just a couple of quibbles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• A sandstone chest containing bone fragments, possibly relics of a saint...The reliquary—Since reliquary isn't linked or glossed, I'm not sure that it's clear that the chest and the reliquary are one and the same
• Ref 7 is dead
• People associated with St Nidan's—I don't think it's MoS to have the article's subject in a heading
• 3 feet (0.9 m) ... 2 feet 10 inches (1 m) —????
• Two verses from Psalm 84 (in Welsh) — could you put the original Welsh in a footnote?

• Changed "reliquary" to "chest" for clarity.
• Hmm, odd for a BBC link to go dead like that. It might be a temporary thing (I hope not, as I use that link in lots of articles!) but I've added an archiveurl parameter as backup.
• I think that only applies if the full article title is repeated, but I've changed it anyway.
• (grin/grimace) fixed.
• Neither source gives the Welsh, alas.

Thanks for your comments, Jim. Bencherlite^Talk 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No further comments, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Nicely written, I made a couple of small tweaks, hope you like them, if not tis a wiki...... I was wondering about the choice of images and their positioning. In particular you mention the stoup, the bellcote and the heads over the North door and we have photos of them available. Perhaps this article would benefit from the sort of mini galleries used in Inner German Border. ϢereSpielChequers 06:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweaks and the support. I'll have a think about the mini-gallery idea and see how it looks, although there isn't as much text to play around with as in the IGB article and I don't want to swamp the article with pictures. Bencherlite^Talk 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (own work, Geograph, PD-age). Sources and authors provided. Tweaked a few summaries and captions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the check and the tweaks. Bencherlite^Talk 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Gerda

I am very impressed by the thorough article on a "melancholy fate". Minor remarks:

• As long as a link is read, I would not repeat it in the lead.
• Foundation ...: It may be just my lack of English, but the sentence starting "As a result, writes the historian Antony Carr" is so long and complex that had to start over, and still am not sure I understood.
• I suggest to link "medieval", - yes, you and I know ...
• Replacement ... "St Nidan's Church, Llanidan", - I would say "The new St Nidan's Church". If left unchanged, a comma please.
• I smiled reading "Parish worship transferred to the new church, along with some of the fittings.", placing worship and fittings on one level.
• I didn't know "mortuary" but should have concluded.
• Psalm 84 is (unfortunately) not very informative. What do you think about quoting the source Psalms 84? (Its verse 10.)
• I would take the phrase "homing stone" to the lead.

Agree: should not be missed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Gerda, and glad you like it.

• Not sure what you mean by this one - do you mean "link is red" instead? If so, I don't think there's a rule against having redlinks in a lead - and the house is a listed building with a long history, so it passes WP:GNG and WP:REDLINK and someone (perhaps even me!) will write about it eventually.

Not by any rules, I try to avoid to have the same red link twice. Best help: create at least a stub ;)

• Split into two sentences.
• Good point, already linked to medieval architecture in the infobox so I've repeated this link in the lead and the body
• Addressed in a slightly different way ([[St Nidan's Church, Llanidan|A new church]], also dedicated to St Nidan, was built...)
• Glad you like that. A bit of zeugma never hurt anyone, did it?!
• Link added to mortuary
• Not sure what you mean here - I already quote that verse. I'm not particularly sure that the article would be improved by telling readers that the English translation of the original Welsh comes from a particular version of the Bible. If you mean something different, please say so.
• Hmmm... both of the two sentences about the stone in the lead already say that it comes back, so to say so a third time would I think be excessive in the lead.

Hope this helps keep you happy, Gerda. Vielen Dank! Bencherlite^Talk 14:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my thoughts, and for good replies. Let me not speak here about my happiness, I keep dreaming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Note for delegates: I had a source spotcheck at my last FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860/archive1. Bencherlite^Talk 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Infobox says church is 78 ft, text says aisles alone were 78 ft - which is correct?
• "Biblical texts that once decorated the internal walls" - source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Church was 78 feet pre-demolition, so infobox was right (good spot); article reworded.
• I'd reworded that bit in response to an earlier comment and forgot to repeat the references...

Thanks, NM. Bencherlite^Talk 11:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by the Dr

• Some inconsistencies 12th century and 14th century vs 13th-century and 15th-century in the lead. Generally you appear to use the hyphen, which I believed is preferred.

  The hyphen is only used when the century is being used as an adjective, as in "13th-century font". Eric Corbett 20:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I see, seems a bit unnecessary to me but I'm sure it's conventional.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd place "The authors of a 2009 guide to the buildings of north-west Wales record the tradition that a church was first established at this site in 616.[5]" in a new paragraph, seems unrelated to location which you document before it.

• "The churchyard is kept locked, but the church and the gardens of Plas Llanidan are occasionally opened to the public." Why occasionally? Seems a bit vague, surely there's a reason why it opens, like for fêtes or festivals or something or by request..

• The southern aisle, he said, had had “a small circular headed window, filled up from a pointed one" and “a small circular headed window, filled up from a pointed one" For some reason you use an old-fashioned apostrophe to start these quotes rather than " which is used to end the quote and in other quotes.

• "The 15th-century roof has exposed woodwork". What is meant by "exposed woodwork" on a roof? Not sure what you mean. Roof beams showing through or something? Can you elaborate a little?

• "Most of the fittings now in St Nidan's are not original, and come from other churches in north-west Wales; the granite altar is modern." Do you have knowledge of some of the churches materials were taken from? I'd be interested to know what was from where if you have the information.

• "St Nidan's has national recognition and statutory protection from alteration as it is a Grade II* listed building, the second-highest of the three grades of listing, designating "particularly important buildings of more than special interest" Seems a little superfluous, I'd simply say St Nidan's became a Grade II* listed building on 30 January 1968, listed for the reason that it is "a good example of a simple medieval rural church, enriched by 15th-century additions."... For people who are very familiar with listed buildings like myself I sort of find it rather obvious, I think if anybody who doesn't know really wants to know what Grade II* is they can click on the article. I'm not sure you'll agree but just a suggestion. For the sake of a general audience, perhaps you're right to fully elaborate on it, but imagine reading lot of church articles and reading the same thing!...

• Delink Angharad Llwyd in the Pre-demolition comments section unless there is a specific reason why it is linked twice within the body of the article.

• Ref 26 "Barnes, David (2005). The companion guide to Wales. Companion Guides. p. 331. ISBN 1-900639-43-2." Shouldn't the book title be capitalized?

♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Eric re the "-century" issue.
• Disagree, a new paragraph here seems unnecessary to me, since we're still dealing with location of the church.
• I don't know why the owners only open the church occasionally, and none of my sources say. Probably they like the peace and quiet of not having their house and garden invaded by tourists...
• Fixed one instance, probably a word-processing glitch; did you think that there were two? (You give the same quote twice)
• Re "exposed woodwork", I've had this discussion with Eric in the past e.g. Talk:St Beuno's Church, Trefdraeth/GA1 about how to say this in another way. I hope my revised wording keeps both of you happy (and I've also mentioned the exposed woodwork in a photo caption for good measure)
• The sources don't say, or I would have added it in...
• As you've guessed, I'd rather keep a brief explanation of what a Grade II* listed building means, because not everyone is as familiar as you with the concept. In fact, this wording has developed over time as other reviewers (for GA) of other articles in the series have asked for more explanation than just "St Z's is a Grade II listed building because [reason]"
• Done
• Done

Thanks for your further comments (and for the help you gave as the GA reviewer long ago...) Bencherlite^Talk 10:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Excellent job, great to see so much for such a place.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:09, 12 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) 04:36, 17 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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

Aleeta curvicosta

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC) & 99of9 (talk · contribs)

The floury baker is a cute and loud cicada and is another critter found in my garden I have buffed for hopeful FA status. A bulk of work was done by 99of9. With two of us co-nomming we should be able to answer queries double quick...have at it..CHEEP. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Lead

• Floury bakers are popular with children due to their distinctive appearance and loud call. - Appearances so it matches the subject

umm, 'appearance' is a collective noun and hence singular. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• The species is preyed upon by a wide variety of birds, cicada killer wasps and a cicada-specific fungal disease. - Is it really preyed upon by fungi?

lead rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Description

• Measuring 9–10 cm (4 in) in length,[9] - There's no difference between the conversions for these two?

• My training says you conserve the (minimum) number of sigificant figures in a conversion, which would make both of them 4 in.--99of9 (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• about 200 nm in height, separated by about 180 nm. - Just impractical to convert?

nanometres are way too small to convert to imperial units... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• These are thought to aid in anti-reflective camouflage, anti-wetting, and self-cleaning.[12][11] - Keep the lack of serial comma consistent, and don't use it here!

removed comma Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• The abdominal tracheal air sacs surround the sound muscles and extend into the abdomen, acting as a resonant chamber to amplify sound. - Does each act as a chamber? Then it should be chambers.

pluralised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• ,[18] and has been rhetorically termed "the best musician of them all".[5] - Rhetorically?

removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Life cycle

• growing and feeding through their rostrum on the sap from tree roots, moulting five times, before emerging from the ground to shed their final shell.[21][22] - This sentence is a mess!

sentence massaged for flow and split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• It then extracts its head and clypeus by hunching its body, and when they are out, arches back to draw the legs out of their casing.[22] - Changing plurality of subject?

the "they" refers to the head and clypeus - have reworded it a little to make it more obvious (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Distribution

• The floury baker is found from the Daintree River in North Queensland through to Bendalong in southern New South Wales.[3] - Could we get rid of "through" and just use to?

yup. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Predation

• brush wattlebirds, white-faced herons, and even the nocturnal tawny frogmouth, - Serial comma absence should stay consistent!

removed comma Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Good work. ceranthor 05:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Support. ceranthor 15:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim I must have heard these without knowing what they were. Generally sound, but a few infelicities. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Its eyes and body are generally brown with pale patterns including a pale line—two "pale"s, and seems odd to put eyes before body

switched and one pale --> light Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• The female is larger than the male, although their size—clunky change from singular to plural even if grammatical

changed to "although species size overall... " Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• A solitary cicada...—lots of "can"s in this para

one removed, leaving two. Removing either of the remaining leaves alternatives that are wordier... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• uncal lobes—redlinked and unexplained

specific term used in describing cicada male genitalia. Need to think about this.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• The floury baker gains its common...—lots of "common"s in this para

removed two... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• 9–10 cm (4 in) in length,[9] with forewings between 3 and 5.1 cm (1.4–2 in) long,—If you are converting to 1 sig fig, the second range should be 1–2. If to 2 sig fig, the first should be 3.5–3.9 and the second 1.4–2.0

I'll take 3.5–4.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

• Their wings are transparent—Preceding sentences have a singular subject, what does "their" refer too?

changed to definite article - clearly the cicada..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• one second sibilant—hyphen, I think

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• they are often found on various species of Melaleuca... It was associated—change from plural to singular

rewritten and trimmed a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• wrens —you are hereby expelled from the bird project (: follow the link...

redirected now to Maluridae...oops... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• bearded dragons (a large lizard)—change from plural to singular

removed - let the link explain..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• 100 meters. —AE

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• They are then shoved into the hunter's burrow, where the numb cicada—numb is something of an understatement, "paralysed"

changed to "helpless" - as we already have a paralyse just before... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Personally I wouldn't link to publications in refs. I'm particularly unconvinced by redlinks to publications

delinked redlinks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• ref 1 espšces typo, I think, looks more like Serbian than French. What's "Latr." short for? You can link to the paper

Latr. Pierre André Latreille (genus authority fixed), typo fixed - Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• ref 15 has the journal's publisher, others don't

publisher removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'll leave you to sort out the genitals (!). I'm happy with the other changes, now supporting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

• Images are all okay - All given free licenses by their authors, no qualms over copyright here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Individuals typically emerge through - Emerge from what?

from the soil - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Enough for today. I've done some copyediting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the bird names all have initial capitals?

names fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Any parasites?

not that I've seen published..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• No mention of them sometimes perching while facing upwards?

not specifically - se can only fllow sources which say "usually face downwards" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Behaviour section feels awfully light

can only add what's in source. The information on some organisms can be meagre Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've found an extra source and added a paragraph about their flight inabilities. Please proofread. --99of9 (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Any clarification of what "moderate" means? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• re User:Crisco 1492: They used an average which included an arbitrary negative value if the cicada failed to react at all. So I can't give a useful numerical value, but I can say that it's in the middle of the pack compared to the other Australian cicadas they studied. "moderate" was my word for this, but there may be something better. --99of9 (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, that will be fine then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's it from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose and images. Seems reasonably accessible to a dolt like me, though I'll admit that some parts were quite technical. Good job guys, (and kinda feeling pleased as this work began not long after the POTD was selected... glad to see that section of the page gets articles written) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, the POTD notification was definitely the catalyst for the expansion. --99of9 (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Read this pre-nom and post this stage of the FAC review. Supporting on the basis of its use of high quality sources, its comprehensiveness and for its clarity of writing. Small niggles I can look after myself. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments. Prose and MoS needs some tweaking; will be back soon with a lit review and check of sources. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• link authorities: Maxwell Sydney Moulds,Walter Wilson Froggatt, Carl Stål, Frederic Webster Goding, William Lucas Distant

linked once each Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• what is the format for listing the synonyms? It appears to be neither alphabetical nor by year of appearance

It follows the two initial binomials used as they have been transferred through genera and synonymised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "It is native to the continent's eastern coastlines; described in 1834 by Ernst Friedrich Germar." fix grammar

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "light coloured line" needs hyphen

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• link genus earlier, link Aleeta

Genus is now linked on first occurrence (in lead). There is no separate page for Aleeta, it redirects here, as this is the only species in it. 99of9 (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The male has very distinctive genitalia" (another instance later)

removed x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "It is solitary and occurs in low densities." What is "It"? The species, or the male, described in the previous sentence?

the species - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Germar used two specimens now in the Hope Entomological Collections, Oxford, but did not designate a type specimen and their exact locations was not recorded." Used them for what? was->were

• ✔ done both 99of9 (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• link genetic distance

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• ensure short-form binomials have non-breaking spaces

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• what's an uncal lobe?

an obscure part of the genitalia. Currently at a bit of a loss where to link it to, and explaining what it is is tricky too.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Aleeta's and Tryella's I think it's probably best to avoid using the possessive forms of Latin names, but at the very least, the apostrophe + s should not be italicized

got rid of second, but can't see how to get rid of first without making prose more cumbersome. Have de-italicised the final 's' in any case Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "…and both the vernacular terms baker and miller were known to be in use by 1860." can we remove "known to be"?

sure. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "another species of Australian cicada (Altria perulata, now Arunta perulata) which has white "sacks" " which->that (please audit the rest of the article for which/that usage)

umm, a comma and a "which" (all white drummers have white sacs) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "With a body length of 2.9 centimetres" no need to spell out the unit here

✔ done 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Their dry mass is around 36.2% of their total bodymass" odd to give the qualifier "around" and then such a accurate figure; perhaps replace "is around" with "is on average"?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The female is slightly larger than the male,[3] She has generally similar colourings" fix

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "…at the base of apical cells 2 and 3." how many apical cells are there?

lots - 8 on the forewing and 6 on the hindwing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "continuous zigzag infuscation" infuscation is jargony, is there a more accessible replacement word?

it means darkened bit, which is added by subsequent words. Hence removed and meaning remains same.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• discoloration->discolouration

✔ done 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• link nanometre

✔ done 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The male call can be heard at any time of day" Really? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like "The male makes its calls throughout the day"?

hmmm, they start and stop - so I think the way it is wrtten captures that better than your suggestion which more strongly suggests they do it all the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• 7-10 s -> endash, not hyphen

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The tune has been described" Is it accurate to call the insect sounds a "tune"?

tricky this - some books use "song" or "call", both of which sould weirder to me. Too complex to be a "note". Have rejigged so we avoid the word. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• link Hz, sound frequency, resonance, modulation

✔ done, but I went for resonator rather than resonance 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "very wide range of native…"

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• link introduced

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The metabolic rate over a period of about 6.5 hours during emergence of A. curvicosta is about 1.8 times the resting metabolic rate of the adult." So…? It seems obvious that an actively emerging nymph will be more active than a resting adult.

Is it obvious that it will be a factor of 1.8? Gruelling costume changes like this could be very expensive? Someone thought it was worth studying, so I prefer to keep it. 99of9 (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• provide link & Latin binomial for broad-leaved paperbark earlier

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• link Sydney

✔ done 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "92 day emergence period" needs hyphen

✔ done 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• is it "South East Queensland" or "South-East Queensland"?

former. offending hyphen removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• citations are unnecessarily repeated for the final 4 sentences of the 2nd paragraph of section "Life cycle"

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• "and mating and egglaying occurs." -> "and mating and egg laying occur."

fixed x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• what is the Massospora fungus that infects this insect? How does it "affect" the genitalia and abdominal cavity?

I've had a stab at this, but perhaps a specialist on fungal taxa could bluelink it :-). 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Source review Sasata (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• ref#2 missing issue#

found it - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• retrieval dates not required for online versions of print documents (several instances)

✔ done 99of9 (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• The Moulds (1990) source is repeated several times in the references. Could you place this source under a subsection "Bibliography" (or similar) and convert these to short-form citations?

will do this a bit later today. chores to do now done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• ref#8 needs a date

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• article case and page range format are different in ref#9; MacNally given as single word in doi page

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• page range format ref#15

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• author format ref#17

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• case format refs#18, 19

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• is there a space between author initials (e.g. #17) or not (e.g. #23)

shouldn't be - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• something's a bit different about the format of book ref#27 (note the comma after the year)

'twas in citation rather than cite book format. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• ref#31: childrens->children's

apostrophe added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sources look fine. A lit search of my own failed to turn up any omissions pertaining to WIAFA criteria 1b and 1c. As a final suggestion, it would not be a bad idea to indicate the sources used for the synonyms in the "synonyms_ref" parameter of the taxobox. I support the promotion of this candidacy to FA. Sasata (talk) 03:55, 16 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) 04:29, 17 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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

Wordless novel

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be a comprehensive article on a medium of expression whose time in the sun was short, and was long forgotten until recently. There seems in the last decade to be a bit of a boom in reprinting these things, many of which were out of print for generations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: before anyone brings this up (because it has come up in more than one of my FACs), the word "comics" when referring to the medium is an uncountable noun, like "politics" or "mathematics". Uncountable nouns" are often called "mass nouns", but the latter term is confusing as such nouns do not always refer to masses of anything; they often refer to abstract concepts and do not take a plural form—so, no, "comics theorist Scott McCloud" (where "comics" is used as a noun adjunct) is not an error. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "where Masereel told tales of Man's struggle against Society, Nückel told of the life of an individual woman" - the primary source supports the description of the latter's oeuvre, but is there a secondary source that makes this comparison?
  • The compariosn is made in the third paragraph: "Qu'est-ce qui différencie cette œuvre d'Otto Nückel publiée à Munich en 1930 de celles de Frans Masereel ou de Lynd Ward? L'Allemand [that would be Nückel] montre le destin d'une femme, quand les autres parlent de celui de l'Homme avec une majuscule." Technically, she's comparing Nückel's work to both Masereel and Ward, but the Ward comparison would be anachronistic at this point in the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• ISBN for Willett?
  • I've been looking around, but couldn't find one. I found an OCLC number, though. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Compare date formatting within the Rhode entry, and add publisher.
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as prior GA Reviewer. High quality article. Educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments. High quality, generally comprehensive treatment of a sometimes-overlooked predecessor to a modern art form. I look forward to this being promoted, but in the meantime, I will pick some nits:

• You have parenthetical links to foreign-language Wikipedias alongside the redlinks to Thomas Ott and Hendrik Dorgathen near the end of the article. I've never seen this done before, and can't imagine that it's standard practice. There's nothing inherently wrong with a redlink or, ideally, the foreign-language articles can be used to create a stub here.

  It's done using the {{ill}} template. When an English Wikipedia page of the same name is created, the foreign-language link magically disappears. I actually did create a numver of the articles linked to from this article; in the case of Ott and Dorgathen, the articles were unreferenced, so I didn't bother (I've seen reviews of Ott in the comics press before—if I were sufficiently motivated, I could track down the sources myself. But I'm not). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Learn something new every day. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Reference 16 looks like an em dash instead of an en dash. I think that's the only page range with a problem, but may have missed one. I hate little horizontal lines, sorry.

  Fixed. Good eye. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• You've got inconsistent date formatting in the works cited. Some of this probably can't be helped, with sources that unhelpfully provide us with season of publication, of all things. But compare the Cohen reference with the Bi reference.

  Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand what earns some works a place in Further Reading and some in External Links. The Frans Masereel Foundation link is clearly an External Link, but is there a reason the 2006 Bi, Boxer, and Rhode works aren't under Further Reading instead? For that matter, is there nothing from these sources that can enrich the article? Boxer's work, just by example, looks like it might have value for modern reactions to the form.

  This was my "logic" (though I'm not taking a hard line with this):

  • The Silent Shout was cited by several of my sources, so I assumed it was a worthy "Further reading", even if I couldn't get my hands on it.
  • Bi is interesting, but it's mainly about silent comics, with detours into the wordless novel along the way. Interesting, but it's out of scope for the article. so I put it in "External links".
  • "Stories Without Words: A Bibliography with Annotations" also has a much broader scope, but includes a bibliography of wordless novels ("Woodcut Novels") at the end. As it's a list, I didn't feel it qualified as "Further reading" per se.
  • Boxer was interesting, and I had originally intended to use it as a source, but I found it didn't say anything about wordless novels in general that wasn't already in the article (it focuses on Lynd Ward). I've now removed it and put it in the Gods' Man article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I find this a pretty satisfactory explanation. No further objections. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - please do not use templates on the nomination talkpage. They tend to break the nominations viewer and slow down page processing within FA-nominations. GermanJoe (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-age, PD-1923, PD-US no notice, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.

• Flickr images show no signs of problems. OK.
• Lead image not suitable for Commons, but properly tagged. OK.
• Tweaked a few licenses to more specific tags - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure File:He Done Her Wrong - Gross does Ward.jpg is okay, as there's not evidence that the copyright was not renewed, just an assertion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Gross was no longer alive at the time when he could have renewed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Just to be on the safe side, i did a quick title search in the 1958 and 1959 print renewals. No hits in the online records found. GermanJoe (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I plan to run through tomorrow. Looks good. ceranthor 04:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Overview

• Such silence is common in melodrama - Might be helpful to link melodrama.
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

History

• mediaeval Europe - is this a typical spelling?
  • The article's in Canadian English, where's it's definitely an accepted spelling. After searching a couple dictionaries online and off-, it appears to be acceptable even in American English (to my surprise). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• disillusioned by the horrors World War I. - I fixed the typo, but this reads a bit awkwardly and it's too vague for an encyclopedia article. Needs a rewrite.
  • how about "disillusioned by his World War I expreriences"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • So much better! ceranthor 02:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

General

• Keep usage of serial comma consistent throughout. I went through and fixed what I saw, but I could miss some instances.
  • Thanks. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Incorrect usage of semicolons. Look up the rules if you are not sure! WP:MOS probably has a section!
  • Yikes! Thank you. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Once my comments are resolved, I can !vote. ceranthor 14:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - ceranthor 02:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Notes from requested WP:GOCE copyedit I have copyedited this article, as requested on the Guild of Copy Editors' Requests page. This is not a support/oppose statement, just feedback. The following are notes on problems with the text that I could not resolve with a copyedit:

• Lead: "Following World War II, examples of wordless novels became increasingly rare, and early works went out of print." Do you mean that the novels were being destroyed, or that new novels were not being written and published, or that existing published novels were not being reprinted, or something else? The sentence is ambiguous.
  • They were being suppressed, but the intended meaning was that new wordless novels were rarely being produced. Changed to "new examples"Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Lead: "Cartoonists such as Eric Drooker and Peter Kuper took direct inspiration from worldess novels to create wordless graphic novels." The difference between "wordless novel" and "wordless graphic novel" is not clear here in the lead. It is explained below. Maybe add a link to graphic novel, which would make it visually clear that the word "wordless" modifies "graphic novel" and not just "novel".
  • Linked. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Overview: "Wordless novelists" is awkward. "Novelists" is usually preceded by an adjective identifying the person, not the type of novel, e.g. "American", "female", or "gay". I suppose "graphic novelists" would be acceptable, though it does have an ambiguous meaning. The phrase "wordless novelists" appears three times in the article. If it is an accepted term in the field, I'm fine with it. Otherwise, I recommend changing it.
  • There doesn't appear to be an accepted term at all. "Graphic novelists" is right out, as it's not a given that these books are comics. To be honest, I don't see what you do when you call "wordless novelists" "awkward", though. Any other suggestions? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Images: Some images have no alt text.
  • Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• English variant: I suggest placing some country's version of {{British English|form=editnotice}} on the page. The variant of English appears consistent to me, whichever one it is.
  • The talk page already notes the article's in Canadian English. Should such a notice go on the article page itslef? I've never seen that done before. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I've thrown in {{Use Canadian English|date=August 2013}}. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Decline: "Lynd Ward, who found himself on an FBI "person of interest" list..." Person of interest and other sources appear to say that the phrase dates from 1996 or later, so using it here is probably not appropriate.
  • Changed to "on whom the FBI kept files over his socialist sympathies". Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Relation to graphic novels: You introduce the apparently redundant term "silent comics" without a link or an explanation of it. Comics are by their nature silent, like novels, paintings, and deceased parrots, are they not? Like "wordless novelists", if this is a common term in the field, I will accept it (with a link or a quick explanation). If it's a phrase that you made up, please change it.
  • I definitely didn't make up the phrase—in fact, even in French "bandes dessinées muettes" is used. I can see the issue, though, so I've switched in "textless" and "wordless" for silent in that paragraph. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Relation to graphic novels: You quote Eisner on Ward, and then you quote McCloud, but there is only one citation for the whole paragraph (Chute p. 410). I looked at the source, and I think you need to move the Chute ref up to the Eisner quotation and cite Understanding Comics or another McCloud work at the end of the paragraph.
  • I removed the McCloud bit. I think it was likely that I just decided to through in the word "closure", since it's "obvious" to comics people that that's what Eisner was talking about, before the accepted vocab had popped up. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Relation to graphic novels: Again in the Dorgathen sentence you use the word "silent", twice. I object gently to both instances.
  • Altered as above. Curly Turkey (gobble)
• See also: Another "silent comics".
  • Fixed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• I think that's it. Overall, great work. The above are nitpicky, but you asked for an FAC review. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot! I could've sworn I took down the GOCE request when I put the article up for FAC, but I'm glad that wasn't the case. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: All of the above edits, changes, and non-changes are acceptable to me. Nice work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Quite a few duplicate links in the History section; not sure they should be necessary in an article of this (relatively modest) length. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That was because I felt the links seerved the reader best in the History section, but that the History section should follow the Overview. I don't feel that strongly enough to make a stink about it, though, so I've removed the five duplicate links. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm not fanatical about them, and will generally respect reasons for keeping them, but if they're not considered vital... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 17 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) 06:08, 17 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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

X-Cops (The X-Files)

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is The X-Files meets COPS episode of the series, and its particularly well-loved by the fanbase. I feel that this episode able to both balance the humor and scariness, both of which were facets that The X-Files was famous for. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. The references have been combed through to meet MoS, the prose is good and has been looked over, and the sections are in-depth. A year ago, it passed GA review, and just recently, it was pretty heavily critiqued, reviewed, and copy-edited by Sarastro1. Any comments would probably inevitably make this article better, but I feel it is ready.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Originally aired by the Fox network on February 20, 2000, "X-Cops" received a Nielsen rating of 9.7 and was seen by 16.56 million viewers."—Perhaps insert "in the US" after "aired", which would clarify the stats?

  Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "the two" might be smoother as "they", if you think that works.

  I switched it in some places. It felt funny in others.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "wherein" is a bit olde worlde; what about "in which", or just "where".

  Changed to "where".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "green-light" probably doesn't need the hyphen (unless it's a double adjective, "green-light" threshold).

  Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "as well as its presentation as if it were"—three × "as". I can't think of an alternative wording at the moment.

  I tried to reword this, how does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nested phrase ... commas on both sides: "When the agents track down Chantara, whose face is pixelated she claims that her ..."

  I believe I fixed this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• "the show fresh [...] I think [Carter] appreciates"—does MOS allow us to dump the square brackets around ellipsis points? I'm sure it does. I never use them because they seem clunky; especially here next to a good use of square brackets around "Carter".

  I changed them to just bare ellipsis points, sans that brackets.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Utilized—I never know why "used" isn't good enough (memo to scientists and engineers).

  "Used" is used right before the word, but I changed it to read: "Gilligan and the writing staff applied methods previously used..."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked further than "Conception and writing". My feeling is that this has legs as a nom, but needs some close auditing for tiddleys, preferably by someone who's fresh to it. Tony (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over this. I believe I've addressed your concerns. Do you have any idea about who I could approach to look over it?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• My only concern is the mention of the cancellation in the lead. There it states that the crew felt the show would be cancelled, but in the production section it says that the fans/critics did (and that Carter felt it had run its course). Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  I changed it so that the lede reads "when the crew felt that the show was nearing its end with the conclusion of the seventh season". While critics felt that it would be cancelled, most of the production team also thought the show would end at the conclusion of season 7.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  That's great. Happy to Support. Miyagawa (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support another winner from a truly passionate project. igordebraga ≠ 04:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Should the A-class review be closed first?
• Nielsen rating is linked twice in the "Broadcast and reception" section.

  Whoops! Good catch!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• ""X-Cops" serves as a fictional crossover with Cops and is the only X-Files episode, after the sixth season's "Triangle,"..." Well then, it's not the only episode.

  Fixed. Good catch.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• " Gilligan was given the green light..." Perhaps link green-light? (It is linked in production.)

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• "analyzed for its use of postmodernism and its presentation as if it were reality television." Kind of confusing. Perhaps "and its presentation as reality television"? Or are the postmodernism and presentation related? If not, then maybe the "reality television" aspect of the sentence could be likened to realism as it is in "Themes".

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Having never really watched Cops, I thought Wetzel was a main character on that show before I saw the actor in parentheses. I'm not sure if this could be clarified anywhere (in production?) that the crossover does not involve any of the people from Cops.

  I moved some stuff around under "filming" to explain that only the camera and sound guys were from the actual series.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Vince Gilligan, who wrote "X-Cops", was inspired by Cops, which he describes as a "great slice of Americana." I'd rearrange this so the two instances of Cops don't appear so close to each other.

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Broadcast and reception: link New York (city or state?)?

  Reworded to add author and remove "New Yokr".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the reception section should distinguish which reviews are retrospective and which were contemporary, or at least provide dates from the reviews of The A.V. Club, etc (especially as that makes a comparison to House).

  I divided it into "initial" and "contemporary" paragraphs, with the finale one being an accolade-type section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• What was Vitaris' critique of the episode/what did she find wrong with it? And why CFQ rather than Cinefantastique?

  I just removed this, since -- believe it or not -- she pertty much praises the episode but then gives it a stinky score. It's CFQ because the magazine had changed its name around that time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerns are minor. This article has improved quite a bit since I reviewed it for GA. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Good; I especially like what you did with the reception section. What do you think about closing the A-class review? Glimmer721 ^talk 23:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The X-Files A-Class Review portal has been dormant for such a long time. I'll just do it myself, and if I get yelled at, whatevs.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I did a rudimentary job, but none of the delegates have responded to me. What say you now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine. FA trumps A. I support. Glimmer721 ^talk 15:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ruby2010

Saw your message on Glimmer's talkpage and thought I'd add my two cents here. Overall a well-written, well-researched article; have only found a few nitpicks:

• "Directed by Michael Watkins and written by Vince Gilligan, the installment serves as a "Monster-of-the-Week" story, a stand-alone plot unconnected to the overarching mythology of The X-Files." -- would prefer if you replaced the final comma with a dash ("...as a "Monster-of-the-Week" story – a stand-alone plot unconnected to the overarching mythology of The X-Files.")

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The episode received positive reviews from critics..." -- perhaps change received to earned, to avoid repetition with the previous sentence

  Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• "...and is one of only two X-Files episode..." -- episode -> episodes

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a relevant wikilink for Sheriff's deputies?Ruby 2010/2013 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, there's only a mention of deputies in the sheriff article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio check

I ran the Duplicate Detector software on several of the links I can access and didn't find any issues (see the links below):

• Comparing the article with this: [6]
• And this as well: [7]
• And lastly this: [8]

Assuming good faith on the book sources. In short, I see no issues with copyvio. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 04:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over those. I appreciate the feedback/comments!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! I am happy to support this one for promotion. Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 05:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check - mostly all OK (fair-use, CC 2.0). Sources and authors provided. Just one issue:

• File:X-cops.png - Please check, if a lower resolution would still show all necessary details and replace the fair-use image with a lower resolution, if possible ("minimal usage"). I won't count every single pixel, but with 350,000 the image is well above the recommended image size of 100,000. Aside from that fair-use is OK (tweaked FUR a bit more). GermanJoe (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for looking things over. How does the image size/resolution look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Looks fine now, thanks - all OK (have requested deletion of old image with "subst:furd"). GermanJoe (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Conception and writing: Period needed at the end of the section's first paragraph.
• Filming and post-production: "in addition to the shots caught by the usual camera operators The X-Files." Another word is clearly needed after "operators".
• The "in order" in the last sentence of the section is extraneous and can safely be removed to make the writing tighter, without affecting the meaning. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I believe I have addressed them!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - The article seemed solid before, and with the fixes I think it meets the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Source review

• No glaring formatting problems (tweaked a few minor issues).
• Sources appear reliable.
• One minor problem: The links in #1 and #11 to the Wiki-articles of season 7 and 6 look out of place (and similar labels are later used for external links). Both seasons are already linked in the article - if needed, the links should be put in a proper "See also" section. GermanJoe (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  OK, I just removed the links. How do they look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  Looks fine now, thanks. I know, that other episode articles of the series handle it similarly, but it's not the best way to guide the reader to related content. GermanJoe (talk) 05:53, 17 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) 06:02, 17 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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The article has had some spit and polish applied since its last FAC, and I believe meets criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - It is excellent, just like it was last time it was nominated, and even has some more material added. Great work as always! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I must say that I agree: this sets a high standard on my quick look through. Tony (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Definitely, a very good article. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources

• Support - comments below have been addressed. --JDC808 ♫ 03:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, I read the whole article and it looks great.

There are a couple of inconsistencies in the sources and a lot are missing their publisher.

• Ref #2, "IGN" is not italicized while all others are. All of the IGN sources are also missing the publisher (Ziff Davis). Ref #12, 22, and 49 have same publisher as IGN.
• Ref #5, 44, 45, and 46 are missing publisher (Think Services).
• Ref #7, 13, 19, 39, 50, 52, 57, and 58 are missing publisher (Future Publishing).
• Ref #11, 18, 26, and 54 are missing publisher (GameStop).
• Ref #12 has "1UP.com" unitalicized, but Ref #49 is italicized.
• Ref #14 is missing publisher (Turner Broadcasting System).
• Ref #20, 40, and 55 are missing publisher (IDG).
• Ref #23 is missing publisher (Viacom).
• Ref #34 is missing publisher (AOL).
• Ref #36 is missing publisher (G4 Media).
• Ref #37 has EGM and Ref #52 has Electronic Gaming Monthly. Both should be Electronic Gaming Monthly.
• Ref #47, 48, 56, and 60 are missing publisher (CBS Interactive).
• Ref #61 is missing publisher (Hearst Magazines UK).
• Ref #62 is missing publisher (Alloy Digital).
• Ref #63 is missing publisher (Guardian Media Group).
• Ref #65 is missing publisher (Fairfax Media).
• Ref #66 is missing publisher (Incisive Media).
• Ref #67 is missing publisher (Condé Nast Publications).

I'll do some spotchecks after this is done. --JDC808 ♫ 06:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I've gone through the article with ProveIt and I believe I've filled out all the publisher info. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It missed a few, but I took care of them and made sure they were all consistent. I did a few spotchecks and they checked out. Great work. --JDC808 ♫ 03:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks very much! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'll be stopping by to look at the prose sometime tomorrow. ceranthor 03:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Gameplay

• Xbox Live achievements, - Might be useful to link to Xbox Live. I notice it is linked later in the section; it should be linked at first mention.

Plot

• After fleeing the Covenant's destruction of the human world Reach, the human ship Pillar of Autumn made a random slipspace jump to avoid leading the Covenant to Earth and discovers a massive ringworld orbiting a gas giant. - Random usage of past tense.

Development

• Saber's Chief Operating Officer Andrey Iones recalled that the offer was "an opportunity we [could not] miss", as Saber had never before worked on a major game franchise and many team members were fans of Halo. - Citation?
• The game was completed and released to manufacturing ("gold") on October 15, 2011.[18] - What is "gold"?
• the developers looked at how they used the third-party Havok physics engine to handle object positioning, velocities and collisions. - Previously you used the serial comma. Why did you stop?
• show how environmental effects, improved lighting and new textures - Again, you've stopped using the serial comma here, but you just used it a couple sentences ago!
• and it still wouldn't have been the experience [players] remember."[5]:1 - Why is there a 1 after the reference?
• Though Iones described Anniversary's one-year development cycle as a "very smooth ride", - Citation?

Release

• Microsoft launched the Halo Living Monument, consisting of a live-action short and a website to celebrate the ten years of completion of original Halo.[34][35] - The last part of this sentence needs a copyedit, or it's missing a word or two.
• Thirteen retail Microsoft Stores hosted launch events for Anniversary's November 15, 2011 - Thirteen should be 13, since later in the sentence you use 16, not sixteen.
• It was the third best-selling Xbox 360 game in North America.[44][45][46] - Ever? This is a bit vague as is.

Reception

• avoiding "revisionist horrors" and Star Wars re-release moments.[57] - Citation?
• Aziz complemented the feature as "fantastic", considering its use in Anniversary to be more subtle and pleasing than in other games. - Citation?

Prose looks very, very good. ceranthor 01:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I've gone through and clarified some citations and made edits to the prose. For the last two notes in the "reception" section, the citations are provided directly at the end of the clause and at the end of the passage sourced; in the interest of keeping the prose legible I've tried to only place citations where necessary as opposed to every sentence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Excellent prose. ceranthor 04:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "Players can switch between the original 'classic' graphics and new graphics" You haven't yet told us that there are "new graphics" so this is a bit out of context. Maybe change it to "Players can switch between the original 'classic' graphics and the graphics developed for the remake"?
• "the original game's visuals are presented in high-definition, 16:9 widescreen as opposed to the original game" ???
• Given the number of differences you've outlined in the Gameplay section, I don't necessarily agree with the wording "nearly identical" to kick it off. Maybe the core gameplay is nearly identical, but adding online multiplayer and co-op seems pretty significant.
• Overall, the Gameplay section is pretty lackluster and disorganized, I think. It doesn't present a very clear narrative that says, these parts of the game are basically the same, and these are the parts that are different. This section doesn't meet 1a in my opinion.
• Plot: "Master Chief" or "the Master Chief"?

The rest of it is pretty good—I think just the Gameplay section needs some TLC. --Laser brain (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Hey Laser, thanks for the review. I've taken a stab at addressing some of the issues. I'm a bit stumped on options for the gameplay section though. I've tried shuffling around the info, but as it stands there's a paragraph to explain the gameplay, a paragraph for the graphics, a paragraph for additional features and then a paragraph for added multiplayer. Most of the sources focus on the additions, rather than the contrasts themselves; there's not really much that talks about what's "the same", they talk about what's different (and hence why it says "this is basically the same except for the gameplay mods, multiplayer and shiny coat of paint.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'll take a shot at it today. The "original game's visuals ... as opposed to the original game" problem is still there. --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Maybe I'm conflating the issue here. What I am attempting to say is that when it was released, the game rendered out its graphics at standard definition 480p in a 4:3 ratio. The original graphics in the remake are rendered out at 720p and 16:9--they're they exact same graphics, but output at a higher resolution and different aspect ratio. Would "the game's original graphics…" help with the confusion? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Can you look at the change I made and make sure I didn't change the meaning? --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
          • You kind of did, but I've taken another stab at clarifying. That make more sense to you? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
            • It's fine. I'm happy to support at the point. --Laser brain (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

• Did I miss an image review above?
• Pls check your duplicate links -- Xbox Live for example appears to be linked three times in the main body, but this script will show all the repeat instances. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Edited out some dupes using the script. The images were touched upon in the previous FAC (nothing's changed since then) but I don't think it's received a proper review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, have left request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (2 fair-use, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.

• Fair-use images have valid FURs and acceptable resolution - OK.
• File:Halo_Anniversary_LA_Game_Launch_-_creators_signing_(6381867477).jpg - OK. Flickr image with no signs of problems. Added personality rights info for re-users. GermanJoe (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the look Joe. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Some of my bullets from last time are still unaddressed. They aren't dire, but I'd like to see them addressed before I add my support. Other than my nitpicks (alas, this is FAC) and the source checks beyond my reach (listed in my notes), the rest of the article is excellent [[:|delicious]]. Good work czar · · 05:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the time this nom has been open, during which it has garnered a good deal of support for promotion and ticked all the boxes, I'm going to promote shortly. If there are still some minor outstanding points then perhaps they could be addressed via the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 17 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) 02:26, 17 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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [10].

---

Batman: Arkham Asylum

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Arkham Asylum, I am Warden Sharpe. Here you will be treated for the maladies and criminal tendencies that separate you from normal society. Psychopathic killers, crazed monsters, and drug-addled terrorists, all will find hope here in Arkham Asylum. Your struggles with supporting this nomination will find relief in our state of the art electro-shock therapy suite. Such detachment from reality is the result of a sad and broken world, but here we will nurse you back to health, transforming you into an obedient, productive member of society liberated from derangement, and free to pursue a life of religious fulfillment. Arkham Asylum, we hope you enjoy your stay.

Fun aside, Batman: Arkham Asylum is a Good Article which I have significantly expanded over several months and now believe to be the best it can be on par with it's FA brother Batman: Arkham City. I believe this article competently covers material relating to the game, and that it meets the FA standards. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

Support as per comments below. --JDC808 ♫ 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to try and start my review tomorrow. By the way, once again, great intro. --JDC808 ♫ 08:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done copy-editing throughout.

Lead

• End of third paragraph, maybe mention Arkham Origins too? Maybe something like "A prequel, Batman: Arkham Origins, is set for release in October 2013."
  • It's not a direct prequel and I think that just encourages the adding of all additional sequels that are released. The Series itself is linked twice immediately, in the infobox and Lead, and the directly related, next sequel is linked at the end. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Development

• Last paragraph before "Design". This paragraph talks about several ideas that were cut from this game. It also talks about how they developed ideas for Arkham City. Since some ideas that were cut from Arkham Asylum appeared in Arkham City (e.g., Mr. Freeze, Mad Hatter), it might be a good idea to mention that although they were cut from Arkham Asylum, they were used in Arkham City.
  • The ideas weren't really used, just the characters, doesn't seem notable to just say the characters appeared in a later game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • "Batman would find the Mad Hatter hosting a tea-party" -- That was used in Arkham City. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I'll try to find a reference for his Arkham City tea party that can be used to back that up.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Okay, if you can't, not a problem. --JDC808 ♫ 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Release

• Although it's covered as exclusive to PS3 in the DLC section, shouldn't it be mentioned that the retail copy for PS3 included the Joker? It's been a few years, but didn't it include a voucher code for him? Or was that just a sticker saying he's exclusive to PS3? I bought the game when it came out and I thought it had a voucher code inside. (I can't personally check because I don't own it anymore, not because I didn't like it. I loved it. After I unlocked everything in the story and beat most of the challenges, I was done.)
  • The method of delivery doesn't seem notable, the important info is that it was exclusive to the PS3, and I think it was just on the disc with the GOTY version. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Accolades

• I haven't fully compared it, but it looks like the first paragraph has every award/nomination listed in the table. So, is the table necessary? If you really want to keep the table, I would suggest trimming back some awards/nominations in that first paragraph. Or, remove them all from that paragraph and open it with something like "Batman: Arkham Asylum received numerous awards, such as (name a couple). It has also received several nominations, such as (name a couple)." Then continue this paragraph with the rest of the paragraph beginning with the "According to Metacritic," sentence and merge the second paragraph. --JDC808 ♫ 00:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The table is an alternative overview, it's a similar setup to FA Arkham City. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay. Still seems unnecessary as it's two lists of the same stuff. It's not something that'll keep me from supporting though. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

THanks for the comments, I unfortunately lost net access almost as soon as I posted this nomination, so I will get to work on it soon. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Hellknowz

• How do you determine the publishers for G4 references? For example, "XPlay review" is XPlay and not G4? Where does XPlay come into this?
• "PSNBatcave" work should be PlayStation Blog not "playstation.com".
• "Dev2", "RevGameSpot", "SequelComic1" work should be GameSpot.
• "RevNYT" is The New York Times, not Daily Telegraph.
• "Setting10" uses Future Publishing while everyone else Future plc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I fixed the last 4, the first I switched both publishers to NBC Universal, is that OK? I tend to use the publisher at the very top of the chain. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I see, it is X-Play with a dash. I searched "XPlay" on that site and it didn't get any hits, so I couldn't understand where that came from and I didn't check the article properly so I didn't know this was their show, I was looking for some parent company. It's probably ought to be |work=X-Play under |publisher=G4? But since {{cite web}} is using |website= as an alias for |work= now, I have no clear idea how these are supposed to be used. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ok I changed it to G4, I didn't know they'd added a website field but it seems kind of pointless when you have a URL field. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• "interviews with some of Arkham's inmates" - interview tapes, not actual interviews
• I would say Synopsis goes before Gameplay, as plot explains the story and what happens and gameplay then deals with details of how the player plays through what happens.
• "Amadeus Arkham" - first mention doesn't explain who that is
• "the system went through three iterations" should probably be said before actually going through the iterations, so 2 sentences before.
• "3 Scarecrow areas" probably means a more explicit explanation these are the areas the player plays in while hallucinating
• I feel like there should be a link to Batman's utility belt somewhere, gadgets being a large focus of the game.
• "GameRankings and Metacritic gave" - they don't give scores, they calculate them
• ""excellent visuals, a compelling story and superb voice acting."" should be paraphrased, as there are a lot of quotes there
• ""Even if you were controlling a generic ninja rather than an iconic superhero, this would be a polished and engrossing game."" and ""Rocksteady have struck the perfect balance of giving you the confident power of a superhero, but with enough weaknesses to make the game challenging; a remarkable feat of balancing and design"" are both long quotes that can be paraphrased easily
• ""one of the things I wanted to do was capture..."" is way too long of a quote
• Lead says "Arkham Asylum's success launched a series of Batman: Arkham sequels", but Sequel section makes no mention of this

@Darkwarriorblake: I wasn't sure, but I think you may have missed my comments amidst everything else. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I had missed the added comments, I will take a look. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Support. I'm usually nitpicky, but this is a well-written and covered article. I have also played the game to completion, so I can vouch for completeness. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed some of your issues. The gameplay before synopsis is a pretty standard layout and I think enough context is given in the gameplay to suffice. The gameranking and metacritic wording I think is OK, and it is the same wording used in Arkham City's article, it makes clear they are aggregating review sites and not themselves reviewing bodies.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Missed your support, thanks Hellknowz, I am losing it lately O_O. I forgot to address the sequel issue, I have made a small change to try to. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate in support or oppose, but I will say that the rationales for the gameplay images are not acceptable. They both claim the same thing - "demonstration of gameplay" - a rationale that's not very good for one image, and very bad to use for two. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

On a quick glance, agree. In addition, I think the second image is not unique enough (i.e. other games have done this or similar) to be more than 1 fair use image. The first one shows unique gameplay though, so that is more than suitable to be included under fair use. Besides expanding details on it, further explanation includes that this is 1 of several unique "detective" modes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed one and improved the rationale on the other, though I don't know why you wouldn't want to support the article Hippie. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I don't want to support the article, it's that I haven't the time to review it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from FutureTrillionaire

As far as I can tell, all the sources in the article are reliable, except for Monsters and Critics. See these two RSN discussions: [11] [12]. The source should be removed (and replaced if necessary).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Would Comic Vine be OK? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 7#Jill Valentine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

How about MacRumors? Running low on options/. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the reliability of MacRumors (See [13]). The first two sentences are the Sequels section consist of what appears to be basic information about the sequel. Which part are you having finding sources for? Is it the "set one year after..." part? There's an IGN source for that:[14].--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

For the love of... I've been searching for an hour for a source for that. Thanks FutureTrillionaire, no thanks Google. Changed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but I am now taking a wikibreak. I will return to finish reviewing the sources in a few days.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm back. I've spot-checked about 20 sources, and didn't find any issues except for this one part. At the end of the first paragraph in the Accolades section, there are three citations that are the same and lead to the same webpage. Also, the sentences about the metacritic rankings are misleading. For example, how is "Arkham Asylum ... tied with God of War Collection and Forza Motorsport 3 as the fourth-highest-rated game of 2009" when there are seven games with a higher score? Shouldn't the sentence say "...eighth-highest-rated...?" The PlayStation 3 ranking is problematic for the same reason. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If I may, the scores as indicated in the article are correct. You were probably looking at the number of games listed and not the scores. If you look at the scores, Uncharted 2 is first with 96, then the next three games each have a score of 94, making them tied as the second-highest-rated, then the next three each have a score of 93 making those tied as the third-highest-rated, then the last three (which includes Arkham) each have a score of 92, making them tied as the fourth-highest-rated. --JDC808 ♫ 20:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, the webcites were correct so I must've copied the completed cite template but not updated the URL. I'm not a fan of that ranking style but I've been challenged on it two to three times so I've deferred to the popular opinion which is as JDC described above. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Article looks good. I don't see any other issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Future for taking time out from your wikibreak! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check

Image check - all OK (fair-use infobox and gameplay, CC, Flickr with no problems). Sources and authors provided, fair-use has already been improved. GermanJoe (talk) 13:18, 14 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) 02:32, 17 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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [15].

---

Robert Howe (Continental Army officer)

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The next article in my series on North Carolina's Continental Army generals during the American Revolutionary War is Robert Howe, North Carolina's sole Major General on the Continental establishment. Howe was a relatively controversial commander, a failed tactician, a duelist, and possibly an attempted spy for the British. All around, that makes for a fascinating character, whose story I believe I've captured fully. There are only a handful of lengthy sources discussing Howe's career in existence, and I don't believe I'm lacking for any detail. Thank you in advance for your reviews! Cdtew (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: I realize the linkchecker is saying I have a dead link to an NYT movie review; the link's not functionally dead, and I've tried everything I know how to resolve it; any expert help would be appreciated. Cdtew (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This page needs to be transcluded to the FAC page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I did this at work yesterday and got caught up in something else, completely forgot to do that. Thanks for the reminder. Cdtew (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: I will be on vacation between July 12 and July 20, and may not be able to respond to suggestions on this page. I will get right back to responding at full force when I return. Cdtew (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I'm back from vacation and welcome further reviews. So far no comprehensive ones. Cdtew (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Support per new standard disclaimer. I've checked the changes since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN100: title formatting
• Check edition formatting
• Compare publisher for Powell and Whitaker. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Done -- (I think) -- except for the last one. UNC Press is a full-service publisher, but wasn't founded until 1922; prior to that there existed a different entity, which was not a full-service publisher, but was literally (as I understand it) a "press". Powell was published by the former, Whitaker was published in 1908 by the latter. That's why I can't do anything about the publishers. I appreciate your comments! Let me know if you see anything else I can improve, or if I did something wrong. Cdtew (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: please seek additional sources on the attack on Verplanck's Point. Specifically, Rankin appears to be in error: Israel Putnam was no longer commanding in the Highlands at the time of the Battle of Stony Point, and it is probably Col. Rufus Putnam, who led the initial demonstration against Verplanck's point, who is meant. Stricken; I misread, and Gen. Putnam was in local command at the time. Choess (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Further, we're told that Kendal is "upriver from Orton Plantation"; did Howe have any particular link to Orton Plantation? This seems tangential. Choess (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) Ah, you appear to be correct about Putnam. Since it wasn't the more prominent commander, I've just removed that entirely. My sources don't say what, if any, interaction Howe had with Rufus Putnam, so I feel comfortable exempting it.

No worries, I will revert my past edit then. Cdtew (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(2) As for the Orton Plantation mention, I have that in there solely as a reference point (although it was owned by Howe's cousins). Orton is a still-existing, quite famous plantation home in NC, and I would prefer to keep the mention of it in here for context. Thanks for your comments so far, and for your edits! Cdtew (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Choess:: I appear to have addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you have any further comments or review notes. Cdtew (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Quadell

At a first read, this article looks to be of high quality. Here are a few issues that jump out at me.

• File:The unfortunate death of Major Andre, 10-02-1780 - 10-02-1780 - NARA - 535744.tif is tagged as having been created by an employee of the U.S. government, but I don't see any evidence of this. How should it be tagged?

• Hope you don't mind if I answer between your questions. That picture isn't one I uploaded, but a quick check shows it wasn't a US government production; it was done in 1783-84, and I've thus marked it as PD-US.

• Footnote 89 references "Rankin 1988, p. 142", but Rankin 1988 only covers pages 218–219. Is that supposed to refer to Rankin 1971, perhaps?

• Well I'll be damned. That's actually Bennett/Lennon (1991). I've now corrected. I checked the other cites, and they appear to be correct.

• The bibliography frequently links the titles to the Google Books entries for the book in question. But when there is an ISBN present, this is redundant, since the ISBN will link the reader to host of places to find more information, including Google Books. The documentation for the "cite book" template specifies that the URL should be used for "an online location where the text of the publication can be found" but instructs "Do not link to any commercial booksellers such as Amazon.com". Thus the link to the free online version of Gobold's Gadsen is correct, but the link to Google's invitation to buy Kars' Breaking Loose Together for $19.25 is not.

• I've never really thought about that. Generally I like leaving a Google Books link even when it's snippet view, just because I believe the ease of access improves the reader's experience, regardless of how little the reader can see. When it's not in snippet view or more, you're right, and I've deleted the two I found that were purely inviting readers to buy the book.

I will more fully review this article when those three issues are resolved. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Quadell:: Thank you for your review so far. My responses are below your comments, in italics. Please let me know if you see anything further you believe needs attention. Cdtew (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Very good, nice improvements. I have very few complaints or suggestions for further improvement. The prose is excellent, the organization is just right, the "legacy" section is balanced, and the lede effectively summarizes all of the article. Here are a very few nitpicks:

• In my opinion, cite 4 should be broken into two. Only in the first use (a) are the Ashe and Rankin comparisons useful.

• This one was a toughie. After fooling around with the sfn format for a while, I couldn't seem to suppress the postscript in future occurrences of that note. Instead, I just converted it to harvnb and used the following code on the first appearance: <ref>{{harvnb|Bennett|Lennon|1991|p=5}}, cf {{harvnb|Ashe|1892|p=496}}, where Jane, Job's third wife, is attributed as his mother, and {{harvnb|Rankin|1988|p=218}}, where Howe's mother is called Sarah</ref>. I don't really like the way it's coded, and it's too messy for my taste, but that's a template issue (or a "I don't know of the right way to do it" issue), and I agree with your point.

• The infobox seems to have a problem, wherein the time span of his command at West Point is given as "(1779".

• Fixed. It was the wrong date anyways. Text makes it clear it was Feb-Aug 1780.

• The word "proroguing" is not in common use. Can a more common word be substituted without losing meaning?

• Ah - you got me where it hurts with this one! I love the word. But, stepping away from my partiality, I'm not really sure if there is a better word. There are better words (plural) - forced adjournment, executive closure of a legislative session, etc, but those are less succinct. It's my understanding that outside the US the word is still used very frequently for the general end of the sessions of parliaments - in fact, Legislative session and Prorogation in Canada are rotten with the term. In other words, in the UK and commonwealth states, the use of the term is common. Here (in the U.S.), we've expanded the word "Adjournment" to mean many types of legislative breaks, but I don't believe adjournment was used historically to describe the exact procedure I'm discussing here. In this context, when an Assembly was prorogued, it would have been illegal for that Assembly to continue to pass laws. Adjournment, because it's so flexible, doesn't convey that same hard-and-fast limitation, and it would require more explanation if I used it instead. I could wikilink it to the Prorogation dablink page, which contains a definition -- or perhaps I could put in a Wiktionary box, much like that used in the Legislative session article? I'd appreciate your thoughts.
  • I don't think a link to Wiktionary would be appropriate. I wish we had an article with better information on the term, but we don't seem to. If that's the best wording, despite its rarity, then so be it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Once these are dealt with, I'll be happy to support. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Quadell:: Again, my responses are below your comments in italics. Many thanks for your comments, and such effusive praise coming from such a prolific and accomplished Wikipedian as yourself is heartening! Let me know if you think there's any other way to improve this article. Cdtew (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This article deserves featured status. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-art|PD-age, PD-1923). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Avoid PD-US as license tag, it's vague and can almost always be replaced by a more specific tag like PD-1923 or PD-US-no-notice (tweaked some, no action required). GermanJoe (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• @GermanJoe:: Thanks for your comment. I wasn't aware of a preference over the PD-US tag, so I will use more specific ones from now on. Let me know if you see anything else that you think would bring this up to FA-level. Cdtew (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks

I checked the sources listed for references 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 33, 65, 72, 97, 99, and 100. In every case, the sources listed fully supported the statements in the article. Never was text unduly copied from a source in an inappropriate way. I am confident the sourcing is impeccable. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Lead

• As a personal friend of Tryon, Howe suffered greatly when his friend became Governor of New York and staunchly opposed Tryon's successor - This sentence is very confusing. What exactly is it trying to say?
• Continental Army and Patriot militia forces in defeat in the First Battle of Savannah. - Isn't it to defeat?

Early life

• descendant of Governor John Yeamans.[3 - his mother was?

Political service

• In about 1755 - What does that mean?

This is a long article so I'll go slowly through it. ceranthor 15:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ceranthor:: Thank you for your comments so far! I've attempted to address your concerns as follows:

1. Clarified the remark re: his friend; I was trying to say Howe was Tryon's friend, and when Tryon went to become governor of NY, Howe both suffered politically/financially and also opposed Tryon's successor.
2. I believe I had it as "to defeat" in an earlier version, but Dank (I believe) suggested in my A-Class Review that "to defeat" sounds a little fatalistic or makes it almost sound like Howe was the sole reason and cause for defeat. "In defeat", I agree, is clearer in that defeat is a very complicated thing.
3. His father was a descendant of John Yeamans; the next sentence makes it clear we're not really sure who his mother was.
4. "In about 1755" - none of the sources know when this actually happened, but they all say "around" or "About" 1755; I've changed it to the former, but I don't really want to get into using "Approximately" or "during or before" language, because that doesn't read well to my mind.

Let me know if you see anything else that could be changed, or if you have any comments on my responses. Thanks again! Cdtew (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

These are just precursor comments! I'm going to post a lot more, no worries. I'll post more tomorrow, but no promises that I'll finish by then. ceranthor 04:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Post war

• Howe participated in the establishment of the national Society of the Cincinnati, and was the second officer to sign the national charter, - national is redundant
• was again forced to mortgage his plantation, but eventually received a monetary settlement of $7,000 in 1785.[94] -from who? should be clear it's congress
• his way to a meeting of the legislative body, Howe fell ill, dying on December 14, 1786, in Bladen County. - I don't like the second half of this sentence; it could use a ce.

Legacy

• ] In 1940 the - Previously in phrases like "IN 19--" or "During 17--", you'd been using a comma afterwards. Keep this consistent. I think there were a couple other outliers throughout. Check very carefully for these.
• Loyalist merchant named Henry Kelly advised Secretary of State for the Colonies George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville that Howe could be easily tempted to join the British, and further advising that Howe could offer a great deal to the British in their war effort.[103]- Grammar issue.
• While neither Washington or the Congressional Board of War believed Joel's story, Joel later fought on behalf of Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia state government against Loyalists in that state.[105] - Why is this relevant?

• In treating Joel as a witness, I want to present both sides' attempts to accredit or discredit him; in this instance, scholars who've written about the subject point to the fact that Joel was hired by Jefferson shortly after he attempted to defect directly to Washington, and actually had an honorable career serving the Patriot cause as a way of bolstering his credibility; obviously, the counter-argument is that Washington and the BoW believed he was either a spy or someone who would say anything to gain an officer's commission with the Continental Army. Without getting into all that, I wanted to at least present those facts for the reader to make a judgment thereon.

• one scholar has contrasted Schuyler's otherwise shining reputation with Howe's record of failures, and draws the conclusion that Howe likely was attempting to defect. - Who is this scholar?

I'll finish up the last section as soon as these are resolved. It looks great! ceranthor 02:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ceranthor:: I believe I have addressed all of your comments in this round, and look forward for more to come. Cdtew (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Final Round

Burning

• newly created - I think this should be hyphenated.
• ravaging the tidewater region - probably should link tidewater
• North Carolinian - does this refer to Howe or the regiment?
• engaged in contentious negotiations over access to supplies with the captains of British ships, now overcrowded with Loyalist refugees, anchored in the Norfolk harbor. - Not sure what happened here. Looks like a pronoun was deleted.
• fire raged on for two more days, and Howe ordered most of the buildings that remained standing to be razed before withdrawing to further render the location useless to the British.[46] - before he withdrew is better.

Charleston

• North Carolinians who had been poached by the South Carolinians. - This makes it sound as though the people themselves were poached. I think that's the case, but I think this needs a rewrite.

Florida

• the only North Carolinian to reach that rank in the Continental Army.[47 - Ever? If so then this is fine as is.

• It is what it is -- other North Carolinians have been Major Generals in the US Army, and some were Major Generals of their own militia, but no other was a Major General of the Continental Army

• which formed the border between Georgia and Florida - does it not anymore?
• Shortly after this minor incursion, the British were reinforced and pressed toward Savannah.[16 - received reinforcements is clearer and it avoids linking verbs.

Removal

• path was "so remote" - citation?

• Cite added. Cdtew (talk)

Hudson

• but was given few field pieces, entrenching tools or provisions and little ammunition. He - this is a bit of a cluttered mess! What are you trying to say?

West Point

• Howe served on the court-martial board that convicted Arnold's co-conspirator, Major John André, of espionage and sentenced him to death. - source?

• Cite added. This one got lost when I made a previous edit. Cdtew (talk)

Mutinies

• Carlisle ordered Howe to convene a court martial of General Alexander McDougall - I'm not sure but I think there's a grammar mistake here.

• While "court-martial of" appears to be correct grammatical structure, I don't much like it, so I clarified. Cdtew (talk)

Almost done! ceranthor 04:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I have completed this list of corrections, with my notes above. Please let me know if you see anything else that needs changing. Cdtew (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Support ceranthor 14:14, 12 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) 02:01, 17 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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [16].

---

Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because…I think it meets the criteria. The Stone Mountain Memorial half dollars is one of the stranger stories of commemorative half dollars, involving an eccentric sculptor, a drive to remember the Confederacy, and the KKK. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Image review

• File:Back of Stone Mountain Park 2009.jpg - File page needs cleanup. Upload was the day after the image was taken (going on EXIF info, which is thankfully present) so I think we can assume copyright is okay despite the low resolution
• File:Borglum design for Stone Mountain.png - Do you have a better year for sketch's creation?

• Not an exact year, the sources don't indicate.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:Stone Mountain medal.png - Needs categories
• File:Stone Mountain models.jpg - Needs categories
• File:Borglum at White House 1924.jpg - Needs categories. A crop would likely be nice
• File:StoneMountain.jpg - Looks fine
• File:Stone Mountain coin card.jpg - What didn't have a copyright notice, the book or the card? If the latter, you'd have to see both sides (I think) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the card is blank on the other side. I've seen them. I don't have a photograph of the back, which I recall to be blank. But then, none of the images of these online or in Swiatek's books have the back illustrated or even mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, we can AGF here (that was my assumption as well, though I suggest that, if you come across one, you acquire a photograph of the back just to be safe) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Like most of this memorabilia, it is surprisingly pricey but I will see what I can do. The others are done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, no need to buy one for this image review. I think we can AGF here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do not own a Bernard Baruch holder, but I can attest that the reverse is blank. Ideally, we'd have a photograph of a Baruch card with the coin still attached (the coin was contained in a small plastic pouch, stapled to the card; you can see the staples holes in the image we have now). I know that Liberty Numismatics has made a scan of one such card available, but it's markedly lower resolution than the image we're using now, and I'm not sure whether it's still public domain (since it's no longer "purely" a printed item). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• If it had a coin, it would be three dimensional and we couldn't use it. I am starting to learn that there is much that goes into coin photography.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Prose comments moved to talk page.

• Support on prose and images. Good job, Wehwalt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comments. Reference formatting isn't my preferred style, but seems mostly consistent. I poked around in the literature for overlooked sources, but can't find anything significant, so I think it's safe to declare it comprehensive as well.
  • I'm not sure that the parenthetical is needed on the Slabaugh source versus just listing the publisher as it was at publication (Western), but I'm not sure it's hurting anything.

The source reviewer keeps bringing up that some online source says published by Western. I'm just trying to make my life easier by heading the next such off at the pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Also not an actionable issue, but if you could get access to a physical copy of Commemorative Coins of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia, that big block of mostly identical web-cited references could be replaced with a tidy book ref (and the citations made to page number). Unfortunately, I don't have one handy, so I'm of no help there.

I've ordered one used through Amazon. Prices have come down considerably, it was much more expensive when I checked a few months ago. I'm not going to switch them here, but the next time I start a commemorative coin article I will use it. That being said, there is some value to having web-based references for the reader to check up on me more easily. I'll work out some happy medium.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• • My only real prose concerns were mentioned previously, but I guess I'd like to echo them. I don't think Helen Plane needs "Mrs." when everyone else just gets referred to by bare last name. There's no male Plane in the article to confuse her with. I might also replace the "huge rock outcropping" with a more technical description of Stone Mountain; perhaps call it a "large quartz monzonite dome"?

Perhaps a bit too technical? I'm open for suggestions here. I will un-Mrs her.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Any value in finding and adding an image of one of the counterstamped coins?

I don't own one and don't have a free-use image. Getting properly licensed coin images has been a big problem all along. There are some out there on the web and I will look into getting permission.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - excellent read and very interesting. --Laser brain (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I greatly appreciate it. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support: See my detailed comments at the peer review. Nothing more to add, the usual succinct job. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• All sources fine. One micropoint: I would drop the words "in fact" from the note. Brianboulton (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you on both. I am learning to discard such phrases.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:13, 11 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) 15:29, 14 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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [17].

---

Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel)

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it's ready. Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (The Rose of Cikembang) is, in my opinion, the most beautiful work of Chinese Malay literature I've read yet. It's the only one I know of which has been translated to English, and it is also one of few Malay-language novels to get a screen adaptation almost fifty years after publication. This article received a GA review from Dwaipayanc and a peer review from J Milburn (as "quick comments"), Sarastro1, and Wehwalt, leaving the prose shining. I have received permission to run this a little early as my other nom nears completion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Had my say at the peer review, seems worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Image review Not much here, all images seem validly in the public domain except the first image, for which a proper claim of fair use is made.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Wehwalt! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN17, 27: page formatting
• FN36: suggest using location/at (whichever works with that template) rather than page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the source review, got everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Quadell

The prose style throughout is excellent. The organization is appropriate, and it covers all aspects of the topic. The images are used appropriately, with good captions, and the lede effectively summarizes all sections of the article. I am left with very little to suggest for improvement. Still, I was able to find a few potential issues.

• You do not capitalize "eastern" philosophy, though the Eastern philosophy article does. Would it be more standard to capitalize it?

• Sure, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• You first mention "Sidharta" in the second sentence of "Themes", but later give her full name and link to Myra Sidharta in paragraph 3 of that section.

• Facepalm (fixed) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Sumardjo describes novel" should be "Sumardjo describes the novel".

• Facepalm (fixed) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the final sentence in "Themes", it is unclear whether that is a statement of fact, a statement of Sutedja-Liem's opinion, or Sutedja-Liem's interpretation of Kwee's message to all women.

• Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Suryadinata gives the film as" should probably be "Suryadinata judges the film to be" or "stated that the film wa" or something similar. "Gives as" is a less clear construction.

• "lists as"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Modern reviews have been positive" would be better as "Modern reviews of the novel have been positive", since the previous two paragraphs talked about stage and film adaptations.

• Agree, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm unsure of the need for footnotes [b] and [e] through [i], which give the original language(s) for certain phrases from the article. I assume all are Malay, though Kwee was fluent in many languages, and other reviewers could have been speaking a different language, so the language should be specified if the footnotes are kept. But I'm not sure how they help the reader. It is usually not necessary to give the original language for phrases -- for instance, it was fine to refer to Court Malay as a "language of administration" without giving the Dutch phrase for this. Giving the original language could be useful if there are subtleties that are difficult to translate, but then a word-for-word translation or comparison of possible translations would be useful in a footnote. I don't believe seeing the original language for a phrase, sans commentary, is useful in an English Wikipedia article.

• Regarding this issue, see WP:NOENG (particularly #Quoting non-English sources). A similar format is used in various scholarly articles on Indonesian literature, including throughout the book of Clearing a Space)

• Further, footnote [b] raises other questions. The article describes this as being his internal decision, not something he wrote down, so I'm not sure where "original" text would come from. (Footnote 6 indicates that it's from Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang itself, which seems odd.) I can't imagine what criteria would determine which of a person's thoughts should be rendered in Malay as well as English.

• Original here is not intended, nor has it ever been intended, to indicate the thought process of the author. Instead it is used the same as the other footnotes beginning with "Original", namely to indicate that the quote is shown in its original language (Malay in this instance). This is from Kwee's foreword, and the full sentence is "Saja liat di dalem itu njanjian—jang sebagian ada dimoeat joega dalam pagina 52 dari ini boekoe—ada terdapet stof jang bagoes sekali boeat karang satoe tjerita atau lelakon komedie jang sedih" ("I saw that in said song—which is reproduced in part on page 52 of this book—there was material which was very good for the writing of a sad story or stage play"). I could split the foreword off from the novel proper in the references if you prefer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Footnotes [c] and [d] internally reference the source where their information comes from, and in addition, the article cites the same reference in the article body itself right after the footnote marker. Is it necessary to do both? (That's a sincere question; I don't know.) Compare this with footnotes [b] and [e] through [i], which do not internally give the source their information comes from, but instead rely on the reference for the sentence in the article body. I hope my question here is clear; it's difficult to explain what I mean.

• [c] and [d] are asides (i.e. information which is relevant to the sentence being discussed, but not worth including in the main text) which may or may not be sourced to the same reference as the main text (in Lie Kim Hok, for instance, there is a footnote which combines information from two different sources); as such I've included an in-text reference for these types of footnotes. The others (except [a] which is just to clarify how this article stands among the various forms of Indonesian spelling systems) are the originals of direct quotes, which by definition are from the source provided in-text and thus are not cited again in the footnotes. I've used this style since my first FA, Chrisye, back in March/April 2012 and it's served me well since (Sudirman and Albertus Soegijapranata make heavy use of it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

All in all, the article is very good, and I anticipate supporting once these issues are addressed. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up

Everything above is fixed, except for issue involved with footnotes and Kwee (2001) references. I have looked carefully over the WP:V section you mention and all of the examples of FAs you list, and you make some important points, but there are still some legitimate issues with clarity and sourcing here.

• I like that you split the forewords from the novels -- I think that will be useful for the reader. But could you translate "Permulaan Kata"? Does that mean "foreword" or something similar? 1930b specifies that it is a foreword, but I can't tell that 2001b is.

• D'oh, used the wrong parameter. Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• The order in "Works cited" now seems incorrect. Kwee (1930b) splits the two 2001 works. Also, shouldn't 2001a and 1930a be the forewords, coming earlier in their respective texts that the novel itself?

• D'oh again, forgot that the templates do Name, year, title (had ordered for name, title, year). Fixed the a's and b's, I believe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• It has to be clear where the "original" comes from in your footnotes. In all of your examples in Lie Kim Hok, Sudirman, and Albertus Soegijapranata, it is immediately clear from the article text (not just the reference for the section) what the "original" would be. It is also clear in this article what the "original" would be for footnotes [e] through [i]. The only issue is [b]. I know that this comes from Kwee's introduction, since you've said so at this FAC, but it isn't clear from the context that this is a quote from a later written work. (The reference is several sentences later.) I believe this could be fixed by adding to the beginning of the sentence or paragraph a contextual clue like "As Kwee described much later in an introduction to the novel," or words to that effect.

• Right, done (actually, per V it should be anyways as it is a direct quote). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Great work so far, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the follow up, I think I've gotten everything thusfar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks

This was a very difficult article to spotcheck, since few of the sources are available online and many sources are in Indonesian. But using the online sources, Google Books snippet views, and Google Translate, I was able to confirm refs 2, 3, 38, 39, 40, and 42. In each case, the statement was supported by the source, and in no case was there any plagiarism. In other cases I could at least confirm that the page numbers listed matched up to the general part of the book where the topic was discussed, and for reference 46 I could roughly determine that the statement seemed plausible, given the dense and cryptic executive summary available.

I did find an issue, though: in footnote 38, should the reference to "The Jakarta Post 2012, Remembering" instead say "Ramsay 2012"?

I'm willing to go out on a rather sturdy limb here and confirm that the sourcing seems solid. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree regarding Ramsay; done. Thanks for the spotcheck, I haven't had one of those in a while. If there are any claims you want me to help you back up, I can provide scans/photographs of the pages in question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Support. This is fully worthy to be given as listed as a featured article. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim Very good, just a couple of quibbles before I support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• young Chinese man—bit Easter-eggy. I'd prefer "Chinese-Indonesian" or "ethnic Chinese".

• Ethnic, as there was no "Indonesia" in 1927. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• same traits which made him fall in love with Marsiti, but even more polished—can you polish a trait? Not a big deal if you want to keep.

• Trying to think of a good wording, an encyclopedic way of saying "all that and more". Marsiti was a good singer, Giok Nio could both sing and play the piano. Both were dedicated wives, but Giok Nio could better entertain guests owing to her higher education (Marsiti, a villager, had no formal education at all). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• This drives Bian Koen to consider suicide and drives Aij Tjeng and Gwat Nio to despair.—over-drive.

• Tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• based on his musings... based on the outline —double-based.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Panorama—not sure that there is any point to repeating a redlink.

• Lead vs. body? I don't think there is an issue there, so long as its not repeated more than once in the body. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't suggesting that the repeated redlink was contrary to mos, just that it was, well, pointless... Anyway, no big deal, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! I generally treat red links as if they were blue links, so I'd stick with the double redlink (Chinese Malay literature is another one... now that's an article to build on) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Support: All my concerns were addressed at the PR, and I think the article has improved further since then so I am happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the help! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Support I like this article because this literature is comefrom Indonesia...--Hanamanteo (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• While that unfortunately is not a valid reason for featuring the article, there is sufficient support from other reviewers, based on the FA criteria, to make it so... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 14 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) 14:55, 14 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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [18].

---

Battle of Hastings

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's been through GA, it's had copyedits by two fine copyeditors (John and Eric Corbett), and I've read a large chunk of both older and new sources in the course of getting this (and Norman Conquest of England) up to snuff. It's a good, well sourced introduction to a complex subject. It continues on with the Norman conquest of England topic I've been working on for a while, this article treats the actual decisive battle that assured the Normans control of England. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. 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, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments: generally an easy-to-read account that avoids overdetailing and is especially good in explaining background and context. I have a few quibbles, suggestions and queries, nothing major:

• The section "Tostig's invasion", is as much about Hadrada's invasion as Tostig's so you may want to vary the heading
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Section: "Harold's preparations and the English army" - it would make logical sense to reverse the paragraph order in this section
  • Done Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "suffered such horrific losses" - moderate "horrific" as contrary to WP:PEACOCK
  • The sources are all pretty secure on this - 24 out of 300 ships works out to only 8% of the ships were needed to take home the survivors. That's not just horrific, it's pretty much obscene. Stamford was a devasting loss for the invaders. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm not suggesting that the losses weren't horrifiic, merely that use of such descriptions should be attributed to a source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Rather than fight against the stupid idiocy that is the usual interpretation of WP:PEACOCK, I've changed "horrific" to "great". (You'd be hard pressed to find any historian that comments on the losses at Stamford who doesn't use some sort of word like horrific... but it's not worth the fight.). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• explanation of "hide" required in text; I had to use the link, which was disruptive to my reading
  • Added. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "William's preparations and landing": include a year somewhere in the first paragraph of the section, e.g. "In April 1066 Halley's Comet..." etc
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "After landing, William's forces built a wooden castle at Hastings..." Since Hastings is a good 10 miles east of Pevensey, maybe "after landing" is an oversimplification. Presumably he established and extended his beachhead.
  • But we don't know that for sure. I'm not sure that I see that there is a big problem here - he built the castle soon after landing (it was built before the battle) ... so it was soon after landing. Suggestions are welcome to help refine this .. but most of the sources I've used go direct from landing to castle building. (It was a wooden motte-and-bailey castle, not a big stone keep, if that helps. It was thrown up in a few days.) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• • We know he landed at Pevensey, and then built a castle 10 miles to the east at Hastings. Do no sources explain why he shifted his base to Hastings, rather than use the existing stronghold at Pevensey where, according to your image caption, he built a fort after the battle? it just seems a slight hole in the story – but unless the sources provide explanations, there's little we can do. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Nope, we really don't know - the original sources don't state why, and I haven't seen any speculation of why either. Having travelled over that countryside, my guess is that Hastings is on higher, drier ground and it was a good spot to build a castle and control the countryside, likely the first good spot he came to. Perhaps one of the men in his army had previously served in England (there were Normans who served as soldiers in England during the 1050s) and knew the area. We just don't know. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• "only about 35 individuals can be reliably claimed to have been with William at Hastings." Needs revising to avoid the impression that William only had 35 in his army. E.g. "only about 35 names can be reliably identified as having been with William at Hastings."
  • Went with "only about 35 named individuals can be reliably claimed to have been with William at Hastings"... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "William's scouts reported the English arrival to the duke." Clarify where the English were encamped before the battle
  • This is that Brit thing with the silly hoar apple tree, isn't it? I've put it in, but really, none of the historians mention it (gaze up). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• English forces at Hastings: the figures suggested from Norman sources (400,000 to 1,200,000) are not just unreliable (total Eng. population at the time was around 3 million), they are absurd - I would emphasise this
  • I can't really do much more without going into OR territory. As a general rule, figures of any army before the modern era are unreliable - it's merely a question of how unreliable. Historians just don't feel the need to ridicule them that much.. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Few individual Englishmen are known to have been at Hastings, with the most important being Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine.[25] About 20 named individuals can reasonably be assumed to have fought with Harold at Hastings, including Harold's two brothers and two other relatives." These two sentences should be merged, since they are essntially saying the same thing.
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The battle occurred on Saturday 14 October 1066". I'd absorb this information into the second substantive sentence of the paragraph: "The only facts that are undisputed are that the fighting began at 9 am on Saturday 14 October 1066 and that the battle lasted until dusk".
  • done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'd also try to avoid the repetition: "...the battle.[69] The battle..."
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• You say the battle took place between two hills - "Caldbec Hill to the north and Telham Hill to the south". The lead and infobox say it took place at Senlac Hill; in the text, "Senlac" is given as an alternative name for the battle, with no mention of a hill.
  • Removed - remnant of the early text. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• The information about the London-Lewes road and the hike over local tracks probably belongs earlier in the narrative: Lewes is at least 20 miles (a day's march?) from the battle site. As I mention earlier, it would be useful to know where the English were encamped the night before the battle.
• "with some of them rallying on a hillock before dying". Does "them" refer to the Norman counter-attackers or the English pursuers?
  • English - fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• (I love the idea of the battle having a meal break. Just like cricket)
• "the English pursuit and subsequent rout". It needs to be clearer who was routed.
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "What exactly happened" → "Exactly what happened"?
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Harold had to dismiss his forces in southern England on 8 September..." → "Harold had dismissed [or 'demobilized'?] his forces in southern England on 8 September..."
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Sent to the papacy"? to the pope, surely?
  • Well, papacy includes the whole surrounding bureacracy surrounding the pope - which would have had a say in things. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Hmm, I'm not sure. For example, would you say "sent to the presidency" rather than "to the president"? Or "to the monarchy" rather than "to the queen"? They too have surrounding bureaucracies. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah, but historians use pope=papacy interchangably for this period. It's very common, and not at all unusual in the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...troubles in Northumbria in 1068. In 1069 William faced more troubles from Northumbrian rebels...." Avoidable repetition of "troubles" here, and later on of "rebellions".
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• " the site of the battle has been altered." This reads ambiguously; it is the topography of the site rather than the site itself that has been altered.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• The last sentence might imply that the Bayeux Tapestry is within Battle Abbey rather than at Bayeux. Perhaps clarify.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff. For old time's sake I will do a sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• Footnote c contains uncited information. It also contains some WP:WEASEL stuff: "Unfortunately for Edgar..."
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Refs 20 and 108: "Nicholle" should be "Nicolle" I believe.
  • Yes. I have a friend who spells her name "Nicholle" which causes me endless problems with Nicole... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• • ...and with "Nicolle" too, no doubt. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think the footnotes and the citations look neater in 4-col format (I've tried it).
  • I have them set to be a certain width instead of a certain number of columns. It appears as 4 columns for my screen... I prefer a bit more white space and less bunching of each citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Two columns only on my screen. We haven't got Cinemascope here yet. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • You mean not everyone has a 30" screen? (But I also have a smaller screen, and prefer this spacing on that screen too). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise all sources look of appropriate quality. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Support: All issues resolved Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Parutakupiu

• Link Tostig (Godwinson) in its first appearance in the lead.
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "... marked the culmination of the William's conquest of England."
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Every "In <month or year>"/"On <date>" instance at the beginning of a sentence should be followed by a comma.
  • Only in American English. British English does not. This is a British subject, so we don't do that. (Trust me, I have my British English articles copyedited by TWO Brits to make sure I follow Brit English). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, but then you have one or other instance where you do have commas. For example: "In early 1066, Harold's exiled brother Tostig Godwinson..." Parutakupiu (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Eric Corbett .. you missed a comma! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "... converting to Christianity[3]..." – place a comma before the ref tag.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "... the formidable Godwin, Earl of Wessex..." – WP:PEACOCK
  • No, he was quite the important person and a prime mover of events. It's not peacokery when all the sources would agree. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I understand, but does he become less formidable because you don't say it? Anyway, it's just an opinion. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Harold Godwinson was Edward's "immediate successor" because he was his brother-in-law? Because he was the most powerful English aristocrat? Or both? It would be interesting to clarify this.
  • It all depends on who you ask. This is better gone into in Harold's article (which I'm working on). It's something of a historian's delight to argue about this... we couldn't do it justice in this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The English army does not appear to have had a significant number of archers, although it had some." – not having a significant number or archers doesn't mean having no archers at all, so you can drop that last part.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Note g feels repetitive regarding the modern sources accounting for Pevensey's landing.
  • It's the only way I can safely say "most" - as it's not something that is explicitly given. Many little towns along the coast "claim" that William landed there, so we needed to mention that modern historians are united in it being Pevensey. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "A contemporary document claims that William had 726 ships..." contradicts note d that states 776 ships.
  • Typo. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Harold, After defeating his brother Tostig and Harald Hardrada in the north, Harold left much of his forces..."
  • Done, although I don't see much difference, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The difference is that the clause is not interrupted. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "... threatened Norman invasion." – you mean threatening?
  • No, threatened. It's likely that Harold still thought it was a threat, not an actual event, when he left the north. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The rest of the army was made up of levies from the fyrd..." – forgot to italicise fyrd.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Javelin is only linked on its second instance ("English forces at Hastings"); link to it at the first appearance in "Norman forces at Hastings".
  • I've just removed the link... it seems to be something that should be known anyway. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Change the sub-section title "Background and site of the battle" to "Background and site" (it is already nested in the "Battle" section).
  • Went with "Background and location" Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Several roads are possible. One, an old Roman road..." – replace the period with a colon so it doesn't read like a telegram.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'd drop one of the battlefield images, so that the image showing the tactical formations could be moved to the corresponding section.
  • I just switched them. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "After the bombardment from the archers,..." – bombardment is not the best word.
  • Switched to "attack" Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "William had more experience with leading armies.[110] The lack of cavalry on..." – Link both sentences.
  • Hm? Not sure what you mean here. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I hate short sentences. If there's a possibility to merge two consecutive and content-related sentences, I prefer it be done. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I cannot see how we can combine sentences here, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Using "and"? Anyway, this is hardly important and seeing that there are many more examples of this, I won't insist. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "HIs personal standard was presented to William." – typo in 'His'
• "1 in 7" → "one in seven"; "1 in 4" → "one in four"
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Try to comply with WP:IMAGELOCATION.
  • I've fiddled with images just to conform to this (rather idiotic) idea that you can't put images aligned left under a heading. It's pretty dang silly but whatever. It's done. Everything is now a paragraph down on the left side. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

— Parutakupiu (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the bibliography: "Douglas Douglas C. (1964). William the Conqueror. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press." – error in the author name? Plus, just wondering if this book source does not have an ISBN? It's the only one... Parutakupiu (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed - and it doesn't have an ISBN because it was published before ISBNs. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Support – Like any supposedly educated Englishman I vaguely knew the gist of this article, but to have the facts set out clearly, as here, in well-proportioned, detailed and pleasing prose, is both instructive and enjoyable. I don't see how this could be improved on, and in my view it meets all the FA criteria. Two small comments, which ignore if you wish: "35 named individuals can be reliably claimed to have been with William" is not the most streamlined prose, and "the beaten foe" seems a touch quaint. Mere suggestions. Otherwise cordial applause. – Tim riley (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the praise, and the support. I'm open to suggestions on how to better word the first, but I honestly can't think of one right this moment. I kinda like "the beaten foe", myself, I'm not always opposed to using quaint when it helps vary the wording choices. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You could substitute "fleeing defenders" instead of "beaten foe". Eric Corbett 18:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I went with "fleeing soldiers"... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (CC own work, Geograph, PD-art|PD-old-100). Sources and authors provided.

• Some summaries and licenses tweaked for FAC-preparation. - OK GermanJoe (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: Returning from an involuntary break, so mostly looking at reference formatting rather than content until I re-acclimate:

• When multiple citations support the same text, convention is for them to appear in numerical order. For example, at the end of "Background and location", you have a statement cited to [67][86][83][87], but those references should be reordered to read [67][83][86][87]. Note g has the same issue.
• I believe that the little horizontal line in the Bennett et al. title should be an en-dash.
• The Douglas reference lacks an ISBN number (978-0520003484).
• In the Nicolle Medieval Warfare reference, I believe the "In" should be lowercase.

I had to pick nits pretty minutely here; this looks like excellent work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed all but the Douglas - it predates ISBNs, so the edition I'm using doesn't have one. That isbn you give is for the 1999 Yale University Press edition - I'm using the original first edition first printing of the University of California Press. (they don't differ in content but do in printing, possibly in pagination). Douglas died in 1982, so he never revised that work. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Some books, especially ones that got a lot of use, have had ISBNs retroactively assigned. There does seem to be some confusion in the databases regarding some printings, however. I show 978-0520003484 for the June 1964 "1st Folio" University of California Press edition, 978-0413243201 for the Methuen Publishing hardcover later in 1964, and 978-0520003507 for the 1967 University of California paperback reprint. Different formats of the 1999 Yale reprint appear to have been assigned 978-0300185545 and 978-0300185546. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter though ... as ISBNs are not required, especially when it's a matter of a book originally published before them. It has an OCLC which allows someone to look up the edition, thus it's consistent with the other references. (For that matter, references are not required to be in numerical order at FAC - plenty of FACs I've shepherded don't have them set up that way) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've looked back over this, and I'm happy to support this article. I might consider rewording the first sentence of "Reasons for the outcome"; "probably" feels awkward there to me, and is repeated at the start of the next paragraph. I don't have the sources on hand, so I'm not sure how much equivocation they give over the causes. Can we say something like "Several circumstances contributed to Harold's defeat."? Perhaps with "may have", if needed, just to avoid the qualifier duplication? Regardless, I don't consider this an actionable objection (nor is the issue with the Douglas book's identifier, on which we may agree to disagree). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Support. Very engaging read, I can't fault it. I made a few small tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment By no means a vote against, but I think that the description of the composition of the forces could focus more on the military traditions of the two armies. The respective compositions follow naturally from the Germanic-Scandinavian infantry traditions of the Anglo-Saxons and the modification of that same tradition by exposure of the Normans to the French and the presence of native French forces in William's army. Doug (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I follow the sources - they don't discuss that as an aspect of Hastings. It'd be a better fit at an article on Anglo-Saxon military or Norman military forces. (I have no idea if we have such an article or not.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see we do. Anglo-Saxon military organization. I've linked that article. We seem to be lacking a similar one for Normans - probably something to suggest at MilHist. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - reflects the specialist literature well. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Support with a few comments:

• The narrative is a bit confusing when it goes from mentioning "Godwin, Earl of Wessex", and then "Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson" Was the title passed between those two somewhere in there?
  • Clarified that Harold is Godwin's son. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• "William and Harald immediately set about assembling troops and ships for an invasion." Were they doing this in concert, or were they each planning their own invasions? It becomes clear later, but could use some clarification here.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• "The fyrd and the housecarls both fought on foot, mainly distinguished by the housecarl's superior armour." I don't understand what the modifying phrase "mainly distinguished by the housecarl's superior armour" is modifying. What was distinguished?
  • now reads "fought on foot, with the major difference between them being the housecarl's superior armour." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Learning of the Norwegian invasion he rushed north" How did he learn of it?
  • We don't know - just that he did. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting read! --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support PumpkinSky talk 01:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 11 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) 14:47, 14 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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [19].

---

Quagga

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a co-nomination with LittleJerry. Surprisingly little is known about this animal, so we have attempted to assemble a lot of obscure information to flesh out the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me, & I can't find anything to say. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from User:ColonelHenry

This is an excellent subject, and I applaud your work and research. It does need IMHO a rather significant copyedit for clarity and conciscion to meet criteria 1a. A few things after a cursory reading:

• The quote in the "Behaviour and ecology" section that acts as a second paragraph, beginning "The geographical range of the quagga...". For such a long quote, I would use <blockquote></blockquote> to set it off from the non-quote text.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Section "Distribution and habitat" is three sentences...rather short for a section. And there's relevant material in the section above...it would be better in my estimation to merge these two, or find a better way of splitting the material. Refer to MOS:PARAGRAPHS or WP:BODY

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Rephrase: The quagga was hunted by early Dutch settlers from the 17th century, and later by their descendants the Afrikaners, as they were easy to find and kill. Their meat was eaten and their skins were traded or used locally → to "As they were easy to find and kill, the quagga was hunted by early Dutch settlers and later by Afrikaners to provide meat or for their skins. The skins were traded or used locally."

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...and the last wild population, living in the Orange Free State, was extirpated in the late 1870s" This should be a separate sentence and rephrased, starting "The last population in the wild located in the Orange Free State was extirpated in the late 1870s"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the above...is extirpate the right verb? We extirpate things that are inherently bad or not wanted. We extirpate foes in battle (by killing them and vengefully razing their cities) and vegetation (to pull up stumps by the roots), we extirpate sins, or extirpate by deeply excising to removal tumoral or necrotic tissue during surgery (i.e. cancer). I've never seen the verb used in terms of hunting animals to extinction.

Yes, it is used for local extinction. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• For an article that uses BritEnglish spelling, why are we using MDY dates and not DMY? WP:MOSNUM asks for consistency.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a few things for consideration. Good luck! --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, I was about to fix the issues, but Little Jerry has already done it. We waited for a copy edit for weeks, but decided to nominate it now anyway. It is still listed under copy edit requests, so we can hope someone takes it up soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I know what you mean, copyedits and reviews sometimes take forever or never come. With an ongoing FAC & FLC, and real life pressures, I'm a little limited for time but I can try to find time to do a c/e for you in the next day or so...but no guarantees.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Further comments

• In the Lede: Its name is derived from the plains zebra's call, which is heard like "kwa-ha-ha". Since the Quagga is extinct, do you mean "is heard" in comparision to the still extant Plains Zebra, or "was heard" for the extinct Quagga? Clarify.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the same sound. Reworded, is it clearer? By the way, the image that was moved to the right, the manual of style is very specific about images having to face the text (not away, as now), of humans as well as animals. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I moved the image because it was throwing off the on-screen formatting of body text and blockquote. MOS says: In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement (MOS:IMAGESYNTAX) and Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. (MOS:IMAGELOCATION). The needs of the text formatting trump the direction of the Quagga's eyes. I do not think the advice of having the eyes face the text is relevant here (the next sentences discuss people, not animals), no matter how pretty the animal is, a Quagga isn't Grace Kelly and no one would be sorrowful if the Quagga was looking elsewhere. If this were Grace Kelly, we wouldn't have her looking off the page.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well alright. How about the sound issue, does it seem clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Jim Nice article, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Consider linking genetic, craniometric, morphological, ungulate

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• quagga was heavily hunted, and it competed with domesticated animals for forage. — are these two facts related, or is the quagga simply losing out on food?

The former. Should it be changed? FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

OK as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• The subgenera are treated inconsistently, with Hippotigris redirecting to zebra and Quagga unlinked. Personally I'd unlink both, but your call

Quagga as a subgenus is invalid, would be synonymous with Hippotigris now. I think the zebra article should be split, but for now, Hippotigris is just a redirect. It will probably be split one day (when zebra taxonomy is more resolved), so I think it would be nice to retain the link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• were erroneous, since using skeletons from stuffed specimens might be problematical — "were" or "might be"? The outcome seems more certain than the cause.

Added "can", is that in any way better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• The way I read it is that all the results were erroneous because some of the specimens were dodgy. Is that what is intended? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is more that the method is unreliable for the purpose, since it is unknown when non-quagga elements have been used to fill the skins. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• It was probably a grazer — is there any doubt that a zebra (or any horse) living on open plains wasn't a grazer?

Probably no doubt, but LittleJerry wrote it, so I'll see what he says. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• and tsetse flies— I would have thought any mammal the size of a zebra would be pretty obvious to the fly. Do they use sight to find their victims?

Should we elaborate this part? It is general for zebras, but I see no problem in adding more text here, good for fleshing out. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not looking for much more. Mosquitos hunt by smell, so it would be helpful to know if tsetses use sight. If possible (which it may not be) a clarification of why stripes wider than the insect confuse it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not at home this week, so can't check the source, but will fix it after thursday, if Jerry doesn't beat me to it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a very complex, and almost controversial issue, so it will be hard to say anything without going into much detail. Tsetse flies are attracted to the odour of animals, yet some experiments have shown that they are less attracted to striped objects though an attractive odour is present. But the reasons for this seem to be unknown. If I expand on this, it would seem logical to expand on why stripes should protect from other predators as well, but is this going too much off topic? FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• quaggas were used as harness animals for carriages in London, probably being gelded — unless they were all males, needs to be stated more accurately

I'll wait and see what Jerry says,he wrote it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think there is some confusion here, Jerry. You have fixed the grazer issue above, but without comment on this page. I wonder if you have have put that response here, since there is no change in the harness section. All I'm looking for is something like ...London, the males probably being gelded... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not remember writing that but fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

May have been AshLin instead, who dropped by and added a few lines at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• high strung — highly strung, unless they are hanging from trees

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• on telegony—why italics?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• There's only the tsetse point remaining, I've changed to support above on the assumption that Funkmonk will fix after Thursday Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I will! FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK mostly OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided.

• File:Em_-_Equus_quagga_quagga_-_GMZ_1.jpg - has unclear permission, but i've pinged a more experienced Commons reviewer for help (doing). I'll keep you posted about any news.

I'm pretty sure it was created by the uploader, I've been in contact with him in the past. He has uploasded many selfmade images from museums, better to contact him directly than other editors that may not know. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No doubt, the uploads were made in good faith. It's just a matter of clarifying the permission a bit, but i am on it :). GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Permission has been clarified, link to talkpage with more information added. GermanJoe (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just some suggestions: Please add the author's year of death, when the image's PD-claim is based on age. Also use the maximum possible PD-tag (PD-old-100 for author's death before 1913). Tweaked all cases, no action required. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

When I couldn't find the exact date of death, PD 70 seemed more "safe" to use. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments. Reference formatting issues. I tweaked a couple references (added a volume number, culled an errant punctuation mark), but there are still a couple things to consider.

• You have some inconsistent date formatting. I think reference 28 is the odd man out that needs correction, but I didn't want to choose poorly and make things worse.
• Author names/initials in references aren't consistently formatted. Compare reference 1 (initials with periods, no spaces), with 2 (initials with neither periods nor spaces), with 3 (full first name), with 5 (initials with periods and spaces). Similarly, sometime multiple authors are comma-delimited (reference 1), and sometimes with semicolons (most of the rest).

Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Changed to support. My only prose objection is already being dealt with below, and I'm happy to go ahead and give this the nod now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Quadell

Spotchecks

I read the pages for the sources given for 2 (Skinner and Chimimba), 5 (Groves and Bell), 7 (Nowak), and 14 (Hofreiter et al). I also examined the relevant parts of sources 19 (Kingdon) and 25 (Piper). These source are used a total of 31 times to support sections of the article. In every case, the statement in the article was fully supported by the source listed, and the material was adequately summarized and rewritten to avoid plagiarism. Well done.

Style

• The article overuses the passive voice. There are many, many cases where a passive sentence could be rearranged where you could rearrange a sentence from the passive voice to the active voice to increase clarity and improve flow. This is not needed in every instance, but many sentences would be made clearer this way. (Examples: Shortridge placed the two in the Qugagga subgenus; most experts now suggest the two populations represent ends of a cline; some observers suggested the stripes were light, but Rau (83) claimed that this was an optical illusion. Etc.)

Fixed examples, will try to fix others I come across. FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I made some minor edits to the article for grammar and prose style. Feel free to revert any you disagree with, but please explain why if you do.

Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Description

• The source says quaggas are 125-135 cm tall at the shoulder. Our text just says they were 125-135 cm tall, which could be misleading, since a quagga with raised head would be much taller.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• The 2nd paragraph is a little confusing. It almost sounds like some people thought the stripes were light-colored, while others thought those same stripes were dark-colored. (Actually, the dispute was over the configuration.) The alleged "optical illusion" is not explained well either. One rewording that would work would be as follows: "On the basis of photographs and written descriptions, many observers suggest that the configuration of stripes on the quagga is light stripes on a dark background, contrary to the configuration in other zebras. Reinhold Rau, pioneer of the Quagga Project, claimed that this is an optical illusion: that the base colour is a creamy white and that the stripes are thick and dark. However, embryological..."

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Source 19 (Kingdon) flatly asserts that the quagga has a thicker winter coat than horses. I don't think the other source, Groves and Bell, says anything contrary. Is there a reason for the doubtful-sounding "possibly"?

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• The "oug-ga" statement is true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the taxonomy of the Quagga, and should be omitted.

Well, since the specific name itself (a taxonomic name) is derived from human interpretation of the sound, it should be relevant in that paragraph which discusses etymology, no? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I had thought that the word "Quagga" came from "kwa-ha-ha", with the "oug-ga" interpretation being an unrelated behavioral note (more fitting in the "Behaviour and ecology" section.) That is the impression one gets from the article. But when I look at the source, it appears the name is thought to have derived from Oug-ga as well... or rather, the name derived from the sound, which has been written both ways. I have tried to reword the article's text with this edit. Feel free to revert and reword any way that makes sense to you. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You nailed it, it is two ways of transliterating the same sound. FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Related to the "passive voice" issue, some sentences in paragraph 2 are unclear. You say that the southernmost population of Burchell's zebra was thought to be a distinct subspecies, but also that it was then regarded as a full species. A person could not have thought that this southernmost population was both a distinct subspecies and a full species at the same time. What is it you mean to say?

Rewritten, does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It does. It's still a bit confusing, but I think that's because the taxonomy is inherently confusing. No further problems here. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Behaviour and ecology

• "The practical function of zebra striping" seems abrupt. I would start a new paragraph there, and, in my opinion, the sentence would be clearer as follows: "Since the practical function of striping has not been determined for zebras in general, it is unclear why the quagga lacked stripes on its hind parts."

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of this section has several problems. For one, "Captive individuals" should be "Captive quaggas", since many zebra species had just been mentioned.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Piper claims that quaggas were aggressive and volatile, and that "taming one of these animals must have been interesting and practically impossible." That's not the impression I get from this paragraph. Nowak says they were more docile than Burchell's zebra, but that may not be saying much. Piper says they were used as guards because they were easily startled and prone to attack invading animals, not because they were docile and easily tamed.

Seems quite complicated, LittleJerry, what do you think about this issue? FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

For comparison, Nowak says quaggas in zoos "were said to be much more tractable than E. Burchelli and to quickly become docile and tamable." On the other hand, Weddell says quaggas in zoos were "generally too high-strung to breed in captivity", and Piper describes the quagga as "a very lively, high-strung animal, and the stallions were prone to fits of rage, so taming one of these animals must have been interesting and practically impossible." Piper goes on to describe them as guard animals: "Any intruder, be it a lion or a rustler, was... most probably attacked by this tenacious horse."

You'll have to give fair weight to these sources when describing their behavior, before I can support. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reshuffled the text so it doesn't seem so selfcontradictory[20], so that it basically says "they were said to be wild and lively, yet were also said to be tamer than Burchell's zebra". FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The text in the article now follows the sources well. Thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Highly strung nature" would be more clear and less casual as "highly volatile nature".

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Remove "until" from the last sentence. (All animals live until dying.)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

References

• It seems to me that reference 7 should refer to pp. 1024-1025, rather than just p. 1024. Do you agree?

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Should "van Bruggen" be capitalized?

Fixed, though I think I've seen both versions used. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think "Smart Human" should use single quotes.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any other problems with this article. The lede in particular is excellent. The images are all valid and used appropriately, with fitting captions. I hope to support once the above issues are addressed. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll fix these issues later today. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Great work. I think the only thing left is the question of how docile vs. aggressive they were. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd like to see what LittleJerry thinks about the last issue. As for having the exact date of extinction in the lead, I think it's important, since it is otherwise so rarely known exactly when a species went extinct (therefore it is quite notable in itself), and because I am thinking of submitting it as a today's featured article candidate for that date, so it would need to be in the lead anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I never really thought about the docile vs. aggressive when I edited the article. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So it seems like the sources are contradicting each other? We could say that one source says one thing and one another,not sure how. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, summarize and contrast the two viewpoints, and it should be fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to give it a shot today, and LittleJerry is of course free to make suggestions as well. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This article fulfills all the requirements of a Featured Article. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:55, 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) 14:29, 14 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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [21].

---

Diamonds (Rihanna song)

Nominator(s): — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I have worked on the article, since the song was released. Constantly editing it, made me creating what I created today. I believe the article is detailed enough, precise and shows the main impact the song had on the music. Again thanks to Dan56 (talk · contribs) who helped me with the prose. For all the users who decide to oppose, please provide the issues you found so I can fix them. Cheers! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

• "The single topped music charts in more than twenty countries and was a top ten hit in over thirty countries." — Two "countries" in close proximity.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Some critics believed that the heavily tattooed man intertwined with Rihanna's arm in the video resembles Chris Brown."— We slip from past tense (believed) to current (resembles). I would say: "Some critics believe that the heavily tattooed man intertwined with Rihanna's arm in the video resembles Chris Brown."

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• First mention of Rihanna in the body needs to be linked.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Down to critical reception, more to come. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...and felt that it has the potential to be another hit for Rihanna." —Time travelling again: "has" should be "had" if we are using "felt" and not feels.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "According to James Montgomery of MTV News, "Diamonds" is a more positive than previous singles..." —A more positive what? Either that, or we have a stray "a" lurking within the sentence.

Removed the 'a'. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "In the US, "Diamonds" debuted at number 16 on the Billboard Hot 100 and sold 133,000 copies in its first week. In its fourth week, "Diamonds" climbed to number eight on the chart and became Rihanna's twenty-third top-ten single. For the week ending December 1, 2012, "Diamonds" became..." — I don't think we need to keep mentioning the single by name: a pronoun would suffice on the second and third mention.

• Copy-edited. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "On the Radio Songs chart, "Diamonds" debuted at number 28. In its fourth week, "Diamonds" climbed to number ten..." — Again here.

• Copy-edited. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...one on the chart. It remained atop the chart for four consecutive weeks." — repetition of "the chart"

• Copy-edited. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Photographs of the production were leaked on..." — "leaked to the press" I would say (if it was indeed the press).

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Down to Live performances. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...she wore a black lingerie" →"....she wore black lingerie"

• Done.— Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The show was aired by CBS on December 4. On November 10..." – Is there a reason as to why this is not chronological? Also, these two stubby sentences can be combined in my opinion to make for a smoother flow.

• This isn't chronological, because it was shot earlier and aired the next month. I combined the sentences though. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Joe Reid said that her performance was the highlight of the show's episode and was more favorable of the digitized background..." — Who was more favourable? Was the digitized background more favourable than the show itself? I think I know what you mean, in which case may I suggest: "Joe Reid said that her performance was the highlight of the show's episode and favoured the digitized background in particular...."

• Done.— Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Tess Lynch of Gratland was impressed by Rihanna's exceptional singing ..." — slipping into POV territory there.

• I put quotation marks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• was "astonished viewers" part of the quote? See above re POV if not.

• Same as above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• "On November 25, Rihanna performed the song on series 9..." — pronoun preferable.

• Done.— Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Hayes of Irish Independent praised the performance and wrote that it..." — Watch the prose, can you think of another word other than "wrote"?

• Changed it to 'stated'. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• ""Diamonds" was remixed by rapper Flo Rida, whose version was premiered on November 12..."

• Done.— Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• "He also makes raspy-voiced shout-outs to the Illuminati and Tay Zonday..." -- I don't get this. Who were the "Illuminati"? what was he shouting out? Who is Tay Zonday? The reader will be forced to use these links to find out.

• I removed the vague part of the sentence. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Without wishing to sound crass, is "on his Brad Pitt" Rhyming slang for something?

• Tbh, I don't have an idea lol. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That's it, a good job as always Tomica. I will leave the tables to the technical persons looking in but your refs look OK too. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support – per resolved responses. Nice article! -- Cassianto^Talk 09:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• [[New York City, New York]] → [[New York City]], [[New York]]

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• [[Los Angeles, California]] → [[Los Angeles]], [[California]]

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "It was written by Sia Furler and its producers, Benny Blanco and StarGate." — At first I didn't get that "its producers" meant "the song's producers." Is there anyway to make it sound clearer?

• I adjust it a bit. Is it more clearer now? It's better like this than writing, It was written by Sia Furler, Benny Blanco and StarGate, while the production was done by the latter two. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds clearer now. SnapSnap 19:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• twelfth number one single on the ''[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]'' [[Billboard Hot 100|Hot 100]] → twelfth number-one single on the [[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]]

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "...and said that it will first be played on American radio..." → "...and said that it would be first played on American radio..." (since the song has already been played)

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• [[Drums (musical instrument)|drums]] → [[Drum kit|drums]]

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• [[synthesizers]] → [[synthesizer]]s

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• the [[Supremes]] → [[The Supremes]]

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• "seventh number one single in the country" → seventh number-one single in the country

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• [[New Zealand Singles Chart]] → [[Recording Industry Association of America|New Zealand Singles Chart]]

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• [[Australian Singles Chart]] → [[ARIA Charts|Australian Singles Chart]]

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, it's mostly nitpicking. SnapSnap 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. SnapSnap 19:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Et3rnal

Most, if not all of the issues I noticed beforehand have been picked out above by other users. Things I will say though.

• MOS:ALBUM#Track_listing states that track listings should generally be formatted as a numbered list, unless in more complicated situations. Personally I think this one can be written the latter form. Doing this also removes the large amount of space leftover from using the Track listing template, especially when viewing on wide screen monitors or in larger resolutions.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the year-end charts be formatted like the weekly charts and certifications (WP:ACCESS).

• I can't see the difference tbh. Can you please point it out? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Besides that, the article is written well and covers the topic in lots of depth. Et3rnal 18:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I've done it, and with that in mind, I'll now Support. Et3rnal 19:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Adabow

The following part of the 'writing and production' section is extremely confusing: "According to Blanco, he and StarGate went into the studio with an idea to create something "Kanye [West] could rap over" and that was not Rihanna's usual sound: "We weren't thinking of Rihanna at all and then it's the one that we weren't thinking Rihanna, is the one that turned into the Rihanna record ... But that's how it always happens like with me, when I'm really thinking, 'Yo, you got to make this hit right now, we got to make the first single right now.'"[1] They made the record first, followed by its beat.[1]"

Paraphrasing could help, IMO. Was the track originally designed for West? Say that! I can't decipher the quote at all. What does it mean by making he record first and then the beat? Adabow (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's done. Is it okay now? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The quote "It's the one that we weren't thinking Rihanna ... that turned into the Rihanna record ... But that's how it always happens like with me". Is it really necessary? I can't see what info it gives the reader. I still don't understand how the beat could have been made after the music, considering it is part of the music. I would suggest removing this sentence. 00:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with you. Yeah I think it's necessary. It's paraphrased and people can understand what's the point of the sentence. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm not going to oppose on this, but in my opinion it is unclear. Adabow (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Status

• We got a few dead references in the release history (Australia, UK, to name a few). I suggest replacing with Amazon or 7digital links; we've spoken about the use of iTunes before.

 — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Replaced them. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Everything looks good to me! Great work! — Status (talk · contribs) 00:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Media check

Media check - all OK mostly OK (fair-use, own work, Flickr-images with no signs of problems). Only one minor issue:

• File:Diamonds_video_shoot.png - please provide a more detailed "Purpose of use" in the fair-use template: what exactly is illustrated (context between image and article text) and why is this illustration needed to significantly increase the reader's understanding? (note: fair-use is OK, just the argument for it should be a bit more detailed).
• Fair-use for images and sound sample is OK aside from the minor issue above. GermanJoe (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Joe. I believe it's okay now. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Done Status updated, thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Colonies Chris

• Emeli Sande should be Emeli Sandé. Dave Aude should be Dave Audé.
• The article titles for well-known cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Atlanta are not qualified by the state name; there's no need for "New York City, New York"; "Los Angeles, California", "Atlanta, Georgia". Why would any reader care that Los Angeles in California (in the unlikely event they didn't know already)? There's no other Los Angeles it might be confused with. Only the city is important here, the state has no value.
• Many citations have superfluous publisher parameters (e.g. work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media, work=New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Company). These have no value at all to anyone checking references, and in fact Template:Citation#Publisher recommends omitting publisher for periodicals. (And in the case of most US newspapers, the legal owner (e.g. The New York Times Company) is different from the publisher (Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.), so it's not only useless but inaccurate too.) Colonies Chris (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources review: I have so far checked out the first of the three columns of refs:

• Ref 14: Date in source is September 25, 2012, not October 2

• Fixed it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 21 returns "Page Not Found"

• Removed it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 22 requires purchase after first page

• All the information that is present in the article is visible so that's not really an issue. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 24: How is "The Marquee Blog" connected with the BBC?

• It's CNN actually, fixed it :). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 36: The source is "Independent Woman.ie" which I believe is a website rather than a print source

• Yeah, but it's published by the Irish Independent, so I adjusted it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 41: Again, I don't think the Irish Independent' is the source. It may be the parent organisation, but the source here appears to be the Enniscorthy Guardian.

• Same as above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Refs 59 and 60 appear to be identical

• No they are not, they just have a different title. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll add more when I can Brianboulton (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources review continued (second column)

• Ref 80: source is dated 12.8.13 not 22.7.13

• Fixed. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 82 and other MTV: a note should be added, that MTV sites are not generally available to users outside the US

• Tbh, I live in another country and continent from the US, but I can still visit the sources (apart of one note that says maybe I would like to see MTV Europe), so I think the note will be useless.

• Ref 93: "Latin Times" or "Los Angeles Times"?

  • Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 98: Beth Graham is the author, not the publisher

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 124: Source does not appear to be informative

There is a problem with the {{singleschart}}, it will be fixed soon. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Finish soon! Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources review concluded (third column)

• 124 and 125: Instructions required for use (I know they're Hungarian, but...)

• As I said above, this is an issue with the template, I can't do nothing about it, a friend of mine will hopefully fix it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• 136 returns "page not found"

• Fixed it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• 138 returns "not found"

• Fixed it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• 141 returns "page not found"

• Fixed it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• 142 returns "page not found"

• Fixed it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• 157: I can't see where this source confirms the statistic cited to it.

• Removed it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• 169 goes to a blank page

• Fixed it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• 170: I failed to find mention of either Rihanna or Diamonds on this source.

• Done, added a note in the reference. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the sourcing of pop music articles, but the sources used here look broadly what I would expect to see. Certainly the article has been most thoroughly cited. I have checked every link, identifying those not working and raising queries on a few more, which you seem to be addressing. This has been a marathon - I apologise for the time taken. I hope not to do another like this for a while. But good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Brian! I really appreciate your help. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I've gone through the whole article. It's an easy, interesting read that is definitely FA material. Great work! Arre 10:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Arre! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- pls review duplicate links with this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I installed and run the script. I believe there are no more WP:OVERLINKS on the article. Thanks — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:33, 14 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) 14:48, 14 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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [22].

---

A Song Flung Up to Heaven

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because as part of my on-going effort to improve Maya Angelou articles, it's next in line. Actually, it's the last of her autobiographies that are expanded to this point, and ready to be reviewed. (There's one more, her 7th and most recent, Mom & Me & Mom, which just came out this year.) A question that comes up in almost every review of these articles is regarding capitalization. Here's the explanation:[23] Thanks, and enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "Angelou's long-time editor, Robert Loomis, agreed..." - source?
• Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated
• FN33, 40: page(s)?
• Hagen: which university press?
• Don't mix templated and untemplated book citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All the above addressed, except for final one, which I think is a editing choice. When I use them, I don't use templates in the "Works cited" section because the standard book templates is Harvard style, which is different than the standard citation used for references. If that's a problem, I can change the citation templates to untemplated, which has become my preference after most of the editing of this article occurred, anyway. I also went through all the links and made sure they still work, which they do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine - otherwise looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (fair-use for infobox image, PD), sources and authors provided. Just two suggestions (both done):

• File:Paul_Laurence_Dunbar.jpg => the caption is quite long and the 2 sentences are not well-connected to each other (the connection Dunbar to "bird as symbol" is somewhat missing). I'd remove the second sentence completely and include this information in the main text, if you think it's vital for this article.
• quote box for Patricia Elam => quotes should be as brief as possible. The first part from "Billed as ..." to "Why the Caged Bird Sings, this new book" could be replaced with "... this new book" without loosing any context. GermanJoe (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Followed suggestions. Thanks, Joe. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - but a few comments so you know I read it.

• Judy Feiffer, inspired by her tales about her childhood, contacts editor Robert Loomis Ambiguity here. On first reading I thought "her" referred to Feiffer.

Clarified.

• What are you looking at me for. Can you double-check that a question mark is not supposed to be here?

Done so, and no there's no question mark in the source. However, I found that the original doesn't have a break in between the sentences, so I removed it. What do you think about putting it in a blockquote?

Npw that iot is one one line, that would probably look better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to tell Elam that you don't sketch with a brush.

Ha ha. Doncha love those mixed metaphors? ;)

• How about a reference at the end of the last paragraph?

Done.

Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable feedback as always, and for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I have not spent time verifying the content of this article, but I believe the prose is well-written and trust its accuracy based on the author's additional work. I would support the promotion of this article assuming concerns by all other reviewers are addressed. Christine, thank you for contributing great work to Wikipedia! --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, AB! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this edit and forgot to mention this one request after reviewing the article. Thanks, Quadell, for actually articulating something that came and left my mind! (The joys of being a distracted Wikipedian...) --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks by Quadell:

• 4a and b: Quotations are correct
• 4c and d: The opinion of the reviewer is well summarized without plagiarism.
• 7a, c, and e: Quotations are correct
• 7b and d: The insight of the reviewer is correctly stated and reworded without plagiarism.
• 8: Facts are present in source. Well worded.
• 12: Facts are present in source. Well worded.
• 15: Fact is in source.
• 26: The source is very will summarized. Well cited, no problems.
• 34: Quote is correct.

All in all, the sourcing is excellent, as I've come to expect from the nominator. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Quadell

• All images are used appropriately and have correct descriptions and sourcing.
• The article sourcing is excellent, as detailed above in the spotchecks.
• The second sentence in the lede, beginning "The 2002 spoken word album...", feels out of place. In my opinion, it would fit better in the middle of the second paragraph or at the end of the third.
• I see you sourced only direct quotes in the lede, which is a good decision. It seems to me, though, that "calamitous events" should be a direct quote with a source in the "plot summary" section, and should have neither the quotation marks nor the source in the lede.
  • It seems you felt the phrase was enough of an opinion to still require a direct quote and source in the lede. That's an editorial decision that, while different than the one I would have made, is valid. No objections. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• The lede adequately summarizes all parts of the article, without giving undue weight to any section. Well done.
• In the "background" section, the second paragraph uses the "as ___ stated," structure 3 times in 3 sentences (and uses "stated" again later in the paragraph). The prose would flow better with more diverse phrasing.
• Mom & Me & Mom should be linked its first time it is referred to in the body of the article.

All the above addressed; thanks for the kind words.

• The "plot summary" section should not assume knowledge of her previous autobiographies to be understandable. It mentions "to resume her nightclub act", but the reader doesn't know what kind of act until it is later implied that she was a singer. It also states that Guy's "neck is broken again", without mention of a previous break.

You're right, of course. Fixed the first by changing and adding content: "...to resume her singing and performing career, which she had given up before leaving for Africa several years earlier." I fixed the second by removing the reference to Guy's broken neck and by adding the note explaining when his first accident occurred.

• There are a few opportunities for rewording in the "plot summary section". For one, consider rewording: "She realizes, after seeing Della Reese perform, that she lacks the desire, commitment, and talent be a singer, so she returns to her writing career, but this time in Los Angeles instead of in New York City like earlier in her life." It's missing a "to" before "be a singer", but more importantly, it feels disorganized. This might be a better way of putting it: "She realizes, after seeing Della Reese perform, that she lacks the desire, commitment, and talent to be a singer. She instead returns to her writing career, but this time in Los Angeles instead of in New York City as she had earlier in her life." (A different rewording may work even better.)

I like your version fine, so I've used it.

• Another place: "She witnesses the 1965 Watts Riots, even though it could mean getting arrested, which to her disappointment, does not occur." Try instead "She witnesses the 1965 Watts Riots, knowing that doing so could lead to her arrest, and she is genuinely disappointed that it does not." (Or some other rewording.)

Ditto. ;)

• The sentence beginning "At one point, Angelou's lover..." feels like a series of phrases joined by commas. It should be reworded and perhaps broken up.

Done both. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is only a suggestion and is not required for my support, but... I notice that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the "style and genre" section share much prose with articles about her other autobiographies. To some degree this is unavoidable, but it seems to me that there may be material at Maya Angelou#Style and genre in autobiographies which can be used instead to add variety to these articles. I think it is worth considering, though not strictly necessary. (I do not have enough knowledge of Angelou's style to suggest specific changes.)

I've thought about this feedback, and have come to the conclusion that I respectfully disagree with it. I understand what's behind it--that these sections need to be more different from each other. There are three paragraphs in the above-mention section in the main bio article that aren't here. The reason it's not here is that it discusses the style and genre in all her autobiographies. I think the the content in this article relates more specifically to this book, which is why it's here and why the other content isn't. The other problem is that while Angelou's autobiographies have had much more discussion and study than her poetry (I know that because these days, I'm working on her poetry articles), there hasn't been a lot compared to other important American authors. There are literally no sources specifically discussing the genre and style of this particular book, so I've had to generalize. Is my explanation satisfactory? I appreciate the question, because it's made me think about it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I respect that. Thanks for the consideration. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• The "critical reception" section is particularly strong and remarkably even-handed.

I look forward to supporting when all issues are resolved. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support, all issues addressed, I can't find anything that is not fully FA-worthy in the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The article is well structured and set out, it has a clean and coherent feel to it. It is well written and engaging, too. References are good. There are a couple of points which I would have raised but have been done so by other editors, so I feel happy to support this nomination with the assurance that the above points are amended.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a problem with this FAC, any reason why it's being held up for so long? Please let me know, so I can address any issues. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

I'll review this tomorrow, perhaps my review might make a difference to it passing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Some inconsistencies in date formatting in sourcing. Mostly digits but ref 38 has a 25. January. Strange to have a dot but I'd generally rather digits are put in writing e.g 12 August 2013 rather than 2013-08-12. Looks more professional to me. Can you ensure they're all consistent one way or the other? Given that you've already given some dates of publications as April 2002 i think it makes sense that you convert the digits to written dates too..

This is more of a problem with the templates, and with the fact that the sources' publication dates are month and date rather than my practice of using the 0000-00-00 format. I think that's an editor preference that unfortunately doesn't make it consistent in this case. I'm willing to put up with it, but for you, Doc, I will make the formatting change. But only because I love ya, dude. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• She had become recognized and highly respected as a spokesperson for Blacks and women. She was, as scholar Joanne Braxton has stated, "without a doubt, ... America's most visible black woman autobiographer".[3] She had also be -repetition of she, change one or two to Angelou.
• "The title of Song was based upon the same poem, by African American poet Paul Lawrence Dunbar, she based her first autobiography on. "" Repetition of based, I'd reword it as "The title of Song was based upon the same poem, by African American poet Paul Lawrence Dunbar, the basis of her first autobiography."

Background

• Not sure why (She did not celebrate her birthday, April 4, for many years because it was also the anniversary of King's death, choosing instead to send his widow Coretta Scott King flowers.[12]) is in brackets in a separate sentence. Either put it as a note at the bottom of the article or keep it as a sentence without brackets.

Style

• Delink Robert Loomis at the bottom of section (already linked).

All the above addressed, thanks.

Reception

• "Amy Strong of The Library Journal, perhaps because Angelou's life during the time the book took place was full of more personal loss than conflict and struggle, considered Song less profound and intense than the previous books in Angelou's series." Seems a little OR, especially as it's unsourced.

But it's not unsourced. Ref 42 supports both the first and second statements in the 3rd paragraph. Personally, I think that citing both statements is WP:OVERCITE, but I can do it you want.

Thanks, I appreciate the helpful feedback, as always. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Support You're most welcome. Hope to see this pass very soon.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:56, 13 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) 14:01, 14 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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [24].

---

Confusion (album)

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is well-written, properly sourced, reasonably illustrated, and as comprehensive as possible of the article's topic; all sources on and related to the topic have been found and exhausted. Short, but sweet article. Dan56 (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

Comments Oppose This is a solid article, but I think that it needs more background on the development of the album and information on how it was originally received, including in Nigeria:

• The background section should provide some information on Fela Kuti's pre-1970s career to put his change of focus into perspective and explain his style of music (a paragraph or so would do the job)

• I suppose I could add a bit from Allmusic's bio, even though it doesn't mention this album. Dan56 (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Where and when was the album recorded, and can anything be said about the process of recording it?
• ""pafuka" means "all over" or "finished". Kuti also used the interjection "o" to add emphasis" - this seems out of place

• Those phrases are prevalent in the song. Do you suggest rephrasing it or removing altogether? Dan56 (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• This material is provided without any context at all: it just suddenly appears at the end of a sentence. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can anything be said about the critical or commercial reception the album received when it was released? (I was expecting to see some information about sales, reception by Fela Kuti's fans and reviews by contemporary critics).
• Also, all the critical reviews are from western reviewers: how was, and is, the album regarded in Nigeria? Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately this is all there is; music journalism is really a Western thing/development, and hey, it's a third world country, what can you do. I don't know about fans. There aren't really ever reliable sources for fan reception in album articles. Added the paragraph on background. Dan56 (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• That all strikes me as being highly unlikely I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good job overall- Nick-D is right, though, needs much more Nigerian background and criticism from the source. Actually, criticism in Nigeria has a long and storied history, and please lose the casual (though i'm sure not intended) racism: "it's a third world country, what can you do." Fela came from that third world country, so it also makes no sense. When you look for Nigerian criticism, replace the word with "Naija," the preferred word for the country by Nigerians. You might want to start with Benson Idonije of The Guardian. Check Naija.com, Bellanaija.com, Y! Magazine, 234next.com. All good places to start. A little more effort on the source-criticism, Dan56, and I think you'll be pretty damn good. Kudos!

Venuzza67 (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not racist bro. And yes, that was the reference, Fela is from that third-world country, so it makes sense. And all sources on this topic have been exhausted, whether you want to believe it or not. I wouldn't have nominated this article if it wasn't as comprehensive on the topic as possible. If Nigeria has a long and storied history, it isn't evident from the sources available. And I addressed Nick-D's concern regarding the background section. It was convenient to be less on the article's topic in a background section with a larger perspective on Kuti in general, but unfortunately, I cant manufacture Nigerian music criticism of the album. I don't know what "Naija" has to do with Googling sources; typing in "Fela Kuti" with "Confusion" (or the album's year, details, etc.) would have done the same if there really are online sources for reviews by Nigerian sources. According to this, the only FA music articles under the Africa wikiproject are "We Are the World" and some Madonna song, so I'm not surprised with how limited those sources appear to be. Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In regards to "And all sources on this topic have been exhausted", is it really the case that not a word was written on this album by an artist with an international profile at the time of its release? I would have thought that the lively music media in the UK would have covered it at the time. I doubt that Fairfax's book in 1993 was the first time anyone had written about this album. I'm afraid that I'm going to shift to a formal oppose. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I've searched all kinds of variations in GoogleNews, Books, and web search of the album title with Kuti's name and the release year, or the record label, one of the credited musicians such as Tony Allen, etc. (such as these: [25], [26], [27]). I also searched each line from the song to see if a commentary of its quote would coincide in an article. I hope you're not opposing because you don't believe me. I would understand it if it was because the article lacks the material to establish its notability with enough third-party coverage. It simply does not have such coverage of the additional material you're referring to. Also, this isn't as surprising to me, since Fela never charted in the UK; attention from the music press back then would likely have helped it chart, such as in the case of Marquee Moon (#Commercial performance). Even in a search for just "Fela Kuti", there's nothing at GoogleNews for that decade ([28]) and almost nothing at Books ([29]). At Rock's Backpages, which archives notable UK magazines, a search for "Fela Kuti" in that decade also came up with nothing, except a '72 article that seemed to be written only because of Ginger Baker having worked with Kuti ([30]). Again, I wouldn't have expected much Western attention to be paid to a Nigerian artists during the '70s, but I nonetheless searched as extensively as possible. Dan56 (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that such a reference as Rock's Backpages exists, and your search of it alone is sufficient for me to drop the oppose. I'm not prepared to support without Nigerian sources, but would have no objections at all to seeing this promoted. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Eduemoni

• Comment - The article is solid, very well written and sourced, but does the article already reached its content limit? Ain't there any information or content that should be added to it? I think I'm missing something, but where is its recording and producing info? Shan't it have its own section? There is a section about release and reception, but I think this is misleading, there isn't textual information about its chart performance. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the liner notes don't even list where it was recorded. The album did not chart, upon release or reissue. Dan56 (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The recording info is widely known. Kuti recorded all his studio work between 1970 and '77 in the studio in his commune, the Kalakuta Republic.Venuzza67 (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It was not widely known enough for a published source to explicitly say this album was recorded there. Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a fact, Dan56, known by anyone with the slightest awareness of Fela's political life. If you look at early prints of the album, including the French versions, Kalakuta is clearly listed. If I knew how to upload a photo, I'd show you. But I can't do all your work for you. Fela also recorded during the same period at Abbey Road, but that was live with an audience. And he was working still with Ginger Baker in Lagos. But "Confusion" had all the main tracks recorded in Kalakuta, and the mixing was done in LA. Also, you should note more clearly that Confusion marks the first time Fela played sax on record. Are there any editors with a bit more background on Fela to help round out Dan's article? He's doing a fairly decent job, but he needs the finer points.

Thanks. Venuzza67 (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What he needs, to add the information noted here, are sources. Original research isn't going to cut it. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not the venue to continue your personal attacks towards me (my talk page can be found here) If you have any comments or criticism based on reliable published sources rather than original research, please offer it. Otherwise, neither your personal claims of what is fact (WP:NOTTRUTH) nor your condescending tone are helpful here. Here is an upload of the original French LP from Discogs. Kalakuta is clearly not listed. The original Nigerian sleeve appears only to show the credits and a lyrics sheet. If you have an edition that verifies your claim, you can upload a photo of it through this (licensing info wouldn't be important since it would be a temporary upload either way). Dan56 (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The recording studio, in this case, has political and social ramifications aside from just being a logistical concern. It's easily verifiable information- Fela was recording at the commune- Gentleman and then Confusion. He also did some work at A.R.C., ginger Baker's place in Lagos at the same time, but not on his own album. It's vital to introduce the political chaos surrounding this album, even the incident with Paul Mccartney, in which Fela confronted him and accused him of "stealing" from African musicians, as well as Fela's increasing militancy, allignment with the Black Panthers (via an intro from his girlfriend), is It may be a bit beyond the scope of your article, but Mccartney's refusal to record with Baker was cited by a Kuti associate as a precipitating force in Kuti's escalating mental anguish regarding his ill feelings toward Europe, even though Kuti had enjoyed London for most of his youth. "Confusion," the song (and, therefore album) is concerned exactly with these themes, and tied to Kuti's dissapointment in the lack of African response to what he saw as urban oppression. To leave out the recording information is a glaring omission- by recording at the compound, Kuti was making a political statement. He didn't want to work at EMI in Lagos anymore- and declared the commune independent of Nigeria. This led to the raid in '77 in which Kuti's mother was injured and died shortly after. Follow Kuti's engineer, Emmanuel Odenusi, to all the the recording information. Odenusi only worked at the commune with Kuti, later becoming a fixture at EMI. You should definitely include that he premiered his sax playing on the album- and, although he wasn't much of a player, on sax or trumpet, it's historic and important, in that it showed his increasing emergence as a leader and organizer, and, in a tangential though some say critical way, his emergence as a sociopolitical threat to the government. It's precisely because of Kuti's belief that venue, ie., independence, mattered, that the Nigerian soldiers destroyed the studio and commune. By destroying his "independence," they hoped to crush the threat. The reason I said to use the term "Naija," is because it will bring up more sources that are Nigerian, due to the fact that Nigerians tend to favor the term Naija.

Thanks Venuzza67 (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• WP:NOR, and Google already recognizes "Naija"/"NIgerian" as shown in this search, so it would not have made a difference. Dan56 (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Tomica

• After reading the article I feel confident to support. The article is well written, sourced and thorough. What I noticed only, can you provide which studio album [by number] is it? Cheers! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• No sources mentioned the chronology; fela.net shows a discography and catalog page, but it's too vague to cite; for instance, there are 3 1974 albums with no discernible chronological order. I think if I introduced a guess in the article like "fifth studio album", it would easily be challengeable. Dan56 (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Check this out Dan for Chronology- http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/kuti.html

Venuzza67 (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I already incorporated Scaruffi's page in the article (specifically his quote "one of his most challenging..." in the reception sec.), but it doesn't delineate the chronology--all the boldfaced titles aren't suggested by him to be complete, let alone in order, as he introduces his critique of the recordings by saying "They include...", meaning part of a whole. Scaruffi also listed the year for Confusion as 1975, so it's safe to say he's no Martin C. Strong or anything. The impression I get from MOS:ALBUM#Lead is that the chronological description in the lead is a generality, but not essential, such as with The Basement Tapes. Dan56 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Flat Out

I support the nomination of this article. The article is very well written, and well sourced and referenced. I agree that some in depth analysis of inception, recording and production aspects of the album would balance out the article but I accept that this is beyond the limits of the available sources. Good job. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

the only other suggestion- have you got your hands (or eyes) on the booklet included with the new Ginger Baker curated compilation? Or the Chris May booklet in the Kniting Factor edition-- I'm not sure it's specific regarding the production dates etc, but it may shed light. Venuzza67 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The booklet is also in the Baker box set; it has an intro by Questlove about his love of Kuti's music, lyrics sheet and track analysis, 5 or 6 pages of photos, a general bio of Kuti by May, and some reprinted labels for LP fetishists. Doesn't say nothing new that isn't online, specifically May's verbatim article for All About Jazz, which I already used. Trust me dude, I've covered my bases. Dan56 (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Driveby suggestion—short tracklists like this one are best laid out simply, without the template. The template stretches across the width of the screen, meaning that in a widescreen monitor, there's a foot between the song title and its duration.—indopug (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Great point! Dan56 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Venuzza67

I think this is a very good article, but not in the same league as many of the Featured articles I've read. Dan56 has said that production information regarding dates and location are not available, and it seems he's been thorough in checking that out. Unfortunately, that would be one of the main reasons to read a Wikipedia article on the album, and its omission, while understandable, is glaring. The article is also a bit confused, ironically. It never gives you a clear and direct sense of what made this album important, although, when reading it, you feel the answer may be buried somewhere in all the information provided. All in all, a very good job, but just not good enough to be labelled "The Best Wikipedia Has to Offer." Venuzza67 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

MOS:ALBUM lists a recording/production as a possible section that should only be created if information for it is available. It is not. Third-party coverage determines notability, so the lack of coverage suggests this is not pertinent or a major detail. This article is not omitting this information, third-party coverage is omitting it; the criteria at WP:FACR regards the article. If this article is "confused", how is it "very good"? If the confusion concerns the writing or structure, please elaborate. Also, if it's any consolation, Jihad (song) is an FA-article without such information. Dan56 (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you make excellent points. I meant it is "very good," because the content and information provided is very good. It's just that I wish it could be stated a bit more directly and simply why the album is worth listening to. The reason I think it doesn't quite rise yet to "Featured" status is because, as good as that information is, it feels very much like you must already be familiar with Kuti to understand why the album is important. I wish the opening, for instance, could somehow convey to a casual reader the pure enjoyment of the album, rather than "Confusion is a commentary on the confused state of post-colonial Lagos and its lack of infrastructure...", which is wonderful, but possibly a bit off-putting as an opener. I don't mean to belabor the production information point. It's just that, considering the intense political and social unrest and intrigue, the 'where' and 'how' of the actual recording seems especially pertinent. Could you write something regarding why it may be so difficult to find? Without, I suppose, it being mere conjecture. I know it may not be possible, but if anyone could, i would think you could. Also, is there some interesting reason, perhaps other than time period, that "Gentleman" has been grouped with it? Do you think there is some significance?

Thanks! Venuzza67 (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article, not a music review. I think you should familiarize yourself with WP's core policies; the point of articles is to summarize a topic within the scope of its coverage, not endorse the topic to readers. Again, you're qualifying your praise ambiguously with something critical like "off-putting" (how?) Is it off-putting to word material in a way that sticks to the source and in a concise, neutral tone (WP:TONE, WP:ATE) ? If you believe this article is omitting a major detail that has been covered by reliable sources, please phrase your criticism that way. Third-party coverage determines what is pertinent or not. You're literally asking me to conjure up material that doesn't exist. I'm not a reliable third-party source, and this is not the venue to be asking me novel questions that aren't covered by such sources. I would appreciate it if you'd make your comments based on the criteria. This entire review process keeps getting away from the scope of WP:FACR. Dan56 (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Iknow23

Support
As one not familiar with this material, I must say that I found it to be quite engaging and informative. After all, someone that already knows all this wouldn't be coming to Wikipedia to read it. My editing experience consists to a large extent to formatting corrections; such as, song titles in quotes and album titles in italics, number and date formatting and a 'specialty' in correcting statements such as 'released to radio' > 'sent to radio', etc. One could say that I possess a 'trained eye' for such. I say all this to point out that, amazingly (to me) I find NO discernible errors here. In ALMOST EVERY case upon my first visit to a page, I make 10-12 edits. Here I can make NONE. Structure and everything seems fine to me. I have read all the prior comments and replies and believe that some improvements have been made as a result thereof true to Wikipedia being a community effort. I commend the nominator in I believe quite painstaking efforts to discover the material requested in other's comments. I commend the other's for requesting same in their efforts to improve the article further. But If such material just doesn't exist, well that's it then. I see no good reason to deprive the Wiki readers 'at large' the pleasure of discovering this article.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by 2Flows

Comment I was not familiar with the artist's work before reading this article and found it quite informative. This is definitely a good article, well-written and well-formatted and I think it meets all criteria for being a featured article. My only concern, however, is the point for being comprehensive. As some of the comments above stated, the article does not have information about critical reception from the artist's country or any reception at all for the first 20 years after its initial release. Also information about the recording process and where it was recorded would have been nice. While I believe this is not due to the lack of research, it is still a point that is bothering me a bit. The article is rather short, but it is well-written and focused on the topic, so this is not a problem. The criteria defines the length should be "suitable for the subject", which is true in this case. There are a few other minor things, which I've listed below:

• The review from All About Jazz is by Derrick A. Smith, who is NOT credited as part of the article editor's staff [31], which most likely means he is a non-professional blogger, since the site includes articles by a number of volunteers. That's why I believe it is not suitable to be included.
• Maybe you can add an Album ratings template to summarize the ratings it received from critics, so the reader can see at a glance that the album has received acclaim even without reading the whole paragraph.

Overall, I wouldn't oppose to see this being a FA. 2Flows (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think Smith is a part of their staff anymore, which is why he's not listed there (the sections for "Top Reviewers" and "Top Authors" shows those who have been "published in" or "reviewed in 2013"); according to this, Smith hasn't written for them since 2000. With regards to the ratings template, there are only four reviews that gave it a score, three of which were not for Confusion, but for the two-album package of Confusion and Gentleman when it was reissued. It just wouldn't seem economic or kosher when the ratings can be said plainly in prose and when the few that have ratings are not for the album specifically. Dan56 (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Media check

Media check - all OK (fair-use, CC 2.0). Sources and authors provided.

• Infobox image and sound sample - fair-use OK.
• File:Market_in_Lagos,_Nigeria.jpg - OK (public market in open space). Added personality rights info. GermanJoe (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by SilkTork

• Some quick comments, I'll try to do more later. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• The article is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• "He recorded the album after choosing to emphasize his African heritage and nationalism in his music." This statement in the lead is a summary of the Background section. I have two queries here. Is the amount of detail in the Background section appropriate? It seems a fairly general summary of a long period in Fela Kuti's career, and I'm not quite getting why this album needs such a background. The background starts in 1961 - and the album was made in 1974. Also, I am not quite clear on what the statement is saying. Initially it sounds like this was the first album in which he emphasized his African heritage - yet the background explains that he had been doing this for some time. It appears from the summary, that he had been exploring his African heritage for quite some time. Why does the article choose to draw particular attention to that for this album. Is this album particularly significant in regards to that matter? Critics appear to find Zombie his most notable from the period. If so, could that be explained a bit more in the article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I thought so too, but I only wrote the first paragraph after it was requested in Nick-D's comments above. The second paragraph is based on the Fairfax book's chapter that ties that information to this album. Dan56 (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• On the whole the article appears neutral, though the Release and reception section has nothing but praise. It would be useful to have balanced critical commentary. Are all the retrospective review purely positive? It does sometimes happen that way - if, so, no worries. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems unanimously positive. Dan56 (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I also note that all the critical comments are retrospective. It can be hard to find contemporary reviews. I've had a look, and all I can find is a contemporary review of Zombie by Robert Christgau, so it may not be possible to find contemporary reviews. Was the record released outside Africa in 1974? If not, then looking for contemporary reviews would be even more difficult! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• It was released in France in 1974 ( at least according to Discogs); no contemporary reviews still. Actually, even that Christgau review you're referring to originally comes from his 1981 book on '70s albums. Dan56 (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for those comments. The article appears neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• The article has an appropriate structure. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• The article has an appropriate reference section and uses consistent citations. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Media. The album cover and the song sample are OK. I think the use of the market image is questionable, and given that it is tagged with a personality warning, the article may be better off without it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

On a market persons have only a limited or no expectation of privacy in most jurisdictions. In that context the tag is only intended as warning for re-users, not necessarily as sign of a problem with the image itself (Commons hosts a ton of images of crowds of people). GermanJoe (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Article appears well-researched - each independent source I check, verifies items I read in the article. I have not checked all the sources used in the article, as most of those are not linked to an internet source. But books, such as Fela the Life and Times of an African Musical Icon by Michael E Veal, verify the content. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• The phrase "trading market" to refer to the Lagos market is used twice. In the lead it is linked to Financial market. Is it specifically a financial market? The lyrics refer to men selling at the roadside, and a white man buying "the thing" from them, but using different currencies, which causes confusion. The image used is of a street market rather than a financial market. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I changed the link to "street market"; I previously mistook the market trade redirect for "trade market". Dan56 (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Linking is not part of the FA criteria - though I wonder if linking common words such as infrastructure, studio album, reissued, New York City, and improvise, etc, is needed? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure if "infrastructure" is common enough or if New York City is what WP:OVERLINK would deem as a major location, but I usually link studio album since the infobox does so, and both reissue and improvisation are music-related and seem more technical terms in this context (WP:UNDERLINK). Dan56 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ping me if follow up is needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Walter Görlitz

• Support I was asked to comment so I will. As most other editors have commented, it's a solid article and while some of the sections could use expanding, material for a non-Western album release isn't always easy to come by, particularly pre-Internet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by HotHat

• Support I was not solicited by the nominator of this FAC, even though we have worked together closely before on some articles. I would have to say this is done to the utter highest quality that an article like this one could be done up to with the information out on the internet. In addition, it greatly exceeds the criteria for FA anyway. An excellent job Dan56, my hats are off to you on this one.HotHat (talk) 08:03, 9 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) 13:45, 14 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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [32].

---

Jesus

Nominator(s): FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers: Please read this article's FAQ before reading the article. If you disagree with anything in the FAQ, please voice your concern at the article's talk page, not here.

This article became a good article in early May, and also received a copy edit from the WP:GOCE later that month. After much work, I believe this article is ready for FAC.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Welcome to FAC. I see User:JimWae has the most edits to the article; has he been notified? - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I made 740 edits (3rd place) to the article. Does that not make me a "significant contributor"? Anyways, I've just sent him a message.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure ... but someone with 915 edits to this article might want to know it's at FAC; they won't necessarily be watchlisting it all the time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Appearance

• Language, ethnicity and appearance section: For appearance, you basically state that there is no proof of what Jesus looked like, which is totally fair. But there is general consensus out there of what a man living at that time in that place would probably look like. Can you include a sentence or two that covers what the experts believe is a best guess as to what Jesus probably looked like? That section left me wanting to know. upstateNYer 02:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. I added some brief info. Scholars agree that Jesus likely looked like a typical Jew, and had a tough appearance due to his work and travels.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm looking more for what a typical Jew looked like. Everybody reading that will think of how they see the typical Jew. The typical Jew of 2000 years ago, though, didn't look like today's Jew I'm sure. upstateNYer 17:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm just wondering whether this might be heading for too much speculation. The ideas that Jesus probably looked like the typical Jew and was probably sinewy are already just speculations based on his ethnicity and lifestyle. To define the "typical Jew of 2000 years ago" would be another round of speculation, wouldn't it? Isn't this going to end up as speculation-squared? That and the fraught issue of ethnic stereotyping. --Stfg (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • A scholarly attempt was made here, which is probably worth citing. --99of9 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's interesting, but the depiction is that of an average 1st-century Jew, not specifically Jesus.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree with Stfg. Too much speculation. Could you imagine how would it be if in 2,000 years someone said that the average American looked like Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton? --Lecen (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Don't let's use that Discovery Channel-style story from Popular Mechanics! Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone

Support (but see later comment way, way below) Comment. Very interesting, looks promising. My support is qualified by this not being my field and it certainly is a subject that begets an enormous literature. I am trusting that the literature is fairly represented.

• Last para on chronology: "Astronomers since Isaac Newton have tried to estimate..." There is no explanation of why on earth astronomy would be relevant, leaving this reader confused. How does astronomy enter the picture? How are they coming up with specific actual dates? This jars with the clarity of preceding material that sets out reasons for estimates of years etc. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out. I've expanded that sentence and added a footnote. Is it better now?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• The article is structured by separating the new testament account from all other accounts or historical views, and I am not quite sure about the justification for the separation of Josephus and Tacitus from what are essentially other sources of the same approximate date (the new testament documents). Can an editor clarify why this is? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There is a big distinction among scholars between the "Christ of faith" (the Jesus described in the gospels) and the "Jesus of history". This article meant to be a general article that covers all views on Jesus, including the Jesus of the New Testament, the historic Jesus, and the Jesus of other religions (such as Islam).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• The article states 'Bart D. Ehrman states that it is unsound to argue that since Jesus had an immense impact on the society of his day, one might have expected contemporary accounts of his deeds; Ehrman adds that although Jesus had a large impact on future generations, his impact on the society of his time was "practically nil"'. I think this sentence needs reworking, but it depends on what exactly Ehrman is saying. My interpretation is that he is not "adding" something but explaining the error of the argument. If that is correct, a better formulation would be: 'Bart D. Ehrman argues that although Jesus had a large impact on future generations, his impact on the society of his time was "practically nil". It would therefore be unsound to expect contemporary accounts of his deeds.' hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that your suggestion is a better wording. I've fixed it now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• These sentences puzzle me: 'Jonathan Waxman of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes that Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah have "crossed the line out of the Jewish community".[320] Reform Judaism holds that anyone in the Jewish community "who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate" ' I felt they gave undue weight to one particular view in contemporary groups, and in any case seemed to express a view to which an alternative had never crossed my mind (that some Jews would see Jesus as messiah). Because of this, I was then further confused by the association of this view with "Conservative" Judaism. When I clicked on the link, i learned that the grtoup in question is North American only, which is not really consistent with the worldwide view of the article subject. All in all, this bit didn't work for me, and seems to provide unnecessary detail to elaborate that which is already stated in the first two sentences of the section. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I've removed the two sentences you mentioned. There is a group known as Messianic Jews who considers Jesus to be the Messiah. I've added some brief info about them.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• In a top level article of this gravity that is already long, why is there coverage of the UFO religions, particularly one that has fewer followers than the population of a single town, or Religious Science, which is similarly tiny? I would also question the inclusion of the Jefferson Bible stuff. In contrast, most of the other "other" inclusions make sense; gnosticism for its historically significant role in religion; Nietsche and Russell as major infuences on western modern thought, and Hinduism, because of the global significance of the religion. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree. I've moved the 3 statements you mentioned to the Religious perspectives on Jesus article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Any particular reason the version of the bible being quoted is anachronistic (eg. "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee...")? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There was a talk page discussion about this. Initially, the American Standard Version (which is PD) is used to avoid copyright issues. But the discussion at Talk:NFCC seems to agree that WP's policies don't restrict the use of non-free versions. I'll change it to the NRSV, the one commonly used by scholars.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. All the quotes have been switched.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Image review by FunkMonk

• All images have proper licenses, but there is one problem. This file[33] obviously has wrong author information, and needs to be fixed somehow. At the least, the author field should say unknown, I'm sure it is PD old, so it can still be used either way. It seems the uploader thinks he owns copyright for taking the picture, but that is incorrect. Apart from this, no problems, and I moved one locally hosted image to Commons. Maybe the origin of the image can be determined through Google's new image recognition tool. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've changed the author information to "unknown". I've also changed the licensing from PD-self to PD-old-100.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking again, all the PD old images need the dual PD old/PD US license tag, as that has become common practice now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? I thought just the PD-old-100 tag is sufficient, because it says "This work is in the public domain in the United States..." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, for some reason I was synonymising PD-old with PD-70 in my head, but none such are even present, so PD-100 should be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's sufficient for Wikipedia and Commons. But some countries don't have the equivalent of Bridgeman, so when a user has explicitly released their photographic work as PD-self, that should still be noted on the file page to allow external non-US reusers who cannot rely on PD-Art. I've amended it. --99of9 (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review from Cliftonian

Support from Cliftonian. After a number of read-throughs and comments and a few amendments on my own part, I now feel comfortable with giving this my backing. I've capped my comments below. Well done FutureTrillionaire! —Cliftonian (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cliftonian

This is already a fine achievement on what many would see as one of the most important articles of all. Here are some comments which I hope will help on the way to FA status. I've made a few tweaks during my look through, please feel free to revert if you don't like these. In a lot of places you have multiple references together where they might be better consolidated into one reference ("The years of Jesus' ministry have been estimated using several different approaches.[63][64][65][66]" for example) 4 citations for one statement is overkill in my opinion. I've removed two of the refs in the example you mentioned, and I believe that was the only incident of 4 refs used together. There are still places where 3 citations are used for one statement, but I think 3 is acceptable. However, if you want, I can trim those as well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Okay, looks better now. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Some references are out of numerical order; not terrifically important in a practical sense but I would have a quick run-through towards the end of this process just to bring them in line The reason for why some refs are out of numerical order might be that the article uses a lot of WP:REFNAMEs.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, that is generally the reason why it happens. But it can be easily rectified by putting previously used refnames first where you have reference clusters. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC) You're right. I went ahead and fixed all the numerical ordering ref issues I could find.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Nice one —Cliftonian (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC) One thing I noticed on my first read-through is that the word "states" (as in "Evans states that") is used very often, creating jarring repetition in places. If I were you I would try to reword in places where this construction appears more than once within a few sentences or within a single paragraph. This problem is particularly evident in footnotes a, b and c, which, while informative, are somewhat clunky prose-wise, using "X states" repeatedly. I appreciate the intent might have been to lend equal weight to each statement by avoiding equivocal wording, but perhaps alternatives can be found; "X says", for example, or "X writes" or "according to X". You're right. In my copy edit I overlooked the footnotes, but have had a go at them just now. Please take a look. --Stfg (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC) This has helped, nice one. I've tweaked footnote a a little bit, I hope this meets with your approval. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC) It does, thanks, as do your improvements in the main body. --Stfg (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Great stuff, thanks —Cliftonian (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC) I've moved a lot of wikilinks around and added some; the first time a topic of interest is introduced, such as God the Father or the Crucifixion, it should be linked there, and preferably not again. In "Relics associated with Jesus", the Shroud of Turin image is a bit big for my liking. On my screen I have a lot of whitespace. Do you think we can rearrange this somehow? I agree. I've removed the image, because I couldn't think of better solutions. It's probably not very necessary anyways.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Okay. I think that losing that whitespace has really helped the article as a whole —Cliftonian (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC) One last thing—I noticed that most of the images lacked alt text, so I went through and added it. I hope this helps. I will come back to this review later as well. Well done so far and keep up the good work! —Cliftonian (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Just a suggestion: I know there are already a lot of pictures here and Peter's denial is an important part of the gospel, but I think in the "Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pilate" section, an "ecce homo" image (that is, one of Pilate presenting Jesus to the mob) might be better than the present image of Peter denying Jesus, both as an illustration (the present denial image, when thumbnailed, is far from clear) and as a complement to the narrative. I was thinking particularly that Antonio Ciseri's depiction, linked here, might be suitable. What do you think? Have a great Sunday and a good week ahead now. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Good idea. Image switched.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Nice one. I moved the image down slightly to better fit the narrative, I hope you don't mind. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) The infobox gives the year of death as "30–33 AD" while the first sentence of the lead gives "30–36 AD". I presume the former is what we are going with, judging from the footnote, but I just thought I'd bring it up here to be sure. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Yeah. Although many scholars agree that Jesus died under the reign of Pilate (26–36 AD), very few scholars estimate 36 AD to be the year of his death. I've fixed it now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Okay nice one. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC) The first sentence of "religious perspectives" says that "Apart from his own disciples and followers, the Jews of Jesus' day generally rejected him as the Messiah, as do Jews today." But then lower down, in "Jewish views", we briefly mention Messianic Jews. As the article says, whether these are part of Judaism or not is open for debate, but they certainly claim themselves to be Jews, and most of them are indisputably of Jewish ethnic stock. What with the equivocal nature of the word "Jew", we also have to consider Christians of Jewish descent, and Jews who convert to Christianity. I could go on but I think the point is made. I think we should look at alternative wording on the last clause of the sentence. Perhaps "as do most Jews", "as do the vast majority of Jews", "as do mainstream Jews", "as do adherents of mainstream Judaism" or something along these lines? Just a suggestion as always. I'd just like to say also that I feel a lot of progress is being made on this article, well done. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC) I agree. The article is getting better. Thanks for your comments and copyedits. As for the "religious perspectives" sentence, I think the best solution is to change the wording to "as do the vast majority of Jews today". The numbers for Messianic Jews are very small, and I am guessing ethnic Jews who have converted to Christianity are in a similar situation.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Isn't "the vast majority of" a bit peachy? Would either "most" or "almost all" be better? --Stfg (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC) You can change it if you want. I don't have much preferences.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure about the caption for the Transfiguration image. The caption is presently "Transfiguration of Jesus depicting him with Elijah, Moses and three apostles, by Carracci, 1594", which seems to imply grammatically that it is the transfiguration that is by Carracci rather than the depiction. Perhaps something along the lines of "Carracci's 1594 depiction of the transfiguration of Jesus; he converses with Elijah and Moses while three apostles look on, amazed"? Fixed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Nice one. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Peter's denial is mentioned twice; first at the end of the "Agony in the Garden, betrayal and arrest" section, and then again at the end of the first paragraph of the following section. It isn't necessary to recount the denial twice in such a short passage of text. I have altered this myself as I think explaining it here would be overly complicated, I hope you don't think this presumptuous; feel free to revert if you disagree Good point. I've removed the second mention completely.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC) I think it's still worth mentioning that all four Gospels mention Peter's denial, and I felt that little sentence bookended the paragraph quite nicely, but I don't feel too strongly on it. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Hope these help and that you are well —Cliftonian (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Points by Johnbod

On a first look, the article seems pretty good for a subject with an enormous amount of literature, with very divergent views on many aspects. In an article like this nuances of wording and emphasis are very important to get right.

• Lead. " Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee" - to most readers, especially the young, "teacher" means schoolteacher. Not sure what a better phrasing would be.
  • I've changed "teacher" to "preacher".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Most Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return.[28] The majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of three Persons of a Divine Trinity.[29] A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly, as non-scriptural" - "most" and "the majority" seem likely to be misleading by too much qualification as these key doctrines are common to almost all Christians, or at least the churches they affiliate with - well over 99% one would think.
  • Removed "Most" from the first sentence, and changed the "the majority" to "the great majority".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Last para of lead - do we really need this in the lead? Especially "Bahá'í scripture almost never refers to Jesus as the Messiah, but calls him a Manifestation of God", whatever that means?
  • Removed the Baha'i part. But I think the Islamic and Jewish views are notable enough to be in the lede.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Thus, in the Christian Bible, Jesus is referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth" - "Christian Bible" introduces unnecessary complication. New Testament or Gospels will do.
  • Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• "namely the last week of the life of Jesus in Jerusalem, referred to as Passion Week" - it is the annual commemoration that is usually "referred to as Passion Week". Just "namely the last week of the life of Jesus in Jerusalem, referred to as his Passion" or something.
  • Changed the previous wording to "referred to as the Passion".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• "tekton". The article twice deals with the original profession of Jesus, and Joseph, once in "Early life and profession" and in "Profession and literacy" in the historical section. Both draw from the text at Historical Jesus, I think mostly written by me. There is a degree of repetition - I'm not sure if this is justified or not. The second version has phrasing issues: "In the New Testament, Jesus and his father were identified as τέκτων (tekton) (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3), traditionally translated from Koine Greek into English as "carpenter". However, some scholars argue that tekton is a generic word (from the same root that gives "technical" and "technology") that could cover makers of objects in various materials, even builders.[283] Others have argued that tekton could equally mean a highly-skilled craftsman in wood or the more prestigious metal, perhaps running a workshop with several employees." This makes it sound as if there is or has been some sort of controversy over these issues, which isn't entirely the case (apart perhaps from Crossan's unhelpful autobiographical comments). Does anybody disagree that "tekton is a generic word ... that could cover makers of objects in various materials, even builders"? What this account misses is the strong early tradition that working with wood was what Jesus did, as from Justin Martyr, mentioned in the first section. Essentially the sources are not clear, & there's not enough material for a decent scholarly row about it.
  • To reduce repetition, I've removed the "Profession and literacy" section and moved some of its material to the "Early life and profession" section.-FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Ministry section" "Public ministry" is a perhaps a better phrase, that might be used once or tice among the many occurrences throughout the article. No mention of the apostles, or their recruitment. Some sort of summary of what modern scholarship makes of the growing body of "disciples" is reallly needed. What did the term mean - roughly how many, & doing what? Tricky I know.
  • Added some info about the disciples.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Last Supper - without opening the matter too far, some sort of mention that commemoration & re-enactment of this event became central to much Christian worship is needed I think, with a link to Eucharist.
  • Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok on comments above. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

-more coming Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• "After the trials, Jesus makes his way to Calvary by a route known traditionally as the Via Dolorosa" - this is rather more than we actually know, isn't it? I believe that route has changed somewhat over the centuries. Also "makes his way" sounds rather casual and voluntary, and we have Christ Carrying the Cross. Maybe: " After the trials, Jesus is led to Calvary carrying his cross; the route traditionally thought to have been taken is known as the Via Dolorosa".
  • Good suggestion. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• A link or note for "gall" would be useful - what do scholars think this was?
  • I'm not sure. It's probably better to keep things simple. I've removed the details of substance's ingredients.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• The summary of the Gospel accounts while Jesus is on the cross seems too brief, though I realize the accounts vary in fiddly ways. As it is there is no explanation of the "events" (not the best word perhaps) the centurion is impressed by, so that bit reads oddly.
  • Fixed. I've added the part about earthquake and torn curtain, and clarified some statements.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The Acts of the Apostles describe several appearances by Jesus after his Ascension" - these are presented as visions etc rather than flesh & blood on the ground "appearances", & this should be made clear.
  • Changed "several appearances" to "several visionary appearances".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's quite what you mean, so I've changed "visionary appearances" to "appearances ... in visions". I also changed "describe" to "describes", consistent with an earlier use, as it's the book rather than the acts themselves that do the describing. I hope that's OK. --Stfg (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
      • You're right. Thanks for the corrections.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• I've changed "end times" to "last days" as more neutral; something longer might be better "last days of the world" or something. "End times" is only used by Evangelicals in my experience.
• "but since then skeptics have emerged who question the reliability of the gospels" - "skeptics" is much too loaded. Links needed here: Biblical criticism, maybe others.
  • Changed "skeptics" to "scholars". Added Biblical criticism "see also" link.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The third quest, which began around the 1980s, was unique for its greater emphasis on the methods of mainstream historical scholarship" - a very dubious assertion as phrased, imo, even if it can be sourced to those involved. More neutral phrasing needed. What the first two phases were is not explained.

• Removed that 3rd quest statement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder if the paragraph starting "Donald Akenson has argued that,..." is helpful. This is an immensely complex area on which seas of ink have been expended for centuries, & I'm not sure this works as a useful summary of anything much. Akenson is a specialist in a totally different area of history (probably without much relevant linguistic background etc) who has written wrote two books on the subject, and far more on other subjects.

• Paragraph removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the current size and balance of the "Historical views" section, I think more is needed on the older areas of Biblical criticism that underly current debates, which receive most of the coverage. A very brief summary with links to things like Q source would be good.
  • Expanded the intro paragraph of the Historical views section. I've also expanded the Historicity of events section to include info on reliability of sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Most Christians believe that Jesus was both human and the Son of God. While there has been theological debate over his nature, Trinitarian Christians generally believe that Jesus is the Logos, God's incarnation and God the Son, both fully divine and fully human." A little expansion & links re the debates in the Early Church needed on this.
  • Done. Added wikilinks and a footnote.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• The section on Islam implies, but should state clearly, that Islam regards the whole New Testament as inauthentic, except where the Qu'ran agrees with it.
  • Done, added a footnote.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Depictions" section really needs 2-3 sentences on the development of the "standard" image, & major variants. Also the influence of "miraculous" images in forming the general depiction. I will try to add these.
• Maybe some more general points later - are all the works in "Bibliography" cited in the article? I'd really like to see one or more reviews of this by a specialist, clergy or otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • They should be. I checked this a few weeks ago, although some of the sources might have changed by now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• All the above covered, although the points in the footnotes j & k would be better in the text, but I won't fuss about that. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Looking at the footnotes: f just repeats a; a,b,f,g,h all cover dating, with some more repetition. I suspect some streamlining would improve them. Note h is almost all a quote, which should be shown as such, with the verse (3:1). I'm not sure what the citation there covers - probably should go up to the main text. I still want to rejik the depictions a bit. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Good points. I've removed some unnecessary footnotes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I expanded the info about Muslims regarding the gospels as inauthentic and moved that info from the footnote to the text.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support I still want to rejig the "depictions" a bit, but that is a minor aspect of the topic & I'm not sure when I will do it (soon I hope). I am not concerned by the arguments over the myth fringe theory, though some tweaks to phrasing might be best. Otherwise I think it is a fine treatment of a difficult topic. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Quadell

Resolved items

As an amateur but serious New Testament scholar who has read many of the article's more important sources, I can attest that the material and tone fairly represents the scholarly consensus, while giving fair weight to the majority Christian interpretation of history. I'm very pleased with this, and it must have taken a lot of work. Well done. The prose is excellent overall. It is difficult to find unclear or clunky writing in this article. Thanks to FunkMonk for the image review. Lede Per WP:LEDE, the lede should summarize all parts of the article and should not include important information not covered outside the lede. As such, many ledes do not require any citations, since the same facts are cited where they are more fully expressed in the article body. This lede has a lot of citations, far more than other controversial FAs. (Compare Evolution, L. Ron Hubbard, Psilocybe semilanceata, Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, etc.) Most worryingly, most of the cites used in the lede are not used outside the lede. Should these citations instead be placed in the body wherever the statements they support are most fully expressed? Done. I've removed most of the citations from the lede, and moved some of them to the body of the text.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Excellent! This is a dramatic improvement. It's heartening to see one of the two most important problems with the article resolved so quickly. – Quadell (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Etymology of names A mention is made of Jesus being called "Joseph's son" in Luke 4, but not of his being called "Mary's son" in Mark 6. Most scholars deem Mark 6 to have been written earlier, and it is a more unusual way of referring to a Jew in that time period... wouldn't it be more worth a mention? I've added a footnote quoting Mark 6:3. I don't think the designation "Mary's son" is used frequently in the New Testament.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Due to the criterion of embarrassment and Marcan priority, I think the designation "Mary's son" is more important. But this is just my view, and I will not withhold support based on this detail. – Quadell (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC) <interjection from another reviewer> i agree with Quadell on this. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Okay, fine. I've now added a sentence about Mark 6:3.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC) "Yahweh saves", "Yahweh will save", and "Yahweh is salvation" are all extremely close in meaning. Do we need all three? Also, I believe the etymology to be fairly uncontroversial. Are three cites needed? Done. I kept "Yahweh is salvation" and removed the other two. I also carefully removed two of the three sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Chronology Everything in the first paragraph represents scholarly consensus. Why is Levine named and singled out? You could find dozens of scholars as respected (Meier, Brown, and on and on) who would fully support the sentence. Done, removed the attribution.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC) "According to many scholars, the Crucifixion occurred before the conversion of Paul..." Do any scholars doubt this? All early sources, including Paul's own description of his conversion, are unanimous in this. Fixed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Related: the sentence implies that we know the crucifixion occurred in 33 or earlier because it came before Paul's ministry, which started in 33-36. But both sources estimate the start of Paul's ministry based in part on the understanding that it couldn't have started before the crucifixion in 33 or so. The causation is backwards. Fixed? I reworded that part. The date of Paul's conversion can be determined independent of the date of Crucifixion. Köstenberger, for example, uses 2 Corinthians 11 (his escape from Aretas IV), sources for the dates of Aretas' reign, and the Book of Acts.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, that's all accurate and well stated. – Quadell (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Life and teachings in the New Testament Nowhere in the article are extrabiblical Christian accounts of Jesus mentioned. (Gospel of Thomas, infancy narratives, Gospel of Mary, etc.) They don't deserve detailed treatment in this article, but I do think it would appropriate to mention their existence, and the end of the introductory section of this supersection is probably the best place (after "...than the canonical gospels do.") Might I suggest the following? "Some early Christian groups had separate descriptions of the life and teachings of Jesus that are not included in the New Testament. These include the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, and the Apocryphon of James, among many other apocryphal writings. Most scholars consider these much later and less reliable accounts than the canonical gospels." One possible source would be Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament (1997), pp. 835-840. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Great. – Quadell (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC) This supersection gives almost no space to Jesus' miracles. It only mentions his healing the sick in a single sentence as a way of describing his teachings, and the same is true for his driving out of demons. These miracles make up a large section of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, and are the subject of voluminous critical commentary (much of Meier's A Marginal Jew volume 2, for example). It seems a lack of balance to not have a section on Jesus' miracles, as we do for his teachings, transfiguration, arrest, childhood, and other less-prominent facets of Jesus' life. I've added some more info on miracles to the "Canonical gospel accounts" section and the "Teachings, preachings, and miracles" section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I'm torn here. First off, the material you added is excellent. But I still feel like Jesus' miracles deserve their own section. (I'm sure I don't have to convince you of their importance.) On the other hand, the text incorporates it well with Jesus' teachings in the last sentences, and the section is excellent. So I still think it would be better to have miracles in it's own section, but I think it deserves to be featured either way, so it's not an objection. – Quadell (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Canonical gospel accounts This sentence is very important, and it's important to get it right: "Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity, as well as the Resurrection and certain details about the Crucifixion." The sentence could be improved. It's not wrong... but the strong majority of scholars believe the infancy narratives contain no historical information, while most believe the crucifixion depicts in broad strokes a historical event. ("Certain details about" are almost weasel words, in that they could be used to show scholarly doubt about anything in the gospels.) I would instead mention the elements that the largest majorities of scholars feel are historically unreliable, which could include birth and infancy stories, the ascension, narratives of speeches in John, (much of John, actually), the last supper, and the Sanhedron trial. (I don't mean to insist that these specific details be used, but only to show that the sentence can and should be improved.) I changed it to: "Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the Nativity, the Resurrection, the Ascension, some of Jesus' miracles, and the Sanhedrin trial, among others." Is this good enough?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC) It is better. Still, I have two suggested improvements: (1) Consider linking these terms if it is the first time they are mentioned outside the lede, since the reader might not be familiar with them. (2) Consider wording it as "Most scholars give less historical weight to descriptions of...", which I think is a slightly more accurate and smoother wording. (Afterall, no one disputes that they are "authentic" in the sense of being authentic 1st-century Christian narratives.) – Quadell (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Done and done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC) "John 14:10 stresses the importance of the words of Jesus and attributes them to the authority of God the Father." While true, this seems out of place. Other sentences around it concern the overarching similarities between gospel accounts, not individual statements in just one. I think the idea is covered in "Teachings and preachings", and so can be omitted here. Done. Sentence removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Baptism and temptation I'm not sure Redford's interpretation here is particularly notable. Perhaps it would be more pertinent to mention this desert temptation was situated by the synoptics as an important prelude to the beginning of Jesus' teachings. There would be many citations one could find for that. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC) I think it would flow better logically if "The gospel of John does not mention the baptism or the temptation." were placed at the end of this section. It might be useful to include a statement that John depicts Jesus' conversations with JtB (though not his baptism) and his calling of the disciples as the relevant preludes to Jesus public ministry -- if a good cite for that can be found. Raymond Brown's ABD volume on John makes that observation, I'm sure. Or you could not, your call. I moved the Gospel of John sentence to the end of the paragraph, and added the Baptist's testimony (John 1:32). Jesus' first disciples according to the fourth gospel is already described in the Public ministry section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Public ministry The sentence beginning "However, John's Gospel..." is also covered in the "Final entry into Jerusalem". It fits better there, and really doesn't add anything here. Good point. I've removed the sentence.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Teachings and preachings Paragraph 2 is problematic. Let's start with "The New Testament presents the teachings of Jesus not merely as his own preaching, but as divine revelation." The New Testament as a whole rarely mentions the teachings of Jesus outside of the gospels, so this should be "The gospels present...", but the gospels do not present the teachings of Jesus in a consistent way. This really should be "John's Gospel presents...". That would be accurate. Three of the four quotes in this paragraph are from John, after all, and the fourth is presented in a somewhat misleading way. (It leaves off the second half of the sentence where Jesus describes this "divine knowledge" as shared with others. Besides, it concerns his knowledge more than his "teachings and "preachings", and is only obliquely related to the section.) The wording of this paragraph also leads the reader to believe that the gospels do not show Jesus as having a less-than-divine knowlege, as is stated in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32. So I would make the paragraph limited to John's depiction of Jesus' authority, and perhaps it could mention the synoptics' characterization of Jesus' teaching as consistently inspiring awe in those who heard them, if you want to include the other gospels. Done. Changed "The New Testament" to "John's Gospel". Removed the Matthew part.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Proclamation as Christ and Transfiguration It would be more accurate to say "In Matthew's Gospel, " before "Jesus replies" in paragraph 2. The other synoptics do not have him acknowledging the title, and both cited sources mention only Matthew in their analysis. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pilate "make fun of" is a little trite. "Mock", perhaps? Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Regarding the "purple robe (which signifies royal status)"... that's an interpretation, not found in the gospel accounts, and is not sourced. Besides, Matthew calls it "scarlet". I think it's best to omit. It would be fine to simply say they ridicule him by placing a crown of thorns on his head. Good point. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I was about to object that it the article still surmises "to make him look like a king"... but then I saw that the source, Niswonger, states that motive explicitly. So, no problems, and well done. – Quadell (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Crucifixion and burial "a Roman centurion affirms that Jesus was the Son of God"... the word "affirm" assumes that the statement is true, which is a POV. The centurion's statement is more of a surmise, in context. One source the article cites, Köstenberger, Kellum & Quarles, clearly advocates that POV. (The pages in the cite include inspirational language like "Will you and I worship, or will we doubt?") It's fine to use as a source, but I don't think "affirms" is a NPOV term here. Changed "affirms" to "states".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Existence Van Voorst should be fully named and linked at the first mention, not the second. Fixed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Historicity of events Biblical maximalists do not accept the truth of the gospels "in their entirety"; they accept the gospels as reliable evidence wherever a statement is not clearly contradicted by better evidence. (Keener, one of your sources for this statement, says "A maximalist approach to the sources grants as evidence whatever is possible"; Chilton and Evans do not define the term.) Agree. I've reworded the sentence.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC) "Although no totally maximalist view is accepted as historical..." Since "totally maximalist view" is not well defined, it would be better to say "Although a belief in the inerrancy of the gospels cannot be supported historically..." (or some other wording) Good suggestion. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I think there are better sources than Wright for Mark's reliability and date. I would recommend Mark 1-8 by Joel Marcus (2000, ABD) pp. 37-39 for the date, and Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament (1997) pp. 114-166 for Mark's primacy and relative reliability. You may know of even more reliable summaries of scholarship on the issue. (Bauckham, perhaps?) Done. Replaced Wright with better sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Religious perspectives It is very difficult to choose which perspectives merit treatment here, and which can be left out. I think the current article could be improved in its balance, however. I accept the decision to treat "Christian views", diverse as they may be, in one section that stresses common features. Non-trinitarian perspectives, such as those of Jahovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and many Quakers, are given a single sentence about nontrinitarianism. I accept that. But then why does Ahmadiyya Islam, a minor and recent sect of Islam, merit its own section? I think that section should be omitted entirely, or treated in a sentence or two within the Islam section. Done. I removed the section and added a sentence about Ahmadiyya beliefs in the Islamic views section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Similary, Buddhism does not have any generally-accepted view of Jesus; that section consists of the personal opinions of two Buddhists, followed by an unrelated digression into a discarded theory about Jesus in India. Neither has to do with mainstream Buddhist views of Jesus, because there really aren't any. I believe that section should be omitted as well. If you like, it could be adequately encompassed as a single sentence in paragraph 2 under "other views". Done, see below.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC) I'm undecided about the Bahai section. It would probably be better to roll it into "Other views", but I won't object if it stands on its own the way it is now. (At least mainstream Bahai explicitly has a teaching about Jesus.) Christian views A source is needed for the statement that Christian veiws about Jesus are derived from the NT, and that these include his divinity etc. (The source listed only covers the differences between Eastern and Western christologies.) Done. Source added.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Legitimate question: is it correct to say "Christians worship not only Jesus himself, but also his name"? Or would a different word, such as "honor" or "revere" be more appropriate? I'm not very familiar with this aspect of Christian doctrine, but it sounds odd to me. I'm not sure. Anyways, I've changed "worship" to "revere".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Islamic views "Islam considers that Jesus was..." would be smoother as "Islam considers Jesus to be...". (Note the present tense: Jesus rose to heaven and will return, according to Islam, and so currently exists.) Good suggestion. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC) "physically raised" should not link to "Jesus in Islam". That's already the main article. Good point. Delinked.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Buddhist views I think this section should be removed. It is by far the weakest section in the article. But if it is kept, "Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that denies the existence of a Creator God" is a flatly untrue statement. Most Theravada Buddhists philosophically consider questions about the exitstence of gods to be useless distractions (thus nontheist, not atheist), while most Mahayana Buddhists believe in many gods, some of whom are creator gods in one tradition or another (e.g. Brahmā (Buddhism)). The source given, a manual by De Noie on how to proselytize to Buddhists, claims "In folk Buddhism, adherents do worship Buddhist deities. But none of these is seen as the Supreme Being, the Creator God, as presented in biblical revelation." All this means is that Buddhists don't believe in the god De Noie believes in. Done. Section removed. Added one sentence in Other views section concerning some Buddhists who consider Jesus to be a bodhisattva.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Other views Minor: The Ehrman p.124-125 reference is used three times in a row, which really isn't necessary. Fixed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC) It seems odd to have Dawkins, personally, express his views alongside the teachings of several entire religions. Would it be more appropriate to reword it to cover atheists in general? "Atheists reject Jesus' divinity, but many hold a positive estimation of him; Richard Dawkins, for instance, refers to Jesus as 'a great moral teacher'." Good suggestion. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Depictions Since the article says "in the East" twice in two sentences, it would be a marginal improvement to turn the second into "in Eastern Christian art". Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Relics associated with Jesus It is probably worth a mention that modern scholarship is nearly universal in strongly doubting the authenticity of all relics. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC) External links Some of the links are important and useful, but I don't think the link to Encyclopædia Britannica is needed, and "The Jewish Roman World of Jesus" looks like a page regarding just one scholar. I would omit it as well. Done, the two links have been removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC) others The persondata includes a date place of birth, though the FAQ discourages this. Good point, place of birth removed. The categories include many dubious designations (e.g. People from Bethlehem, Creator gods) Agree. I removed the two you mentioned along with "carpenter".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC) In preparing this review, I have checked a dozen or so sources, and in every case the statement in the article is fully supported by the source. I can do a more full spotcheck if requested. Language, ethnicity and appearance This section is under the supersection "Historical views", so I don't think it's appropriate to give lengthy examples where Jesus is called Jewish in parts of the gospels that do not rank highly among scholars for their reliability. I think that paragraph should be largely rewritten. It goes off on a tangent to show what is obvious and no longer contested: that Jesus is portrayed as Jewish. I think the paragraph should be rewritten to say that it is the view of modern scholars that Jesus was Jewish (Meier, passim, or any other RS), and then have that interesting statement by Levine... and that's really all that's necessary. (It could possibly be merged into paragraph 3 at that point.) Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC) All in all, this article is excellent and has exceeded my expectations. I hope my concerns are appropriately addressed, as it would be personally very satisfying to see such an important article featured. – Quadell (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Comment on this: All seem good points I'd endorse, except I still hope to rejig "Depictions" a bit anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Query - I went to review this article today and noticed all the disruption and edit warring. FutureTrillionaire, would you say the stability of the article is affected right now, or is this just par for the course? I know bringing articles like this to FA standard is very difficult for this very reason, and I admire you for trying. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Don't worry about it. The troubles are caused by one user (user:Strangesad) with a fringe viewpoint. A discussion concerning his disruptive edits has been started at WP:ANI#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC) It looks like a frustrating situation to deal with. Congratulations on keeping the article quality high. (If this article gets featured on the main page, you'll certainly have your work cut out for that day.) – Quadell (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support. This article is among the best Wikipedia has to offer, and fully deserves featured status. I am doubly impressed: first for the high quality of the article, and second by the diligence of those involved. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! :) --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I heartily second Quadell's comments. The article is in fantastic shape and I feel proud to have played a small part in getting it to where it is. As I said already above, very well done to FutureTrillionaire and everybody else who has contributed—not least you, Quadell! —Cliftonian (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note to FAC delegates: Any topic as important and controversial as this one will attract fringe viewpoints, including some of those displayed on this FAC. There are people who will oppose any version of this article that does not promote their own fringe views, and they have recently caused a lot of problems for the article, edit warring and taking up a great deal of space at the administrator's noticeboard. I hope that their views will be weighted appropriately when deciding whether this article merits Featured status. I still feel strongly that it does, and it would be unfortunate for Wikipedia if such actions were able to sink such an excellent candidate for FA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Seconded —Cliftonian (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Rbreen

Great progress has been made on this article, which considering its size, complexity and controversial nature is a huge achievement. As a battle-scarred text it has over the years been difficult to read (it still shows signs of unncessary length due to petty squabbles, but that's probably always going to be true with this subject. It's an impressive result.

There is, however, one weakness in the current form, and it's an important one. One editor above mentioned this, but it still needs to be taken seriously. Given that the main sources for information about Jesus are the canonical Gospels, the reader needs to have an understanding about how modern scholarship sees the relationship between them: beginning with Mark, which is developed further (and separately, and to some extent differently) by Matthew and Luke with the use of Q, and finally - probably from a distinct separate tradition - John. This doesn't have to be done in great detail - it's written about extensively in other articles - but it needs to be explained clearly in the "Canonical Gospel Accounts" section. What we have now is a fairly naive approach that treats all the Gospel accounts as a Gospel harmony, which misses out on much of what modern Biblical scholarship has established over the past century. It's astonishing to find no mention at all of Q, for instance, even thought it's broadly speaking part of the modern consensus. What follows in the article makes no sense at all unless the reader understands that the account they are reading is actually composed of four closely related but different ones. Right now, a reader who was not familiar with this would never suspect it. --Rbreen (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Sorry, I am currently taking a wikibreak. I will address your concerns in a few days. The situation is rather unstable right now. I'll come back when things cool down.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Rbreen: Okay, I've added some info to the "Canonical gospel accounts" section. Can you take a look? Is it better now? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a pretty good summary and a fair representation of the broad consensus. I'm happy to amend my comment now to support.--Rbreen (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@FT: Your text is Ok/good, but I think the diagram of the 2 source hypothesis should go, for that is not essential for Q source discussion and there are other diagrams you could have added. And you need to move the last 2 parags out of the Canonical gospel accounts to the super section below on Historical, then you are set. The scholarly debates on Markan priority, Four document hypothesis etc. are far too complex to handle in this article, and just a summary as you have is all that can be done, and what you have now does that. The sub-articles (a few with merge tags) are just not in good shape so do not borrow text out of those. But what you have now is fine, if you move the other 2 parags. and do not use 2 source as the diag. Not here anymore (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the diagram. As for your other request, the last paragraph of the "Canonical gospel accounts" section is about the gospels' content (discourses, parables, miracles, etc.). I'm not sure if that would fit well in the "Historical views" section. Did you mean to say the third and fourth paragraphs? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Strangesad

Strong oppose.

• The article's treatment of the historical Jesus is biased in favor of the existence of Jesus.
• The "mythicist" arguments (skeptical of the existence of Jesus) tend to be weakly presented, and the article then puts more emphasis on rebutting them than explaining them.
• Sources are frequently misquoted, quoted out of context, and chosen selectively to advance a certain view.
• The majority of sources in the section are medium-quality or worse. Many of the authors are priests, pastors, or otherwise have an evangelical background. There is a surprising dearth of objective sources. There are no peer-reviewed sources. All cites are popular books.

Strawman arguments The article reduces all doubt about a historical Jesus to “mythicism,” simplistically defined as "Christians made the whole thing up". In doing so, it misrepresents several scholars lumped under that label. G.A. Wells is called a mythicist, but has modified his position over time. His current view is that there may have been a wandering preacher who can be said to be the basis of the stories of Jesus. However, “this personage is not be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles.” [34] Other critics have expressed the opinion that there may have been a figure more responsible for starting Christainity than any others, but that he was an itinerant preacher/mystic. For example, Alvar Ellegård argues the personage commonly thought of as Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness, who lived around 150 BCE. This range of “mythicism” is described in the lede of Christ myth theory, but omitted in Jesus. The omission makes the skepticism seem simplistic.

Unbalanced sourcing The sourcing is particularly egregious. A claim that's debated in the Talk page archives as far back as I can see is that “virtually all” scholars agree Jesus existed. Also, that all scholars regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as fact. Here are the sources used for those claims about the views of modern historians:

1. Burridge, Richard A.; Gould, Graham (2004). Jesus Now and Then. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. [35] Richard A. Burridge, whose Wikipedia article titles him “Reverend” is a professor of Biblical Interpretation (didn't know you could major in that), a former chaplain, an ordained a deacon, and a member of the Church of England's General Synod.
2. Dunn, James D.G. (2003). Jesus Remembered. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. James Dunn (theologian), a minister of the Church of Scotland, professor of divinity and theology (not history). In this same book, he gives a glimpse into his objectivity: “Christians have continued to affirm the resurrection of Jesus, as I do.....he was a famous exorcist and healer and many experienced miraculous happenings in his company...through the Jesus tradition the would-be disciple still hears and encounters Jesus”
3. Brown, Raymond E. (1994). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. Doubleday. Raymond E. Brown is a Roman Catholic priest. The book is an interpretation of the gospels, not historical research, as is plain from its title (the book is also 19 years old, and probably shouldn't be relied on for the state of current scholarship.)
4. Stanton, Ghraham (2002). The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press. This book examines the varied meanings of the term of “gospel.” It's not about the historical Jesus. No page number is given and the intended reference can't be easily found. Any reference is probably a passing one, since the book isn't about the historical Jesus. Graham Stanton was a professor of divinity.
5. Grant, Michael (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. This popular book is 36 years old, so a poor source for the current state of scholarship. The author's historical expertise is numismatics. I couldn't get a copy to check the reference, either online or from my local library. Update: it is out of print [36]
6. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. [37]. Robert E. Van Voorst is a professor at Western Theological Seminary. He received his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary Van Voorst has also served for twelve years as pastor at Rochester Reformed Church
7. Finally, there is Bart D. Ehrman. Ehrman's training is evangelical—divinity degrees, etc. However, he recently converted to agnosticism. In one of the books used in this article, he writes of the mythicist arguments: "none is written by ... scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools...of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them to my knowledge has any doubt Jesus existed. But a whole body of literature ...some of it highly intelligent and well-informed makes this case....a couple of bona fide scholars--not professors teaching religion in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D in the field of New Testament--have taken this position.[38] 1) He says some of the mythicist literature is “intelligent and well-informed”. Our article omits this. 2) He says some of the mythicists are “bona fide” scholars. Our article states the opposite. Of course, he also says that he doesn't know of any “scholars” who dispute the existence of Jesus. However, in that context, he defines the relevant scholar as requiring a background in New Testament studies and holding a professorship (i.e. in his own image).

I hadn't heard of William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company until now: “Eerdmans has long been known for publishing a wide range of Christian and religious books, from academic works in Christian theology, biblical studies, religious history, and reference to popular titles in spirituality....” Fifty-percent of the article's sources asserting the unquestionable existence of Jesus are from this publisher.

I was going to get into the allegedly neutral sources for claiming that the baptism and crucifixion are undisputed facts, and that everybody acknowledges Josephus as “genuine.” These claims suffer the same sourcing problems. But the point is made. The sourcing needs to be cleaned up. Please, find some peer-reviewed, non-Christian, historical research on this controversial subject. Please represent the mythicist views fairly, with equal depth and respect. Strangesad (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Humanpublic/Strangesad: That you have not never heard of William B. Eerdmans before this says a lot and explains why your comments are so uninformed about the subject. Anyone who has studied this subject for 10 days (really just 10 days) will know Eerdmans for they publish many of the very most respected professors from universities worldwide. But then, you have produced "no mainstream sources of your own", so that fits. Ehrman is also a very highly respected scholar who is not a believer. Was his training in the New Testament, of course: that is why he knows the subject. Your blanket underlying assumption that "Christian authors are not reliable" is of course not supported by Wikipedia policy and is completely incorrect, as shown by the Richard Carrier's comment about Van Voorst's book. On his blog on July 11, 2012 the very atheist Richard Carrier reviewed the book "Is This Not the Carpenter?" and criticized the treatment of non-Christian sources by Lester Grabbe in that book. But then Carrier said to his readers:

"I would recommend you simply buy and use Van Voorst on this subject".

So you have Carrier, the atheist of atheists recommending the book by the "ahh may I say priest" Robert Van Voorst. Now would you care to hazard a guess as to who Van Voorst's publisher may be? It is Eerdmans, but be sure no one sees you reading that book. Please do give us a break here with these totally uninformed opinions dressed up with huf and puff... Your comments are really unaware of the subject, and uninformed - exactly the opposite of the knowledge of the subject shown by some other users who have commented here. And as you have been told again and again and again on the talk page there is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits Jewish scholars as sources on Judaism, Muslim scholars as sources on Islam, or Buddhist scholars as sources on Buddhism. And anyway, Jewish scholars support the likes of Ehrman, Van voorst, etc. and myther Robert Price agrees that mythic views are not held by the mainstream. But then you knew that because the article quotes price. So you are huffing and puffing while you know the myth view is a tiny minority view. Not here anymore (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Please, find some peer-reviewed, non-Christian literature on this controversial subject. I suggest you do that, and good luck with it. Your dismissal of Michael Grant simply shows that you do not know what you are talking about. He was an eminent classical historian and the fact that no other historian of ancient history has bothered to rebut the "Jesus never existed" idea since his book in 1977 means that what Grant says is the last word (so far) on the subject from a secular historian. Smeat75 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Bart Ehrman, a reliable source accepted by all, there are "bona fide" scholars who say otherwise, and they have "highly intelligent and well-informed" arguments. Strangesad (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Instead of asking other people to find them for you, my suggestion is that you do that, discuss it on the talk page and then we can add the citations from the bona fide scholars who say Jesus never existed. You are not going to succeed in getting the citations from Michael Grant removed, that I can tell you. Smeat75 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This area is for me to express my view of how to bring the article to a high level of quality. Feel free to give your own opinions in your own section. Strangesad (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This area is not your personal space, look on the rest of the page and you will see a lot of discussion of others' comments. My suggestion that you "find some peer-reviewed, non-Christian literature" yourself that supports your idea that Jesus never existed is made in the confidence that you will not find it because there isn't any. The two most authoritative sources on the question are Michael Grant, but you say he is no good because he "wrote popular books and only knew about coins" and Bart Ehrman ( but you don't like him because he is only "a recent agnostic" and went to Bible school). When Erhman says "virtually all scholars" agree on the bare fact that Jesus existed ( a quote which is not going to be removed from the article), I know who he means by the qualification "virtually" - Robert M. Price (who actually says there could well have been an actual Jesus, but he thinks on probability there was not) and Hermann Detering, but he is a pastor, maybe for that reason you would not want to quote him, except he actually thinks there was no Jesus and no apostle Paul either.(Surprise! There are Christians who don't believe that Jesus existed!) So look for some quotes from those two, discuss it on the title page and they can be put into the article somewhere maybe, but that will not change the fact that Erhman says "virtually all" scholars agree that Jesus existed. The only people who say he did not exist, except for Price and Detering, are self-published cranks like Earl Doherty, D M Murdock and bloggers like Richard Carrier. They are not serious scholars.Serious scholars in the field of NT studies, classical or ancient history do not bother wasting their time on "Jesus never existed" because it is a silly idea pushed by people who have never studied any other figure from ancient history or the Roman empire and they don't know what they are talking about.22:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "Jesus never existed." I'm inclined to share the Wells/Ellegard view described above--and neglected by the article. I think the article is too biased to be a Featured Article, for the reasons I gave. Strangesad (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

@Humapublic/Strangesad. Then it might be a good idea to read those two authors next summer, for Wells and Ellegard do not agree. And your not having read either is totally clear in your comments. Not here anymore (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments about the Historical views/Existence section.

The treatment of the argument from silence (paragraphs 2 & 3) is a good example of selective citation in order to promote a view. The article suggests that arguments from silence are mostly considered invalid, but here is what the sources say:

• "...processes of logical thinking include: (1) generalization, (2) the argument from statistics, (3) analogy, (4) hypothesis, (5) conjecture, (6) the argument from silence"
• "Thus, the discovery and interpretation of silences is a fine art and a science...historians must often reason from silences..."

I attempted to add these quotes to give a fairer sense of what the sources actually say, but FutureTrillionaire reverted. [39]

These paragraphs suffer from the same kind of sourcing problem. A new example is this: "Teresa Okure writes that the existence of historical figures is established by the analysis of later references to them, rather than by contemporary relics and remnants.[229]" Here is that source's bio: "Teresa Okure, a Sister of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus, is Professor of New Testament and Gender Hermeneutics at the Catholic Institute of West Africa." [40] Here are some other comments from the source, suggesting a lack of objectivity: “This study, however, focuses on how each culture...understands and appropriates the global Jesus whose global nature is given by God, in virtue of his being God's universal Messiah, not a human construct. It acknowledges that the main resources in any discussion of the historical Jesus are the canonical gospels...” See also this tidbit: “How do we know about the historical Moses....founder of the Israelite nation and religion?” (Huh? Moses founded Judaism?) Well, we don't know about the historical Moses.

The final paragraph in this section is about non-Christian references to Jesus. It says they "establish" the existence of Jesus. The sources don't clearly say that. Feldman, who is a high-quality source, says there is a genuine reference to Jesus in Josephus (about 50 years after the alleged death of Jesus). The comment is about whether the passage in Josephus is authentic, not whether it demonstrates the existence of jesus. That distinction is unclear in our article. And again, a typical use of non-neutral sourcing:

• Blomberg, Craig L. (2009). Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. B&H Publishing Group. I'll just quote from the publisher's Web site: "B&H Publishing Group, a division of LifeWay Christian Resources, is a team of more than 100 mission-minded people with a passion for taking God's Word to the world. B&H exists to provide intentional, Bible-centered content that positively impacts the hearts and minds of people, inspiring them to build a lifelong relationship with Jesus Christ." [41] Strangesad (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

These sources just need to be fixed. And given the extent of priests, pastors, and ministers used as objective historical sources in this one subsection, it is hard to trust the other parts of the Historical Views section. Strangesad (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Side comment from Hamiltonstone. When I supported, above, I did so with a qualifier regarding the representativeness of the literature. I note the issues raised by Strangesad. I got involved in a a similar debate some years ago on the talk page for Catholic Church, and found it hard to get people to understand that there are neutrality issues raised by scholars being church office-holders, and by publishers being adherents to the faith. I am sympathetic to the concerns Strangesad is raising here, and my support is qualified by whether the issue of the representativeness, and in particular the neutrality, of the scholarship is addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Hamiltonstone: Please see my in line comments above. The myth view Humanpublic/Strangesad are promoting is a fringe item - as explained above. This is a very good article, with extensive scholarly sourcing, as Quadell stated. Not here anymore (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My issue is not with the myth theory being fringe - i think the conclusions reached on previous talk discussions about this appear sound, and it seems fairly represented in the current article. I do however have a question about maintaining the highest standard of source quality at an FA, and would not support reliance to a significant degree on sources that are written by church office-holders (be they lay or ordained) if published by religious publishing houses, regardless of their qualifications. As long as there are no major references of this nature, I am happy to support the article. It appeared to me that Strangesad was suggesting otherwise. Can other editors familiar with this material advise on this? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by John Carter

About a year ago, here], I reviewed the article by comparing it against the second edition of the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which is from what I've read and heard in conversation with some religion reference librarians, one of the two or three reference sources on religion out there, as well as being, probably, the most current and generally accessible. At that time, the only reservations I had were about the length of the article and about the lack of inclusion of any content related to Hindu views. Given the staggering amount of information out there on this topic, on the wide variety of matters discussed in any number of reference books, I am not sure that the article could reasonably be shortened down dramatically without throwing off the balance of the article, and am even less than sure whether all the possibly indicated subarticles content might be moved to even exist yet, so I don't think that any complaints about the length per se are really actionable at this time. So, although I can see the article potentially improving, I am not sure that any such potential improvements are necessarily actionable at this time, and thus can't be used as reasons to oppose the article for FA consideration. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Not here anymore

I will just make some general comments. What I see here is that someone like Quadell with deep knowledge of the entire topic has made very constructive remarks, which have brought an article to very good shape and ready for FA. What is very strange, but not unexpected are the comments from the sockpuppet Humanpublic, using Srangesad's account. Strangesad is by far the smarter of the two (and far more succinct usually), and her initial arguments were better than these - which map 1 to 1 to what Humanpublic had argued before and rejected on teh talk page. Those comments just promote the Christ myth theory which was discussed on talk at length and is a WP:Fringe view and has been on WP:FTN around ten times now and is called fringe or "very tiny minority" view again and again And it is totally clear that Humanpublic/Strangesad "knows" what the mainstream view is, yet specifically edits/disrupts the article to trump the mainstream view by placing the WP:FRINGE view ahead of it, and claims that it is supported by the source. Comments from this sockpuppet wcan not be taken seriously. Let me quote Jimmy Wales from the policy on WP:Due:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

So the minority view that Humanpublic/Strangesad is singing about can not drive a major article. In any case, I will address those in place, which is easier to do. The reviews by Quadell and Johnbod were constructive and it is a comprehensive and well represented review of the subject. This is a very good article, but I have to stop now. From what I have seen there are highly knowledgeable users such as Quadell on this page now who can address these issues. And I should leave it to them. This article is ready for FA. Not here anymore (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Humanpublic/Strangesad: You know (yes, you know) that the mythicist argument you refer to is not a mainstream view and is a WP:FRINGE or "very tiny minority" view because in this edit you specifically attempted to trump the mainstream view by placing the WP:FRINGE view ahead of it. So you know you are promoting a view held by a fringe group. As you had been told before, you can not (repeat not, repeat not) produce a single professor of history in a major university should he/she be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim to support you. You were asked for that again, and again and again on the talk page. In the end you produced nothing, nothing, nothing as a source by a single professor of history. I will address specific issues below, but they are largely illogical statements that have been addressed on the article's talk page again and again. And see what Jimmy Wales said about the issue in my comment below. Not here anymore (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Humanpublic/Strangesad The Ellegård theory about Jesus being Teacher of Righteousness is so far out in the "lunatic fringe universe" that no respectable scholars support it at all. Ellegård used to be professor of English, and wrote after his retirement. The person who used to support that class of far out view was John Allegro and he was so far out that he was fired from his job and his previous adviser at Oxford disowned him. This Teacher of Righteousness type "range of mythicism" you refer to is a far out fringe item, and it is clear that you may not even know the subject well enough to know it is laughable. This is like arguing that the article on Earth needs to have more weight on earth being triangular. Wikipedia policy says not so. And see the comment below about Eerdmans below. Not here anymore (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Laser brain

• Support - I agree fully with Quadell's remarks above (and for the record, I'm permanently recusing myself from taking administrative actions against Strangesad, as I've previously warned her about edit warring). This is currently written and sourced to a high standard, and deserves to be featured. Bringing an article like this to FA is exceedingly difficult because of what we've witnessed—there are always lurking editors who want to push for material to be inserted or removed for various reasons. I honestly don't think Strangesad is here just to be disruptive—I think she really wants to "fix" the article, but in the end the consensus is that her proposed fixes are fringe views. I believe her opposition is unactionable and against consensus. Any time a big topic comes up at FAC (Roman Catholic Church, Elvis, Beatles, etc.), we see the same things popping up, which can be very discouraging for the nominators and primary editors. --Laser brain (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

Determining consensus to promote an article to FA is not simply a numbers game, where many declarations of support will trump one or two voices of opposition, but more a matter of comprehensiveness and cogency of arguments. In this case, I can't see that the deeply felt objections raised by one reviewer nullify the arguments of many others, or that those objections (which seem to come back to one point) are actionable under the FA criteria. The stability of the article might be called into question, but a topic like this makes that pretty well inevitable. Therefore I expect at this stage to include it among a list of promotions I plan to make in the next day or so. In the meantime, some housekeeping:

• There's a Harv error on FN47 -- looks like the citation points to a non-existence reference.
• There's a few dup links, some of which may be justified by the length of the article but pls review in any case with the script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the citation error. I've also removed all the non-bible-citation-related dup links except for two. These links are fairly long separated from their first mention.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My suggestions seem easily actionable. Make it so the majority sources on the historical Jesus are individuals and publishers who don't have a mission of promoting Jesus. People with a mission of promoting Jesus are obviously going to be biased about whether he really existed. There must be a policy about this. Represent the "mythicist" view fairly. Tell our audience what those branded "mythicist" actually believe and why, instead of only saying why they are (supposedly) wrong. Bart Ehrman says there are "bona fide" scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus. Ehrman is used widely throughout the article and is accepted as a reliable source. Do not, then, censor him selectively. These are all easy improvements. Strangesad (talk)

@Ian Rose. As I've noted above, my query related to neutrality of sources (not the christ myth debate), but I have now read some of this and considered the talk page and FAC comments further, and on balance support promotion. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Strangesad - The article Christ myth theory has been re-written with a full and neutral discussion of G A Wells,Ellegård, etc. Please have a look at it, I believe it should answer your concerns on this matter. The main Jesus article has a link to the Christ myth article. It would make the main article too long to go into the detail needed to explain it properly and explore the various views.Smeat75 (talk) 12:41, 14 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) 13:00, 14 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.

S&M (song)

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 User:GrahamColm 16:19, 13 August 2013 [42].

---

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC) & AARON• ^TALK 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This article has had a troubled time at FAC and may now be the record holder for the most attempts for gain the gold star: this is number ten. Since attempt nine, there has been something of a re-vamp of the article from fresh eyes and a different viewpoint, including an excellent PR from Cassianto; the page has had a good clean and polish and should now read more freely then it did previously. Fingers crossed that this tenth attempt will be the last. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC) & AARON• ^TALK 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Calvin999. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The article has been through a significant amount of review. It is meticulously sourced. The writing quality is clear and understandable for the reader. The article is of a high level of quality. — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks Cirt: much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You're both quite welcome. Thanks for contributing to this quality improvement project on Wikipedia. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Source and media checks

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Long quotes like "When I go out to make..." should be blockquoted or split up/shortened
  • That's not very long. If anything, it's too short to be a block quote.  — AARON • ^TALK
    • I've trimmed slightly, getting rid of one of the superfluous sub-clauses. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• FN1 appears incomplete - date, label, etc?
  • Re-formatted.  — AARON • ^TALK
• Dead links (note that most shown there aren't actually dead, but the non-Apple ones are)
  • Replaced two, removed one.  — AARON • ^TALK
• FN58 and similar: should use endash in title
  • Sorted now (I think...) - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Check consistency of wikilinking - most are first-time-only, a few aren't
  • Now done - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• FN100: why include location here when other newspapers don't?
  • Removed.  — AARON • ^TALK
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
• FN103: no publisher here, but most have it
  • Now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Fn114: retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your time and thoughts NM: much obliged, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Media check - all OK (fair-use, OTRS, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.

• Fair-use is OK - infobox, sound-sample and illustration of a controversial court case subject. Appropriate resolution / length.
• Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
• 2 images have been replaced for better copyright and fair-use situation - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's great: many thanks GJ for all your time and effort here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This song may be bad, but you're perfectly good at it. (and if the delegates want more than a lame joke: after so many attempts, don't think it can get any better.) igordebraga ≠ 22:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Ditto! Many thanks Igor: much appreciated!. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Adabow

Mostly prose nitpicks:

• "The American songwriter Ester Dean wrote the song in collaboration with the producers Stargate and Sandy Vee. " - "The American songwriter" makes her sound like someone of utmost importance; drop the "the". Also, perhaps "in collaboration with the song's producers"?

• Having the article before American is correct English: dropping it is loose journalese; song's added. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "A subsequent remix that features Britney Spears was released" - iffy prose. Why is the remix subsequent? You could say 'A remix that features Britney Spears was later released'

• Yes - now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The song peaked at number one in Australia, Canada and Poland, number three on the UK Singles Chart, and reached the top five in France, Germany, Ireland and Spain." - awkward special treatment of the UK. Why not include the UK in the "top five" countries?

• Don't know why: now moved to the "top five" group. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "a moderate dance groove of 128 beats per minute" - I may be wrong here (I have very little musical knowledge), but the article for groove (music) states that a groove is a "feel" or sense of swing; don't you mean tempo of 128 bpm?

• Yep, good spot: Now tempoed - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is MTV Buzzworthy even a separate entity worth mentioning? I know some newspapers (I can't think of any off the top of my head) give their various sections exotic names - isn't this similar? I suggest just attributing the review to "Chris Ryan of MTV".

• Trimmed - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• The link of "low note of B3 to the high note of B4" to scientific pitch notation seems quite Easter eggy. Can someone explain why it is linked so?

• Now removed - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "A remix of "S&M", featuring rapper J. Cole, was released on the internet on January 17, 2011." - this sentence is fine but IMHO it would flow better without the commas. (Just my personal preference)

• Yeah, mine too: removed to improve flow - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "both commented that the song continued the themes featured on Rihanna's previous album, Rated R" - The Cinquemani review actually describes the song as a showcase of "the R-rated Rihanna". This is a censorship/age concept, not actually relating to Rated R. For the Conner review, please elaborate on how elements of Rated R are continued (boasting etc).
  • I've expanded on the point. I hope it's okay.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The reviewers are not referring to the Rated R album, but to an "R-rated Rihanna": a mature or explicit singer. To include the idea of Rated R here is slightly OR. Adabow (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Removed the claim. - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• "James Skinner of BBC Music wrote that "S&M" lacked the "chart-friendly moments" of Rated R" - no he didn't: he was writing about the Loud album as a whole
  • Re-worded to say as such.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The song the second-biggest selling urban single of 2011 in the UK" - be careful about the use of "urban". I know what you mean, but technically it means a radio format. Perhaps describe it as the "second-biggest selling R&B or hip hop single"?

• Thanks for that - R&B now in place - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• The list actually includes R&B and hip hop singles, not just R&B. Adabow (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Doh! Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• NZ Singles Chart ref (currently #53) takes me to the old site. Please amend to a direct link that chart at the new site.
  • I can't find a substitute for it so I've had to remove it.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• [43]. Note that in the certifications table the broken link citation is still there. Adabow (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Updated.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• "In the issue of Billboard published on April 30, 2011, the album version of "S&M" and its official remix featuring Spears sold a combined total of 293,000 downloads" - this doesn't actually make sense. You mean in the week preceding the publication of this issue, right?

• Yep! Now re-worked - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Rihanna became the quickest solo artist to achieve the record" - what record? Slightly confusing

• OK: Now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "In the final scene, she lies on a newsroom desk, a smiley face over one eye and a Rolling Stones tongue logo over her mouth" - with a smiley face? There should probably be a citation to verify the Rolling Stones tongue logo.

Adabow (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Now tweaked - 'with' added and supporting ref included. - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mostly done - we'll follow up on the last couple shortly. Many thanks Adabow: your time and efforts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is there information on what happened in the Paulus case?

• Nothing I can see on Lexis news search, on his own website or a general internet search. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• In the track listings, the digital download "single version" and EP and CD single "album version" are of the same length. Are they actually different versions?
  • No, it just meant that the single version is the same as the one on the album. I've changed to single version, as it is a single.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Then why do you need to specify the "version"? Why not simply '"S&M" (single version) – 4:03'? Adabow (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• References:
  • Rap-Up linked 2 out of 4 times. Be consistent in linking all occurrences or just one.
    • De-linked - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • MTV Buzzworthy here again, and pipelinked to MTV. Confusing, especially when there is another ref with MTV only linked as the publisher.
    • Missed it previously - now caught - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • MTV News has an article
    • Now linked - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • MTV Germany is italicised, but other MTV refs have MTV not italicised.
    • It was in a different field: now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent formatting for Hung Medien refs
    • They are all the same now.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • " "Digital Singles Charts – Greece". Billboard." (ref 111) has no access date
    • Added.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Very inconsistent formatting of Billboard refs in general
    • But they are all formatted as |work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media| ?  — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I think these are all covered. There is a slight difference between them, but this difference lies where a writer's name is known and where it isn't (I think!) - SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
        • e.g. 128 and 129 ("Rihanna Album & Song Chart History" Billboard Latin Tropical Airplay for Rihanna. Retrieved 2011-07-20.) - linking, no publisher, etc, while other Billboard refs are unlinked and include publisher. Adabow (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Got it: a problem with the auto-formatting imposed by the template: now tweaked to provide consistency. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
        • e.g. 112 ("Digital Singles Charts – Greece". Billboard.biz. Prometheus Global Media. 2011-04-30. Retrieved 2013-08-04.) - Billboard.biz isn't a separate entity from Billboard. Adabow (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Got it - and a couple of others - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure what the BPI "Certified Awards Search" (ref 159) is verifying, but the link is broken.
    • Corrected.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The reference says the song was certified silver in the UK, but this is mentioned in neither the table nor prose.Adabow (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• All of the images are used well: criterion 3 is met.
• ""Riff Off" was released as a single in 2012, and reached no. 86 on the US Billboard chart." - for consistency you should probably spell out 'number' in full. Also, specify which US chart.
  • Done.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your further comments, Adabow. I think we've covered all these now, but please let us know if there are any we have missed, or any new points you'd like looked into. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Very good work; I'm nearly there. Just the Billboard refs, BPI cert and the clarification of the single/album "versions" to go. Adabow (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

All now corrected. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorted the silver certification. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nice job, meets the criteria. Adabow (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's great, many thanks Adabow. You've spent a lot of time on this and we appreciate it hugely: the article is much tighter than it was previously, with the consistent sources a massive improvement. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone

I think I recall giving this a fairly hard time in its eighth FAC :-) Looking better. Still have some questions.

• "Instrumentation" is referred to twice in the second para of the concept section. I just about get it the first time, though I would have thought it would refer to "instrumental parts" perhaps. But the second reference eludes me ("All instrumentation was completed by Eriksen, Hermansen and Vee"). What is meant by "instrumentation" being "completed"?

• Tweaked (Aaron, can you check I've used the right terminology for the second occurrence?) - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• It means that they played/performed all the instruments for the instrumentation as a whole.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• On a related subject, the same word crops up, hyperlinked, in the next section. Has anyone clicked on that link? I did and laughed. Were you meaning to pipe it somewhere??

• PMSL (couldn't you hear the engines in the background...?) Removed. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Source check and nitpick: "Rihanna first performed "S&M" at the BRIT Awards on February 15, 2011, as part of a medley,..." I checked both citations and could find nothing regarding this being a "first" performance. One of those cites is also the reference for this: "Rihanna performed one verse and one chorus from "S&M", in between shortened versions of "Only Girl (in the World)" and "What's My Name?"". The source certainly indicates there was a medley of those three works, but don't think i could find a reference to "one verse and one chorus". Source says "But for her stage show, she changed into a red hooded dress to perform a three-song medley...Rihanna performed a routine to The Only Girl In The World, What's My Name and S&M..."
  • That was the first time she performed it then, as she had never performed it before. If she had of performed it before the BRITs, then it would be in the section labelled as her first performance. I've removed the bit about them being shortened works.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added a additional source to support that "first live performance" aspect of this. - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise looks pretty good. I don't normally review popular music articles, and I don't know if all the tables of data at the end are standard, but assuming they are, I'm probably close to supporting, once someone's done some other source checking.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your thoughts (again) hamiltonstone - much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support, thank you for following those up. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your time and efforts here: this is certainly much stronger for your input. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks in a great order. Great job! — HĐ (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. 12:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

• Support. Moved the resolved comments to Talk. No further objections. Thanks for the hard work at polishing the edges! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks  — ₳aron 16:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – per resolved comments at the peer review. This article has significantly improved since the previous FACs and is proof that perseverance really does pay off. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you.  — ₳aron 18:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Cass: much obliged!, as always - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - Did we ever get round to spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing? If not, I would like to see some before closing. Graham Colm (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Graham, there have been some cursory verification checks done, but Tim riley has succumbed to arm-twisting and pleading and has kindly agreed to do this for us. - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment – apologies that I won't be able to do a thorough review, but the repetition of "song" in the intro's first paragraph kinda gets to you.

"'S&M' is a song by Barbadian recording artist Rihanna from her fifth studio album, Loud (2010). The song was released on January 21, 2011, as the fourth single from the album. The American songwriter Ester Dean wrote the song in collaboration with the song's producers Stargate and Sandy Vee."

Maybe this could be amended? Best, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Spot checks

• 6a – fine
• 6b – fine
• 6c – fine
• 6d – fine
• 6e – fine
• 16a – fine
• 16b – fine
• 26 – fine
• 36a – fine
• 36b – fine
• 46a – fine
• 46b – fine
• 56a – fine
• 56b – fine
• 66 – fine
• 76 – fine
• 86a – fine
• 86b – fine
• 86c – fine
• 96 – fine
• 106 – fine
• 116 – fine
• 126 – fine
• 136 – not on the page the link takes me to, as far as I can see
  • It had been moved from Billboard to Music Canada, which is the new source for info, so I've changed it to that.  — ₳aron
• 146 – fine
• 156 – fine

Quotations duly acknowledged. No problem with close paraphrasing. – Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks  — ₳aron 16:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tim: very much appreciated indeed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 13 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) 20:16, 13 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, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [44].

---

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) [45].

---

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 [46]. 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) [47].

---

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 [48] 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) [49].

---

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) [50].

---

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) [51].

---

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) [52].

---

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) [53].

---

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[54]
      • 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 [55] (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) [56].

---

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) [57].

---

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) [58].

---

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) [59].

---

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.