Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 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 GrahamColm 10:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Sega Genesis

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} Indrian, SexyKick 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC),

Notified: WikiProject Video games

From the bottom of Wikipedia's worst to one of Wikipedia's best in just a few months, Sega Genesis has been, strangely enough, one of Wikipedia's most controversial articles for years. There's a reason it's listed at WP:LAME: a naming dispute has plagued this article for years, leaving the material to wither. However, with the most recent RFC on the title resulting in stability, finally the article has had the opportunity to receive a total facelift in the last two months. The references were weeded out and ensured to be reliable, the prose was reworked, and the depth of the subject material was explored and reworked as well. In October 2013, this article went through a very tough GA nomination, resulting in a lot of improvements and consensus discussions about aspects of the article as well. It may still need just a tad bit of touchup (in which case I hope the FA reviewers will help to point these out so we can make these changes as need be), but there's a dedicated team of writers behind this article, and this three-person co-nomination should be a great indicator of that. In addition, I'd like to recognize KieferSkunk for his contributions and assistance with the article, though he is currently on an extended wikibreak and has asked not to be involved with discussion about the article anymore. Let's make this one happen, and show Wikipedia that even though an article has been in poor shape and under dispute for years, it can still have a future and be an excellent article with some hard work. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Just wanna point out that Ref 50 is a dead link. GamerPro64 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Done - replaced with archive URL. Not sure how I missed that. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Ssh... Using graphics are discouraged here as they slow down loading times. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Number 77 isn't working for me.

Looks like they took it offline. I'll change it to a cite journal since it's a magazine.--SexyKick 02:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've already removed the link, it's a "cite news" as it is. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ideally inlines should only follow punctuation; saw at least one instance in Aggressive marketing.

• Odd how this was missed. Fixed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Remember to only wikilink the first instance of an article in the body (Sega Master System in Launch, for instance).

• This particular instance has been rectified. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Inconsistent bolding. Consoles are bolded later in the article but not at the beginning. I am of the opinion that they don't need to be bolded outside of the lead anyways.

• So, to be clear, you believe that the numerous variations should not need bolded titles? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, like the Sega CD, 32x, etc. I mean the lead is fine of course, but in the body they probably don't need to be.

Will add more later once I've had a thorough read. — Mr. V (t – c) 01:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• As you've requested, all bolding has been removed save for the lead. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick check

In the lead, first sentence "in most regions", the order can be confusing and in what regions is it not "Mega Drive" 'outside of North America'? Yes, that is how terrible the line reads. Given the worldwide common name is some form of "Mega Drive" I wonder how best to address the situation. I'd almost prefer the Sega Genesis, as a worldwide stand out, be mentioned as the exception to "Mega Drive" and damn the North American release to its fitting place in the worldwide scheme of things. The second part of the sentence is a run on as noted by the logical gap and desire to take a breath after the Ltd: "and marketed by Sega Enterprises, Ltd. first released in Japan in 1988 and later released worldwide."

• "It is Sega's third and most successful console in terms of both sales and marketshare, selling well in North America and Europe, and less so in Japan." - This sentence has pretty big issues for obvious reasons.
• "Its arcade game ports, first Sonic the Hedgehog release, wide array of first and third-party sports titles, and aggressive youth marketing greatly contributed to its success." - Same as above, choppy and disorienting.
• "Two years after its debut, Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), which sparked a "console war" that predominated over video gaming's 16-bit era." - Aside from introducing something entirely unrelated to the rest of the paragraph, it places the SNES in front of the topic to introduce this "console war".
• "The console's hardware is based on Sega's System 16 arcade board." Gosh. That's all I get in the lead? The technical details also gloss over the point, but the history makes the statement from the lead... but the flow is bad.
• ". Its games are delivered on ROM-based cartridges, the licensing and reverse engineering of which became the subject of a lawsuit." Too many questions raised here.
• "The console is backwards compatible with its predecessor's game cartridges via an adapter, while its own library consists of over 900 games." Lacking clarity.
• "Controversy surrounding violent titles like Night Trap and Mortal Kombat led to Sega's Videogame Rating Council, a predecessor to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board." - Surprise link with the "controversy"! How is this relevant to the rest of the paragraph? So far it seems to just spit out the contents in a haphazard way with little regard for the previous sentences.

In short the last paragraph of the lead is no different, but the lead is also very short and doesn't work as a very brief overview of the subject. While it may discuss the contents, it doesn't do so in a way that meets 1a or 2a. The actual contents itself looks better, but I'm going to stop for now simply because the lead alone needs to be completely re-written and expanded to 4-5 paragraphs. I am also noticing some numbers errors. The "40 million" estimate for units sold is not given as an estimate in the infobox nor as an approximate as listed in the body. And yes, there is a difference. I also looked up the Sega Genesis 3, and aside from being mentioned, it is not covered in the third party variations nor along with the other derivations. As part of the comprehensive criteria I am adamant that these releases be covered because the current coverage is inadequete and only raises more loose ends. We barely get a sentence about the CSD-GM1 which was in a "boombox". Many issues exist and I think it is far too soon before this can even be considered featured article candidate. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It says "most regions" because it was also called something different in Korea. Thank you for the comprehensive lead analysis. I was never a big fan of the current lead, and I guess we need to go back to the drawing board with it. I was curious in what you might think of the lead we had a month ago, (with the lead Red Phoenix had written).

• The Sega Genesis (often shortened to Genesis) is a 16-bit video game console that was released in 1988 by Sega in Japan (as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?)), 1989 in North America, and 1990 in Europe, Australasia, and Brazil, under the name Mega Drive. In South Korea it was distributed by Samsung and was first known as the Super Gam*Boy and later as the Super Aladdin Boy. The Genesis is Sega's third console and the successor to the Sega Master System with which it has backward compatibility when the separately sold Power Base Converter is installed. The Genesis was the first of its generation to achieve notable market share in continental Europe and North America, where it competed against a wide range of platforms, including dedicated gaming consoles and home computer systems. Two years later, Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), and the competition between the two would dominate the 16-bit era of video gaming. Based on Sega's System 16 arcade board, the console began production in Japan in 1988 as the "Mark V", and later achieved market success in North America and Europe. With sales of 40 million units, the Genesis was Sega's most successful console.

• In Japan, the Mega Drive initially did not fare well against its two main competitors, Nintendo's Famicom and NEC's PC-Engine. However, it achieved much greater success in North America (where it was rebranded as the Sega Genesis) and in Europe, capturing the majority of the market share. Contributing to its success were its library of arcade-game conversions, the success of Sonic the Hedgehog, and aggressive advertisement that positioned it as the "cool" console for mature gamers. The Genesis and Mega Drive also benefited from numerous peripherals and several network services, as well as multiple third-party variations of the console that focused on extending its functionality. Though Sega dominated the market in North America and Europe for several years, the release of the SNES posed serious competition, and the console and several of its highest-profile games gained significant legal scrutiny on matters involving reverse engineering and video game violence.

• The console and its games continue to be popular among fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts. Licensed third party re-releases of the console are still being produced, and several indie game developers are producing games for it. Many games have also been re-released in compilations for newer consoles and offered for download on various online services, such as Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam.--SexyKick 13:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually like that one much better, though some wording could be tightened up. It might be easier to put to the "generation" right in the lead instead of dancing about it with "first of its generation". The SNES takes up a bit too much of the mentality here. I'd almost prefer to place that altogether to avoid making readers venture to the SNES article. Though I'll have to take another look at it tomorrow to pick apart this lead, I do think this is better than the one currently in use. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have started my own revision of the lead in sandbox that uses this one as a base and incorporates a few other things as well. Feel free to continue offering feedback on this version, however, as I can incorporate that into my revision as well. Indrian (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead has always been an issue of awkward compromise; with so many groups of editors fighting over it, especially with the naming dispute that plagued this article for years. I believe that's why the lead I proposed a while back wasn't used, but it is as it is, and I have no complaints with making amendments as needed. I will try to help as much as I can, but I work in retail and this is a busy time of year.

209.255.230.32, while I politely respect your opinion, I strongly disagree with your comments that this article is nowhere near even being worth a candidacy. I disagree with several of your raised points: unless specific third-party variations of the console show significant notability, I don't see expansion as being more than excessive directory-like information. Existence of reliable sources is a good barometer of this; a lack of coverage on the individual third-party variations, including the Sega Genesis 3 which was made by Majesco, indicate that little impact on the impact and notability of the console result from these third-party variations, and no more than a mention of their existence is necessary, such as the case with the emulators in the last section. I don't think it takes away anything by not stuffing it full of information about things that had little impact on the console and its legacy; those units that are worthy of more coverage as units themselves are covered in their respective articles, such as Pioneer LaserActive (and that's not to say another article or two couldn't be fashioned; JVC Wondermega might have enough, for instance. Now, as for the remainder of your notes so far; I'm glad to have such notes on little issues, but that doesn't make it "far from candidacy". That's part of what this process is for; to hash out issues and improve the article to a point where the community can say it's worth being an FA. I seriously doubt every article that comes here is perfect, and that absolute perfection is the standard to bring it here. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Also want to mention, I disagree with "4-5 paragraphs" for the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, lead sections should typically not exceed 4 paragraphs, and in fact I disagree with 4 entirely in most articles I am a major contributor to: three, in this case, I believe is a more appropriate number. Paragraph one is usually an introduction to the subject matter and notes about what makes it notable, paragraph two is a summative abstract of the article's contents (as a video game editor, usually up to the end of the product's life), and paragraph three summarizes the legacy, reception, and closes out the section in a smooth transition to the content. In shorter articles, I combine the second and third paragraphs, and such is my preferred approach. 4-5 paragraphs in any lead section is, to me, always excessive and in few cases does it read smoothly. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Per discussions at Talk:Sega Genesis#Lead rewrite, this article now has a new lead section, which was agreed upon by consensus of the article's nominators. This should resolve many issues with the past, ever-so-controversial lead. Speaking from a perspective of an active editor during the lead debates, I think it could be safely argued that issues with the lead before were another result of the long-held naming debate, and that discussions about the lead section could essentially be construed as debate by proxy; debating about one issue to really try and hammer a point about another. I feel pretty good about this new lead, though; more so than I ever have, and I'm sure User:Indrian and User:SexyKick do as well. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose from self-locked-out User:Indopug

The lead remains excruciatingly detailed. A detailed release-history stretching to seven years after original release isn't really needed anywhere in the article, leave alone the first paragraph of the lead. The prose is too verbose, studded with several wordy phrases ("developed, manufactured, and marketed", repeated "first and third-party", repeated "North America and in Europe" [can probably just go with "the West"], compounded by "United States and the United Kingdom", "fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts") that don't add much.

Put another way, the lead uses a lot of words to say very little, very joylessly. Just look at the how all the punch of the wonderful phrase "console war" is drained out by the verbiage around it: 'resulted in a fierce battle for market share in those territories that has often been termed a "console war" by journalists and historians'.

Further, the second para seems to be written for advanced engineers ("hardware was adapted from Sega's System 16 arcade board, centered around a Motorola 68000 processor as a primary CPU and a Zilog Z80 as a secondary processor ... delivered on ROM-based cartridges"), not the general reader or even a video-game fan. Things that would interest the general public--how the Genesis' gaming experience was different, what critics thought of it, how it changed the gaming industry, what people think of it looking back 20 years later--i.e. broad, subjective stuff, is entirely missing. It looks to be missing from the rest of the article as well.

Taking a peak at the rest of the article, the prose isn't much better ("Accolade's games if Accolade were to be licensed, preventing Accolade from releasing its games to other systems. To get around licensing, Accolade"). And jargon remains: "lower price point", instead of "cheaper". The article needs a thorough relook that is beyond the scope of FAC.—User:Indopug (122.164.120.100 (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC))

Wow. Well, if nothing else, I agree with what you're saying about the punch being completely removed from the phrase "console war".--SexyKick 07:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of being undiplomatic I am going to be blunt: if you believe that naming the processor used in the system and mentioning ROM cartridges means this lead is written for advanced engineers, then you have no business reviewing this article for content. None of the major contributors of this article are engineers, so it would be impossible for us to engage that audience. Every general history of video games, all of which are written for the layman, plays up the distinction between ROM cartridges and CDs due to the major changes increased storage brought to the industry, so any reader interested in learning more about video game history is going to know what a ROM-based cartridge is or is going to have to educate himself in a hurry. Pretty much every article written for the layman on a specific console also gives the system's basic technical attributes, and the processor used in each is incredibly important, as all of the early console generations were defined in terms of their processor. The move from 8-bit to 16-bit to 32-bit was hyped in the general press and played a significant role in the marketing campaigns of these systems, which were also geared towards the general public. I have taken some of your prose criticisms to heart and already made a couple of changes (I am embarrassed that triple Accolade sentence was not caught sooner), but since you clearly do not know what aspects of a video game console are important to highlight to insure the article meets the comprehensiveness requirements of FAC and the relative emphasis requirements of WP:LEAD, I am afraid your content critique is off base. Indrian (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Indopug. In response to some of your comments:

• There's nothing wrong with the prose being "verbose" as long as it's not full of jargon. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Simple English Wikipedia. The idea is to have engaging prose, not simplistic prose; sentence and paragraph fluency are paramount, but if sentences flow well, they need not be simple. In fact, putting together only simple sentences makes sentence fluency terrible.
• Punch of "console war" - WP:WEASEL, "console war" is a commonly used term by the video game community, but it's important not to directly call it that or else that is original research and pushing a point of view. The way it's phrased now avoids WP:NPOV issues, and possible WP:OR like that which existed in the old Console wars article (now redirected to History of video games).
• How is "lower price point" jargon? "Cheaper" may be the more common word, but I doubt you'll find someone who doesn't know what "lower price point" means.
• Completely agree with Indrian's comments on the tech specs above. We actually stripped out most of what was in the tech specs before, but knowing where the console came from is important to understanding it. We've done our best to avoid excessive detail, which I think was done quite well in this article without getting too engrossed in unsourceable and tech manual-like specs.
• Things that would interest the general public: read the History section for "how the Genesis gaming experience was different" (particularly Launch, Aggressive marketing, and Sonic the Hedgehog subsections) and the Legacy and revival section for "what people think of it looking back 20 years later". How it changed the gaming industry is a moot point; it ties in with what people think of it looking back 20 years later extensively, and the issues and features that did so are outlined in the History, Tech specs, Add-ons, and Game library sections - essentially, the entire article does so, especially subsections like Sonic the Hedgehog, Trademark Security System and Sega v. Accolade, and Videogame Rating Council. Critical reception at the time is a tougher gig, but at the same point, I think that sales figures say more about how it was received at the time than the opinions of a couple of critics, and this article possesses detailed info on how much market share Sega controlled at periodic times during the life of the Genesis. All four of your points, therefore, have been answered and are in the article.

Respectfully, I must disagree with a large part of your feedback. There are certainly some minor notes such as the triple Accolade sentence mentioned, but I don't think anything major is missing or mishandled in the article. I believe everything has been given its due weight and that subjectively this article covers all of the bases in terms of content without being excessive and unnecessarily detailed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to delve too much into this at the moment, but how is it original research for us to call it a console war, when we have quite the handful of sources that call it such? The way we've weaseled out of referring to it with effective punch in the lead, and renaming the Console Wars section "Aggressive Marketing" when the former is entirely more accurate and descriptive really waters it down IMO. Even Steven Kent wrote a chapter about the 16-bit console war. Its title? "The War". Further more the Super NES article was able to call it Console Wars, and that one achieved FA status with the section titled that. And how effective it reads.--SexyKick 05:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Journalists have defined it as a "console war", but if we did not specify that, then what is a "console war"? Is it a pair of consoles going at it in a physical fight to see which one can break the other in two pieces first? A little bit ridiculous, but I hope you see my point. It's a jargon term coined by a few journalists, so we have to specify that it is, or else no one will understand and it will appear as though we invented the term, creating an OR issue. The SNES article got by with a section header called Console wars because at the time, there was an article called Console wars and there was a {{main}} template right below it with a link to the article, essentially attempting to be consistent and specify that article as part of the reading material to understand the subject fully. As it turns out, "Console wars" the article was itself redirected a couple of months ago for being full of... you guessed it, OR. When working with a term coined by a group that may not be instantly recognizable, it's always important to tread the waters carefully. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 12:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell

Resolved issues

Per WP:LEAD, a lead should fairly all of summarize the most important sections of on article, without providing important information not covered in the article body. I know I may be stepping into dangerous territory here, but it seems like the first paragraph of the lead is a bit too concerned to list all the names the console has gone by, when that information does not seem particularly important given the coverage in the article's body. For instance, the fact that it was released as Tec Toy in Brazil and Super Gam*Boy and Super Aladdin Boy in South Korea is only mentioned in a brief paragraph at the end of the "launch" section, and the names "Virgin Mastertronic" and "Ozisoft" are not mentioned outside the lead at all. It seems to me that the various names should either be in their own section of the article, or else incorporated into the history section, whichever is most appropriate; but either way, the lead should not devote unnecessary detail on a point that the article body treats as minor. I believe it's there for identification purposes. There's a full paragraph on this in the Launch subsection. I think the reason names have been emphasized so much is that this article has had, for years, WP:WORLDVIEW issues, which were resolved during the rewrite of this article. More importantly, though, it's been a point of contention in the naming debate of "Sega Genesis" v. "Mega Drive" for years on this article. Also, it's not released as "Tec Toy", in Brazil, it was released in Brazil by a company called Tec Toy. I'm sure, though, that we can copy the extra details down, and if you are still sure they should be removed from the lead, we can do that. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Info about Virgin Mastertronic and Ozisoft have been added to the bodies, with sources. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 20:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I'm glad that the "worldview" issues have been resolved, and I understand that the unfortunate naming dispute has had an effect on the article. It was necessary to include information about Tec Toy and Ozisoft in the body if that info is in the lead, however, and I'm glad to see that that was done. Also, I see that I misread the nature of Ozisoft and Tec Toy due to an ambiguity in the lead's wording. (I'd read it as meaning "...released as the Mega Drive by Virgin Mastertronic in Europe, as Ozisoft in Australasia, and as Tec Toy in Brazil", when it's actually the "by" clause that's listed. Could you make this explicit like this? "...released as the Mega Drive by Virgin Mastertronic in Europe, by Ozisoft in Australasia, and by Tec Toy in Brazil." – Quadell (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Done. Indrian (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC) The direct quote "console war" in the lead needs a citation. The term "cool", if quoted, should probably also have a citation. (I would just leave out the quote marks, personally; no one is being quoted, and you're really referring to the general aesthetic, which the linked article covers.) I've added two citations for "console war", and dequoted "cool". Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 20:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Some facts in the infobox are sourced, and others are not. It seems to me that facts only need to be sourced in the infobox if they are not mentioned (and sourced) in the article body, or if they are particularly contentious. For this reason, it's good that Sonic 1's sales figure (15 million) is sourced in the infobox. But I don't think the fact that 40 million units were sold, or that Sega discontinued sale in 1997, need infobox citations. Fair enough, I'll remove them. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC) In my opinion, "the go ahead" is insufficiently encyclopedic in tone. Changed to "received permission to proceed with". Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC) It's hard to source that something is not known, and speculation needs particularly careful sourcing. I can't read source 19 ("Retroinspection: Mega Drive"), but does it fully support the claim that "The reason for this change is not known, but it may have been due to a trademark dispute"? Yes, the source itself is also speculative and cannot pin it down. Here, I'll help by contributing a quote from Retro Gamer: Arriving after the American launch, (Sega of America CEO Michael) Katz wasn't aware of the details surrounding the name change from Mega Drive to Genesis. Consensus states it was due to a trademark dispute. The facts are blurred, but point possibly to a US manufacturer of storage devices called Mega Drive Systems, Inc. That is exactly what I'd hoped; the source fully supports both parts of the statement, and without close paraphrasing issues. Excellent. Thanks for checking for me. – Quadell (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Is "Sega Mega Anser" a typo, or is that really what it was called? And also... an online banking system? Is that really something that was available for the Mega Drive in 1988? I do wish I could see the source. Can you verify these details for me? (Also, "including" is the wrong word to use, since that doesn't sound like either a game or a peripheral to me.) That's really what it's called—it's a product that was released only in Japan for use with Nagoya Bank, which is likely the reason it seems typoed in English. The source even notes, "Mega Anser (sic)", that that really was how it was spelled. It was a full set with a cartridge, keypad, printer, and modem. I have the issue of Retro Gamer this is noted in and can verify this is all correct. And yes, it really was an early launch product... I'm not so sure it's 1988, the source isn't exactly specific on exactly when it was launched, but notes it in the article just after the paragraph on the Genesis' progress in Japan in its first year. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Again, thanks for checking. – Quadell (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I made a somewhat bold copy-edit, especially to the "launch" section, here, to improve the prose and reduce redundancy. If you disagree with any of these edits, feel free to revert and discuss. I'm okay with that. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 20:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC) And it has been improved further. Excellent. – Quadell (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC) The article says "A downturn in the arcade business starting in 1982 seriously hurt the company", but the source only supports the second half of the sentence (that Bally purchased Sega in 1983). I'm not familiar with a 1982 downturn. The North American video game crash of 1983 article indicates that this period was a high point for video games. The Sega article states "In 1982, Sega's revenues would eclipse $214 million... The following year, an overabundance of arcade games led to the video game crash [of 1983], causing Sega's revenues to drop to $136 million." So whence comes the claim of an 1982 downturn? @Indrian: Can you give me a hand here? Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I can take care of this with appropriate sourcing. As a note of explanation here, there were actually two different market crashes, one in coin-op and one in consumer, two markets that have different boom and bust cycles. By the middle of 1982, sales of new arcade game cabinets came to a virtual halt due to over saturation. This was followed by the end of the year by a decline in coin drop at the arcades. The arcade industry bottomed out in 1984 and then began to grow again. The home video game market suffered a market crash in 1983 as the price of new games plummeted due to over saturation to the point that publishers could no longer recoup their investment on game production. This is the crash covered in the article you linked to above. The home market bottomed out in 1985 and then began to grow again. Indrian (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Ok, I have added a link to a New York Times article that discusses the decline of the arcade market in 1982. Indrian (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Good source. I am satisfied that the arcade business had a downturn "starting in 1982", as the article says, even if early- and mid-1982 were good times for the business. – Quadell (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Related: Bally purchased Sega after the release of the SG-1000, but the article says the purchase was before the release. @Indrian: And here too? Thank you. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I took care of this with some rewording. The gist of the article was already correct, we just got in trouble with some transitional phrasing that screwed up the chronology a bit. Indrian (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I suppose it's fine now. – Quadell (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Question: Why is the "see also" hatnote for History of video games at the "Aggressive marketing" section, rather than the "History" supersection? – Quadell (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC) This would be because the "Aggressive marketing" section was originally titled "Console wars", after the fact that there was a Console wars article that talked about video game competition. A month or two ago, this article was redirected via a consensus decision at WT:VG to History of video games. We decided we needed a new name for the section since it emphasized Sega's aggressive marketing tactics for the Genesis, and the term "console wars" is in itself a little OR and POVish unless the context of it being a quote in video game journalism is noted. That being said, I can see where a move of that header would be reasonable now. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 17:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC) That makes sense. I think a lot of what I'm doing is smoothing over the scars of a past war. – Quadell (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC) The article sometimes uses the serial comma (e.g. "fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts") but sometimes does not (e.g. "Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam"). Either is fine, but the article should be consistent. I would prefer the former myself. I'll take a look through and see if I can touch some of that up. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC) The infobox seems to indicate that the console has been discontinued worldwide. (Am I reading that correctly?) But the text says "In Brazil the Mega Drive never ceased production". That would be correct, that's how you're reading it. Sega discontinued the Genesis worldwide in that date, and Majesco discontinued their clone, but Tectoy continues to produce Mega Drve-based products in Brazil. Perhaps the best fix to this might be to note below the worldwide and US Majesco dates that it is ongoing in Brazil, with Tectoy noted in parentheses. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Your change isn't showing up, probably because the BR parameter isn't recognized in the {{vgrelease}} template. Any way you want to resolve it will be fine, so long as the infobox doesn't lead the reader to think all versions have been discontinued worldwide. – Quadell (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Good catch; {{vgrelease}} doesn't have a parameter for Brazil. In response, I've submitted an edit request to have such a field added, with BR as the region code. I can see how this might be a useful field in the future; in my research with Sega, I've found quite a few unique Brazil releases. After the edit request is fulfilled, this should show up. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I think this has been resolved by SexyKick. Indrian (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC) What he's got has essentially done it without the template, which is fantastic, and I thank him for it. I'm going to leave the edit request, though, as it seems Brazil releases on Sega products may be more common than we might think. For example, I found out while researching for List of Sega 32X games that Surgical Strike (video game) has a Brazil-exclusive Sega CD and Sega 32X combination release. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC) The direct quote in "Bill Clinton's 'Get it done' attitude" needs an unambiguous source. In fact, in my opinion, it would be better for the source's for Sonic's appearance to go before the semicolon, and the (presumably) one on his attitude should be at the end of the sentence. I plugged in an unambiguous source (thank you again Retro Gamer) that cites both facts, and I dropped in the quote itself into the ref so it's there and clearly unambiguous. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 17:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC) So long as it's a quote, it would be better to use the actual quote of "can do", rather than "get it done". – Quadell (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Fixed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC) I'm a bit confused by some of the market share stats in the "Aggressive marketing" section. The article says "Even with the Genesis often outselling the Super NES at a ratio of 2:1, neither console could maintain a definitive lead in market share for several years." Two-to-one sounds like like a definitive lead in market share to me. Do you mean that neither could maintain a sustained lead for years at a time? If so, that would be a clearer wording. Used suggested wording; that is what is meant. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Similar to the above, in my opinion, the final sentence of the "Sonic the Hedgehog" section would go better in the "Aggressive marketing" section instead. (That section already attributed some of the Genesis' success to Sonic, and gave a less detailed look at the market share swing of the time period.) Moved the last two sentences to second paragraph of Aggressive marketing. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC) This sentence could really use to broken up: "To get around licensing, Accolade chose to seek an alternative way to bring their games to the Genesis by purchasing one in order to decompile the executable code of three Genesis games and use it to program their new Genesis cartridges in a way that would allow them to disable the security lockouts on the Genesis that prevented unlicensed games from being able to be played." Broken into three sentences. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC) The article flatly calls Accolade's reverse engineering methods "piracy". I don't think that's a fair NPOV term for it. This is an ambiguity issue: the "piracy" referred to in this sentence is the piracy from foreign countries making bootleg copies that blanked out the trademark before the existence of the TMSS, referenced in the above paragraph. I've inserted a prepositional phrase to clarify this. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Oh, oops... I guess it wasn't referenced. I wrote this section based on Sega v. Accolade, another FA that I worked extensively on. That article makes mention of piracy issues in Southeast Asia, which the court case itself referenced as a reason for Sega's addition of the TMSS. I hadn't realized that wasn't mentioned in this article, so I've just referenced "piracy from foreign countries". Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Fixed, that's great. – Quadell (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC) The article says "Ratings ranged from the family friendly GA rating to the adults-only ratings of MA-13, and MA-17." I'm not sure MA-13 can be described as an adults-only rating. I would just say "to the adults-only rating of MA-17", (though then you might want to introduce the MA-13 rating somehow so that the next sentence makes sense). Related, I'm not sure "relatively low MA-13 rating" conveys the fact that it's non-restrictive. Noted MA-13 as a "more mature" rating, and moved the adults-only to MA-17. The image box for MA-13 even says "Mature Audiences" on it. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC) The direct quote "unwieldy and inaccurate" needs a clear source. I just removed this and changed "unreliability" to "inaccuracy". To say consumers dismissed it with a direct quote just seems off-kilter. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC) You're right, that's a great way to neatly resolve the issue. – Quadell (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC) In my opinion, the "Trademark Security System and Sega v. Accolade" section goes into a bit more detail than necessary. It's an important part of the history of the Genesis, and I wouldn't cut it in half or anything... but some of the specifics (the date of the written opinion vs. the ruling, the various injunctions, terms of the settlement, etc.) could be trimmed, and I think it would improve the flow of the article as a whole. I've done a little trimming here, but I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not it needs a little more. On a side note, it's tasks like this that make me very much like the VisualEditor, where it's more convenient for proofreading and copyediting prose. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC) I think it's great now. (I may have to try VisualEditor after all.) – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC) You have some overlinking issues. (Altered Beast, Super Nintendo, Sega CD, etc.) There's a tool to detect those, if you have it; otherwise I can list them for you. Also, you usually don't need to link the names of countries: United Kingdom, Kuwait, etc. I can't seem to find this tool; do you have a link to it? I'd be glad to solve the over linking if I could find the tool. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC) The tool is at User:Ucucha/duplinks. If you need help installing or using it, feel free to ask me on my user talk page. – Quadell (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I got it. That's quite a useful tool; I'll have to make sure to make use of it in future article writing. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC) Question: Why is the Power Base Converter, which allows the Genesis to play older Master System games, a "peripheral" described in the "Peripherals" section... while the Sega CD, which allows the Genesis to play newer games, an "add-on" listed in the "Add-ons" section? Video game media tends to refer to these two as "add-ons" specifically, but leaves out the Power Base Converter, which is essentially a pass-through for Master System cartridges (the Genesis itself is already backwards compatible in its hardware; the Power Base Converter is just a slot adapter for the differently shaped cartridges to allow it to use such functionality.) The Sega CD and Sega 32X, however, add functionalities such as faster processor chips and more storage capability, and in addition are quite a bit more notable, seeing as how each warrants their own article (and coincidentally both Sega CD and Sega 32X are GA-class articles. Now, here's where I play devil's advocate - "Peripheral" and "add-on" are essentially the same thing. The terminology is out of video game media, but they're synonyms. If recommended, I would not have a problem with moving the Sega CD and 32X sections into the Peripherals area, though I'd recommend they keep their subsections. However, it's my personal thought they're quite distinctly different from "peripherals" for the system. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC) If the sources are fairly consistent in referring to one as a peripheral and the others as add-ons, that's fine. – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "The same was true of the Pioneer LaserActive, which was also an add-on..." I don't think the LaserActive was an add-on. The sentence should be reworded for clarity and accuracy. SexyKick got this one. It's kind of humorous, because it's actually the opposite way around. The LaserActive requires an add-on known as the Mega-LD pack to play Genesis and Sega CD games. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC) It sounds like the "Later new releases" section is saying that the versions of FIFA 2008, Need for Speed Pro Street, The Sims 2, and Sim City for the Mega Drive Guitar Idol were originally made as cellphone games. If that's true, then no change is needed. But if you meant that the MDGI included those named games, plus others derived from celphone games, then it should be reworded. I checked the source with Google Translate (it's in Portuguese, since it's from Tectoy's site). Nothing in the source actually says these games came from cellphone games, so I've removed this statement. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC) A "See also" section should not include links which are already linked in the article body. All of these are, so the entire section is not needed. (The portal links would have to go in a different section.) Removed, moved portal links to References. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Images: The non-free images are all used appropriately, with all required information present. (Although File:Megadrive logo.png and File:GenesisLogo.png could be cleaned up a bit, with rationale templates used a little better.) Nearly all the free images are legitimate, complete, and appropriate. (Evan-Amos is the man, by the way.) But I'm very concerned about File:Xeye.JPG; it looks like the original uploader is saying he got the image off eBay, though the link is now dead. Could it be replaced with a different third-party-model image? Also, this is minor stuff, but a description is needed for File:Console-wondermega.jpg, and it would be better to include an English description and categories to File:Teradrive-2007-05-19-front.jpg. Updated the templates for the two logos, and added a description for the Wondermega. Also, I replaced the X'Eye image with one for the Amstrad Mega PC, which is claimed to be in the public domain and the uploader says he took the image himself. Also, yes, Evan-Amos is the man, definitely. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Be very careful about tenses in this article. Any action in the past should use the past tense (e.g. "Sega advertised to a more adult audience" or "The Genesis library was initially modest"), but for descriptions of things that still exist, the present tense should be used. This article does that correctly in some places (e.g. "The console also includes a Zilog Z80 sub-processor"), but I've had to change other parts to use the present tense (e.g. "the Sega Genesis also supports two add-ons"), and there are many other places where the present tense should be used instead of the past (e.g. "a 32-bit peripheral which utilized ROM cartridges", "but was incompatible with some games", "It also provided battery-backed storage RAM", "the Sega Mega Mouse featured three buttons", etc.) Someone will need to make sure the present tense is used when it's appropriate throughout the article. Be careful though; don't change every past tense phrasing into the present tense. For instance, consider "Virtua Racing, the only game released with this chip, ran at a significantly higher and more stable frame rate than similar games on the SNES." It still does run at a higher and more stable frame rate, but in the context of the paragraph, the important point was that it ran better back then. Or consider "this add-on unit also upgraded the graphics and sound capabilities". The add-on still exists, but it "upgraded" the capabilities at the time. It will take a lot of care, but it's important to get the tenses right throughout the article. Case study: Consider this sentence. "This version removed the headphone jack in the front, changed the A/V-Out connector to a smaller version that supports stereo sound, and provided a simpler, less expensive mainboard that required less power." It's true that it only removed and changed at the time of its release, but it still provides a mainboard that requires less. Because it's bad style to mix tenses in a list, I reworded the entire sentence with this edit. I'm afraid that sort of change will be necessary in many places. – Quadell (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC) I can see that SexyKick's been working on this one. I'll have to spend some time at it too, but it's a very busy season for me at work, and I'm finding free time quite scarce. Let me know when you think this is done, and I'll check it over. – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC) I took some time and worked through this tonight. I was surprised to find there was so much of this in "Game library" and "Variations", but some in other areas, too. I went through with a fine-toothed comb and I think this is all resolved. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC) I found a couple you missed, but it's hard to believe there are many more lurking in there. Indrian (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Great. After looking over it again, I believe this issue to be resolved. – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Although I found a few issues with the lead, as listed above, since resolved, I have to respectfully disagree with Indopug on nearly all the points he raises. I see nothing wrong with the description of "console war", nor with the description of the hardware in the lead, nor with the use of the phrase "price point" later in the article. I don't think it would be appropriate to use "the West" in place of "North America and in Europe" for purposes of modern console sales information, and I don't think the article is missing subjective descriptions of how the "gaming experience" was different. It seems to me that only actionable opportunities for legitimate improvement should be considered.
  • Thank you for your honest feedback. Make sure to let us know what we can do to gain support for this to be an FA; the devoted team behind this article can make it happen. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sources: I haven't done a thorough source formatting inspection, but the ones I've looked at have had no problems. The few spotchecks I did showed the material fully supported without plagiarism.
  • Thank you. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Images: The non-free images are all used appropriately, with all required information present. All the free images are legitimate, complete, and appropriate. Captions are fine.

Support. This article is thorough, well-sourced, and well-written. It fulfills all are GA criteria, and should be featured. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SnowFire

Resolved issues

A few quibbles. The "Aggressive Marketing" section seems to be almost all concerned with the North American market. Maybe rename it as such so that it's clear? (I assume that sources for other markets are hard to find.) Politely, I disagree with this, because it's not entirely true. It seems that way, because at the time Sega of America was also over decisions in Europe too—Sega of Europe would not be established until 1991. Tom Kalinske's decisions at Sega of America were certainly targeted for the American audience, but also had impacts over Europe because of this. A quick quote to kind of back this, from Sega CEO Hayao Nakayama to Tom Kalinske after his suggestion to reduce the price of the Genesis per his razor-and-blades model and pack in Sonic the Hedgehog: "No one here agrees with anything you've said. But I hired you to make the decisions for Europe and the Americas, so go ahead and do it." — Hayao Nakayama This can be found in Retro Gamer, just to cite where I've got this from. I'd be glad to accept it, but I worry that explicitly calling it North American is going to reintroduce the WP:WORLDVIEW issues that plagued this article for years and years. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC) This is a fair point, but I'd cross that bridge when you come to it - if more European material can be found, I agree that shuffling around the name might be wise. As is, the new section title is more descriptive. SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) "Nintendo's share of the 16-bit machine business dipping down from 60% at the end of 1992 to 37% at the end of 1993" - Please clarify what Business Week meant with "16-bit machine business" in the text. Is this percentage of console sales per year? Percentage of dollar sales of console sales per year? Percentage of hardware sales? Percentage of hardware & approved software combined? And, if the section is not renamed, it might be worth mentioning "American market" again here. Removed - Even Business Week isn't too clear on what they mean by that. I've used the Retro Gamer article to rephrase this from the perspective of Sega, anyway, as the article is about their console and their product. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) I don't think that should be removed. That change breaks the flow of the sentence / paragraph, and loses the focus of showing how things were progressively through sources of the time. We can clarify because Business Week cites Goldman Sachs, which means it was tracking dollar share of the 16-bit machines business. I also don't think we're hurting worldview by renaming a section, that doesn't change the content of the article itself. We cover Japan, and then Europe right before this section...at least, to the extent of the sources we have.--SexyKick 05:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) "Sega accounting for 55% of all 16-bit hardware sales during 1994" - Thanks for sticking it in the footnote, but maybe move up from the footnote to here that "Sega claimed Sega accounted for 55% of all 16-bit hardware sales?" Sega talking about its own market share is definitely worth calling out explicitly! Done - Looks like someone has changed "accounting" to "claiming", which I think fixes this. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) "the Super NES to win a handful of the waning years of the 16-bit generation" - This is a weird metric. "Number of years won" isn't really relevant, and considering that the Genesis was released 2 years prior to the SNES, I wouldn't be shocked if the SNES won all of the "waning years" rather than "a handful" of them (how many would that be, anyway?! If we're talking 1994-1996, is a handful 1 out of 3?). I'm not sure exactly what the sources say here so it's hard for me to suggest a rephrase, but if you want to keep the years thing in, just list out the years that the SNES "won" (e.g. "Super Nintendo outsold the Genesis from year X-year Y"), and, more interestingly, list the total sales of hardware, which is what really matters in a sense. Possibly split it out by market; if a total Genesis sales in NAmerica figure can be had, that'd be useful to add. According to the SNES article, the SNES outsold the Genesis by 10 million units worldwide, but you'd never figure that out from this section, which seems to indicate the Genesis "won" the console wars. I assume that better Japanese SNES sales is what tipped the balance, since this article seems to indicate the Genesis did "win" the North American market? Regardless, it'd be good to add to the article. It's 1995 (2.7 to 2.1) 1996 (1.4 to 1.1) and 1997 (1 to 0.4) that the SNES won actually. That makes for a total of only 1.5 million units in difference. The Genesis 3 would go on to sell better than the Super NES in 1998. And, yes the Japanese sales are drastically different, 17.17 million to 3.58 million, as far as the sources of numbers available anyway.--SexyKick 21:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Wouldn't be a bad idea; anyone have a breakdown of SNES numbers? Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) "This success led to Sega overtaking Nintendo in January 1992 with control of 65% of the 16-bit console market, making it the first time Nintendo was not the console leader since December 1985." Wait, what? Didn't an earlier reference claim that Nintendo had 60% of the sales in 1992, and it wasn't until 1993 the Genesis surged? These sources don't add up. Also, wouldn't Sega have had 100% of the 16-bit market in 1989 and 1990, since the SNES wasn't out yet?! What's this "overtaking" comment for the 16-bit market, then? As for "Nintendo not being the console leader," well, what exactly does console leader mean? I would guess something like "hardware + software sales per year" in that Genesis was outselling the Nintendo + Super Nintendo, but please clarify if possible. 1992 is the year the Genesis really surged. With an increase from 1.6 million sales in 1991, to 4.5 million in 1992 (Super Nintendo would only have sold 4 million by the end of 1992 http://books.google.com/books?id=b2PuAAAAMAAJ&q=super+nes+), to a peak of 5.5 million in 1993, and with 4 million in 1994 (taking in 55% of the 16-bit machine sales), they didn't lose a Christmas season sales in the 16-bit market until 1995.--SexyKick 02:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC) This is interesting. Can these figures be used instead in the article? SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Integrated.--SexyKick 07:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Retro Gamer also states that Sega had 55% of the market in 1992, in the Retroinspection: Mega Drive article. Just to back this up a little bit. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Done - Removing Business Week earlier corrects this inconsistency. I think their reference to 16-bit business is different, essentially comparing apples to oranges in this case. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) "Nintendo took in 42 percent of the video game market dollar share despite a continued reliance on the SNES" - "despite?" Despite what? The Super Nintendo & Game Boy were Nintendo's big products in 1995, of course it'd be them. I think this sentence is trying to hint that the Nintendo 64 hadn't been released yet, but say so directly if so. And it's not clear at all that this kind of logic is correct - the PS2 outsold the PS3 for a decent length after the launch of the PS3, so the idea that it's shocking the older-gen system could beat a newer-gen system seems wrong anyway. Maybe something like "42 percent of the video game market dollar share off the continuing strength of the SNES and Game Boy?" That is how the sources explain it, I think the statement can stand, but some information about how Sony's Playstation was out, and how the Nintendo 64 was being delayed, and that Nintendo decided to focus on their 16-bit system unlike Sega should be added. Done - I've straightened this out to explain that Nintendo had not released a 32-bit console, and added a little support for reasons behind Nintendo's success over Sega in 1995-1997, including the Game Boy's success over the Sega Nomad in that era. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "Notably compared to its competition as well, Sega advertised to a more adult audience by hosting more mature games, including the uncensored version of Mortal Kombat." Mortal Kombat counts as a "mature" game? :p I'm pretty sure the marketing there was still aimed at kids, just their rebellious blood-everywhere-is-awesome side, while the SNES was trying to make sure parents bought that system by being kid-safe. So Sega was advertising to kids, Nintendo was actually the one aiming at the adult-holding-pursestrings audience. The way I'd suggest phrasing this is something like "Sega, unlike Nintendo, did not advertise itself to parents as a "family-friendly" system, and included in its library games such as an uncensored version of Mortal Kombat." The reference for the paragraph, Retro Gamer, is offline so I don't know how loyal this is to what was written there, mind. I disagree with this entirely. The emphasis on games like Joe Montana Football; something kids have no interest in playing, should be clear. And how doesn't Mortal Kombat count as a mature game? Purely though, we are reflecting what the sources say with the statement as it is.--SexyKick 02:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC) If the source truly says that Sega marketed to a more adult audience, that is fine, of course, as already noted. I'm rather surprised and personally would disagree with the source - my understanding is that the battlefield of the 16-bit era was still largely fought among kids of all ages, and games were not particularly marketed to adults at all for either side. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I think there is a terminology problem here. "More adult" and "more mature" are relative terms and not meant to reflect actual adults. These terms are meant to indicate that Sega was expanding beyond Nintendo's 6-12 demographic to target adolescents. Sony was the first company to really target the twenty-something market heavily with the PlayStation. The wording may need to be tweaked to make this clearer. Indrian (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Retro Gamer supports the mature term. I'll see if I can tweak it some, though, if need be; Retro Gamer supports that Sega marketed it to adolescents, but doesn't really mention Mortal Kombat as part of that. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) I left "mature" in, but changed it from "more adult" to "older" per Indrian's suspicions that this really means "older kids" rather than actual adults. Sound fair? SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) The 32X section doesn't quite seem to communicate the same degree of failure that the main Sega 32X article does. When I read it, I assumed that the 1 million orders were eventually filled once supply caught up, but according to the article, the largest estimate for total shipped was 660,000? This makes the initial 1 million number misleading and almost trivia (if it's even right?) - I'd keep that for the spinoff article and just say "Sega shipped 660,000 by March 1995 despite supply hiccups" or the like. As for the final sentence, every console eventually gets discounted to low prices, and that sentence does not mention any time frame for the discounts (e.g. it doesn't say "and it was selling at 20 dollars X months after launch, an unusually short time), so it's not too interesting. I'd cut that sentence and instead include different facts - the precise date of the Saturn launch, only hinted at currently (only 6 months later, apparently!), that only ~40 games were ever released for it, and (optional) that video game journalists have considered the 32X as one of Sega's greatest mistakes using the ref's from the "Reception" section in the 32X article. SnowFire (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC) I think the 32X section of *this* article should focus more on what the 32X did for the Genesis, and less on its failure. It was published at the time that pre orders hit 1 million. That communicates how impactful the add on was at its launch. So I partially agree, and partially disagree. The 32X certainly helped move Genesis consoles in 1994, because people felt it was a console that would be around for a long time, and would grow. We have to remember that initial public reaction to the 32X was extremely positive...certainly we could use the surprise early Saturn launch date to explain why interest in the 32X faded so quickly and why there would only wind up being 40 games published for the system. Certainly more 32X games would have come out if the Saturn had launched 12 months later, instead of 6 months later, like originally was thought.--SexyKick 02:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. I definitely think that mentioning explicitly the length of time to the Saturn's release would help, at least. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC) At the risk of being too blunt here, is this feedback intended to be biased toward Nintendo? It seems peculiar to me that nearly every bit of it seems to be about downplaying the Genesis and 32X and up playing Nintendo's products such as the SNES. I appreciate your bringing up of a few consistency issues—sources of things such as sales figures tend to be a little squirrely even in established reliable sources and should be fixed, yes—and suggestions to include things such as the timing of the Saturn's release, but some of this is just ridiculous. The comment about Mortal Kombat being an example of Sega advertising to kids is a fringe theory if you can't back it up. I don't necessarily mind the addition of a final SNES figure, as I did something similar for Sega Game Gear, but some of the semantics being brought up, like how the section about the Sega 32X doesn't play up the add-on's failure like the article Sega 32X (which I wrote, by the way) does, are just getting tickytack. I'm trying my best to assume good faith here, but plain and simple, so much of this seems to be pointed that I think a lot of this goes beyond just WP:NPOV issue correction. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I can agree to that. It was also commented on by other editors when we had the SNES sales figures in there that this article is about the Genesis, and should not overly focus on the Super NES. (something we were already asked to tone down during this FACR) The article does already say that the Mega Drive remained a distant third in Japan...and lists their 3.58 million figure elsewhere in the article. Since wikipedia is not a directory (among other reasons) there is not a comprehensive sales comparison chart made in the article.--SexyKick 05:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC) SexyKick: I agree that the article shouldn't get lost with covering the console wars in too much detail, but if the article is going to make direct comparisons between the two consoles, then the sales - and what sales - suddenly become relevant. The SNES figures are already in the article, just implicitly and murkily at the moment. As for the Genesis's worldwide sales, I'd actually missed the line outside the lede that discussed the Genesis's poor performance in Japan. I'm not sure there's a good way around that - North America was clearly the Genesis's most important market, so it makes sense that it should get considerably more written about it in the article than the worldwide market, but it currently takes up so much space comparatively that it's easy to bury the issues in Japan. Did any of the sources actually attempt to explain why the Genesis did poorly in Japan? It could potentially be worth another sentence, at least. I'm curious. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I don't know that we have a source that explicitly discusses this issue, as coverage of the Japanese market in English-language sources during that period is really spotty. In general terms, the Japanese market does not often support healthy competition because it is a communal society, so once one console breaks out as a major hit, everybody goes with the crowd. By the time the Genesis was released, Nintendo was such a dominant brand that Sega could not really penetrate that market. The PC Engine had some initial success, but that was due to its excellent shooter ports --particularly R-Type -- which could not run well on the Famicom and were unavailable on the Genesis. Once Nintendo had a 16-bit system on the market, however, even the PC Engine sank pretty quickly. Sega only managed to break through the Nintendo bias with the Saturn (ironically a failure in the U.S. and Europe, the exact opposite of the Genesis situation) because Virtua Fighter was an incredibly big deal in Japan. I have seen sources describe the Japanese "mob mentality" when it comes to buying consoles generally, but I am not sure I have seen anything regarding the Genesis specifically. Indrian (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Red, I know that this article has been forced to endure a lot over the years, which can make a guy wary, but I did not sense a Nintendo bias in these comments at all. While I also disagree with the Mortal Kombat comment, the rest appears to come from honest confusion as to the facts after the commentor read the article. I think clarifying some of the market share info is a good idea. Indrian (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC) OTOH, when I saw that SexyKick was reworking the sections, I was immediately concerned about a pro-Sega bias. Looking, I find he added "Nintendo would go to great lengths to control impressions of the market", while the source cited says both companies did so. And given that source, should we be citing as fact the other sources in that section that are basically "Sega said Sega had X% market share"? Anomie⚔ 12:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Before you made this comment, I had changed the line for 1994 to say that Sega claimed its market % that year. That's the only number we have that's like that. I am a little confused about your assertion that the source cited says both companies did so. It says "Major video games companies go to great lengths........" yes, but the first example is Super Nintendo (cited), and then they say it happened again in the 32-bit era, citing Sony as the example, not Sega. Those are the only two examples given.--SexyKick 14:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I understand now. The earlier page. I can change the wording to more accurately reflect that.--SexyKick 14:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC) RedPhoenix: No, the feedback was not intended to turn the article into a yay-Nintendo piece, and was offered in good faith. My largest concern by far is that some of the figures on the console war given are not clear what they mean, and phrased in a fashion that is a tad too magazine-articley. I'm not saying we should have a dry recitation of facts, of course, but if this article can give something more precise, it'd help immensely. (Note: Ninja'd by SexyKick. Their changes have helped some of the article already, I believe, like mentioning the years explicitly.) If you're worried about my comments being too "pro-Nintendo", well, I suspect that a clearer formulation of the facts will actually reflect favorably on the Genesis in some matters. To use an example mentioned above, the fact the article uses the odd "years won" metric, and isn't even clear which years were "won", makes the Genesis figures sketchier. There's a big difference between "moved 5 million units vs. 4.5 million" and "moved 3 million vs. 500K" and it's not clear what happened, currently. In the same way, what does "the 16-bit machine business" mean? Saying what it actually implies will likely be more "impressive" for the Genesis than the current mystery. I don't consider such concerns "ridiculous." That said... I think you're reading something into my Mortal Kombat statement that wasn't there, and regardless, it was something that got both a smiley and a "please ignore if the sources disagree", so uh. Answering questions like these is supposed to be the entire point of a FAC - as SexyKick has done, in a way that directly answered my concerns that it wasn't in the source. What I do believe, which I suppose is what you're complaining about in my POV, is there are a few areas where, in my opinion, the article reads as a little too enthusiastically "pro-Genesis," and I believe that slant should be adjusted to be neutral. The "Nintendo did well despite a reliance on the Super NES" sends the message that the SNES was inferior and it was surprising it sold okay. In fact, if an outside observer knew nothing about the consoles aside from the release date, it'd make perfect sense that in 1995 a console released in 1991 would outsell a console released in 1989, assuming both had a similar pattern of growth followed by a trailing off of sales, since it's 4 years later for one and 6 years later for the other. Fixing this should not be hard, and I am not calling for a radical revision of the article. SnowFire (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I think it's a good point that there's nothing that really states that the Super NES was going against the PSX and the Sega Saturn that year, and that's why it was a surprise that the Super NES had done so well. Not being of a pro-Genesis thing. I will look at that in a minute.--SexyKick 07:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Let me know if I addressed everything. I'm tired now.--SexyKick 07:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I apologize if I've seemed blunt; it's been a very bad week for me. As it pertains to Wikipedia itself, I am starting to wonder now if six years, four GA nominations, at least two complete rewrites, a GA delisting, years of a brutal naming debate, and this FAC are starting to make me numb to what the text actually says. Let me just say I'll be glad when this FAC is over. Having read all of the following comments from my phone at work, I feel more like things have been put into perspective for me. It's actually a similar approach to what I took with Sega Game Gear and its competition with the Game Boy. In the next couple of days I'll see if I can use that to do some touch up work; my thanks to Indrian and SexyKick for your continued help. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 19:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The touch-up work looks good to me. Most of my concerns are met, thanks for the revisions. I made a few adjustments in this edit, please feel free to change if you disagree. One thought, though... Unlike Quadell, I actually disagree with removing the "See also" section. Yes, yes, I know there's the suggestion about "don't link articles already linked in the article," but what that guideline is really touching on is avoiding incredibly bloated See also sections. Restoring the see also would allow the References sections more room due to not having the portal sidebar "alley" and it was short, succinct, and relevant. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, so just chipping in my 2 cents, it's ultimately fine either way. Support. SnowFire (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on the See Also section, I didn't like moving the Sega CD Games and Sega 32X games lists up to their sections, hopefully Quadell will comment and we can move forward with that. I also liked your edit, the "amazing original music" was the sources wording, and I was having trouble thinking of a creative alternative wording. You nailed it. ^^--SexyKick 06:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally think "See also" sections should be reduced or eliminated in 90% of cases—I think they're overused, and I have an admitted bias against them. But I would not oppose the article just because it has a "See also" section, so long as you're selective about what is included. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Though the SNES and PC-Engine are explicitly listed in the article, perhaps this See also can include some other 4th-generation competitors with the Genesis that weren't worth mentioning in the article, such as Neo Geo (console), Philips CD-i, etc. That would make sense. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I would also think Atari Jaguar at that point, since the Sega Genesis and Super NES were its first competition, and they wiped the floor with it...--SexyKick 23:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Support and Random Source Check - Source formatting in the article seems consistent, and not plagiarized . I had been involved in this article through contributing a picture no longer used in the article, as well as in the naming debates. I have done a random source check. Sources 7,8, and 9 all reflect the information included in the article. Source 23 accurately reflects the information in the article. Source 27 and 28 have exact quotes cited that reflect the information in the article. Source 39 and 40 referring to Blast Processing could maybe be worded more accurately in the article to reflect the sources, but maybe it's worded the way it is to avoid plagiarism? Source 95 certainly describes the inaccuracy players had to deal with when using the Sega Activator. Source 103, used for five instances of text in the article, accurately reflects the information at those points. Source 107 and 108 check out as well. Source 120 calling the Genesis 6 button the best controller ever, I certainly agree with, and is accurately quoted. So, by and large, no problems. Just that one question on sources 39/40, but not enough issues that I think it would prevent FA status.--BeastSystem (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support and the source check. I'm sure that between the three of us (nominating editors) that we'll be able to continue to improve for a long time to come.--SexyKick 09:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - The article is well written, unbiased and has a good international perspective to it. It covers most noteworthy areas of the console, from its cradle to how it's used to this very day. Technical sections aren't too hard to understand. I say it deserves to be featured. --Zebbe (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yay. Thank you for your support. I know this article has been through a bit of a roller coaster ride over the years. There are two new books coming out soon that will have things like older controller designs that Sega didn't go with, and lots of other stuff.--SexyKick 09:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Did I miss the image review? Graham Colm (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Quadell went over the free images under "images:", there was a more thorough image review in the very tough GA review we had before bringing the article here.--SexyKick 16:36, 14 December 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) 17:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Red Phoenix. 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 January 2014 (UTC)

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, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

U.S. Route 8

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is a bit of a departure for me in that most of it is about a highway that isn't in Michigan. US 8 spans 280 miles (450 km) in the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. It recently passed its ACR where it was given an image review and source spotcheck. Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support per my support at the aforementioned ACR. I also did the spotcheck. --Rschen7754 08:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - very strong article (I'm particularly impressed by the lead). The writing is clear and conducive to imparting information, with thorough sourcing and decent illustrations. Clearly the most comprehensive and well-presented account of the highway in existence, so I'm glad to offer my support. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support and Image review - I reviewed the prose at GAN and conducted an image review at the ACR and feel that this article is high-quality and meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I reviewed this at ACR and can happily say that this meets the Featured Article criteria. TCN7JM 01:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. Comments from a roadgeek (having stumbled here from my FAC)

• Can you avoid saying the verb "run" in the first two sentences of the article?
  • Done. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• "with a planned continuation on to Powers, Michigan" - is the "on" needed?
  • Dropped. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• "Other changes on the east end have moved that terminus from the originally planned end location at Powers, to the current location in Norway. " - you can remove the comma here, unless you were going for something else?
  • Removed. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• "The two highways concurrently turn northeast along the St. Croix River entering town." - think a comma might be needed here though
  • Added. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• "East of Barron, US 8 meets US 53 at a mixed diamond/cloverleaf interchange and turns north into Cameron, then turns east in downtown to leave Cameron." - any way to rewrite so you don't say "Cameron" twice?
  • Reworded. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• "After a straight nine miles (14 km)" - this seems to be missing something, like "nine mile straightaway", or "after continuing for nine miles", but the current wording is a bit odd IMO.
  • Revised with your wording. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• "crosses WIS 40 in Bruce. East of Bruce" - add pronoun?
  • Done. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps you should explain what a "wrong-way concurrency" is for non roadgeeks?
  • Fair enough... and I added the link to wrong-way concurrency that was missing. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• " and passes through Armstrong Creek " - you should clarify this is a town and that the road doesn't go through a waterway
  • Done. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• "In 2002, US 8 was widened from two lanes to four lanes with a grass median between North Rifle Road and WIS 47" - you should clarify the state here (and good job with the 20th century section, no complaints there)
  • Added. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• "$4.5 million (equivalent to $5.7 million in 2011) to $6.0 million (equivalent to $7.6 million in 2011)" - why not equivalent to 2013 dollars?
  • The inflation template carries a warning that the Consumer Price Index-based inflation numbers are only valid for small quantities like consumer prices. For these larger amounts, it's recommended that we use a measure based on the gross domestic product, and the numbers for that are only calculated for the US through 2011. The article is using a template that will update the year when the calculations are updated though. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

All in all, good read! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to support now! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from AdmrBoltz

• Can you provide an inset map for File:US 8 map.png, for those not familiar with the geography of the United States?

• Added. Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dabs and ELs check out. Images look okay
• Not a FA criterion, but there is one lone red link in the article for the Pelican River, can a stub be created?

• I'm not at home at the moment, but I'll look into seeing what I can do about that in a few days... Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

--AdmrBoltz 15:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I think any remaining minor issues can be attended to post FAC. Graham Colm (talk) 15:43, 14 December 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) 15:43, 14 December 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, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

Japanese battleship Asahi

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Japanese battleship Asahi was built in Britain for the Imperial Japanese Navy in the late 1890s. She served in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. Thoroughly obsolete by WWI, she spent the war on secondary duties. The ship was disarmed in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and was subsequently converted into a variety of auxiliary roles. Asahi served during the early period of the Pacific War as a repair ship. She was sunk by an American submarine in 1942. This article passed a MilHist A-class review a month ago and shouldn't need much work to resolve any issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

I know nothing of battleships, so feel free to laugh at any of the silly things I may have to say.

• A stanza of Waka: "waka" should be lowercase. Also, why is this not in the body? It sounds like exactly the kind of thing you would want there.
  • Moved.
• As with the earlier Fuji and Shikishima-class battleships: ambiguous—this could read as "the earlier Fuji battleship and Shikishima-class battleships"
  • How then should I clarify this? I've seen a hyphen used to link the first term to the latter part of the second term, forex: "Fuji- and Shikishima-class battleships", but that's far more common in German than in English. Repeating "class" in both terms reads very badly.
    • How about "battleships of the Fuji and Shikishima classes"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Good idea, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• 55 water-tight compartments and she was subdivided into 223 water-tight: should this not be "watertight"?
  • It looks like you got this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Asahi, literally "rising sun", a poetic name for Japan,: "rising sun" is certainly a great translation of "asahi", but "literal" it's not. "Literal" implies a certain fidelity to the letter (rather than spirit) of the original (which would be more like "morning sun"). Rather than change the translation, I'd rather see that ugly word "literally" struck—say, "Asahi, or "rising sun" ..."
  • Sounds like you know more about this than I do.
    • It's not so much the translation, it's the word "literally". My preference is to avoid that word as much as possible. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• She carried a maximum of 2,000 tonnes (2,000 long tons): is "long tons" a clarification of "tonnes"? Even if it's not, it reads like a typo.
  • Got my units reversed.
    • Either way, to a casual reader it looks like a typo by having the same "2,000" for either unit. Obviously not an error, but is there no way to make this clearer? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Forced the conversion to be more exact.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• 3.6 feet (1.11 m) of which was: "3.6 feet" is surprising to see—are decimal feet common in battleship measures?
  • I missed specifying that conversions should have expressed themselves in feet and inches a couple of time. Think that I've gotten them all.
• but reduced to 10 inches (254 mm): I assume "reduced" here means "became smaller" rather than "were made smaller", but the latter definition is the more common, which makes this read strangely at first sight
  • OK
• laid down on 1 August 1899 in Clydebank, Scotland by the: is this article written in American English? Dosn't American English require MONTH DAY, YEAR dates? If not, I'm thrilled. Also, shouldn't there be a comma after "Scotland"?
  • <Snicker> The article's in BritEng, if I missed anything let me know, but I write all of my ship articles in DMY as per modern American military practice—you can take the boy out of the army, etc.—but date format for American military articles is usually DMY. There are however, heated discussions over the proper format for articles covering earlier times. Good catch on the comma.
    • Sorry, don't know what made me think it was AmEng—maybe I was confusing it with another review. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• She participated in the Battle of Port Arthur on 9 February 1904: link Battle of Port Arthur
  • Dang, thought I had.
• to the 1st Fleet in 1908 and 1910–11: earlier the "1904–1905" style was being used
  • I think that I caught all of the other examples, but I prefer the shorter format
• The navy decided to convert Asahi into a submarine salvage ship: I assume they actually converted her and didn't jsut "decide" to, so how about "The navy converted"?
  • Nope, then it wouldn't fit the second clause of the sentence that details when the conversion began.
• fitted with a 19-metre (62 ft 4 in) compressed-air: up until here imperial units have preceded metric ones
  • The IJN switched to metric around the late teens or early 20s, but I can be consistent here if you'd like.
    • The reader likely won't know that. I think consistent's best. {{convert}} has a "|disp=flip" option. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• ship began conversion at Kure into a repair ship: can we specify that Kure was in Japan?
  • I just assumed that readers would think that any place that the ship was worked on once she'd been turned over the IJN would be in Japan, especially since it's linked, but I can clarify that. Thanks for your detailed comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

All done, I believe.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I beleive so, too. Support. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Image check

• 3 images, all on Commons, properly tagged, although File:Japanese battleship Asahi.jpg and File:Асахи.jpg don't state where & when they were first published, only when first taken. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • True, but I'd bet that if you searched the URAA listings you wouldn't find that their copyright, if any, had been renewed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose (but agreed with most of Curly's comments above) per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Several infobox details (especially dates) do not appear in the article body and are not sourced in the box
  • Fixed the dates, not seeing anything else not sourced.
• Complement differs between infobox and article
  • Comes of working with different sources.
• FN2: page formatting
  • How so?
• What kind of source is FN1?
  • Are you sure that you didn't make a typo here?
• Why is one Hackett source in Footnotes and the other in References? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No good reason. Thanks for looking this over with your eagle eye.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Leaning support. A few things:

Background

• This and the following section lack dates that would allow the reader to know when they occurred.

Design etc.

• "Asahi had a complete double bottom with 55 watertight compartments and she was subdivided into 223 watertight compartments in the main part of the hull." I think you should split this sentence.
  • Good idea.
• There are some figures in the fifth paragraph that can probably use convert templates.
  • I only convert on first appearance; if I missed one, please let me know.

Construction

• " The ship departed England" While I grant you that Southsea is in England, Clydeside is not. You need to clarify where the repairs took place, if in Scotland please change England to "Scotland" or "Britain".
  • Repaired in Portsmouth added.

Tsushima

• The phrase "later in the battle" occurs twice in close succession.
  • Rephrased, how does it read now?
• "She fired more twelve-inch shells," Which she?
  • Clarified.
• I think the fact that Tsushima was a Japanese victory can be more clearly stated, as it is, it comes in through the British observer.
  • Done.

Post-war

• Perhaps it could be made more clear that Shanghai, Camranh Bay, and Singapore were at the time Japanese-occupied.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Added clarifications to the lede. See if they suit. Thanks for your review, much appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Well done. You're welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments, leaning Support -- recusing myself from delegate duties to review; the ship shares its name with one of my favourite beers so how can I resist?

• As usual, pls check my copyedits haven';t broken anything; outstanding points:
  • "They were mounted in twin-gun barbettes fore and aft of the superstructure that had armoured hoods to protect the guns and were usually called gun turrets" -- this pulled me up short; aside from the fact that I think the grammar could use some work, I thought such things were always called gun turrets, so what makes this unusual?
    • The difference between barbettes and turrets came to a head with the design of the British Royal Sovereign-class battleships where the differences were directly compared. The barbette mounting used in these ships was basically two guns behind a thick armored bulwark, with little to no protection above the level of the bulwark; essentially naked and semi-exposed guns. The turret used in one of them provided complete protection, but proved to be so much heavier that it adversely effected the design of that ship in comparison of that of its half sisters. Then people started adding hoods, usually armored, to the barbettes to protect the guns and their crews from splinters and the weather and the hood gradually got thicker and became the roof of what we now call "turrets". As this bit of detail is really only of interest to specialists, I've deleted it entirely and called them turrets.
      • Works for me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not quite sure of your method for spelling out numerals. You seem to be consistently using figures for units of measurement, which is fine, but then you say "fourteen 45-calibre guns" in one spot and "Russian casualties numbered only 17" in another...
    • I'm relying on these bullets from MOS:NUM to violate the normal rules for spelling out numbers:
      • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
      • Adjacent quantities that are not comparable should usually be in different formats: twelve 90-minute volumes or 12 ninety-minute volumes is more readable than 12 90-minute volumes or twelve ninety-minute volumes.
        • Yep, okay, as long as there's method to the madness... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Structure, comprehensiveness and referencing look fine; relying on the image and source checks above.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for looking it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:06, 13 December 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) 15:43, 14 December 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 10:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

Florence Fuller

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, when I learned that the National Gallery of Australia had targeted Florence Fuller's A Golden Hour for its 2013 annual Masterpieces for the Nation Fund purchase, I was embarrassed to discover that this extraordinary artist didn't even have a WP entry. A professional painter while still in her teens, independent citizen of the world, friend to global leader of the Theosophy movement Annie Besant, and beneficiary of the admiration of Sir John Winthrop Hackett, Florence Fuller was an intriguing figure who faded almost out of view. This article has been my most intensively researched to date.

Note on bibliography: the newspaper citation format used here is one generated specifically for Wikipedia use by the National Library of Australia, re-publisher of the materials. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Quotes should be cited immediately in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE

• Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a page somewhere discussing the NLA citation format?

• Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_37#Newspaper_cites_from_Trove/NLA is where community members learned of it, but I haven't identified a further discussion as such. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• FN48: formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• I might just clarify what's happening in this note, and you can let me know the problem. The footnotes that reference online information about her individual paintings (currently 45, 46, 48) are in the format: author name [=painter] (year [=year painting created]). "title" [=title of painting]. work [=section of the website in which it is found]. Publisher of website [=gallery that holds the work]. Retrieval date. Was your concern the fact that a range of years is used to describe when this work was created (which is what the website uses), or something else? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, okay. That raises an issue I hadn't noticed with a couple of other citations as well: you're citing the painting via the gallery (and so using the date the painting was created as publication date), but these citations are being used to support the fact that her paintings are held by several organizations, and so it's the organizations' pages about the artworks that should be cited (which were created much more recently). The paintings' existence and content are not the important bit for our purposes here, it's who holds them. Does that make sense? (Noting that in addition to the date issue, the artwork titles should be italicized). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I understand and agree, but it got awkward. Only half had any date for the website's publication at all, but all provided the date of acquisition. I have now made the date of creation part of the work title, and inserted the dates of acquisition (along with the word "purchased") in the field for citing the reference year. Do you think that is sufficient, or do you think I should also remove Fuller's name as author, and change that to the gallery name, adding Fuller's name to the title of the work, alongside the painting title? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think what you've done is okay. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• FN12: should include full citation

• Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Don't need to double "edition" on newspaper editions. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Changed. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell

Question: You list the source for File:Florence Fuller 1897.tiff as "Adelaide Chronicle". Do you have any further information? Was it published in the Chronicle in 1897, or later? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. It was printed in the 17 April 1897 edition, and had no author specified. This is useful information for clarifying the copyright status, and should be added to the image description page. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Question: Is File:Florence Fuller - Inseparables - Google Art Project.jpg worth including? I assume it would be in the "Europe and South Africa" section. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly didn't do my homework there. Thank you for seeing that. i have now included it, and will also check a couple of sources for any commentary on that particular work. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I notice you usually omit the serial comma, buh in some cases you use one. I can help make them consistent as I copyedit, but can I assume you would prefer that the text not use them?

• The older I get, the worse I am at this. I don't know why. Do, please, omit them if you find them. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Other Australian artists hung at the same time included..." Oooh, this sounds like the severe enforcement of a new anti-painting act.

• No, were that the case then it would have been "Other Australian artists hanged at the same time included..." ;-) hamiltonstone (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, okay, but it still sounds jarring to my ear. Can we change it to "Other Australian artists whose works were [hung/presented] at the same time" or something? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• When the article says she was described as a "visitor" to Sydney, the citations don't make clear who described her as such. Direct quotes, even one-word ones, need to be explicitly and unambiguously sourced.

• Fixed (in the course of other revisions) hamiltonstone (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A fun article, and as complete as the remaining facts allow. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Your recent additions are excellent, and really flesh out the article. I am currently going through and proofreading. Most of my changes are, I think, uncontroversial, but a few are a bit on the bold side. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert and discuss. I should finish up my proofreading and review in the next few days. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Question: With the addition of new sources, including McFarlane, is note 1 still accurate? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your close attention to the article. Unfortunately yes, note 1 remains accurate. The major new sources focus overwhelmingly on her period with theosophy, and don't say much about other periods. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Support: This article is excellent. It's well-written, fully sourced, and as complete as possible. I still think it would better to find a way to avoid the "other artists were hung" phrasing, but it's not an impediment to Featured status. This fulfills our our FA requirements, and should be featured. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support: Another excellent, very readable article on an Australian artist. With the disclaimer that I have no subject knowledge here, this looks as comprehensive as possible and I notice that the GA review covered the area of sourcing (i.e. this has everything that is out there). Just a few minor points before I switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• ”In 1892 she left Australia, travelling first to South Africa, where she met and painted for Cecil Rhodes, and then on to Europe, where she lived and studied for the subsequent decade, apart from a return to South Africa in 1899 to paint Rhodes' portrait.”: Quite a long sentence. Maybe it could be split?

• Split in two. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• ”who was regarded as "the leading female artist in the group of Melbourne painters who broke with the nineteenth-century tradition of studio art by sketching and painting directly from nature”.”: Do we need intext attribution here for the quote?

• Have identified it as from the ADB. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• ”Fuller first studied at the Académie Julian, where her teachers included William-Adolphe Bouguereau, and later with Raphaël Collin, managing one of his studios for a time.” As written this looks like Collin was managing his own studio. I suspect it was Fuller who did so.

• changed. See if this works. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• ”Despite this, Fuller appeared to develop her skills there, with contemporary critics favourably noting the influence of the French training.”: Why “appeared”? And I’m not sure that a note can be favourable. What about “favourably commenting”? Or just “noting”?

• What about this? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of Europe and South Africa has a string of four references at the beginning. It is a bit unsightly, and I wonder if it could be spread out somehow, or if all of them are necessary?

• I can't spread them readily, as the assembly of that sentence was a bit complicated, but I have worked out that one of the three can be omitted altogether, and have deleted it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• ”There were exhibitions in many other locations”: I’m sure there were. But did Fuller take part in them??? What about “She exhibited in many other locations” or similar?

• Perhaps I got too enthusiastic in my bid to vary the prose style! Redone per your suggestion.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• ”There was even a painting, Landscape, hung in the exhibition for the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of Bendigo.”: Again, presumably one of hers?

• I understand your point, but i don't think it could be read any other way, could it? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• ”Another source reports that Fuller also travelled and made sketches in Wales, Ireland and Italy.”: Worth saying what source?

• Tweaked. Incidentially, the reason there are no names for sources like this, is because most press reports of the period have no named author. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• ”Theosophy”: For lazy readers like me, is it worth adding a few words to say what this is, so we don’t have to click the link?

• Do you know what it's like trying to describe theosophy in a few words? It is one of those maddening concepts that seems to elude conciseness ;-) Will have a go. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK, done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• ”When it was announced that Besant would undertake a speaking tour of Australia in 1908, she was expected to stay with Fuller while in Perth.”: From the way this is phrased, I assume we don’t have a source which says that she actually did so?

• Correct. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• It seems from the article that she found something in India which inspired her, but the quote suggests that she had not quite found how to express it yet. Did she find a way later on? The article sort of goes quiet on this.

• Unfortunately, the quote i have used comes from the sole source I have located that quotes/reports Fuller's own words or thoughts. I'm not aware of whether she did find a way later on. What I would surmise, but of course can't write in the article, is that the decline in her reputation in her own lifetime suggests that she did not find what she sought, at least not in the realm of painting. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I take it that nothing more is known about her later life from the 1920s onwards?

• Correct. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph, we have “Yet although…” to begin a sentence, then two sentences later “Despite this…”. I wonder are we overdoing the contrasts here?

• I read it and re-read it, but the two contrasts in this case don't bother me. I would be happy to revise it, but can't think of an alternative phrasing that doesn't fall foul of the opposite problem: failing to draw attention to something that is an important contrast or surprise. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note 50: “Robb, Gwenda; Elaine Smith (1993). "Florence Fuller". In Robert Smith”: Should it be “Robb, Gwenda; Smith, Elaine (1993). "Florence Fuller". In Smith, Robert”?
• Actually, this seems to happen in a couple of references which have multiple authors. I think it can be avoided by using last1, first1, last2, first2… Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well here's the thing: that outcome is what is produced by using WP's own semi-automated referencing template for multiple authors. So my inclination is not to go messing with it, though I am aware different outcomes can be produced. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Support: I'm happy with the changes and replies above. I'd still like the lazy-reader-definition of Theosophy, but if it's a horrible thing to define concisely, don't bother with it. Either way, it does not affect my support for this excellent article. A really impressive piece of research, even by Hamiltonstone's standards. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sarastro, and don't worry I am still planning to do that sentence on Theosophy. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

After Hamiltonstone contacted me to inform me that the article had been expanded a little, I've looked at the changes and am still more than happy to support. I only wonder about the use of quotation marks around "discovered", but I know why they are there and cannot think of a better way to achieve the effect, so I have no problem with it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments I reviewed this at GAN and note that it has been expanded. I recall this being on the way to FA status - will jot final queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fuller was highly regarded in her lifetime as a portrait and landscape painter, and it was reported in 1914 that Fuller was represented in four public galleries - be good if we could lose one Fuller here...how about "Highly regarded in her lifetime as a portrait and landscape painter, Fuller was reputedly represented in four public galleries—three in Australia and one in South Africa—in 1914, a record for an Australian female painter at that time"

Did this, and got rid of the "reported| / "reputedly" altogether, as there is no actual reason to doubt this report - it is not inconsistent with any other source. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:16, 6 December 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) 15:44, 14 December 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 10:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

2001–02 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC), Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because I'm trying to diversify the tropical cyclone featured articles a bit. Most tropical cyclone articles are boring storms that hit the United States. This is an entire season article, covering several unique storms that affected portions of Africa. It was quite active, and had several strong storms, and after I got it to A-class earlier this year, I thought I was done with it. But, Yellow Evan pushed me to go further with it. I said, if you help out an FAC run, I'll do it, and surprisingly he agreed. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed researching these storms and writing about them! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Confirming co-nom. This idea all started a month or so ago, and now it's officially at FAC. Hope you all like it! YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I have only done a skim of the article so far, and have made a few very minor edits (like converting a few hyphens to en-dashes in year ranges).

• A minor point: the use of digits versus spelled-out numbers doesn't seem to be quite consistent for low numbers. In the first sentence in the lead, the digit "9" is used, then later in the lead "eleven" is used. Omnedon (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • AFAIK the rule is the less than 10, you spell it out. Otherwise, you write it out. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • No, it is not quite that simple, and in any case that ignores the issue of "9" in the opening sentence. Check WP:MOS. Omnedon (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Tweaked, and found another instance of that in the body. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Regarding the lead, it seems to me that the description of how seasons are defined, and how that changed, is not a summary of anything in the body, but rather stands alone. Could this definition portion be given a section, or (perhaps better) primarily described in the "Season summary" section? Omnedon (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I moved one tidibit that I thought was unique to the season alone, but given how uniform the season start dates are (they were the same for each season more or less the same for each season), I think it's better to be consistent with other articles and keep it in the lead. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article. It should not have information that is solely presented in the lead and not in the body. Omnedon (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Having looked at your edit on this, it is much better, thanks. Omnedon (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

More soon -- good article! Omnedon (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• From the lead, "The eleven tropical storms that formed were slightly above normal, although most became stronger." Does "slightly above normal" refer to storm strength? That should be clarified. Omnedon (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Clarified. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but another question... It now reads, "The 11 tropical storms that formed were slightly above the average of nine, although most became stronger." Two issues: for better internal agreement, perhaps something like "Eleven tropical storms formed, above the average of nine..." But then I don't quite see how "although most became stronger" fits with this. It seems as if we're talking about quantity of storms in the first part, and strength of storms in the second. Omnedon (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Removed, it is sorta covered in the lead already above. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• From "Eddy", "Its circulation became better defined, and MFR initiated advisories on January 22 on the system." Is "on the system" necessary, as it's the obvious subject of the advisories? Omnedon (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Removed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Support -- an interesting and well-written article. Omnedon (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Loathe as I am to read about something other than a boring storm that hit the US, I suppose I can take a look. I'm doing a bit of copyediting as I go along, so feel free to revert me if you disagree with anything.
• I hate to be "that guy", but I think page numbers on the longer sources are actually quite useful (the WMO and JTWC reports are the only ones that don't, so it shouldn't be too hard).
  • Added. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Many storms formed in the north-east portion of the basin, and several storms either formed or had their origins in the Australian region. - This could probably be condensed; Many storms formed in the north-east portion of the basin, and several more originated around Australia?
  • Good idea, incorporated. 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• the season was considered comparable to the 1993–94 season. - By who?
  • Noted. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• On December 25, a cold front associated with an area of low pressure dragged over the central Mozambique Channel. - This sentence is a bit funky. Does that mean the cold front was part of a synoptic low (which is a given and need not be spelled out), or a mesoscale low was spinning up along the front?
  • MFR is a bit confusing here, but appears to be the former. I removed the mention of the low. Even if it was the latter, I am not sure if it is worth noting given that Cyprien has an article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Then on December 30, RSMC La Reunion designated this low pressure as a Zone of Disturbed Weather and then a tropical depression on January 1, 2002. - "Then" twice in the same sentence is kind of strong.
  • Tweaked the second. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• It also dropped heavy rainfall, and there were no deaths. - Rather hodgepodge...
  • Changed. Is it better, worse, or the same now? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• the precursor to Cyclone Dina quickly developed within a region favoring tropical cyclogenesis. - I think it's obvious that T cyclogenesis was favored if a cyclone formed.
  • Removed, but the rest of the sentence does not feel proper now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Random comment, skipping down. I know the "Season effects" section header is pretty standard, but it doesn't make much sense, since most of the table is about meteorological info.
  • I can't think of something much better than "Season effects". Could "Season statistics" work? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

More comments later. Nice work, just some minor polishing is needed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review JC; it is good to see you editing. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed around the first paragraph of the Dina section, since that seemed easier than explaining all my concerns. About the heavy rainfall/deaths point, I'm still not enthralled with it; heavy rainfall itself isn't usually an indication of fatalities. Everything else looks decent. Some more comments...

Revised again. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I hadn't read the lead initially, but the first sentence strikes me as awkward (probably even a dreaded dangling participle). This is one of those things I'd rather leave up to the primary editors to figure out than fiddle with myself.
  • Tweaked. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• On January 23, the system intensified into a tropical depression, and intensifying at a slower than normal rate, it became Tropical Storm Eddy on January 24. - "Intensifying" twice, but I don't think simply changing the word would fix the sentence completely. Needs to be reworked if possible.
  • Divided into two sentences. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• It was turning south over land, and as a result it quickly moved offshore. - Rather confusing.
  • Reworked. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's about it. As I mentioned above, I did quite a bit of editing while I read. Happy to support once the few outstanding issues here are addressed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Support - the writing style is generally a bit terse I feel, but I can't argue it isn't professional. That said, this is by far the most comprehensive account of this season anywhere in existence, so I'll support. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Notes

• Image and source reviews? Pls list requests at WT:FAC.
• Julian, what's the status of your review now?
• Regardless of the above, we need some more eyes on this in fairly short order if we're to establish consensus... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry about the delay, and thanks for the ping. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Image check

• File:2001-2002 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season summary.jpg, File:Alex-Andre 2001 track.png, File:Bessi-Bako 2001 track.png, File:Cyprien 2001 track.png, File:Dina 2002 track.png, File:Eddy 2002 track.png, File:Francesca 2002 track.png, File:Guillaume 2002 track.png, File:Hary 2002 track.png, File:Ikala 2002 track.png, File:Dianne-Jery 2002 track.png, File:Kesiny 2002 track.png: released by the creator Nilfanion to the public domain
• File:Damage from Cyclone Dina 2002 in Saint-Leu, Reunion.jpg: Flickr photo with cc-by-sa 2.0 licence
• File:TC Alex NOAA.jpg, File:TC Bessi-Bako NOAA.jpg, File:Eddy02.jpg, File:Ikala02.jpg: public domain photos from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• File:STS Cyprien 01 jan 2002 0720Z.jpg, File:ITC Dina 20 jan 2002 0610Z.jpg, File:ITC Guillaume 19 feb 2002 0620Z.jpg, File:VITC Hary 08 mar 2002 0700Z.jpg, File:Jery Apr 8 2002 0440Z.jpg, File:TC Kesiny 06 may 2002 0645Z.jpg: public domain photos from NASA
• File:Francesca 5 February 2002.jpg: public domain photo by the U.S. Navy
• File:1-S 2001 track.png: released by the creator Potapych to the public domain

All files look clear to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support This article meets the criteria for FA, imo.--12george1 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Not far off, but a couple of beefs:

• The term "basin" isn't adequately explained or specified in the lead, and the ensuing text doesn't help much.

• "Many storms formed in the north-east portion of the basin" What basin? I don't see it named anywhere. You link "basin" later in the text but it goes to a climatology article that doesn't name or define the basin.

• Added. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

• "The dividing line between the basins" What two basins? The Australian basin is mentioned at times later in the article... is that one of the two?

• Not really, but I cleared this up. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

• "Tropical cyclones in this basin" etc.

• I think it's clear now, but please tell me otherwise if I am wrong. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

• In at least one place you violated WP:MOSNUM by mixing numbers as words and numerals for comparative quantities: "During the season, 11 systems were named, which was slightly above the average of nine." Fixed but please check for others.

• Earlier in the FAC, this was somewhat covered. I may be wrong, but yours should be the last remaining outpost of the aforementioned issue. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Otherwise looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we're still waiting for a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Source review:

• Ref 5. Why aren't page numbers cited?
  • Pretty much the whole thing is cited. Not worth going through and check for page numbers. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 16, page?
  • Added. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 17, page?
  • Added. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 21, specify the name of the website
  • It's right in the url, so it's a publisher. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Refs 30–31 and possibly some others, the tables are not being cited consistently. Both are tables of data from the same source. Ref 30 specifies it's in French, says it's a report, but omits the "work" field. Ref 31 lacks the language and report parameters, but does specify a work. Check all these table citations and make sure they are consistent.
  • Better? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Some French-language sources are called out (16, for example); some are not (5, for example) --Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 5 is in both languages. Otherwise, I attempt to fix them. They may not be perfect, but should be better. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Conflict, go for one source check and you get two!
Source Check The first time I've done one, but I've combed through the references to verify what they say. If a reference is not mentioned, it's okay, I had issues loading Ref 5 so the Dina sections and anything after the second paragraph of Guillaumie still need fact checking. Ref 13 I couldn't verify due to subscription.

Ref 2 - Date on the document says April 1, not June.

Tweaked. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 4 - If I'm reading this correctly the warnings relate to the Number Issued category in the table? If so then yes this matches up with the article. Also why are there some Tropical Cyclones mentioned in this document that aren't in the text, even in the final table at the bottom?

Good question. Some of the storms mentioned in that PDF did not form on this particular areas of the world, so they are not include. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 5 - For Dina winds were a bit confusing to find, I think I read the section a few times and couldn't find it, any chance you could point it out. Dina will definitely need double checking though, I couldn't find all the cited facts. Eddy I couldn't find the wind speed information. Francesca it says wind speed neared 200km/h, but nothing more specific, and I can confirm the first paragraph of Guillamie, but my computer refused to load anything more of this document. This is one of the most difficult documents I've ever encountered, any chance there is a pdf or something?

Yes, it's difficult, but there is no chance for a pdf. I found the info regarding Dina's peak, and found a different ref for Eddy's peak. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 9 - It transitioned on the same day, not the next day.

Altered. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 10 - Nothing is said about Dec 27, I also wouldn't call 6am late. This is further enhanced by Ref 11 calling it Cyprien by 9am.

Removed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 12 - I don't see why this is in the Dina section, it collaborates the Cyprien section but not Dina.

This was a ref name error and it has been corrected. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 14 - Supports the agricultural value, not the property value, says there were only five fatalities. Ref 17 says six though.

Ref 17 is squeezed in there to help verify the info. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 16 - Appears to support what is being referenced, I couldn't really find anything relating the flooding to record breaking or near record breaking though.

Cut that part out. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 18 - Francesca was updated to hurricane 04/0000UTC, Guillaume was classified as 15S.

Fixed both, second info was likely a mental error. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 21 - I can't see the info regarding to the publish date of March 2002, only that it was updated at 5:10pm, however I don't doubt this was the month of publish, all this info is covered in Ref 22 though so I suggest removing this one.

Removed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Ref 22 - According to the article, it was written March 12.

Fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 23 - No mention of thunderstorms, unless that's a ragged eye.

There is. "Animated satellite imagery indicated that convection was increasing over the LLCC". Convection=thunderstorms. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 26 - Cites 20 people dying, not 33.

Ref 5 verifies it actually. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 31 - Apparently it dissipated by the next day, not two days later.

No,"03 200111231200 ZONE_PERTURBEE" is the last reference that MFR makes, which is 2 days after November 21. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 32 - I can't see the phrase 04S in this reference.

It's in the url, but tweaked anyway. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref 33 - This tropical disturbance isn't referred to by Tropical Disturbance 15 in the reference.

Altered. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

General - It appears that all your wind values are based off Australian Severe Weather or the tracking data, and not Meteo-France Ref 5 (unless I'm missing some wind tables somewhere, which is perfectly possible). Also, I'm assuming your maths is right for the knot to speed conversions, if not for the fact that I'm not certain on the calculations.

Your statement is correct. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Regional Specialised Meteorological Centre -> Regional Specialized Meteorological Center

Okay. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"The strongest storm, Cyclone Hary, was the first very intense tropical cyclone since 2000; it hit Madagascar, where it caused lighter damage than expected but three deaths." This number is four in the end table, and three in the Cyclone Hary section, is the electrocution death mentioned one of the three or the fourth?

Yes, but there was 4th death outside of Madagascar. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

"...was the first very intense tropical cyclone since 2000..." Is it odd to not have a very intense one for a year, is the point that there were two so close together?

Yes. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"During the season, eleven systems were named, which was slightly above the average of nine." Might help to say that eleven tropical storm systems were named. It pushes the points that there was an above average number of storms and a significant number of tropical cyclones.

Good idea in theory, but it's not necessary IMO. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"However, nine of the system attained cyclone intensity..." maybe nine of the systems?

Fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"It was renamed Andre, becoming the earliest date for the first named storm since 1992." Was this only after it was named Andre or whilst it was known as Alex too? It seems odd that Meteorological Services of Madagascar can name storms, but not the Australian BoM

BOM monitors an entirely seperate basin, so it was known as Alex outside of the basin. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Two days later, it moved into the South-West Indian Ocean,[8] and was renamed Bako." It became Bako on the 30th according to source 5, so shouldn't this be three days?

Noted. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Should Zone of Disturbed Weather be capitalised or not? It is in Cyprien, not in Guillamie or Other storms.

Decapitalized it in Cyprien's. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Damage in the towns was estimated at $180,000,[12] but there were no deaths." Might be worth moving the reference to the end and saying there were no reported deaths. Also, in the end table it says $181,000.

Did the first, I think the 2nd is not really needed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Tropical Storm Cyprien also dropped heavy rainfall." Is heavy rainfall unusual? Or maybe add that it was this that caused the property damage, make it add something to the section.

It's something worth noting and I connected it to Cuprien making landfall. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In the final table are the aggregates the average or the highest? Cause it has the highest windspeed, but not the highest pressure listed? Also shouldn't the cost column be $281.2 million, since you'd round up?

The highest. I tweaked the rounding, but BTW, it's 287.2 mil, not 281.2 mil. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

====Comments from AmericanLemming====

I'll be reviewing and copy-editing this article over the weekend. Expect a thorough review to come shortly. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been a change of plans: I need to study organic chemistry over the next month, not spend hours reviewing FACs on Wikipedia. (Trust me, I would rather be doing the latter.) I sincerely apologize for the disappointment this will cause the nominators of this article as well as the FAC coordinators, but it is what it is. I thought I would be upfront about it (one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia is when people say they're going to do something and then do it a month later or not at all). AmericanLemming (talk) 07:17, 14 December 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) 15:45, 14 December 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, 14 December 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

SMS Schleswig-Holstein

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Another one of my German battleship articles, this is the first pre-dreadnought in the series to appear at FAC. Schleswig-Holstein holds the dubious distinction of firing the first shots of World War II when she opened fire on the Polish forces at Westerplatte early on the morning of 1 September 1939. This article was mostly written back in 2010 when it passed a GA review, and then was reviewed at Milhist's A-class review this past March. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets or exceeds the standards for Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Dreadnought didn't really affect the status of cruisers and smaller ships. Suggest changing the ref to battleships of the German Navy.
• Hyphenate second most and port side.
• Link casemates, all of the guns in the main body, torpedo tubes, point
• submerged in the hull reads oddly. Suggest "below the waterline" or somesuch.
• which the II Battle Squadron rejoined the fleet. The main battle fleet covered This transition was a little abrupt. I'd suggest something like the squadron assisted in covering the battlecruisers along with the rest of the main fleet or somesuch.
• Images are appropriately licensed.
• No DABs or problems with external links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Should all be taken care of. Thanks for the review, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Good to go, don't forget to respond to my last comment on Asahi.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Source for normal displacement?
• Speed and range differ between infobox and text
• FN19, 38, 41, 42, 43, 50, 54: page formatting
• No citations to Koop & Schmolke
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Should all be taken care of, thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport I had reviewed this at Milhist A-class and the article looks in good shape. The ISBN number for Hildebrand, Röhr and Steinmetz is wrong. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

fixed it myself MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks MisterBee - I had missed this comment when ÄDA commented just after yours. Parsecboy (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments I would love to support the article as it is in general well written and sufficiently sourced. My only concern is the single paragraph on Schleswig-Holstein's action in Danzig in September 1939. While there is a blow-to-blow account of Schleswig-Holstein's 'five minutes' at Jutland, the first shots of World War II are merely mentioned in passing. I would suspect, there is more to that part of her history. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've added a few more details, but I'll have to see what else I can dig up. Parsecboy (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

My interests lie far from anything like warships—my comments will likely seem comical.

• It appears that the article is in US English. Don't Americans insist on MONTH DAY, YEAR dates? Not that I'd raise a fuss about it.
  • I figured that since it was a European warship, DMY would make more sense.
    • Won't keep me up at night. MDY is a plague. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• it would be nice to have a pronunciation guide for "Schleswig-Holstein"
  • Cribbed it from Schleswig-Holstein.
• relegated to guard duties: is there some reason "duties" is in plural?
  • Good point - fixed.
• and up to 14,218 metric tons (13,993 long tons; 15,673 short tons) at combat loading.: this lay editor doesn't understand the phrase "at combat loading"—can the phrase be linked or reworded?
  • Linked to Displacement_(ship)#Full_or_deep_load_or_loaded_displacement
• She was equipped with three-shaft triple expansion engines: how many engines?
  • Simplified to "three triple expansion engines" - that can be unclear to you landlubbers ;)
• while they bombarded Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby: Jesus, it sounds like it was about to attack Toronto!
• he broke off the engagement and turned for home: or "turned <<the ship|??>> for home"?
  • How about "turned the fleet for home"?
    • Sounds good to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• During the "Run to the North,": kick that comma out of the quotemarks
  • Fixed.
• if Scheer ordered an immediate turn towards Germany, he would have to sacrifice: "if Scheer had ordered an immediate turn towards Germany, he would have had to sacrifice"?
  • Fixed.
• Indeed, the visibility was so bad,: I'm not sure if "indeed" falls under WP:EDITORIAL or not, but either way I don't think it's necessary here.
  • Alright.
• the fleet reformed for the night: maybe "re-formed" would make it clear that the fleet didn't realize the error of their ways and decided to make a new start
  • Good point.
• Thereafter, the ship was used as a target for U-boats,: this makes it sound like they torpedoed the bejeezus out of it, and then continued to use it after...? Could this be clarified somehow? It's left me scratching my head.
  • Presumably they used torpedoes without warheads, but the source doesn't say. Normally, live-fire targets are filled with cork and whatnot to keep them afloat, and most of the equipment is cut away (see for instance what happened to SMS Hessen).
    • If the source doesn't say I guess there isn't a lot you can do about it ... if you ever come across a source that explains this kind of thing, you might want to come back and throw it into a footnote or something. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• in the Mediterranean on 22 to 30 May ... with Elsass on 1 to 7 June ...to Vigo from 12 to 14 June: with "on", I think the dates should be endashed; is there any reason you use "on" for the first to and "from" with the last one? I don't think it's actually a problem, but ...
  • "From" is probably better."
• he ship was moored close to the Polish fortress at Westerplatte; at 04:47 on 1 September,: I'm not sure what purpose the semicolon is serving here
  • Reworded to drop the semi-colon.
• A force of German marines was landed to take the fortress: I'd drop the passive
  • Done
• and in April 1940, invaded Denmark.: I'd drop the comma (actually a lot of commas, but this one bugs me most)
  • Fixed.
• ship was now permanently disabled,: I think you can drop the "now"
  • Ok.

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, it was very helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose. Looks great to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:06, 3 December 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) 13:07, 13 December 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, 14 December 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

Triangulum

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet another small constellation. as well as being pretty comprehensive I've had eyes look over it to make the prose more engaging. Let me know what to fix - Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey

Feel free to disagree with any of the following:

• "Its name is Latin for triangle, derived from its three brightest stars, which form a long and narrow triangle.": as a translation, I think "triangle" should be in quotes here.

yeah, I'd normally do that too, except I paused with the "for" before it...done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "triangle, derived from its three brightest stars, which form a long and narrow triangle.": delink the second "triangle"

done (dang, how'd I miss that??) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "with six gaining Bayer designations.": take a look at WP:PLUSING

I do this construction alot - changed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not an astronomer, but I get the feeling "yellow-white" has some special meaning, rather than just a description of the colour. If that's the case, is there something that can be linked to?

No, it's just a colour, though discussing colours can be a vexed topic in star observation.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "a member of our Local Group.": I'm pretty sure we're supposed to avoid "our"

not fussed either way but ok, I can see the case for this...changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Δελτωτόν/Deltoton": is this an accepted formatting? It looks weird to me. I'd write it "Deltoton (Δελτωτόν)", the way you did with "MULAPIN (𒀯𒀳)" earlier

I've done that for seven years, but the other way makes sense...changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "to the earlier Greeks": what, Greeks earlier than the Ancient Greeks themselves?

removed - not sure how that ended up there. redundant anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "transliterated into Deltoton": as above, needs quotes around "Deltaon"

I removed it as transliterate means the word has already been written, hence no need to write the same word again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "then later became the Latin Deltotum": maybe better worded as " "Deltotum" in Latin ".

Even better - Latinized Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Ptolemy called it as Τρίγωνον": no transliteration this time?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "it was Romanized as Trigonum": quotes around "Trigonum"

See I'd stick quote marks around English meanings, and I've sometimes italicized words-as-words, but I wouldn't put quote marks here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree here—it's the difference between the signifier and the signified: it was Romanized as the word "Trigonum", not as the thing signified by that word. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

But that's what I do - e.g. Triangulum "triangle" (signifier = word-as-word = italicized, signified = quoted) - trigonum is signifier and hence italicized...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I really can't get myself to agree here, but I can't find a style guideline to back me up, so I'll just have to let this go. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• "(天大将军, heaven's great general)": quotes around translation

I would here though - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

• "representing honor": is this in Commonwealth or Unitedstatesian English?

given we've got Romanized, Latinized and color, may as well be US English - can't see any other words in it.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Later, Bayer called the constellation": at this point, Bayer has yet to have been introduced to the reader, so this is pretty jarring

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "The smaller constellation was not recognised by the IAU": the who?

Aaah, the International Astronomical Union - spelt out and linked at first instance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "when the constellations were established in the 1920s": is there something that could be linked to here?

yup - Constellation#IAU_constellations Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "are defined by a polygon": I'm not familiar with the jargon, but shouldn't this be "defined as"?

Yeah, I think 'as' works better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "in error by Baily and thus refer": "refers"?

yup - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "16 Trianguli was noted by Baily to be": I'd prefer no passive here: "Baily noted 16 Trianguli was"

activated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Iota Trianguli is an "attractive double star with a noticeable color contrast" whose": quotes should be attributed; is there any reason this can't be paraphrased instead?

On reading I removed it and let the observations speak for themselves, though added "contrasting" to the 2nd component. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "doppler imaging": isn't "Doppler" capitalized?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "2-7 times as massive as the sun": needs an endash

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "as massive as Jupiter that takes 472 days": I can't expalin why, but I feel like "adn" would be better than "than"

the 472 days refers to the companion - I think "which" works better there anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Move link for "light years" from "Deep-sky objects" section to first mention in "Stars" section

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "and at magnitude 5.8, it is bright": the comman is unnecessary

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Because of its low surface brightness, low power is required.": the meaning of this is not clear to me. Does it mean a device with a power source is required to see it?

means that low magnification to maximise the light coming thru the lens - can't find anything to link it to though.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Overlinking: in "Stars", "Beta Trianguli" and "Alpha Trianguli"

delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• In ref 9, we're given: "pp. 301–02, 48": does this mean "pages 301, 302, and 348", or "pages 301, 302, and 348"? If the former, 348 needs to be written in full; if the latter, "48" needs to come before 301–02.

oops, I meant 348 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Cas Liber's dealt appropriately with all my concerns. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the infobox details don't appear to be sourced in the article
• Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated
• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
• FN17: formatting
• FNs 20, 21 and similar should use endashes in their titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

all five done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone

• "it was presumed to be 32^s in error by Baily and thus refers to 7.4 magnitude HD 10407". What?? What is 32^s? A star? A measurement? And when the article says "thus refers" in the present tense, does this mean this is currently considered correct? If so, how come the Flamsteed designation isn't used? Sorry, I was flummoxed by this. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Flamsteed designated a star at a point where subsequent observations showed there was no star. Baily concluded he must have been looking at HD 10407 and mistranscribed its coordinates - so later when he looked at his records he wrote it up as in Triangulum. However, we don't know that for sure - all we can be certain is that at the location marked 1 Trianguli there is no star. Make sense...? Will think of how to rephrase Tried a rephrase - hope that helps.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, sort of. I have tried a further tweak to render it thus: "...Baily presumed that the coordinates were mistranscribed 32^s in error by Flamsteed and in fact referred to 7.4 magnitude HD 10407." Can you check that this is still correct? However, I had a separate issue: I have no clue what 32^s means: i still don't understand whether that is a measurement of something. I may be being boneheaded, but it just doens't look like anything I've seen... sorry if I'm being boneheaded. Oh wait, it means 32... what, arcseconds?! Maybe spell that out... hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. Sorry, not arcseconds as such but seconds in Right ascension - linked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• I like the section on history and mythology. I have a minor format question. Currently we have at one point "The Ancient Greeks called Triangulum Deltoton" (ie italicised) , at another point "...Beta, Gamma and Delta Trianguli were called "Teen Ta Tseang Keun"..." (ie. in quotation marks) but later "Johann Bayer called the constellation Triplicitas and Orbis terrarum tripertitus..." (not italicised). What is the criterion for determining the formal of proper names that are not in English? Partly I want consistency, but I also found the correct interpretation difficult at one point later on, where we have "...renaming the original Triangulum Majus." I wondered whether this meant he renamed Triangulum as Majus, or renamed Triangulum as Triangulum Majus (I assume it is the latter)? If the latter, then regardless of formatting you could solve the problem by writing "...renaming the original as Triangulum Majus." hamiltonstone (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Italics are used in their words-as-words and also as they are foreign terms - this has cropped up before in sections with many terms where we could feasibly pepper the whole section in italics (which might not look great style-wise...)! I guess as Triangulum (Latin) isn't, I'd then reserve it for words in foreign scripts (in this case Greek, Arabic and Chinese) and have italicized the Chinese term. Regarding the Majus/Minus issue - none of the three stars excised were part of the pattern of the main triangle. Planted an "as" in there now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• "bordered by Andromeda to the north and west, Pisces to the southwest, Aries to the south, and Perseus to the northeast." I am just wondering about consistency of treatment of the compass points. Because "southwest" and "northeast" are used (ie. you are being specific to the extent of eight directions of the compass) I did kind of feel that there was a big gap to the east and southeast, whereas all other directions are covered (the way you write about Andromeda covers northwest without a problem). Is there any reasonable solution to this, or does one just live with it? :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just describing what is on the map (bearing in mind east and west are reversed!) - changed it to clarify we're not missing anything Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

Just a few queries, otherwise looks sound Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Eratosthenes linked it with the Nile Delta. Alternately, the Roman writer Hyginus linked it to the triangular island of Sicily— why is this an alternation? If you mean "Alternatively", I can't see why that is appropriate either. Also "linked" overworked

agreed, sloppy word now removed and "while" used instead, one "linked" removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• The text from The Ancient Greeks called... to ...Romanized as Trigonum suggests that there was a chronological name sequence Deltoton... Deltotum... Sicilia... Trigonon... Trigonum., but the vagueness of the dating leads me to wonder whether the any of the five names were in concurrent use (especially Deltoton/Trigonon or Deltotum/Trigonum)

The five were not in chronological order (bar the Gk/Latin bits). I guess they could have been used concurrently. I don't have enough information to comment on that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Latinized, honor, catalogued—AE or BE?

BE Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• 4.00 around 112 light-years from Earth.[15] It is around double

around --> abouted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Because of its low surface brightness, low power is required. —Is this right? I would have thought low brightness needed higher power.

low power means larger field of view and more light comes in telescope making it easier to see (as it is large) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Duh... you wouldn't think that I did two years of physics as part of my chemistry degree! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Support all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment: Nice article. The only problem that jumped out at me was this sentence: "It was also called Sicilia, because Ceres, patron goddess of Sicily, was claimed to have begged Jupiter that the island be placed in the heavens." Between the clauses and the subjunctive part, it gets convoluted. Maybe something more like this: "It was also called Sicilia, because the Romans believed Ceres, patron goddess of Sicily, begged Jupiter to place the island in the heavens." --Coemgenus (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

ok, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

thx - much appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Note -- did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One hasn't been done, but there are only two - one own work (File:TriangulumCC.jpg) and one IAU starchart (File:Triangulum IAU.svg), which copyright information is given here. (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

For this image File:TriangulumCC.jpg it says "© all photographs taken by Till Credner, AlltheSky.com" here [8]. Graham Colm (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad - I meant not my own work but the own work of an uploader (rather than someone getting a third party's photos off flickr or elsewhere) - Till Credner has been uploading his photos to wikipedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how this resolves the © problem. Graham Colm (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Graham, Cas. I'm sure I've been round this loop as a reviewer of a previous GAN or FAC for another constellation, but i can't find it just now found it. My reading of the sitation is that the copyrightholder, who is the creator of this image, is Till Credner, as stated on the AllTheSky site. That same person has then uploaded the same image to WM Commons and released it under a CC licence. My understanding is that multiple copyrights in an image can exist and that by uploading it to WP under a CC, the copyright holder has validly placed their own image in the public domain. What am I missing? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Graham, I'm inclined to agree with Hamilton's reading of it -- let me know if you still see an issue or believe one of our regular image reviewers should opine... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian, I'm satisfied with this explanation. Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 14:06, 13 December 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) 14:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

• 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 January 2014 (UTC)

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, 8 December 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

Stella Gibbons

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Stella Gibbons was a writer famous for one novel (her first), Cold Comfort Farm (1932), a delightful parody which mocks the pretensions of the then fashionable "loam and lovechild" genre of fiction associated with writers like Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence and Mary Webb. She wrote much else besides, but never had a comparable success in the remaining 50 years of her career. She didn't mind; she was content with her relative anonymity, disliked and avoided the literary establishment, and made little effort in her later writing to adapt to postwar tastes. In the early 21st century she is enjoying a modest revival, as works long out of print are being reissued, but to the reading public generally she remains indelibly associated with her one great success, and its celebrated "something nasty in the woodshed". Please comment at will (and if you haven't already, please read CCF). Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support I had my say at the Peer Review. Very enjoyable article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your earlier review comments and your support here. Brianboulton (talk)

• Image check. The lead image is a proper fair use image with an appropriate rationale; all other images have suitable Creative Commons tags.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support I also contributed at PR and think this deserves to be a featured article. I still think it would be nice to mention the sequel to CCF in the lead, since practically everyone will be coming to the page because of CCF and may not know she wrote a sequel, but that won't affect my support. Great work! --Loeba (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have to confess that I forgot my promise in the peer review to reconsider whether the sequel should be mentioned in the lead. I've just looked at it now, and have decided you have a point, so I've insertd the mention now. Thanks for your review comments and for your generous support here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support – A third peer reviewer clocking in. First class article, well proportioned, objective, in the most inviting and readable prose, with resourcefully chosen images. Referenced widely and comprehensively. Top drawer work once again from the Boulton desk and I am envious because I wish I had written it. – Tim riley (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Typically generous comments from an unfailingly helpful reviewer, spelling checker and punctuation expert. Thanks yet again. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN2: page formatting
• FN28: why include title here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Nikki. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support, this was an enjoyable and informative read, and as impressive as you'd expect from the nonimator.

Small nitpicks which can be taken or left.

• She became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1950 is placed at the end of the 2nd lead para. Should it end the first or open the third.

• Probably 50:50, but having tried it out at the start of the third para, I think it's marginally better there. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• "loam and lovechild". Red link? Googled this and got distracted.

• Not too keen to redlink this. Unlike some genres such as "chick-lit" or "sci-fi", the term isn't particularly well known and is rather old fashioned. There might be a suitable term to pipe it to.

• The Gibbons family originated in Ireland. - Where in Ireland out of curiosity? Gibbons is usually counties Mayo or Sligo. I had a friend Noreen Gib****....who was (I presume still is) far more attractive than that name suggests.

• The source merely says "of Irish extraction", so no help there. Most of the Irish Gibbonses I knew had a "Fitz" in front. As to Noreen, I think "Noírín NacGiobúin" has a certain poetry in it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• who spent much time in South Africa - dont like "much", maybe "long periods" or something.

• Agreed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• During slack periods she practised at writing articles, stories and poems. This imples that they were never meant for publication, but did she just say that later? Sounds unlikely; I dont know many creative people that merly "practice". They may say so later of their juvenilia; I'd put in "she claimed", or such.

• I have to follow the source, which says nothing about publication, or her intentions, merely that she practised. Brianboulton (talk)

• masquerading as man and wife. This is tantalising and deserves a few words of social context.

• I have changed this to "signing hotel registers as a married couple, using false names". Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• the abandonment by intellectuals of "the clerks and the suburbs" as subjects of literary interest provided an opening for writers prepared to exploit this underexplored area. - I know what is intended here, but it could be better put; are literary interest now vs writers etc.

• I am not sure how this can be expressed differently. I understand that by "intellectuals" Carey meant writers such as Waugh, Woolf, Anthony Powell etc who based their books in the upper middle/aristocratic classes rather than among the clerks in the suburbs. I don't think the point can be made more clearly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Spot checks performed on the NYC article, Adams & Beard. No issues.
• The lead image is a fantastic capture of her character.

Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review and support, and also for the numerous prose tweaks you effected while going through the article most thoroughly. Most of these look fine; a few need a bit more adjustment which you can safely leave to me. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Fine. Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Support; another from the PR reporting for duty! Yet another interesting, informative and attractive article. All very enjoyable to read and review - thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 1 December 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) 15:52, 7 December 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, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [10].

---

History of Chincoteague, Virginia

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because… well, many of you may know I fell ill this summer. Although I've thankfully recovered fully, I did spend several weeks at home afterwards. My first trip that was not business, in late August, was to meet my brothers and their families for a few days in Chincoteague. It was a very pleasant five days, and while there, I had the idea … here is the result. Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda:

I like the article with personal motivation and missed the peer review. Only minor points:

• In the lead: if Native Americans is linked, shouldn't there be a piped link to Colony of Virginia? "Destination" sounds vague, - island and town?

Isn't there a pipe to Colony of Virginia? I've played with the first sentence a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't find one in the lead and could imagine it for "Virginia colonist". Like the first sentence now!

• Setting and pre-European use: perhaps mention the island first, especially as there was no town for a long time? - map also later, image of nature could go here?

Thank you for swapping the images. You know would have voted against a left one right under the header ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Misty and filly Stormy, - moving story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done those things. That map is a bit awkward, it works best in the final section, which already has many images, but it needs to be in the article fairly early or I will get geography complaints.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Any chance of a geographic map of the area? I remember the nice historic one in Yogo sapphire, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That is the best free map I was able to find.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support, all addressed, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support: A clear, well-written and detailed article about one of Virginia's most interesting towns. I gave the article a full once-over and seen nothing that I feel needed updating or changing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support – I had the considerable pleasure of peer reviewing this article; I can't think when I enjoyed a peer review more. This is a delectable article, and in my view the current version meets all the FA criteria. It is hard to imagine how the subject could be better handled. Top-flight stuff – loud applause. – Tim riley (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you also for your work, and for the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images review

• All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and there are no apparent format issues
• All images appear to be in the public domain, and are properly licenced.

I missed the peer review and have not read through the article yet. On the basis of the images alone, this looks to be a likely pleasure. I will add general comments when I'm done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you will enjoy it. Thank you for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Quadell

I wish I had more of substance to offer, but after reading the article carefully and checking for the usual nominee shortcomings, I can't find much to criticize. (It's as if the nominator had extensive experience with bringing article to Featured status, and he spent a great deal of time and care on the article over the last couple of months, and the article was peer reviewed and GA reviewed by two of the most diligent reviewers around... it's almost precisely like that.) Here are my paltry contributions.

• I made some minor copy-edits, and all were simply wordings I thought slightly better, rather than error corrections.

• This article says "one smuggler's ship was burned in the engagement known as the Battle of Cockle Creek, and another captured." Was the capture a part of the battle? If so, I would reworded it as "one smuggler's ship was burned and another captured in the engagement known as the Battle of Cockle Creek." But then again, the Battle of Cockle Creek article says that "two accompanying sloops were captured", so I'm not sure if there's a contradiction there.

It's complicated. The Union accounts of the battle mention two small boats captured and sent to Hampton Roads as prizes, the Southern accounts do not. But in any event, the ship I am referring to as captured was captured two days after the battle, the schooner S.T. Garrison, taken off Wallops Island. See p. 51 of Mariner.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I added "two days later", to try to avoid any ambiguity. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Compared to the other facts about Chincoteague's growing publicity, the fact that it was mentioned in a Jeopardy! question feels really trivial (no pun intended), almost like a typical "In popular culture" factoid. Is it really notable?

As now two reviewers (one at the PR) have touched on that, I think it's dodgy enough to get rid of.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That's all I've got. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the very nice things you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support, this article is clearly FA-worthy. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments: as I anticipated, this was a most engaging read. I have a number of comments, all relatively minor (some are merely recommendations). You will see from the edit history that I have made a few prose tweaks, though I'm leaving most of them for you.

Lead

• Is there any date indicator that can be applied to the initial activities of the Native Americans?

I can't give an earliest date, but I gave an until.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• In the first paragraph, the multiple short sentences create a somewhat jerky effect for the reader. Perhaps combine the second, third and fourth sentences?

I combined two of them anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Although a few people lived on the island by 1700" – "lived on ... by" → "were living on ... by"

Done.

• "in the postwar years" – perhaps clarify you mean the post-Civil War years

I think the previous sentence makes it clear and a repetition of "Civil War" unneeded.

• Last paragraph: I don't think "the" is needed before "seafood", and perhaps the first "major" could be "significant".

I think the "the" has to stay. Major changed.

I huff and puff at "significant". What does it signify? If two "majors" in close proximity won't do, then how about "Neither is important in the island's economy today"? Tim riley (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Changed, with a slight amendment.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Colonial Chincoteague

• I would clarify the "two islands" mentioned at the end of the section

Done.

Antebellum period (1776–1860)

• First paragraph: was the "petition to repeal" successful?

Yes. Clarified.

• "about age 100" might be common usage but it is not grammatically sound. Recommend "aged about 100".

Civil War (1861–65)

• "Referendum on succession": shouldn't this be "secession"?

Nice catch.

• We somewhat lose track of the fate of Whealton's mission. Were the confiscated goods returned.

Yes, clarified.

• Passing comment: "800 inhabitants", yet only 135 votes in the referendum. A somewhat resticted ballot, then, which rather weakens the "near-unanimity" to which you refer, and offers an explanation as to why some islanders supported and fought for the Confederacy.

The source does not go into detail, other than discussing a few who supported or went south. It was clearly not a secret ballot. I've changed to "lopsided tally". The franchise was likely restricted to male landowners.

Postwar and prosperity (1865–1908)

• "began to come to an end" is a bit cumbersome: "began to end"?

Fair enough.

• My dictionary tells me the usual US style is "barbershop" (one word), against the BritEng "barber's shop".

Fair enough.

• "Gas illumination arrived by 1900" – needs to be "had arrived" in view of the "by". Alternatively, "arrived in 1900" is more consistent with the rest of the sentence.

Causeway and carnivals: Chincoteague takes its modern form (1908–46)

• Not sure of the MOS status of this rather elaborate section heading. Simple would be: "Entering the modern era (1908–46)"

OK

• "By 1900, the residents began to seek to be incorporated as a town". It has to be "In", not "By", in this construction

Rephrased.

• "Almost all" used twice as a sentence opener, in quick succession
• Presumably John B.Whealton has some family connection with the earlier Whealton? Perhaps worth a mention.

Mariner does discuss this, and the Whealton family tree is a bit uncertain due to multiple people with identical names. John B.'s father was also named John, but was not the John Whealton of the Civil War expedition. So it is not a direct descent anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused by some of the fifth paragraph. The parenthetical "the auction began later" – later than what? Then, "Fifteen thousand people attended..." – attended what? I am guessing a carival and pony swin, but the nature of "the 1925 event" needs to be more specifically defined.

Pretty much. I've clarified. It doesn't sound as though things were as organized in 1925 as they later became, but the "festivities" I mention included pony races, foot races, swimming races, and baseball, plus food.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have tweaked this a bit more, as I think it still needed clarifying. Retweak if I've got it wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Any explanation for the population decrease (3295 in 1910, 2130 in 1930 - that's more than a one-third drop?

My fault, the 1930 figure is not for the whole island, but only the town.

Misty and changes (1946–62)

• It's a nitpick, but I wonder whether all of the incidental detail is really necessary, e.g. "Staying at the bed and breakfast of Miss Molly Rowley on Main Street", and the naming of the grandchildren.

The B&B still exists, and the grandchildren are characters in the novel. That's also why Beebe is given his nickname. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• ("Henry fell in love with the horse..." Hmmm, I'll say no more)

Shall I get the horsey set to opine? :) --Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wyle Maddox doesn't need naming in full twice in the paragraph.

Because of "Maddox Boulevard" in that sentence, I felt the need to give him his first name a second time.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I see a possible contradiction in "many young people left Chincoteague in the years after World War II" and "The town remained busy and prosperous in the postwar years".

I guess enough young people were leaving that they were concerned. I doubt there was even television there in the 1950s, though, and it would have been very isolated before the bridges to the Eastern Shore were built.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Fifth paragraph: I would reverse the order of the penultimate and ultimate sentences and slightly change the wording and organisation, thus: " When oyster parasites and overfishing combined to destroy the oyster industry in the 1950s, clams became the island's major industry. The Burton Clamming Company claimed to be the largest in the world, sending 1.3 million clams to market on a typical day in 1957."

Changed as noted below.

Tourist destination (1962–present)

• "the local decline in oystering," – previously "Oyster parasites and overfishing combined to destroy the oyster industry"

Changed to "devastate".

I look forward to supporting in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I've caught everything. Thank you for all your work on this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support: See above note about one final tweak that I've done myself. All well, now; a soothingly untopical article which was a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the nice words.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Full disclosure: I might be too involved to be a neutral reviewer, as I helped edit some sections a bit (reviewed horse stuff, mostly) but Wehwalt did the bulk of the editing, and I fully support this article as an FAC. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I had my say at PR and was happy with it there, but it has been further strengthened since then. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review then and now.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 3 December 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) 15:43, 7 December 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, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [11].

---

Home (The X-Files)

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC), Bruce Campbell 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Third time is the charm! This is an extremely infamous episode of The X-Files, noted for its extreme violence and horror. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for FA. It was promoted to GA in the early part of 2012, then promoted to A-class in the later part of 2012. Bruce Campbell submitted it for FA consideration, but at the time, it was not considered. Since then, it has undergone extensive editing and copy-editing, courtesy of Bruce Campbell, myself, Sarastro1, and JudyCS. All of the references are of the highest quality, its format is similar to other X-Files episodes that have been promoted to FA, and the prose is neutral, informative, and of good quality. I feel it is ready. Any comments would of course be appreciated. This article was just nominated a few weeks ago, but the discussion closed due to lack of comments. I'm hoping this time, we can get some more comments! As a note, I am co-nominating this in Bruce Campbell's name. She contributed the most to this article, but isn't very active anymore.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Glimmer721 talk 01:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

*" Despite this, some reviewers felt that the violent subject matter went too far." Perhaps clarify what "too far" means: "that the violent subject matter was excessive" or "not warranted" or something "They took inspiration from" → "They were inspired by" "small town" is mentioned in the lead: link it to Home, Pennsylvania? "Mulder and Scully investigate their now-abandoned residence..." "their" seems to be referring to Mulder and Scully, not the Peacocks "In retaliation, the brothers break into Sheriff Taylor's house in the middle of the night, bludgeoning him and his wife to death with baseball bats." Should "him" be "he"? I think Morgan and Wong maybe should be linked again in "Background" - they're linked in the lead and the infobox, but they haven't been linked in the actual body of the article yet " Morgan decided to use this incident for the basis of the screenplay, though Wong suggested that they change the son into a mother.[11][20] It took a long time for the concept to finally be featured in one of his episodes." The first sentence suggests that the incident was specifically picked out for "Home", whereas the second suggests he had been wanting to use it for a long time. They don't go together very well. "Elements first appeared in the episode "Humbug", written by Morgan's brother Darin Morgan, which featured a cast of circus sideshow performers and incorporated several themes that had an influence on "Home," including the use of a "benign soul trapped in the body of a monster".[5][23]" Same problem as above, but also I'm not sure repeating "Morgan" is necessary. "Morgan's brother Darin" with the link should work fine. Link British Columbia, and perhaps add "Canada" after "Surrey, B.C." first of all adds an extra period to the end of the sentence, but second of all actually has an article "... showcasing the conflict between classic American values, and more modern culture." Comma not needed "In 1997, when the channel FX ran an all-day marathon of the most popular X-Files episodes, the "Home" episode was the number one choice.[14]" The "Home" episode? Why not just "Home"? "A writer from DVD Journal commented that this was because it "was initially buried by the network after its first airing".[52]" I'm not sure this is all necessary; the previous sentence sort of suggested it. Perhaps "In 1997, when the channel FX ran an all-day marathon of the most popular X-Files episodes, "Home" was the number one choice,[14] likely due to its lack of reruns.[52]" "Author Dean A. Kowalskin, in The Philosophy of The X-File" isn't it "The Philosophy of The X-Files"? 2 consecutive sentences in "later reception" use "listed it" "In 2008, Starpulse gave the installment an honorable mention as one of the 10 best X-Files installments.[61]" Repetition of "installment" The caption says that William B. Davis is a "series regular" - but is that quite true? His character is recurring... No major comments. The article is for the most part FA-worthy. Glimmer721 talk 17:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC) I have changed all the issues, save for the last. I think "series regular" is fair, considering he was credited as "also starring" whenever he appeared (which is different from how guest stars are credited, I believe).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, I just wasn't sure how technical the term was. You have my support. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 19:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Just a few issues that have been introduced since the last FAC: Plot: "bludgeoning he and his wife to death with baseball bats." I thought the original "his" where "he" was was correct, but maybe that's just me. Completely reworded this to fix it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Writing: "Despite this, it took awhile time for the concept to finally come together into a working episode." Seems like either "awhile" or "time" must go. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC) The bit explaining who Keith Booker is has been removed. Not sure whether or not this was intentional.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure where the error here is. He's described as "M. Keith Booker, in Blue-Collar Pop Culture..."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support – The full Booker reference must have been moved up. Sorry about that. Anyway, the article now appears to meet the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment. (This is the only thing that I've looked at.) The MoS states "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." There are 16 examples of ," and some of them are from titles, so those at least should be ", EddieHugh (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected these instances. Thank you for the catch!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN10: formatting

  I believe I have fixed it, correct?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• FN18: italicization is backwards and AP is agency not author

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• In general, look at treatment of author names - in a couple of cases you've got first and/or middle names as last names, and you're inconsistent in how names are presented

  Whoops! Dumb mistake! Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• FN52: author is incorrect, missing italics on publication title

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• FN53: why the doubling?

  Another dumb mistake.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when

  I think I've fixed some issues with this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers

  I believe I have fixed the issues.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of References

  Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Given that AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, what makes Great Graves a high-quality reliable source? Same with Return to Eden and Lulu. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  I removed "Great Graves", since it could be backed up with a better source. As for "Return to Eden", it is the autobiography of an actor featured in this episode Tucker Smallwood, and the use of the reference seems to satisfy the conditions for its inclusion according to WP:SELFPUB.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 14:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

;Comments from Ruby2010 Traveling to the small town of Home, Pennsylvania isolated from the rest of the world, the pair meet a family of deformed farmers named the Peacocks who have not left their house in a decade. -- I think this sentence could be tighter. How about Traveling to the small isolated town of Home, Pennsylvania, the pair meet..."? Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC) sandlot ball game could use a relevant wikilink Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC) So was anything meaningful changed in the script after it was sent to Vancouver? You kind of leave this hanging. Reworded. I don't think anything was changed, they were just disgusted by it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC) ...Mrs. Peacock functions as a being whose sons have "reduce[ed] her to all female functions". ... Hmmm something doesn't quite work here; suggest removing the "her" part of the quote Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC) You imply that "Home" had a "lack of reruns". I was a bit confused by this so I read the linked citation, which says the episode was "initially buried by the network after its first airing on October 11, 1996." This doesn't quite back up the "lack of reruns". Suggest changing to something closer to the source I removed it, since technically it was kind of OR.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Why did Phil Farrand consider it the worst episode up to that point? Also, you should combine those two Farrand (1997) citations. Ruby 2010/2013 14:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• All of my comments from this and the last FAC have been resolved , so I'm happy to support this one. Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 14:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support: I'm on a bit of an X-Files run at the moment! I copy-edited and review this article some time ago, and it is much improved since then. There are very few problems with the prose or content, and I have copy-edited a little more to trim redundancy where necessary. An impressive piece of work by all concerned. I will happily switch to full support once these final points are addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC) "mused that Morgan and Wong were unfamiliar with the direction that the series had taken during its third season.": Could we state what direction that was? Otherwise it's a bit of a tease. "Elements of the script were mirrored in the sixth season episode "Terms of Endearment", which also featured child-murdering antagonists.": This seems tacked on at the end of the writing section, and doesn't really fit with what is around it, unless I'm missing something. "Because the town was a "mix of new and old" buildings, careful reverse angles were employed to preserve the "small-town American illusion".": Why the quotation marks for relatively common phrases? Maybe better rephrased as "Because the buildings of the town comprised both old and new styles..." and "...the impression of "small-town America". (And what is a reverse angle?) "The filming of "Home" was an unpleasant experience for Tucker Smallwood": Does he say so? I'm a little uncomfortable with the editorial voice here. What about something like "Tucker Smallwood remembered the filming of Home as an unpleasant experience"? "Upon its first broadcast, "Home" received moderately positive reviews...": Hmmm. POV? Why not "several positive"? ""Home" has often been cited as one of the best of the series.": The best what? As I said some time ago, I think we overdo the reviews, but it is not a problem for me if you want to keep them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC) How do these changes look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Support (with a copy-editing disclaimer): Changes look good. I do wonder if "deliberately wanted to go back to the stylistic origins of the series" is still a bit of a tease. It would be nice to know how the series style had changed since then so that we can see why the episode was such a departure. But this does not affect my support if you want to leave it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I get what you mean by "tease". The problem is, I don't have the source anymore, since BruceCampbell added that bit, so I didn't want to change or add anything since I wouldn't know what I'm doing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Support on comprehensiveness and prose - no prose-clangers jump out at me....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose until the prose is sorted out. I shouldn't be finding things like "Mulder and Scully investigate the their now-abandoned residence ..." after three weeks at FAC. And here are examples of some other stuff:

• "In retaliation, they break into Sheriff Taylor's house in the middle of the night to murder him and his wife." That's their motivation, but did they actually murder the sheriff and his wife? A reference to "the Taylor murders" suggests that they did, but they could be different Taylors as things stand.

• "I'm not at all fond of "intended for" as in "The duo intended for their first episode back to be as ambitious and shocking as possible".

• "... and was surprised when he first received the screenplay". When did he receive it for the second time?

• "During the sheriff's death scene Smallwood insisted on performing his own stunts, but he quickly changed his mind after hitting his head on the ground while performing a dive." That repeated "performing ... performing" is rather awkward.

• "After omitting the controversial audio and applying some careful editing, the censors eventually approved the episode." What that's saying is that it was the censors who did the work, which seems rather unlikely.

• "However, some reviewers felt that the violent subject matter was excessive." Shouldn't be starting a sentence with "however".

Eric Corbett 22:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have fixed the issues that you have pointed out. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: While looking through and doing some more copy-editing, I noticed that "Heim (2008)" is not in the reference list but is used as a reference. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Whoops! My mistake. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support: Excellent article, would make a good contribution to our FA collection. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Have I missed the image review? Graham Colm (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No one has done it yet.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review

All images outside the one in the infobox are legitimately freely licensed or PD, and all required information is present. The infobox image is a non-free screenshot. It also has all required information present and has a rationale, but it is not clear to me whether the image's use fulfills all of our non-free content criteria. Screenshots are often listed for deletion at FFD, and are usually only kept if the contents of the image are mentioned in sourced commentary in the article body. The claim is considerably stronger if the contents are mentioned outside the "plot" section, since those sections are only loosely sourced. In this case, it would be easy for the "Initial ratings and reception" section to briefly mention that a scene shows a family burying a child alive—there are places where this would fit naturally—and doing so would strengthen the non-free use claim immeasurably. (Without that, the contents of the scene are not mentioned in clearly-sourced commentary, and the use could be held to violate our WP:NFCC.) – Quadell ^(talk) 03:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I tweaked it and added a blurb in the "Initial ratings and reception" section. How's it look now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 07:02, 7 December 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) 15:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.