Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2014: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 3
Add 2
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zimbabwe women's national field hockey team at the 1980 Summer Olympics/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/D'Oliveira affair/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/D'Oliveira affair/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imogen Holst/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imogen Holst/archive1}}

Revision as of 15:00, 9 April 2014

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 16:00, 9 April 2014 [1].

Zimbabwe women's national field hockey team at the 1980 Summer Olympics

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about what is probably the greatest ever Zimbabwean sports team—the women's hockey team at the 1980 Moscow Olympics, which despite being assembled less than a month before the Games won the gold medal without losing a match. Of course most of the best teams were not there because of the Western boycott, but the Zimbabwean victory was still a great shock. This is a really great, uplifting story that I thoroughly enjoyed researching. The team flew to Moscow on a plane without seats, usually used for carrying meat, and arrived without the right shoes to play on the artificial field. Pat McKillop, a Bulawayo housewife, scored six goals in five games to be the competition's joint top-scorer. Sally Mugabe promised each of the "Golden Girls" an ox each on their return home, but in the end they got polystyrene packages of meat instead. Whether or not this was a sardonic attempt at gallows humour is not recorded.

I feel this article meets the standards regarding prose, neutrality, sourcing, completeness and so forth and am therefore nominating it. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A nice little article. Reads very nicely and looks to be comprehensive. An unusual story! Just a few minor comments from me. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”began to help fill the gaps the U.S.-led Olympic boycott”: Maybe it’s me, but the punctuation looks a bit off in “U.S.-led”; but it could well be the correct way to punctuate this.
  • ”Zimbabwe's subsequent undefeated victory in the round-robin tournament with three wins and two draws was widely regarded as a huge upset”: I understand the meaning here, but “undefeated victory” sounds a little silly; I think just “Zimbabwe's subsequent victory in the round-robin tournament with three wins and two draws was [widely - do we need this?] regarded as a huge upset”
  • ”the gold medal was the country's first of any colour at the Olympics.”: Perhaps “the country’s first Olympic medal of any colour”?
  • ”it had been excluded from the 1968, 1972 and 1976 Games for political reasons.”: Could we say briefly what those political reasons were; mainly for anyone who doesn’t know the story and is too lazy to check.
  • OK, have added "following the mostly white government's declaration of independence from Britain in 1965". I think going into the specifics of the issue regarding sport would be too complicated to deal with here. The Rhodesian sports teams were, unlike South Africa's, multiracial; the point at hand at least from Britain's point of view was that Rhodesia was in their view illegitimate after UDI in 1965. There was rather ironically a period when the British considered it more acceptable for teams to tour South Africa than Rhodesia, even though the former had apartheid and the latter didn't. There's plenty more details in the article linked to in the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”whose brother was international cricketer Duncan Fletcher.”: I think this is better as “the international cricketer”
  • ”Two points would be awarded for a win and one for a draw; the team with the most points at the end would be the winner.”: I wonder if this would be better as “Two points were awarded…”?
  • ”All of the matches were played at Dynamo Minor Arena”: For me, this should be “all the matches” but I’m not too sure how this stands grammatically.
  • ”Zimbabwe were one of the teams in the first ever women's Olympic hockey match, playing against Poland on 25 July.”: Maybe this would be better as “Zimbabwe played in the first women’s Olympic hockey match, facing Poland on 25 July”?
  • ”scored the first goal in women's Olympic hockey”: Given the previous sentence, I don’t think we need to say “in women’s Olympic hockey”; this is clearly implied.
  • ”with McKillop and Chase scoring”: Better to avoid “with [noun] [verb]ing”
  • ”right-half”: Do we have a link for this position?
  • I've put "sports historians have called it a "fairytale" and an "irresistible fairy story"". We can redraw to put the names of the people if you like but I feel this would be a little clunky myself. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, Sarastro—I hope my replies above are to your satisfaction. Keep well and have a great weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Changes looking good; I think this article comfortably meets the criteria. As usual, an excellent piece of work. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, the support and the kind words; very much appreciated —Cliftonian (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Support Leaning to support – An enjoyable article, which it will be is a pleasure to support. Just four comments, though one of them is rather fundamental:

  • I wondered what on earth "field hockey" was till I read on. It seems, on further enquiry, to be a North Americanism to distinguish hockey from ice-hockey. To an English reader it seems a long-winded way of saying "hockey". We have been calling it "hockey" since at least 1527, and as, to judge from the Harare Herald clipping you link to, the Zimbabweans call it "hockey" rather than "field hockey" I think you ought to as well, in both the title and the text.
  • You are correct. I call it hockey myself (as did all the players, so far as I know), and I did use the simpler term "hockey" in many places in the article, but I think referring to "field hockey" in the first instance in the article is important to avoid ambiguity—not all readers will be Zimbabweans, Brits, et al.—and also because that was (and is) the official name of the Olympic event. I understand this objection and sympathise somewhat with your view but I think in the circumstances we should keep the title as it is. It is just one extra word and in the prose itself almost every usage has "hockey" rather than "field hockey". —Cliftonian (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Oxford English Dictionary hyphenates "vice captain", and so would I.
  • "massive underdogs" – I don't think the condition of being an underdog is governed by size. If you need to qualify the noun (which I'm not sure you do) perhaps "serious" or another adjective might be nearer the mark.
  • "both of Zimbabwe's victories" – is the "of" wanted?

Other than that, nothing but approval. – Tim riley (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few suggestions:

  • I'm a bit bothered by the redlinks in the lead, which stand out rather. I know they are potential links to as-yet unborn articles on those countries' field hockey teams; I'm prepared to bet that in the normal run of events they will remain unborn for the foreseeable future. The best solution would be for you to create stub articles for these hockey teams. The links would then turn blue alongside those for India and the USSR, and readers less cogniscent with WP practices would not have to wonder why these countries were represented in bright red.
  • "which had just become an internationally recognised country in April 1980" - with the date given, "just" is redundant
  • "just 35 days before the Olympics were due to start" – another unnecessary "just"
  • I think "manager" rather than "manageress"
  • Is there any reason why only Arlene Boxhall lacks a stub article and therefore alone is a redlink? Is a stub possible?
  • The stubs for all the players already existed and were so far as I can tell created en masseusing an internet source that only seems to list those who actually played as opposed to the whole squad. Boxhall never came off the bench so doesn't seem to have been counted. Anyway I've fixed this now; she now has an article too. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for unnecessary emphasis via adverbs, e.g. "totally by surprise", "entirely unrelated to sport"
  • "With 50 minutes on the clock..." Non-hockey players such as myself won't understand the significance of "50 minutes on the clock", unless we are told somewhere the duration of a match, e.g. "With 50 minutes of the match's 70 minutes gone..." (if indeed 70 minutes is the duration)
  • "the joint-fifth most in the event" – I am not entirely convinced of the notability of this nugget of information!
  • I thought it was worth mentioning that Chase was still one of the top scorers in the event despite being injured, but perhaps you're right that just mentioning that she played and scored some goals is enough. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, an interesting piece of Olympic history of which I had no previous knowledge at all. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, the kind words and the support, Brian. I hope my replies above are to your satisfaction. I'm glad you seem to have enjoyed reading this. Cheers again —Cliftonian (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- just a prompt that we'll need source and image reviews (unless I missed 'em)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are okay: Two CC images donated by the RIA Novosti (I need to buy a beer for whoever negotiated that!) and one free image (crop by a Wikipedian of a PD US Mil work; source is still online and accessible; would be nice to have better quality but I can't see it happening). Captions needed periods (all are full sentences) but I've done that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - You've done a great job with this article! I have a few concerns listed below, but they shouldn't take long to address.

  1. The meaning of "built around the former Rhodesia team" should be clarified.
I'm sorry to quibble, but I don't see what isn't clear about this? —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this phrase means. Is "built around" a metaphor? If so, for what? And what former Rhodesia team? The article says that Rhodesia had been excluded from the Olympics for years, so my understanding is that there hadn't been any Rhodesia teams for ages. Neelix (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was always a Rhodesia team that played against the South African provinces within South Africa's domestic system. (Before 1980 this system was common to many of the sports popular in southern Africa, prominently cricket and rugby; a parallel can be seen in English first-class cricket where to this day the English and Welsh counties play against teams representing the whole of Scotland and Ireland). The 1980 Games were the first to feature hockey so Rhodesia's exclusion from 1968, '72 and '76 isn't relevant here. "Built around" means the team was based around the core of the Rhodesia team but wasn't quite the same. I have expanded to "built around the core of the former Rhodesia team"; is this better? —Cliftonian (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Semicolons are overused in this article. In particular, they should be removed from the second paragraph in the "Invitation and team selection" section, the second paragraph of the "Tournament" section, and the first paragraph of the "Reactions and legacy" section.
I've cut down on semicolons; is this better do you think? —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking good now; I removed one more myself. Neelix (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think "all of these teams had been eliminated" should read "all of the other teams had been eliminated".
No, because we say before "apart from the Soviets". In Commonwealth English at least, you wouldn't say "apart from X, all of the other Y". —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sentence is technically grammatically correct, but is confusing because the phrase "eliminated in qualifying" could refer both to the teams that competed and the teams that did not; the former group was disqualified and then qualified, while the latter group was qualified and then disqualified. Another solution would be to phrase the sentence as follows: "apart from the Soviets, none of these teams had initially qualified for the Olympics, and they were only allowed to compete because of the spaces that had opened up as a result of the boycott." Neelix (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "apart from the Soviets, all of these teams were competing as a result of the boycott, having failed to qualify initially"? —Cliftonian (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The phrase "white and blue outfit" should read "white-and-blue outfit".
OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The phrase "according to Byrom" should be offset with commas.
OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What is a "right-half" and a "through pass"?
I've put a wikilink for right-half and a link to wiktionary for through pass. Right half basically means right midfield and a through pass (more commonly through ball) is a pass forward, between opposing defenders, which a team-mate then runs on to. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The meanings of the abbreviations in the "Final standings" table should be elucidated.
I've put tooltips in that appear when you hover over the letters. Are these good? —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I recommend removing the quotation "Nobody who shared the joy of the players and officials could deny them their moment of glory" considering the lengthier quotation from the same commentator that follows immediately afterwards.
I'd really rather keep it (it's all the same quotation). —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that we're giving Harris's comments far more weight than those of other commentators such as Sullivan. That is true already by concluding the entire article with Harris's thoughts, but juxtaposing a single word of a quotation from Sullivan with two entire sentences of a quotation from Harris seems to me to be excessive, especially considering that the article indicates that the quotation by Sullivan is representative of the comments by other commentators as well. Neelix (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've cut it down a bit. What do you think now? —Cliftonian (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article! Neelix (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this David, really very much appreciated. I hope I have satisfactorily addressed your concerns. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for considering my thoughts on the article. I have struck through the concerns that you have addressed. Neelix (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Neelix. I hope I have fixed all the problems now. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Sources and formatting look good, and no problems. Just one little issue:

  • The Mathers article in the bibliography has a stray full stop before "in".

Otherwise fine as far as I can tell. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarastro. I can't seem to find a way to format this reference without the full stop while keeping the link from the footnote working (the full stop is part of the citation template). Do you think we could possibly let this slide? I'm sorry about this. Thanks again for the source review. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had a stab at fixing it using a slightly different format. Is that OK? If not, maybe just capitalise "in" to avoid any problems. Either way, sources good now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture review: All pictures are well-described, free of copyright and appropriate. I'd personally recommend that File:Sally Hayfron.jpg is reverted to the previous version which is probably less blocky, and ideally replaced with another image in the future, but obviously this does not in any way condition me against support. Per WP:ImageSize, all images should be left as default 220px and not forced, but this seems universally ignored anyway and I wouldn't make too much of this. Just one thing - I believe Wikiprotocol dictates that punctuation (or at any rate full-stops) should be removed from captions...
In any case, an excellent article, and from the perspective of the pictures, I have no trouble supporting promotion. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Sarastro and Brigade Piron. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:00, 9 April 2014 [2].

Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about… the first US gold commemorative coins, allowing us to meet one of the more interesting characters in the history of numismatics, coin collector, dealer, and ruthless promoter Farran Zerbe. Today, he's mostly remembered for good, with a major numismatics award named for him, but he was a very controversial figure in his time.Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you ordering Other sources with no named author?
  • FN19: why not cite author?
  • FN24: title doesn't match that given in source list - which is correct?
  • Publisher for Bowers?
  • Be consistent in how you abbreviate states. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
States abbreviation done. Rest will follow. I assume you mean the Bowers web site. I've adjusted the "other sources" so their publisher is considered the author for abc purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On Fn19, I'm trying to cite Numismatist articles consistently and not all of them have authors. Fn24, and all others are done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A few issues, mainly minor:

Lead
  • "one variety depicted former president Thomas Jefferson and the other recently assassinated president William McKinley." Lack of punctuation and a missing "the" creates ambiguity. I suggest: "one variety depicted former president Thomas Jefferson, the other the recently assassinated president William McKinley."
Done, slightly modified.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fair authorities": for clarity, "exposition authorities" – (the word "fair" has several connotations in British English)
Fair enough. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two varieties are described in the first paragraph (briefly) and with slightly greater detail in the second. I think one description is enough.
Reprise axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Third para: the casual reader might be confused by "Congress passed authorizing legislation for an exposition" and "McKinley was assassinated at the Pan-American Exposition", thinking these expositions to be one and the same. Is it necessary to mention the location of McKinley's assassination?
No, though the fact that he was assassinated is certainly worth mentioning (and advertising :) ) so I've left that. It explains why he's on the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preparation
  • "traveling exhibit" – exhibition? "Exhibit" suggests a single object rather than a collection
I'm not sure it's that strong in American English but : Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final two sentences of second para should be merged for smoother reading
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the encyclopedia of commemorative coins is relatively recent, I think the present tense "suggest" is appropriate, rather than "suggested"
Mr. Breen is no longer with us.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...enquiring what fair officials would like to see on the reverse of the coins". I'm puzzled by this: what design, surely? Or possibly, "enquiring what fair officials would like to see illustrated on the reverse of the coins". But the present wording doesn't make sense to me.
I've added design, but since the word tends to get overused, have balanced it by a deletion elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the excess of 258 over the authorized mintage set aside for testing by the annual Assay Commission." I would clarify this: "the excess of 258 over the authorized mintage of 250,000 being set aside for testing by the annual Assay Commission."
Fixed, using different words.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Design
  • I don't think the link on John Reich can be correct – it goes to a Dubya administration appointee
There's just no getting rid of those engravers! I've redlinked. I'll work up a stub from one of my refs.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He modeled the McKinley obverse..." – it's not clear who "he" is
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He wrote that contemporary accounts saw the 1903 issue as an innovation..." – are the first three words necessary?
I think some attribution is needed. I can't vouch for what he's saying on my own account.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a 1904 article in the American Journal of Numismatics stated that they 'indicate a popular desire...' " etc – "they" is not clearly defined.
  • It is not clear from the quote what concept would be pioneered in 1909 with the Lincoln cent
Revamped.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution, aftermath, and collecting
  • Watch again for any confusion that could arise from varied nomenclature: "fair", "exposition", "World's Fair" etc, all meaning the same thing. Also there could be issues over capitalisation, e.g. as between "the fair" and "the Exposition"
I've reserved "fair" for use as a noun. I do want to use it because it is the common term, used in the song, the film ...--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and for co-ordinating sales with the vendors of near-worthless imitation fractional gold pieces, which were half price with the purchase of a dollar coin." I'm not clear with what was going on here: purchasers of the Exposition dollar could buy near-worthless imitations at half the normal price of these imitations? The deal, whatever it was, needs to be explained more clearly.
There was a vendor selling replicas of old privately-issued small gold pieces, which actually contained very little gold. I've tweaked a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grading service population figures" – what does this phrase mean?
I've clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate there will be little difficulty in dealing with these points. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be. Thank for the review. You have not seen the last of Mr. Zerbe.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting these done. I think I've caught everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: your responses are fine by me. I will keep my eyes alert to the future doings of the egregious Zerbe. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. He will return soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:
    • All images are fine, copyright wise. I'm going to clean up two to make them less distracting, and I have concerns about the huge amount of whitespace at the end of #Design. Also, why does the Jefferson medal not have a caption yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the formatting on that. My mistake, I broke it in delinking John Reich (see above).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • K, here's my prose review:
  • one variety depicted former president Thomas Jefferson, and the other, the recently assassinated president William McKinley. - wouldn't this go better with the mention of two varieties?
  • They were the first gold United States commemorative coins. - a footnote regarding the first non-gold commemorative coins?
I think it's addressed in the article by mentioning Zerbe's involvement in an earlier issue.
  • That means that there were already extant commemoratives, but does not indicate what the first was. Basically, a bit of trivia, to show why the qualifier "gold" is necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • worth in the high hundreds to low thousands of dollars, - worth in the high? Might need rephrasing
I don't see the issue, it should be understandable to the reader. Fairly common phrase, in my experience. Do you have an alternative?
  • I don't see "worth in the high" used in RSes through this search (rather, the first link is this article!), except following "net worth" (a noun, which can be in something). The less specific "hundreds" or several hundred may be acceptable, maybe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • he secured the return of the Louisiana territory from Spain via the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso the following year, and through other agreements. - this leads me to question when the territory was actually in the hands of the French again
God knows. I think that level of detail is beyond the scope of what I am trying to do here, basically teach a very brief history lesson to those who have forgotten or did not get it in school.
  • I've reworked a lot of the paragraph about Napoleon and the purchase (it felt really clunky); please double check that I did not change the meaning.
I made a minor tweak.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Louisiana Purchase Exposition dollar coin issue - do we need coin?
Deleted with issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secretary of the Treasury - worth linking (or naming?)
OK. Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "Anthony Swiatek ..." is rather short, and I'm tempted to split the sentences off and merge them with the surrounding paragraphs
  • Is "determined upon" the best wording? Agreed upon?
  • White space in #Design is still prominent. Worse comes to worse, the Panama coin can be dropped, or we can put the medals side by side
If you wouldn't mind, the medals side by side.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barber's medal had been modeled from life; McKinley had sat for the chief engraver. - isn't the second clause rather redundant?
No, I suppose Barber could have observed McKinley say, during a speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does "actual" fit in here? An "actual" person?
As opposed to a personification of Liberty. "Historic" if you prefer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be as often called by the shortened version.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a billion-dollar gold piece" - Wow. Reminds me of Canada's $1 million Canadian Gold Maple Leaf... what would the size of the thing have been? (not really something to act on)
Source doesn't say.
It's tracking what Zerbe had to say about the issue, plus the fact, which is stated in the source, that he did not identify himself as involved in the sale.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – immaculate, as we have come to expect from this source on this subject. Just three small comments:

  • Background
    • "Napoleon came to power in 1799" – I don't suppose any reader will imagine he came to power in the US, but it still might be as well to say "came to power in France".
  • Design
    • "Nomismatic historian" – "numismatic" I assume, but I didn't like to change it – one never knows.
  • Distribution, aftermath, and collecting
    • "imitation fractional gold pieces" – I couldn't quite grasp the meaning of this; that is, I know what all the words mean, but as a phrase they left me puzzled. Is it that the pieces had a minute percentage of gold in them?

Wehwalt continues to make numismatic articles interesting even to those like me who are not predisposed towards the subject. As well as covering the essentials fully, clearly and authoritatively, he throws in fascinating stuff about the 9-mile walk in the Agricultural Building (the mind boggles), and the origins of the song "Meet Me in St. Louis". The illustrations are as fine as in other coin articles from this contributor, which is saying a lot. Top flight stuff. – Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I don't see any issues, although I'd disagree with Tim's comment above about the need to specify where Napoleon came to power. Given that the whole paragraph is about French acquisition of the territory, it's pretty clear that Nappy is French.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments and support. I've made the changes Tim suggested, but I'm going with Sturm on the Napoleon matter. I think people know who it is and I agree it is clear from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me (though don't blame me when you find François Hollande sitting in the governor's chair in Louisiana – yet another French foreign adventure to distract the public from disaster at home). Tim riley (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:48, 5 April 2014 [3].

D'Oliveira affair

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (talk) and Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basil D'Oliveira was a fairly famous cricketer, but this isn't just another cricket article. He was far more widely known for the events described in this article, where his 1968 inclusion in an England team to tour his native South Africa effectively ended South Africa's participation in international cricket until 1991. These events are still fairly well-known, even outside cricket circles, in the UK today. This article is currently a GA and we have worked on extensively on it for a while. It had an excellent PR, and any further comments would be welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note on images: PD images from this period in the UK are hard to come by. We have included a Fair Use image of D'Oliveira from 1968, which we think is justified. There is a recent FA precedent at the Profumo affair, when it was argued here that an image of the main "character" was justified. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As one of the peer reviewers I had my few quibbles thoroughly dealt with there (though I still think "ramifications" in the lead would be better as a plainer "consequences", but I do not press the point). The nominators have marshalled the facts with surgical precision, and have been exemplary in their neutral reporting of this toe-curling episode in English sporting and political history. The prose is compellingly readable, the sourcing broad and the referencing comprehensive. I am no expert on WP's rules for images, but I support the use of the non-free picture of D'Oliveira, as the article would look frankly silly without a photograph of him. I cannot imagine a better article about this gruesome saga. – Tim riley (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the very kind words and the support, Tim! —Cliftonian (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather belatedly (I missed it earlier, and forgot afterwards!) there are no more ramifications in the lead! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As the GA reviewer, I felt that it was FAC ready even at that point, and that's something I virtually never say. Long yes, but a compelling read that doesn't feel bogged down. Wizardman 23:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind words and the support Wizardman. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Cliftonian's words of thanks for the above reviewers and supports. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (sorry I didn't do this during PR): If I don't mention an image, it's fine.

  • File:Basil D'Oliveira vs Australia, 1968.jpg - If this is a Getty image, per WP:NFCC #2 (as expanded on by WP:NFC#UUI) this should not be used. WP:NFC#UUI point seven includes "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." as an example of an unacceptable use of non-free content. Do we have any other images of D'Oliveira that we can use, or are there any that are not press agency/photo agency image?
  • Rather annoyingly all the pictures of him I seem to be able to find online are press images. If we cannot use one of these I imagine we would have to rely on somebody donating one. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I correct in thinking pictures more than 50 years old are okay as they are PD in SA, albeit not in the US? My understanding is that they need to be PD in the US for Commons—does this also apply if the image is only uploaded to the English Wikipedia? If so we should be able to find and use something from early in his career. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images on Commons have to be free in the source country and in the US, whereas images on English Wikipedia have to be free in the US at the very least. Owing to the URAA (the bane of my existence), which extended copyright on foreign works in 1996, many images that are PD in their country of origin are not able to be used on Wikipedia or Commons. There is discussion on Commons about rejecting the URAA considerations (very lengthy), but nothing of the sort on the English Wikipedia yet (i.e. URAA is still respected here, and must still be followed). Short answer: not okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm not convinced tat the photograph really is a Getty Image, I can't find anything that says he isn't. I'll do a bit of digging to see what else I can find, but I'm not hopeful and I suspect we might have to lose the lead image. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image update': The main biography contains lots of photographs... all of which are credited to press agencies. Sigh. No cards that have his image that I've been able to find. The only thing I've come up with is a photo from an old cricket magazine that has no photo credit whatsoever. It is just an image of D'Oliveira himself. Would that be OK? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The South African Copyright Act says (on p. 21, section 15, article 3): "The copyright in an artistic work shall not be infringed by its reproduction or inclusion in a cinematograph film or a television broadcast or transmission in a diffusion service, if such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place." Since this is a street sign telling people "these public premises" are for whites only, it seems to me that it would come under this definition. In any case I find it hard to believe that this text would come under copyright. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current understanding on Commons is "Since section 15(3) does not mention photographs, there is no freedom of panorama exemption in South Africa that would permit photographs of artistic works to be taken without infringing the copyright in the works." Wonky, I agree (what is a film but a series of photographs?), but that's how it's being treated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, I doubt this would be under the TOO in SA. The UK has a considerably lower TOO than the US. Now this may be under the TOO in the US, which would allow a local (Wikipedia only) upload, as our local files need only respect US copyright law. Again, though, I'm not sure if this would be enough to pass the TOO in the US. Moonriddengirl or Nikkimaria would probably know that best. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep; page 19, section 12, article 8(a): "No copyright shall subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts, or in speeches of a political nature or in speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings, or in news of the day that are mere items of press information". —Cliftonian (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I was unclear. Do we have a link to the law which regulates the "For use by white persons only" status of certain places (i.e. the actual apartheid-era segregation laws) so that we can see if the text is the same or similar to the text used in the sign we're discussing now? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Alright, the diction is essentially the same ("amenities" rather than "facilities", "public premises" instead of "public place", etc. etc.), so I think it would be safe to argue that there is not enough creativity to pass the TOO under US law. SA is a different story, but I think we can give this the benefit of the doubt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did my stuff at PR. Subject to resolution of the image issues above (and to a sources review which I will do) I am satisfied that this important article fully deserves promotion to FA, and I look forward to seeing it there. I saw D'Oliveira play several times in the 1970s, when he was a bit past his best but still a classy act. I also remember Allen, at his perch in the MCC Committee Room at Lord's, loudly complaining about the price of a cup of coffee. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. I notice that in the ref formatting the page ranges for the Oborne citations frequently overlap, e.g. refs 4 and 5, refs 38 and 39, and many similar. There may or may not be good reasons for this, but I thought I'd mention it. Otherwise, no issues on the sourcing. Brianboulton (talk)

I've merged a few references which will stand it, but I think the remaining ones need to be left. I'll have another look later to see if there are any others. Thanks for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:48, 5 April 2014 [4].

Imogen Holst

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imogen Holst composed, conducted, danced, played the piano, taught, wrote lots of books, started orchestras and choirs, ran festivals... and so on. She never really cut it as a composer, and her music is not much heard, but her huge contribution to Britain's musical life over many decades is widely acknowledged. I have referred to her as "Imogen" throughout the article, acknowledging her father's prior claim to be "Holst" and following the Cosima Wagner precedent. Thanks to various peer reviewers for some excellent suggestions and improvement; further suggestions very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was among those who peer reviewed the article, and my suggestions were thoroughly dealt with there. I am wholly in favour of the nominator's decision to use his subject's given name throughout: I saw an early draft in which the usual WP convention of surnaming her was attempted, and at many points it left one uncertain whether it was the father or the daughter who was being referred to. Balance, sourcing and referencing are all first class and the prose is a pleasure to read. As for completeness, Wikipedia leaves the competition at the starting post, giving this important figure in British music 6,300 words, unlike the the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which sprints through her life in a skimpy 1,130 words, and the supposedly authoritative Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, which spares her just 430 words. Another peer reviewer commented "Considering how much she did for others, it's great to see an article that does proper justice to Imogen", and I so agree! – Tim riley (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Also one of the peer reviewers. Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as another of the peer reviewers. I agree with every word Tim writes, and his comparisons show just how well this article contributes to Wikipedia's standing. --Stfg (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Another peer reviewer. Like Tim, I think "Imogen" works better than "Holst", and I have nothing but praise for this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand the reasoning for using "Imogen", but I'm not sure I like the implications it has for gender-neutrality. Shouldn't the article subject take precedence over a relative when it comes to formal, neutral naming? Why "Imogen" and not "Gustav"? I should stress that I'm not objecting to FA status, just floating the idea. Peter Isotalo 17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of have two minds about it - I agree that it seems minimizing to refer to her by her first name when standard practice is to use a person's last name. That said, perhaps the reason I feel less comfortable with the idea is that I'm not particularly familiar with the subject area. Perhaps referring to Imogen is as Holst is as jarring to experts as it would be to me to refer to Paula Hitler as "Hitler" throughout her biography. Based on a quick skim of Leopold Mozart, it seems he is usually referred to by his first name, in deference to his more famous son. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't known of Paula Hitler, but I agree she is a good example of someone whom it wouldn't really work to call by surname. Leopold Mozart is another excellent case in point, though that article calls both Mozarts by their first names. It would work to refer to Holst senior as "Gustav", but somehow I think it would feel strange and subtly wrong – I suppose because one is so used to thinking of the composer of The Planets as "Holst" tout court. There is also the (admittedly pedantic) point that legally, if not in practice, he was "Gustavus" until he changed his name formally in 1918. I think sticking to surnaming him and first-naming Imogen is clearest and the best option, on balance. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concerns expressed here. However, in the use of surnames I don't think an article's subject always should take precedence over a relative, especially when the relative in question is the more famous and is the one usually identified by that surname. More so, when the latter is a significant presence in the article. At the peer review, where I invited discussion on this point, every reviewer accepted that "Imogen" was the best alternative and, significantly, the least confusing to readers (an exact WP precedent is in Cosima Wagner, where the same issue and the same solution was applied). Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – a delight to read. I used to live in Thaxted and frequently walked past the house where I remembered her father. It was this building that led me to his music, and have since become a fan. I knew very little of Imogen, but thanks to this, I shall now root out some of her compositions. Cassiantotalk 21:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. I'm glad you enjoyed the article, and I hope you get some joy from the music – not to everyone's taste, I suspect, but somehow more appealing when you know something about the person that wrote it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

Overall an extremely good article which merits featured status. I've mulled over the comments above about the use of "Imogen", as opposed to Holst, and I think that if I was reading an article which continually referred to "Holst", I think I would start getting slightly confused with the better-known father, rather than daughter. I'm also swayed by the Hitler and Mozart parallels, which show that we do use a similar naming method in other areas where such a problem exists.

I've made a few very small edits here and there (on ellipses, pp.s and dashes); feel free to revert if you disagree or I've introduced errors. A very few very minor points for your consideration: accept or ignore as you see fit:

Birth

  • "Holst was born on 14 April 1907, at 31 Grena": is the comma needed here?

Royal College of Music

  • "This and other performances on the podium led the Daily Telegraph to speculate that Imogen might eventually become the first woman to "establish a secure tenure of the conductor's platform"." I think we can afford at least one comma in here?
  • There are a couple of places you could put one—it could even take two, if you turn part of the sentence into a sub clause—but I'll leave it to Brian to make a call on it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EFDSS and teaching, 1931–38

  • I almost corrected the title on this one, as we'd previously read about the EFDS (whose abbreviation had been explained) and not the EFDSS. It's only a couple of lines in that we're told EFDSS is another abbreviation and not an error
  • "she would protect her father's musical legacy, and began working on a biography": his biography, maybe?

Illness, death, tributes

  • "The two were close until 1929, and exchanged poetry. Tomalin married in 1931.": perhaps these two short sentences could run together, sandwiching a semi-colon as they do? (Yes, I too am aware of the irony of encouraging you to use more s-c.s, but you have been rather sparing with your use this time!)

Honours

  • "of Essex (1968), Exeter (1969), and Leeds (1983)." Just wondering why the serial comma, which you eschew elsewhere?
  • I tend not to use serial commas when the items are essentially part of a continuum, e.g. I would write "ham, egg and chips" not "ham, egg, and chips". In the case above, the universities are discrete bodies, and it seems that to remove the serial comma might give a sense that Exeter and Leeds were related in some way. This is not a stance that I will defend strongly if you really think the comma ought to go. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Music

  • "she uses dissonance to add power to the text": 'power' could be seen as slightly peacocky: would it be worth attributing this?

Notes

  • "The EFDSS was formed in December 1931": our own article has '32 (as does Grove) and that was also the impression I got from the section on Imogen, where we have "joining the staff of the EFDS early in 1932."
  • The exact note that I've cited reads: "The English Folk Dance Society (EFDS) became the English Folk Dance and Song Society (EFDSS) in December 1931, when it merged with the English Folk Song Society". The EDFS Grove article gives the amalgamation year as 1932. I have dug a little deeper, and discovered that the decision to amalgamate was indeed taken in 1931, but came into legal effect in March 1932. I don't think it's particularly important, but I've made the necessary alteration to the footnote and add a further citation – it's as well to be accurate in small things. Brianboulton (talk)

Nothing to knock off course what will be my imminent support, but just a couple of little things to consider first. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments and suggestions, which you will see that I have largely adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - happy to add my support to this ripping piece of work about a sadly overlooked lady. - SchroCat (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Why are the parentheses around series names italicized?
  • Holst (1974) - are you sure that the given OCLC number is not actually an ISBN?
  • Check alphabetization of Sources list
  • Compare FNs 5 and 6
  • Be consistent in whether you include retrieval dates for online newspaper articles
  • FN74: formatting
  • FN99: should be Oxford Music Online. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Marvellous to read. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support another peer reviewer here, had my say there. I feel this fine work comfortably meets the criteria and am delighted to support. Well done Brian, another triumph! —Cliftonian (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:48, 5 April 2014 [5].

Peru national football team

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | Talk 01:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Peru national football team, a presently mediocre sports team with an illustrious history. Several past (although relatively recent) FAC reviews ended in no consensus to promote not due to oppose votes, but rather due to lack of support votes (despite the plentiful commentary). This sports article is the best national football team model and deserves to be considered part of Wikipedia's featured content. Thanks.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further notes

  1. Image review conducted by Nikkimaria in archive 3. No new images have been added since then.
  2. Major improvement suggestions last addressed in archive 2. No new major changes have been made since then.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 12:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note

  1. Actually, after analyzing the article and its derived works, I have done a series of major improvements to the article this year (2014), including citation improvements, image re-arrangements, and content improvements. If the FA reviewers could please double-check the citations, it would be most appreciated. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not particularly knowledgeable about football, especially in South America, but I feel this nomination has waited long enough, so I am providing a few general comments which I hope will kickstart a more detailed review.

  • Opening words: "The Peru national football team represents Peru in international football competition". Isn't this rather a statement of the obvious?
  • In my view there is two much use of acronyms in he first paragraph. We have FPF, which you explain properly, then FIFA and CONMEBOL, which require readers to link to other articles. I think you might get away with FIFA, but I suggest "South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL)"
  • "Its traditional rival is Chile, but there is also a prominent rivalry with Ecuador". Awkward repetition, and "prominent" is probably not the best choice of adjective here. I would simplify to something like: "There are longstanding rivalries with Cile and with Ecuador"
  • "...because government sport authorities intervened in FPF affairs under allegations of corruption." Needs to be expressed more clearly, e.g. "while allegations of PFP corruption were investigated by the Peruvian governemnt's sporting authorities.
  • In the History section, what is meant by "food ways"? In general there is too much reliance in this section on direct quotations for fairly unremarkable expressions, for which a brief paraphrase would be more appropriate. For example, "British advisors, engineers, and other technicians (including sailors)" could easily be "British civilian workers and visiting sailors".
  • "ending last in both the 1990 and 1994 World Cup qualifiers" – "finishing last"?
  • A "hiatus" does not "experience" a recovery, full or slight. A hiatus (a break in continuity) may be followed by a recovery.
  • "...despite achieving third place at the 2011 Copa América and attaining its highest FIFA position in July 2013, Peru did not qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup". The word "despite" suggests that Perus 3rd place in the Copa America, and its FIFA ranking, were contributory factors in its World Cup qualification. They were not - the World Cup qualifying competition is a separate affair. The sentence could read: "Peru achieved third place at the 2011 Copa América, and reached its highest-ever FIFA position (19th) in July 2013. However, it failed to qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup."

I only have time for a few brief further observations:

  • Players": what you describe as the "current squad" was evidently put together for a single friendly match. Why was this match particularly notable, to separate these players out from the others? A squad chosen for one match does not normally become the "national squad".
  • You don't need dates of birth and ages - the ages will soon be out of date anyway.
  • "Recent callups" table: "in the last 12 months" needs some actual date referencing, since "the last twelve months" is a constantly shifting time span
  • What is the logic for the ordering of the players' names in this section?

That's all I have time for. My last observation is that the prose would benefit from a full copyedit by an editor who has considerable experience of writing in good quality English. I don't think previous copyeditors have done a particularly good job – the prose is decidedly flaky for a fifth-time nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, thank you very much for the review.
I agree that there are several redundant phrases and concepts in the article, but these are requirements from the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams. That link should answer your last few questions about the "current squad" and "the last 12 months". Also, the Scotland national football team article (the current only FA national football team) should further help out.
Some additional responses:
  • The logic of the players' ordering (in the "Recent callups") is based on the last match they played with the national team.
  • The article has been copy-edited various times (formally and informally), but its prose can certainly be improved by reviewers. If you have some additional time available, further prose improvement suggestions are by all means welcome.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

Support on prose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Curly Turkey
You'll have to search far and wide for someone who knows littler about footbal than myself, so feel free to laff at any naïvetés I may list here. I have been to Peru, though---but not Lima (my wife's Japanese, and the atmosphere was a little unfriendly for Japanese people when we were there in 2001). Feel free to disagree with any comment of mine, some of which are merely my preferences and wouldn't impact FAC eligibility.
  • "football became "a popular sport promoted by bosses for the cohesion of their workers and to a daily practice on empty lots in popular urban barrios" ": quotations should have inline attribution---but is there some reason this can't be reworded? Must it be a quote?
  • I wonder about some of the other quotes as well...not that I can pinpoint anything wrong with it, but there are a lot of them, and few or any of them seem like really "quotable" quotes.
  • " to the repression taken against "social, sporting and political organization among the urban and rural poor" during the 1940s and 1950s": is there something good to link to here?
  • "from the left shoulder to the right hip, in the front, and vice-versa, in the back": I might drop the first and third commas
  • "was one of Peru's four "FIFA Star II" (the highest certification granted to artificial pitches) stadiums": the parenthesis seems awkward to me reading aloud. How about something like "was one of Peru's four stadiums to be awarded "FIFA Star II", the highest certification granted to artificial pitches"?
  • "now covered by thousands": how about an "as of"?
  • "desert-like coastal region"; "was markedly English, played by members of the expatriate community and the Anglophile elite on grass pitches in clubs that were physically separated from the daily reality of Lima"; "a form of popular culture with autonomous characteristics of organization and practice"; "fervor, enthusiasm, and passion"; etc: attribution, or paraphrase?
  • "¡Arriba Perú!": would a translation (even in an endnote) be out of line?
  • "Supporters of Peru are infamously known for the Estadio Nacional disaster, considered as one of the most terrible in football history,[68] which occurred on May 24, 1964, during a 1964 Summer Olympics qualifying match between the youth (under-20) squads of Peru and Argentina.": I might split this into two sentences
  • "Peru's only hat-trick scorer": is "hat trick" worth a link?
  • "a pure goal scorer who would take on entire defenses", etc: attribution, or paraphrase?
  • " including friendlies": "friendlies" worth a link? (I don't know what it means)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Curly.
The repression against social organizations took place during the government of Manuel Odria. The Spanish WP has an article on it ([6]).
Most readers don't know the meaning of "hat-trick".
I don't know how to properly translate the sports chant.
All other points should be addressed.
I hope your visit to Peru was enjoyable. The only noteworthy thing about Lima, aside from the museums, is the food. The city is not much different from other major urban centers in the Western Hemisphere, except perhaps the driving experience is the worst of all.
Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk 03:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really enjoyed the few days I spent in Cusco, especially (obviously) Machu Picchu (and the 30¢ slices of lemon meringue pie I found)! A further nitpick: I didn't mean you should add "as of" to "now"—I meant that "now" will very quickly become "not now", so it would be best to have an "as of 2013" or whatever, or to avoid mentioning a time at all (the date of the renovation should be sufficient). Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I'm glad you had a good time in Cusco.
I removed the "as of now" part. I agree that it is best to avoid mentioning time.
Thank you.--MarshalN20Talk 15:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey: Dear friend, the article underwent a thorough copy-edit carried out by Cliftonian (see below for more information). At this time, would you oppose or support the nomination?--MarshalN20 Talk 15:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry it took me a while to come back. There are a couple of refs listed that you haven't cited anywhere: Glanville, Brian (2010). The Story of the World Cup; and Lennox, Doug (2009). Now You Know Soccer. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Curly. I moved the cited text to Peru at the FIFA World Cup. I should have also taken out those books from the references. It should now be fixed.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Cliftonian

Support—I have reviewed this article at great length over the past fortnight (see below) and have provided a thorough copy-edit. After a lot of progress I feel the article now meets the FA criteria and am happy to support its promotion. Well done MarshalN20; I hope this gets the support it needs this time. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cliftonian (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
;Lead and infobox
  • I would restructure the first two sentences thus: "The Peru national football team represents Peru in international football. Managed by the Peruvian Football Federation (FPF), it is one of the 10 members of FIFA's South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL)." (prose issues, and it competes against teams from all around the world when it qualifies for the World Cup finals.)
  • "The Peruvian team's performance has been inconsistent, although it enjoyed successful periods in the 1930s and 1970s." Use of "although" is inappropriate, as the following statement that certain periods were considered successful itself implies that other periods were less so. I would suggest removing "although", putting a semicolon here and clarifying that it enjoyed its most successful periods in the 1930s and 1970s.
  • Perhaps mention Lima is the capital of Peru (a lot of people wouldn't know)
  • Clarify that what they have qualified for four times are technically the World Cup final tournaments, not the World Cup tournaments themselves
  • Since they've only been to the Olympics once perhaps simpler just to say when it was: "and participated in the Olympic football tournament in 1936."
  • "The classic uniform colors" Perhaps "Peru's classic uniform colors"
  • "which is why the Peruvian team is commonly known as" perhaps "which gives rise to the Peruvian team's common Spanish nickname"
  • "Early in its history" Clarify we mean early in the team's history and not that of Peru the country
  • Teodoro Fernández, Juan Valdivieso, and Alejandro Villanueva—are these players?

back to continue later —Cliftonian (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be an understatement to state that I loved all the improvement recommendations. I look forward to the rest of the review. Thank you.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's really no problem, I'm glad you like the suggestions so much. I'm really enjoying helping out with this so thank you! =) —Cliftonian (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead and infobox, continued
  • I copyedited some of the new additions, I hope you don't mind
  • "Early in its history, Peru's national team participated in the inaugural FIFA World Cup tournament"—Why not just "Peru took part in the inaugural FIFA World Cup in 1930"?
  • "brought it to world recognition" perhaps "brought it worldwide recognition"
  • "Peru's 1982 World Cup participation was its last to date, and it has not since won a major tournament or qualified for the World Cup" How about "Peru last reached the World Cup finals in 1982; it has since failed to qualify, and has not won any major tournament."
  • "In late 2008, the team was temporarily suspended from international participation by FIFA while allegations of FPF corruption were investigated by the Peruvian government's sporting authorities." How about "FIFA temporarily suspended the team from international competition in late 2008 while Peruvian government investigated allegations of corruption within the FPF."
  • "Peru appointed Uruguayan Sergio Markarián as its head coach in 2010 and, after achieving third place at the 2011 Copa América, was unable to qualify for the 2014 FIFA World Cup." Perhaps mention the team is presently without a coach and that Sergio Markarián, from Uruguay, was the last incumbent? We don't need to mention that Peru didn't get to the 2014 World Cup again as we have already said they didn't get into a World Cup since 1982, so leave that out. I would keep that they came third in the 2011 Copa América; perhaps mention this is the best they've done since 1983 (so perhaps things are on the up! ;))
  • Infobox looks generally okay to me; I'd just put an inline citation on Palacios' 128 caps and on Pizarro being captain
History
  • I'd perhaps change the first use of football to "Assocation football"→"Association football was introduced to Peru ..." I don't know, I just think it makes it sound nice, I'll leave this one to your personal discretion
  • "in the nineteenth century" I think we prefer "in the 19th century" in MOS? I may be wrong
  • why don't you wikilink British immigrants to British Peruvian?
  • you don't need to wikilink England (everybody knows what England is)
  • Again, perhaps make clear that Lima is the capital city. Suggested reword: "As early as 1859, members of the British community in the capital Lima founded the Lima Cricket Club, a sports club dedicated to cricket, rugby, and football." (you don't need "the practice of", all it adds is extra words)
  • "of the War of the Pacific (1879–1883)"→I'd make this "of the War of the Pacific against Chile (1879–1883)."
  • "After the war, Peru's coastal society embraced modern cultural practices for leisure, the arts, and cuisine. In Lima, football became a popular daily activity in urban barrios. City workers were also encouraged to practice the sport by bosses who wanted to improve their laborer's solidarity and productivity." Perhaps "After the war, coastal society in Peru embraced modern innovations such as football, which became a popular daily activity in Lima barrios. Urban bosses encouraged their workers to take up the sport, hoping that it would breed solidarity and improved productivity."
  • "with local workers" why not just "with locals"
  • "Due to these factors, including the sport's rapid development among the urban poor of Lima's La Victoria district (thanks to the foundation of Alianza Lima in 1901), Peru formed the strongest footballing culture in the Andean region." Perhaps "These factors, coupled with the sport's rapid development among the urban poor of Lima's La Victoria district (where the Alianza Lima club was formed in 1901), led to Peru developing the strongest footballing culture in the Andean region.

all for now, will continue tomorrow —Cliftonian (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History, continued
  • "Peruvian Football League tournament" you don't need tournament
  • Perhaps rephrase this sentence as: "The Peruvian Football League was formed in 1912 and held each year until it broke up in 1921 amid disputes between the member clubs."
  • "Consequently, the Peruvian Football Federation (FPF)[C] was created in the following year and, in 1926, assumed the management of the Peruvian Football League." Try "The Peruvian Football Federation (FPF) was created the following year and, in 1926, it reorganised the annual league competition."
  • "The FPF joined the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) in 1925, but due to financial problems it only formed a national football team in 1927,[19] which debuted in that year's South American Championship.[12]" Try "The FPF joined the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) in 1925, and formed a national team in 1927—the delay was due to financial issues. The team debuted in the 1927 South American Championship, which the FPF hosted at the Estadio Nacional in Lima."
  • Perhaps mention here that Peru's first win was a 3–2 victory over Bolivia in their second international game?
  • "During the 1930s, Peruvian football lived its first golden era." You should really say instead that this has been called a golden era. "The 1930s have been called Peruvian football's first golden era." Or something like that.
  • Say what Rodillo Negro means in English ("black roller")
  • wikilink Alejandro Villanueva, Juan Valdivieso, and Teodoro Fernández, and mention that these are players. Perhaps say what positions they respectively played. What exactly made them "a soccer triumvirate unsurpassed in the world at that time"?
  • "After a fair performance"—"a fair performance" seems terribly vague and, er, they played two games and lost them both. Perhaps just say they took part in the inaugural World Cup in Uruguay in 1930 (I think it's worth mentioning it was in Uruguay, another South American country).
  • Why were poor organisations in Peru repressed during the 1940s and 1950s?
  • "generally reached the middle standings" perhaps "generally performed creditably"
  • "In this period, Peru generally reached the middle standings at South American Championships and barely missed the Sweden 1958 World Cup, after being defeated by Brazil (which went on to win the competition)" Perhaps "Peru generally performed creditably at the South American Championships during this period, and narrowly missed qualification for the 1958 World Cup finals in Sweden, losing over two legs to eventual champions Brazil."
  • "A series of victories in the late 1960s, culminating in the qualification for the Mexico 1970 World Cup, brought Peru to another golden era." Try "A series of successes during the late 1960s, culminating for the Mexico 1970 World Cup, ushered in a second golden period for Peruvian football."
  • "Peru reached the quarterfinals, where it was knocked out by eventual winners Brazil, and earned the first FIFA Fair Play Trophy."→"Peru reached the quarter-finals in 1970, losing to the tournament winners Brazil, and earned the first FIFA Fair Play Trophy."
  • "while in Spain 1982" should be "and in Spain 1982"
  • "the first stage" should be "the first group stage" (to concisely make clear there were two group stages that year)
  • "Peru's early elimination" should be "Peru's early elimination in 1982" (more clear)
  • "Following its failed qualification" should be "Following its failure to qualify for the 1986 World Cup in Mexico"
  • "as "The Colts" (Spanish: Los Potrillos)" should be "as Los Potrillos ("The Colts")" (I think it is clear from context this is Spanish)
  • "leaving among the dead several national team players (including rising sensation Luis Escobar and goalkeeper José González Ganoza) and coach Marcos Calderón." put a full stop before this and make this into a new sentence. "All aboard were killed except the pilot. Among the dead were the national team coach Marcos Calderón and several Peruvian international players, including Luis Escobar, widely tipped as a future star forward, and goalkeeper José González Ganoza."
  • "South Korea/Japan 2002 and Germany 2006 tournaments" make clear these are World Cup tournaments
  • wikilink goal difference
  • say the Kirin Cup is in Japan
  • briefly explain that Peru was invited to the Gold Cup in 2000 as a guest team
  • Why was a corrupt official blamed for the players' perceived poor performance?
  • "considered his re-election illegal" perhaps "declared his re-election illegal"
  • In the final sentence in this section move the "however" from the start of the sentence to the end
  • Make clear in the image caption that the players are named from left to right (I presume they are). Also maybe move the image down to the 1970s paragraph and put it on the right (if it overlaps slightly into the section on the team's kit this is no great bother as it nicely displays the team's kit too)

Back later to continue —Cliftonian (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform
  • How about "Colours" or "kit"? These are terms more commonly used in football than "uniform". I'd go for "colours" myself.
  • When we say Peru's national colors are red and white, we mean the country in a non-sporting sense, right? If so, I'd make this clearer. Put something like "The Peru football team plays in red and white, the country's national colors."
  • Why not mention the first kit had black socks?
  • "on the front", not "in the front"; same "on the back"
  • They haven't used the exact same design since 1936, have they? Perhaps make clear that the basic sash design dates back to 1936, but that it has been slightly altered periodically during that time.
  • I think this section would benefit from a slight reorganisation; I think it might work better if you discuss each design directly when it is introduced, as opposed to the present format where you introduce the four designs, then go back and discuss each of them.
  • "claiming that" seems odd wording; all Turpin said was that he thought it was the nicest kit, not that it unambiguously was. I'd replace this with "saying that".
  • "eight separate companies"→"separate" is not needed, "eight companies" means the same thing
  • Is arkivperu.com a reliable source? Looks like a blog to me. Likewise Jaime Pulgar-Vidal Otálora (blogspot).
  • Kit pictures are very nicely laid out, well done

Back for more later —Cliftonian (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements. A few responses:
  • Yes, Arkivperu & Pulgar-Vidal are both reliable sources.
  • Goldblatt does not explain why sports organizations were repressed.
  • I haven't found another source that mentions sports organizations in Peru during this period. Based on personal knowledge, I would guess the repression is related to the Manuel A. Odría administration. However, Odría was also a populist, and prior Peruvian administrators (such as that of Manuel Prado) were not supportive of organizations that united the poor or industrial workers (which is partially why APRA became an important political force). The convoluted nature of Peruvian politics may also explain why Goldblatt decided to avoid elaborating on the subject.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think I understand. I'm sorry I am so ignorant of matters Peruvian! Perhaps just add a few words to make clear it was the government that was repressing the organisations? ("He attributed this sudden decline to Peruvian authorities' repression of "social, sporting and political organizations among the urban and rural poor" during the 1940s and 1950s." or something like that should do). —Cliftonian (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rodillo Negro did not participate in the 1930 World Cup. I attempted to make the sentence a "before and after" contrast, but (in retrospect) it does not seem to have been expressed properly.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 06:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you go back through the previous comments again as some of them don't seem to have been addressed. For example, what exactly made Villanueva, Valdivieso, and Fernández "a soccer triumvirate unsurpassed in the world at that time"? Does the source say? Only a word or two of explanation is required to make this part clear for the reader. I'll continue the review later. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apologize for the delay. Everything up to "Colours" should be ready.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so patient and polite with me, as I say above I am rather ignorant of both Peru the country and its football team (which is a large factor in what makes reviewing this interesting)—all I knew before was the wonderful red sash kit! I will go back and copy-edit a little in the history section before continuing the review, I hope you don't mind. Well done so far, this is shaping up nicely. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will be back late tomorrow (3 February) to continue this review. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to the colors section look great, well done! I have just copy-edited the prose a little bit. Right, on with the review.

Stadium
  • "The Estadio Nacional is a 45,000-spectator stadium located in Lima that acts as the traditional home of the Peruvian team and the national stadium of Peru." This sentence seems kind of backwards to me. I would put :The traditional home of the Peruvian team is the country's national stadium, the Estadio Nacional in Lima, which houses 45,000 spectators." Or something like that.
  • Was the first national stadium also called the Estadio Nacional? Why not say this is the third Estadio Nacional, the result of a renovation process under Alan Garcia that was completed in 2011, and that the original was a wooden structure ... etc
  • "Peru's centenary of independence" should be "the centenary of Peru's independence"
  • You don't need to wikilink Spain, everybody knows what Spain is
  • "regime" is a somewhat loaded word in English, try "government" or even just putting "Under General Manuel Odría, the stadium ..."; this still makes sense and is more concise
  • "reconstructed, expanded, and officially re-inaugurated" expanded seems superfluous here; how could it be expanded if it was reconstructed at the same time? try "rebuilt with a larger capacity, and officially re-inaugurated"
  • I'd move the sentence about this being the present stadium up (see comment above)
  • "A unique feature" all features are unique; I'd replace this word
  • "named in honor of the main advocate of the stadium's first renovation" who was he? A politician? a civil servant? a sports coach?
  • "overtime" should be "over time" ("overtime" as one word is a noun equivalent to "injury time" in US English)
  • "The arena was also the only national stadium in CONMEBOL to have artificial turf, installed to improve its aesthetic appeal for the 2005 FIFA U-17 World Championship, and was one of Peru's four "FIFA Star II" stadia, the highest certification granted to artificial pitches." You should rearrange this to make clear that stadium had artificial turf from 2005, but doesn't now (I know you say this in the next paragraph but this is quite jarring)
  • "located in" You don't need "located"; just saying "in" means the same thing
Supporters
  • "Amid the 2014 World Cup qualifiers" try "During the 2014 World Cup qualifiers" ("amid" would mean during that period, but not actually during those games)
  • "During the 19th century, football in Peru was not only exclusive to Lima's Anglophile elite and former expatriates, but it was also secluded from the rest of the city." Try "During the 19th century, football in Peru was largely exclusive to Lima's Anglophile elite and expatriates, and secluded from the rest of the city."
  • "as the practice of the sport" why not just "as the sport"
  • "of a wider popular culture" you don't need "a"
  • "In the 21st century, football is the most popular sport in Peru" Perhaps "Football is today the most popular sport in Peru." I would recommend putting this at the start of this section
  • "Peruvian fans commonly encourage the national squad with the popular sports chant ¡Arriba Perú!" How about "Peru fans often encourage the national team with cries of ¡Arriba Perú! ("Come on Peru!")."
  • "it became "a symbol of national culture" for Peru" try "it became a symbol of [Peruvian] national culture."
  • "Peru Campeón, a polca criolla" translate these Spanish terms
  • "qualification to the Mexico 1970 World Cup" should be "qualification for"
  • "considered as one of the most terrible in football history" perhaps "which is often cited as one of the worst tragedies in football history"
  • "the youth (under-20) squads of Peru and Argentina" maybe "Peru's under-20 team and its counterpart from Argentina"
  • "goal from Peru, which would have tied the score, alleging "rough play" from the Peruvians" maybe "Peruvian goal, a would-be equalizer, alleging rough Peruvian play."
  • "jumped into the field" maybe "invaded the pitch"
  • "on the pitch" is not necessary; "thrown from the stands" is enough
  • "Police responded by throwing tear gas into the crowd, causing a stampede that was worsened by the stadium's locked gates. The death toll amounted to 315 spectators and more than 500 were injured in the chaos." Try "Police threw tear gas into the crowd, which caused a stampede; trying to escape, fans were crushed against the stadium's locked gates. A total of 315 people were killed in the chaos, with more than 500 others injured."
Rivalries
  • "Peru maintains prominent football rivalries with Chile and Ecuador. They have a favorable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile.[72][73] The first time Peru faced both its rivals in an official tournament was during the 1939 South American Championship held in Lima; Peru won both matches.[74] In the FIFA World Cup, Peru's first confrontation against both rivals happened during the Argentina 1978 World Cup qualifiers, in which Peru directly eliminated Ecuador and Chile after defeating them in Lima and securing away draws.[72][73]" Perhaps:
  • "The Peru football team maintains prominent rivalries with its counterparts from neighbouring Chile and Ecuador.[72][73] The Peruvians have a favorable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile. Both of these rivalries date back to the 1939 South American Championship in Lima, when Peru first faced Ecuador and Chile in an official tournament; Peru won both games.[74] Peru's first FIFA World Cup matches against its two rivals were played during qualifying for the Argentina 1978 World Cup; Peru defeated both Ecuador and Chile over two legs, directly eliminating them both.[72][73]"
  • "considers it to be" perhaps "ranks it"
  • "Chile has" perhaps "the Chilean team has"
  • "Both nations further dispute the origin of the football move known as the bicycle kick, with Peruvians naming it chalaca and Chileans calling it chilena." Perhaps "both nations furthermore claim to have invented the bicycle kick; Peruvians call it the chalaca, and it is the chilena in Chile."
  • "prevent both sides from facing each other" perhaps "prevent a match between the two sides"

Okay that's it for now; more later or tomorrow. Hope this helps —Cliftonian (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is fantastic. To my mind comes that quote attributed to Michelangelo: "Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it." I brought the stone, and you're the artist making a masterpiece out of it. [:)]--MarshalN20 Talk 14:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you for the extremely flattering words! I'm glad you feel that way. I noticed that one of the images lower down infringed on copyright (falsely labelled as self-published, but actually from Popperfoto), so I took it out. I don't think it's a great loss anyway. Okay, on to "Competitive records".
FIFA World Cup
  • "Peru has participated in 14 World Cup qualifiers and 4 World Cup finals." Try "The Peruvian team competed at the first World Cup in 1930 as invitees, and has entered each tournament at the qualifying stage since 1958. Having qualified three times (in 1970, 1978 and 1982), it has taken part in the World Cup finals four times."
  • "In the qualifiers, the squad has a record of 35 wins, 30 draws, and 59 losses, with 130 goals in favor and 174 against." Perhaps "Peru's all-time record in World Cup qualifying matches as of 2014 stands at 35 wins, 30 draws and 59 losses; the team has scored 130 goals and conceded 174."
  • "In the finals, the team holds a record of 4 wins, 3 draws, and 8 losses, with 19 goals in favor and 31 against." Maybe "In the finals, the team has won four matches, drawn three and lost eight, with 19 goals in favor and 31 against."
  • expand to "During the 1930 competition, a Peruvian became the first player sent off in a World Cup—his identity is disputed between sources."
  • "first tournament goal" why not "first World Cup goal"
  • "Teófilo Cubillas is the team's top World Cup scorer with 10 goals in 13 games" this is including qualifiers, right?

More tomorrow —Cliftonian (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I don't think the large tables and templates in the "competitive records" section really belong in this article about the Peru football team in general. They are rather intrusive and detract somewhat from the prose, in my opinion. I think these would be better off in the individual articles linked to or in an article on the Peru football team's statistics. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon the delay in updating the article. I'm currently stuck with a few dull tasks at work. [:/]
The achievement tables are a standard across all national football team articles. I personally agree with you that they are bulky and detract from the prose. However, this would be a long-term matter to discuss with the editors at WP:FOOTY and change the format.
Hmmm. Is there a way to make it so these tables are hidden by default? This might be a good way around this—the information would be retained for those who want it (who can easily open the table), but would not be as intrusive and distracting. I think we can do this by going to the individual template pages and changing the class to "wikitable collapsible collapsed". I would recommend taking the templates with the squads for each tournament out. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Polca criolla" is the same in Spanish and English. Another common name in English is "Peruvian polka", which is the correct translation of the other common Spanish name "polca peruana". Based on GoogleBooks results, I get the impression that "polca criolla" is more common in the academic realm (perhaps because it has a more exotic tone to it). Regardless, I think either is fine. Which do you prefer?
Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 05:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could best put it as "Peru Campeón, a polca criolla (Peruvian polka)". I hope this is okay with you? Don't worry at all about delays, I understand completely. I hope all this is helpful and that you are well —Cliftonian (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I hope to soon create the "polca criolla" article, but I'm debating on whether to focus on that first or expand the Musica criolla article.
I am now on the records section. The boxes are now collapsed. The team templates need to be in the article. I can move them to the bottom of the page. Would you prefer them to be at the bottom of the article?
Bet wishes.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry it took me a couple days to get back to this. I think perhaps having them at the bottom would be best as they are a little in the way as it is, even though they are collapsed. I will copy-edit the rest of the article over the next few days and then have a final look over. I hope this is okay and that you are well. See also my note below. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some copy-editing and reorganisation but have not finished yet; please give me a couple more days. Thanks —Cliftonian (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still awestruck by the improvements. I do, nonetheless, feel nostalgic for the kit evolution pictures.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I have finished copyediting the article now, and am now concluding this part of the review. I hope all the changes I have made are to your satisfaction. I have just one more query regarding the prose and captions: "The renovated Estadio Nacional offers high-quality lighting for HD newscasts"—what does this mean? I don't understand. Apart from this I am happy enough to support so far as prose is concerned. You also need to go through and work on the reference formatting (for example, you have "CONMEBOL.com" and "FIFA.com" listed as publishers, when it should just be "CONMEBOL" and "FIFA"—the publisher is the organisation, not the name of the website). Also keep in mind what I said about sourcing; you have quite a few blogs in here and these are sure to throw up question marks. I am sorry but I still don't feel comfortable supporting this for FA status while these issues remain surrounding the references. I hope you're well and having a nice weekend. Cheers, —Cliftonian (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the changes are fantastic. It may just be nostalgia, but I would have liked to keep the kit evolution pictures in the "Colours" section.
The "high-quality lighting..." part refers to the improved lights of the stadium, which (according to the source) make High-Definition (television) newscasts possible.
All the ".com" issues should now be resolved. Certain websites, such as "Peru.com", have the ".com" as part of their official name.
All of the blogs are reliable per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
The only website I can agree that is borderline acceptable is "ArkivPeru", but I think it can be removed if you think the article would be better without using it.
Thanks for all the improvements!--MarshalN20 Talk 15:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed ArkivPeru from a couple of citations, replacing one with a source from El Comercio. I left it for the citation of Peru's kit history (no other source has such a detailed account of it).--MarshalN20 Talk 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is okay, well done. The issue I mentioned above regarding the publisher formatting still remains, though—in a lot of instances you give the web address or the work as the publisher rather than the publisher itself.
  • El Comercio, for example, is a newspaper, right? It should go under "work", not publisher. The publisher is "Empresa Editora El Comercio". (this is also the publisher for Peru.com, Peru21.pe, Depor.pe and Laprensa.pe; these are all works).
  • Give RSSSF in full: it is the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation.
  • Don't put "Arkivperu.com", just put "ArkivPeru".
  • "Blogs.PUCP.edu.pe" should be replaced with the name of the institution (Pontifical Catholic University of Peru).
  • "Jaimepulgarvidal.blogspot.com" should be his name: "Jaime Pulgar-Vidal Otálora".
  • Is Clarín a company or a publication/website? If the latter, it is a work; find the publisher.
  • "El Universal.mx" should be "El Universal" and included as a work, not a publisher.
  • "Libero.pe" should just be "Libero".
I hope this helps and that you are well —Cliftonian (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is good. Clarin is the work, and "Grupo Clarin" is the publisher. Thank you for teaching me to distinguish between both.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that adding the common acronym to the first full citation, such as "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF)", would then permit me to solely use the acronym in subsequent citations? I just did this, but can also quickly change everything to the full name.
I hope all is good with you as well. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why this would not be okay (RSSSF is the more common term anyway). —Cliftonian (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

I now support this candidate. Well done for all the improvements. --John (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John.--MarshalN20 Talk 01:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from John (talk)
See my note in talk. Was there a reason this was changed from UK to US English? --John (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John:. This article hasn't been "changed from UK to US English". I wrote most of the pre-FA review draft. English is not my first language, and I learned to write/speak it from a variety of individuals, including French Vietnamese, Midwestern Americans, and British Peruvians. Basing a "procedural oppose" on the language of a subpar version of the article, from nearly a decade ago ([8]), is astonishing.
Moreover, my first edit on the article was in 2007 ([9]), by which time there were no mention of "colours" or "neighbours" (which are the only UK English words I could catch from the 2004 version). I hope this answers your query. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It should be kept in the original dialect per WP:RETAIN. If you didn't change it (and I accept you didn't), it should be easy enough to change it back. --John (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have minded at all to write the article in UK English, as I did (with the help of UK English writing editors) in Falkland Islands, but at this point the request is excessive.
In fact, I consider the following part of WP:RETAIN to apply to this case: "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety. The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page." Two words ("colours" and "neighbours") do not establish a consistent variety.
Nonetheless, if you would like to change the language from US to UK English, please feel free to go ahead and do it (and tag it accordingly on the talk page). However, please don't oppose this article's nomination based on a 2004 edition, which was little more than a stub with only two identifiable UK English words.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 00:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat bemused by the idea that this should not go to FA status on the basis of an ENGVAR issue from a decade ago. The only important thing for me is that one variety, either UK or US English, is used consistently throughout. I would personally prefer UK-style English just because that's what I'm more used to. One though that has just occurred to me is that using British English would be a quite nice way to subtly give a nod to the British founders of Peruvian football. What do you think? Whatever we decide, I am happy to go through and make sure the whole article conforms to one variety. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any preference over either variety. However, I am unable to conduct such a massive change at this time. If perhaps John or you could please do then change, then that would be great. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will convert the article to BrE in a couple days (I'll be unable to until then because of real life commitments). I hope this settles this issue. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now in British English. I hope this is okay with everybody. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cliftonian. @John:, everything good?--MarshalN20Talk 23:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you have tried to fix this. I cannot support though because the prose is still not at the requisite level. "Furthermore" and "however" are danger flags of bad writing to me, and I see we still have "centered" among the UK spellings. I think a good copy-edit could take this to the standard but it is not there yet. --John (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about this. I will endeavour to rectify this when I copyedit this article in a few days. I hope you're well and having a pleasant week. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished copyediting now; what do you think now? Thanks —Cliftonian (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Friend, the article underwent a thorough copy-edit carried out by Cliftonian (see above for more information). Everything you mentioned was addressed (UK English and good copy-edit). Only two "however" are in the article, and these are appropriately used in the history section. Given these major changes, would you keep the oppose or change to support the nomination? Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, yes, thank you very much for the improvements.--MarshalN20 Talk 00:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by Wizardman

  • Image review: I see an img review was done in the last FAC, but doesn't hurt to double-check. 10 images in all, first one is a logo that passes copyleft status due to its simplicity. Rest of the images check out ok except for the ones noted. First, File:Perurumania1930.JPG is tagged as PD for Chile, but it shows a Peru-Romania match. I'm sure it is PD, but is that the right tag? If Los Sports, the source, is Chilean, perhaps make that clear. If it is based in Peru, then change to the Peru PD tag you use elsewhere. Also, I'd like to see File:Inside Estadio Nacional (Lima, Peru).jpg's description fleshed out due to how vague it is, though it is not a requirement. Wizardman 04:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Wizardman. Yes, it seems Los Sports was a Chilean magazine published during the 1930s (there's a substantial article on it in the Spanish Wikipedia). The Peru-Romania match was surprisingly violent, so that may be the reason it got coverage in Chile. Although I imagine the World Cup was also the only notable sporting event that took place in South America at that time.
I improved the description of the Estadio Nacional image, but I really don't know what was going on the day it was taken.--MarshalN20 Talk 05:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and linked Los Sports on the image, since I didn't realize we had an article on it (one sentence, but it exists). Everything else looks good now img-wise. Wizardman 00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nergaal

There are a bunch of issues I noticed and I will try to list them as I go through:

Intro
  • "he 1930s and 1970s" there should be another the after and
  • " and is without a manager..." there is something weird about this whole sentence
  • second para and on: I don't really like how the intro is organized; please try to talk about each set a competitions in an order: start with WC record - by taking 2 or 3 sentences; then talk about the copa america; then other stuff such as the olympics
  • have 3rd para talk about say famous people and managers
  • then perhaps talk about rivalries, jersey, etc
  • last intro para talk about recent developments and current trends in performances
History
  • I don't really like how this section is and I think you should have 3 subsections: 1) early beginnings and first world cups (1930s); after Rodillo Negro up to 1982; 3) modern/recent era
  • when was the first friendly and first official international game played?
  • "Starting with Ciclista Lima in 1926, Peruvian clubs toured Latin America." needs a citation
  • "Peru took part in the inaugural FIFA World Cup in Uruguay in 1930" move to next para
  • " the national team's underperformance" during what period?
  • " reached its highest-ever position in the FIFA world rankings" I think you need to specify here since when are the rankings recorded/calculated
  • "It failed to qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup finals, nonetheless" please state the place. You should clearly state the performances for whenever you say it failed to qualify (i.e. was it #9 or #4?)
After history
  • "the country's national colours" are they national colors, or just flag's colors?
  • " it was most recently renovated i" plural?
  • the stadium section is a bit longer than it needs to be; who cares about vip boxes and other aluminium crap?
  • when was the last time a game was played at a different stadium?
  • supporters section could probably benefit from an image (of supporters painted/dressed in whatever color(s))
rivalries
  • please give some statistics of W/D/L games
Records
  • "During the 1930 competition, a Peruvian became the first player sent off in a World Cup—his identity is disputed between sources" should probably be moved in the history part
  • "eru came top of their group in the first round, eliminating Chile and Bolivia, and in the semifinals drew with Brazil over two legs, winning 3–1 in Brazil but losing 2–0 at home. Peru were declared winners by drawing of lots. In the two-legged final between Colombia and Peru, both teams won their respective home games (1–0 in Bogota and 2–0 in Lima), forcing a play-off in Caracaswhich Peru won 1–0" should be summarized in the history section
  • perhaps mention here that only the big three won the cup more than twice
  • the bottom two para in the olympic section are TMI
Players
  • please decrease the font size to something like 90% and auto-hide the recent callumps stuff
  • add a (hidden) table for the notable players section with caps and goals

Nergaal (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Nergaal. I addressed the most important that I could easily fix at the moment. Some comments:
  • The Ciclista Lima etc. citation (#22) covers two sentences.
  • I'm very limited when it comes to tables & other such Wiki-gadgets. Plus, I remember the WP:FOOTIE members did not want for the player tables to be altered from the current consensus (all football articles have the same format for the player tables).
  • I'd prefer for the history section to have no subsections.
Ian plans to close this FAC on either Friday or Saturday. Hopefully it will pass so that this FAC review matter is not again repeated for a fifth time. We can discuss the other suggestions you're making afterwards. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, most of your suggestions are merely personal preferences over non-major matters (including points that challenge the established consensus at WP:FOOTY). I have addressed those points that indeed required immediate attention (such as: [10]), but the rest can be discussed at a later date. As much as I appreciate your review, simply not abiding by everything you list does not entitle a logical oppose to this nomination. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 Talk 21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, when Marshal and I discussed on my talk page, I said I'd close it Friday/Saturday if nothing much had changed, and since then John's concerns have been resolved and we've had an additional review, hence it's remained open. Now, it may be that some of Nergaal's suggestions are indeed not actionable because they don't follow football article conventions, and I know you've mentioned a couple of things and included a diff of changes above, Marshal, but it'd be easier for the FAC delegates to judge things if you responded to each of Nergaal's points to say it's been actioned or it hasn't been actioned because... Per FAC instructions, just don't use {{done}} templates or the like.
  • Also, have I missed a source review above, i.e. one checking the references for reliability and consistent formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. I'll address the points in a list (which should match, point-by-point, what has been presented by Nergaal:
Intro
  • Addressed.
  • Addressed.
  • Disagree; Because: subject to personal preference; current introduction is the result of various past copy-edits (the last being conducted by Cliftonian), and I like it as well.
You mean you disagree with my 4 of my comments? Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is a single one, which you then proceeded to elaborate. I don't see how it can be interpreted in any another manner, but I respect your perspective if you disagree. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • Disagree. I prefer that the section remain without subsections because it makes the table of contents and the section too bulky.
You can have the TOC show only the 1st level subtitles Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First international game was already mentioned, please read second paragraph. Friendlies are rarely important (i.e., the "first friendly" is unimportant).
Depends if the friendlies were before the first official matches. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peru had no friendlies prior to the first official match.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressed
  • Addressed
  • Addressed
  • Addressed
  • Disagree; too much detail for summary.
After history
  • Addressed. National colours.
I don't see how. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction & body did not have the same information. Introduction mentioned flag, but body talked about national colours. I addressed the problem with the following edit: [11]. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rivalries
  • Disagree; too much information. Also, information is not available without conducting WP:OR.
How can you talk about a rivalry without saying who is winning that rivalry? It is like saying USA and USSR had a big rivalry during the cold war and not saying one of them eventually failed. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, the second sentence of the sections states: "The Peruvians have a favourable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile." This sentence indicates who is winning the rivalries. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Records
  • Disagree; this is a World Cup record.
  • Disagree; information is specifically related to Peru's Copa America record (second victory).
  • Good, but not necessary.
  • Addressed. Mixed the two paragraphs into a single one, removing extra information not directly related to the Olympic tournament.
Players
  • Recommendation is against WP:FOOTY conventions. All football articles have the same table.
  • Disagree. The player records section is at the end of the article.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 23:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just based on the above it does look to me that the nominator has made a reasonable attempt to deal with these comments, and I'd welcome Nergaal's response. In the meantime, a source review is still needed, and I've listed a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian & Nergaal, I have also addressed the supporters image recommendation. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 05:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, Cliftonian appears to have done a source review above - did you want another? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Ah, I did miss that -- no, that's fine tks, Nikki, stand down...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sorted, I still believe the nominator has made reasonable efforts to address the concerns of the one opposing review, so it's time (finally) to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Comment from Giants2008

Good catch. Thank you Giants2008.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 08:01, 1 April 2014 [12].

Tjioeng Wanara

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back, with another candidate on an obscure, lost, Indonesian film by Rd. Ariffien (i.e. after Asmara Moerni). Unlike my previous nominations, this one is not based on a novel, stage play, or original screenplay, but rather a legend which reportedly took place in the Ciamis area. Using some sources I got at Sinematek Indonesia, I've managed to put together what appears to be the most comprehensive discussion of this film yet published.

This article has been reviewed at GAC by J Milburn and at PR by Wehwalt, Cassianto, SchroCat, and Sarastro. Hope you enjoy it! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – the article is superb and I am happy to vouch my support for its promotion to FAC. I have given this another read through and can see no real problems. A few minor quibbles:
  • "beloved to his people and his wife Naganingroem." Why am I wanting to say "beloved by his people and his wife Naganingroem."?
  • "The premiere of Tjioeng Wanara was shown to a packed theatre. Reception of the film, however, was mixed. An anonymous review in the Soerabaijasch Handelsblad was positive, considering the film to be successful in its adaptation of the legend, while another, in the same newspaper, recommended it." – I would swap "considering" to "considered".
  • "The film was screened as late as June 1948..." – Does a new paragraph justify the name of the film again instead of "The film"?

Cassiantotalk 19:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very strong article. Only two small comments. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which was screened through 1948" Do you mean something like "until 1948"? through 1948 would mean from Jan-Dec 1948, without any mention of whether it was screened any other year. Perhaps, given what you say in the body, "which was still being screened as late as 1948" would work?
  • "using the name of Balai Pustaka, the official publishing house of the Dutch East Indies government known for its printed versions of traditional tales, in advertisements." You mention Balai Pustaka in the previous section- you may want to consider moving this description to earlier. If you prefer it your way (and I can see why you might) please do not change it on my account.
  • I think I prefer it further down, owing to the sentence construction on the first mention and the fact that BP's status as a state-run publisher was more important in relation to the advertising than anything else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I was at the PR, and my few concerns were dealt with there. Another fine article. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support So was I, me too.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- source and image reviews, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Titles which are the names of individuals or films (Tjioeng Wanara, AB Djoenadi, etc. are not translated). Neither are titles in which the translation would be the same as the Dutch/Indonesian ("Sampoerna: 'Tjioeng Wanara'": Sampoerna being the name of the movie theatre, Tjioeng Wanara being this film, playing in said theatre). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 08:01, 1 April 2014 [13].

Musca

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the only official constellation depicting an insect...Musca the fly...this was enjoyable to work on with lots of interesting stars and connections. I feel it is the equal of several other constellations I have buffed to FAC. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN6: publisher?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest truncating GBooks links after page
never found out how..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oops...conformed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments Meets standard, two comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some overlinking, including Petrus Plancius twice in one sentence in lead, please run dup links detector
removed dups Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea of the size of Alpha Muscae?
parameters of Alpha added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from ST
  • I think it would probably be best if the first sentence of the first paragraph of the "Stars" section were moved to the "History" section.
done - I think you're right - it goes better further up the article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • About LP 154-141: "It is considered a good candidate to look for Jupiter-like planets." Why?
this is a little tricky as to how much information to put in the constellation article as a teaser in some ways, and elaborating in the daughter article. Essentially as a nearby and relatively hot and heavy white dwarf - the latter two points mean that it has formed more recently and the overall system was a more massive and hence short-lived one, and hence was of cosmologically more recent origin (I presume this is because the system then should have higher metallicity and hence more likely to have planets, but I can't find that stated in the source article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being located in the plane of the Milky Way, I'm surprised at the dearth of deep-sky objects. Are there really no more interesting ones in this entire constellation?
don't recall seeing anthing else and it is a small constellation, will make another pass over literature...found tow more planetary nebs - will add a bit added so not so listy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised that the X-ray binary 2S 1254-690 isn't mentioned at all; it's certainly notable and interesting.
just made a stub - now to do a little reading to summarise. got it in now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with SY Muscae, an interesting symbiotic star.
just made a stub - now to do a little reading to summarise. added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's really all the complaints I have; everything else looks good to me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks good. Here's a few items that need attention:
  • "Theta Muscae is a remote triple star system...": Unnecessary vagueness; they are all remote systems.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tricky that - the original reference was about the south polar constellations of which Musca is one. I found another ref which was a bit better. Technically something really low above the horizon is only visible if I am on the ocean or in a really flat location, so maybe 35S is more realistic than 25S for practical circumpolarity...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's only going to be low on the horizon for part of the Earth's rotation, and then only at night for around half of the year. Also, you can view the horizon from a hill or mountain top, even in rough terrain. But I can understand your point about practicality, since it is a faint constellation. Maybe if you had a good source concerning star altitude and limitations on naked eye visibility? Otherwise, 'practicality' may be relying too much on personal judgment. Praemonitus (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that's a good idea - will see what I can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Damn - after a frustrating search I can't find anything that qualifies the statement to make it correct, or find a correct one. Hence the fact that the constellation is not prominent enough to be considered a landmark (i.e. you don't really use it to find anything) means that I have dropped the sentence on the basis that the fact is not notable enough to have been discussed or written anywhere...(i.e. sources talk of groups of constellations in the area being circumpolar rather than musca) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'proper motion','milliarcseconds', 'overcontact binary' should be wiki-linked.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "TU Muscae is a remote binary star system located around 15,500 light-years away..."; remote is unnecessary here.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The white dwarf accumulates material from its companion star on its accretion disc until it erupts..."; that description is ambiguous and, I think, not quite correct. Matter flows from the companion to the accretion disk orbiting the white dwarf, and then down to the surface. It's the latter accumulation that undergoes runaway fusion.
yep - goofed there. reworded now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunyaev et al is missing a year and the journal name is not spelled out.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grady el al is also missing a year.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks a little bare. I suggest throw in another image; maybe an old star chart or the Hourglass Nebula, for example.
I chucked in a couple Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks FA ready. Praemonitus (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Coemgenus:

  • Looks like another quality article. I have just a few questions:
  • In "History", you write "They assigned four stars to the constellation in their Malay and Madagascan vocabulary..." I'm not sure what this means. Did they use Malay names for the stars, or do you mean they wrote a book of Malay and Madagascan languages in which the stars were discussed, or something else altogether?
It means they happened to slot the information into a book that was otherwise this dictionary, the names and description had nothing to do with Malay and Madagascan otherwise. Would it help to add wording to clarify...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think some clarification would be helpful; it confused me, anyway. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up removing the dictionary bit as (ultimately) it is of little relevance exactly where it appeared...and it was easier to leave it thus than as reporting that it happened to be in a Malay and Madagascan vocabulary even though it had nothing to do with either language... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
OK, works for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French name was retained by Jean Fortin in 1776..." might read better as "Jean Fortin retained the French name in 1776..."
activated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • First Stars image caption shouldn't end in period
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the lead caption "list of stars in Musca"?
Funny - hadn't noticed that before but all constellation infoboxes have that layout. Might be worth discussing and have a bot go through (once we figure out what a better word is as I usually think of a list as a linear thing not a map...and just checking it is not editable from the article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Apis.jpg: source doesn't give enough information to confirm the validity of the given licensing tag (particularly as given date is date of upload rather than creation); also need US PD tag and resolution of the big red tag error. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the tag on commons but have have removed it pending further information coming to light - just spent a while trying to look online to see which 18th century atlas it came from and can't. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Minor things:

  • In some places we have light-years and in others light years. Choose one.
all hyphenated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...it is cooling and expanding along the Red Giant Branch, having left the main sequence". Although two main sequence star types are wikilinked, the article actually has no wikilink in it for "main sequence" as a concept. Also is there a link available for Red Giant Branch? And if "main sequence" is not capitalised, how come Red Giant Branch is?
found Stellar_evolution#Red-giant-branch_phase - and lowercased now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "although further examination of the disk profile indicate it might be a more massive object such as a brown dwarf or more than one planet." That should read "indicates" or "may indicate", depending on whether the research has already been done - check the source and tweak.
it is "indicates" as it pertains to the calculations and findings performed in that study. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is "1,750" and then later "4000". Decide whether or not to separate 4-digit numbers.
all four digit ones de-comma'ed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2014&oldid=603458798"