Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add 1
Add 6
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yellowhammer/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/D. Djajakusuma/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Morchella rufobrunnea/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caelum/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warlugulong/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metalloid/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Emden (1908)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Emden (1908)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thopha saccata/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thopha saccata/archive2}}

Revision as of 11:29, 14 May 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 12:29, 14 May 2014 [1].


Yellowhammer

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A rude poem by Rabbie Burns, children's author Enid Blyton and Beethoven are all connected to this small yellow bird. Thanks to Brian Boulton for his helpful pre-FAC comments and his invaluable assistance with Beethoven and Messiaen Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did a talkpage review, couldn't find much wrong. One of the good things about Jim's bird articles is that they often contain information of interest to non-bird people, in this case the Beethoven and Messiaen details. I have to say I find it hard to believe that the monumental opening to Beethoven's Fifth (DAH-DAH-DAH DURRRRRRRR!!!) owes much to the yellowhammer's song – if I heard that in my back garden I'd drop dead with fright. But I digress; the article is well up to Jim's high standards and will make a worthy FA. I'll return and do a sources check if someone doesn't get there first. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, support and previous assistance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian, I think we might hit you up for that source review if you wouldn't mind... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Did you know that the first para in the Distribution and habitat section finishes without a cite?
  • "Predators and parasites": I'm never keen on starting a paragraph (or a sentence come to that) with a numeral. I'm sure I was told not to at University.
  • "Although the population appear to be declining..." →"Although the population appears to be in a decline"?

Usual top-notch stuff! Implement or disregard at your discretion. This was easy to read, concise, and above all, very interesting! Cassiantotalk 18:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review, heartening words and support. The ref got lost when I split an earlier longer paragraph, added now, other two fixed too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can find little to quibble about and believe the article meets the criteria.

Another great article. Well done. Aa77zz (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing the MHNT in the figure legend. Aa77zz (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review and support, "the" added, MHNT binned (it was there because the original caption had only the acronym) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I vastly enjoyed this article, which is wonderfully diverse in its approach. I don't think I have ever read an article that contained so many words I didn't know, but the erudition is lightly worn and the prose is very readable indeed. Two exceedingly minor quibbles:

  • Lead
    • "…song with a A little bit of bread..." – shouldn't that be "…with an A little bit…?
  • In culture (I found this section enchanting, by the way)
    • Catalogue d'oiseaux not Catalogue d'oiseau – not a lot of point in cataloguing one bird.

I know little about birds, other than the ones that go with roast potatoes, but this article looks to my layman's eye to be comprehensive, and it certainly meets the other FA criteria. A real treat! – Tim riley talk 22:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blushing! Many thanks for review and support. Changes made as suggested (I don't know how oiseau got that far, even I know the correct plural) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
I'm on my way out, but here's some quick image comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for image review, I've replaced the potentially problematic ogg with an EL to xeno-canto. Pity we can't have the song in the text, but that's life Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose review:
    • Per the new WP:CAPS, shouldn't "Yellowhammer" be the lower-case "yellowhammer" in the article? Goes for the rest of species names as well.
The policy came in during the FAC, I was hoping to get away with it, but done now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A little bit of bread and no cheese - why is this in italics? WP:WORDSASWORDS?
I'm so used to writing bird songs in italics I didn't really think about this one, done now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would #Subspecies work better as full sentences?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we have any images of females?
The existing File:Emberiza citrinella LC229.jpg, whic is labelled as a female is probably the best we have, although not brilliant. Cropped following Indopug's suggestion below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adults have a complete moult after breeding which takes at least eight weeks - this needs to be reworked; "after breeding" is begging for a comma after breeding, but doing so would suggest that the birds breed for at least 8 weeks.
Rejigged "After breeding..." Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The introduced birds are of the British and Irish race, E. c. caliginosa. - rather than this closing the paragraph, I think this should be worked into the first few sentences
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yellowhammers are monogamous and breed in the year following hatching. - juveniles breed in the year after they hatch, or the adults breed in the year after their eggs hatch?
Aged one year Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Yellowhammer adds invertebrates to its diet in the breeding season, particularly as food for its growing chicks. - if you have this, is the mention of invertebrates as supplements in the above paragraph necessary?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Males with high parasite levels produced fewer offspring (there is no such effect for females), and tend to be less brightly coloured. The striking plumage of the male may have arisen as a signal of fitness to breed. - perhaps connect the sentences, using something like "as such,"
Added a "therefore", feel free to tweak if that's inadequate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "little bit of bread and no cheese" - you've got it in quotes when Blyton uses it.
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beethoven also used the Yellowhammer theme in two piano sonatas, no. 21 in C major, the "Waldstein", (Op.53) and No. 23 in F minor, the "Appassionata" (Op.57). - owing to the commas, this looks like you have four works listed. Perhaps rework?
Parenthesised names to improve flow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to merge that when there is so little connection between the ideas expressed. I've added a few words to the last pargraph, which is all I have. I can't expand Messiaen without getting into his metaphysics, irrelevant to a biology article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your careful review and comments, much appreciated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments Isn't the photo of the Male E. c. citrinella superior to the one in the infobox? I think you should switch them. Also the pic of the female could do with a closer crop. There are better pics of the sparrowhawk too: [2], [3].—indopug (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestions, all implemented. Looks better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Aa77zz after recent changes

Aaarghh—that was my final edit last night, after a couple of glasses of Carménère . I think it shows, rewritten in English now. Sorry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

No significant issues: all external links working, all formats consistent and correct, all sources high quality and reliable. One (very minor) point: as far as I can see, access to the Yellowhammer details in ref 3 does not require a subscription. Otherwise all well with sources. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for sources review, Brian. Ref 3, to HBW, only shows the boring taxonomy section in full if you are not logged in to a paid-for account. All the other sections are two lines and a read more which links to a requirement to have an account to see the rest of the text. If you can really see the whole text, I want my money back (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 10 May 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 at 18:28, May 14, 2014 06:51, 17 May 2014 [4].

D. Djajakusuma

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a director who never forgot the theatre, and ultimately returned to it and saved at least one traditional art form. Our article on Djajakusuma (again, as with my previous FACs, the most detailed on the subject in English) was mostly written in 2012. During my trip to Jakarta in December I found a copy of his biography, purchased it... and left it on my bookshelf for three months. I've finally worked it in, and now our article is ready for prime time. This has had a GAC by Grapple X and a very detailed PR by Sarastro1, SchroCat, Tim riley, and Wehwalt, and it should be a relatively easy review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

Sorry I missed the peer review, I will spend the day going through the article today and post here shortly. What with the excellent reviewers you have had so far, I doubt there will be much left for me, but I will start reading nevertheless.

  • "Djajakusuma was the fifth child of six born to the couple, who lived comfortably off Djojokoesomo's salary as a government official."
  • "Djajakusuma decided to go into the performance arts." -- Do we know which art at this stage?
  • "While with the Centre..." -- Not sure on this, but is it incorrect to capitalise "centre" if the full name is not given?
  • "This was followed by Harimau Tjampa (Tiger from Tjampa) in 1953, which followed..." Followed follows followed in close succession.
  • "Djajakusuma spent a year from 1956 to 1957..." I feel we can lose "1957" as most would genrally know when a year would finish from 1956.
  • "After being rushed to Cikini General Hospital, he was declared dead of a stroke..." -- That's a very good hospital if they attributed the death to a stroke when he arrived! Usually, a stroke is found out as a result of an autopsy.

That's all. Implement or disregard at your discretion, I guessed my musings would be short. A credit to you Crisco! Cassiantotalk 19:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Singora

1. Is your bibliography ordered alphabetically? How many items are in the wrong place?

2. The last item in the bibliography is an untitled article in Nasional. What is Nasional? Is (was) it a magazine?

3. Why are you not linking to (and archiving) the English language translations for the filmindonesia.or.id sources. The URLs for the English translations are not the same as the Indo originals.

  • Filmindonesia.or.id's translations are, in general, somewhat poor, and thus for the sake of reliability I prefer to use the original Indonesian. Furthermore, they do not have translations for biographical information, at least the last time I cared to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do understand. But if the original succumbs to link rot, remember that the archived version (which I think is rendered in a sort of PDF format) can't be translated by, for example, Google Translate. Singora (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? I'll have to play with it. Since most of those are, essentially, a paragraph or two, copy/pasting should work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Played with a bit. Google is giving me the message "This page was not retrieved from its original location over a secure connection" for the archive, meaning that it won't translate because the archive is going through a third point (I think). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You may wish to check this, but I think WEBCITATION.ORG saves web pages as graphics or PDFs. In my experience, online translation services can't translate them. Singora (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. In the lead section, you write "most of his energies were dedicated to the promotion of traditional art forms and the teaching of cinematography". Why not just say "most of his energies were dedicated to promoting traditional art forms and teaching cinematography"? How does "the teaching of" differ from "teaching"?

5. See this sentence: "Biran described him as quick to emotion when he was displeased". Does this mean that Biran, when displeased, described Djajakusuma as quick to emotion? And what does quick to emotion actually mean? Are you saying that Djajakusuma was fiery and/or volatile? Or did he give everyone a huge hug when he was pissed off?

6. RE: the Final years and death section.

  • 6.1. The guy collapsed and was rushed to hospital.
  • 6.2. He suffered from bouts of sudden weakness for the rest of his life.
  • 6.3. Despite his rapidly failing health, Djajakusuma remained active in the arts.
  • 6.4. In 1980 he made his last film appearance.
  • 6.5. In early 1987 Djajakusuma's doctor diagnosed him with heart disease, which led Djajakusuma to begin dieting and stop smoking, though he showed no outward signs of ill health. What do you mean "he showed no outward signs of ill health"? You've already talked about his bouts of sudden weakness and rapidly failing health. Regardless, the structure of this sentence is wrong. It should be:
    • Though outwardly healthy (despite his rapidly failing health) ....
    • he was diagnosed with ...
    • he subsequently quit .........

7. RE: Early life. You write "While young he enjoyed watching stage performances, such as the traditional dance form tayuban and the wayang puppetry". Do you need the definite article for wayang puppetry? Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen it written like this before.

  • I'm using "the" to keep it parallel with "the traditional dance form tayuban", which precedes it. It feels odd, to me at least, if we remove "the" but keep "puppetry". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not switch the word order from "such as the traditional dance form tayuban and the wayang puppetry" to such as wayang puppetry and the traditional dance form tayuban? Singora (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment from Singora

You have the sentences "As a lecturer teaching screenwriting and the history of theatre, Djajakusuma focused on Indonesian arts. He argued that Indonesians should rely on local culture, not continuously look towards Western ones". The word ones is awful. What you're trying to say is:

1. He encouraged Indonesians to espouse local culture and spurn Western influences.

2. Always a strong advocate of Indonesian culture, he encouraged his students to embrace native art forms and not seek inspiration from Western influences.

3. Uneasy at the way in which Western culture was beginning to permeate Indonesian society, he attempted to instill in his students the belief that ......

Whatever you think, the word ones is a poor choice. Singora (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe it is grammatically correct, but I've reworked (a bit more simply: "not continuously look towards the West") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word ones may or may not be grammatically correct, but it looks amateurish. Your reworking is fine. Consider:
      • 1. I live in Thailand. I like Thai girls and prefer them to English ones.
      • 2. I like the national parks in Thailand and prefer them to English ones.


Support from Singora Singora (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- Crisco, can I assume everything in the filmography (including roles) is mentioned/cited in the main body? Haven't checked for myself, if you assure me on that point then that'll be fine... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 14 May 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 12:29, 14 May 2014 [5].

Morchella rufobrunnea

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morchella rufobrunnea is a choice edible fungus, and one of the few morel species that has been successfully cultivated. The article is fairly short, but I think is comprehensive for a species that was "officially" described only in 1998. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

I love seeing your mushroom articles, and I'm happy to lend a hand reviewing this one. I normally focus on reference minutiae, but with how many of these you've written, I know I'd be in for a short review if that's all I did, so I'll aim for a more comprehensive one:

  • I know "new to science" is a term of art, and all, but it is probably jarring to the lay reader here, since it wasn't exactly discovered in 1998 so much as differentiated. Doubly so since the lead mentions a cultivation patent that was seemingly issued before anyone knew the mushroom existed! (Yes, obviously, that's not really how it worked, but it does rather read that way.)
  • Perhaps re-order the Taxonomy section likewise? Introduce the 1986 mentions of western deliciosa first, then walk through the sequence of establishing rufobrunnea in 1998 and moving the existing mushrooms over to the new name?
  • "North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa have since been divided into two distinct species, Morchella diminutiva and M. virginiana." Should that say "Other North American morels..." since rufobrunnea started its taxonomic voyage there also?
  • Any details on what form of molecular analysis was used? I feel like I'm being picky asking, but I know it's been included in several other mushroom FAs (and was specifically requested by someone during mine).
  • I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I know your clades aren't consistently capitalized: Esculenta clade vs. Elata Clade. Later, you have "Blushing Clade" in caps, with quotes, and I'm not sure what the distinction is there, either.
  • Anything comment on what the black granules are? Or are they just a thing it does?
  • Link hyphae?
  • Link sclerotia under Description (instead of first linking it down in Cultivation)?
  • Anything describe characteristics that distinguish rufobrunnea from the (now) two other species that all used to be part of North American deliciosa for the Similar Species section?
  • Link pre-apothecia to something?
  • You give a development process with four steps, then one with five steps. I assume the difference is the conditions involved, but it makes the section less than clear overall.
  • References and reference formatting look pretty solid. Should the Stamets ref read "3rd ed." instead of "3 ed."? (I'm contractually obligated to find a nit to pick in reference formatting...).

Can't quite endorse promotion yet, but I have no doubts that the article will be there in short order. As always, nice work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn
  • "Its known range was extended a decade later when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States, and in 2009, when it was reported growing in Israel." How about "Its range was later found to be more widely spread, when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States a decade later, and when it was reported growing in Israel in 2009." Extending the "known range" seems a little clumsy.
  • For the length of the article (and aesthetically) I feel two paragraphs of lead would be best.
  • "a process to cultivate M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." How about "a process to cultivate morels now known to be M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or "a process to cultivate morels, including the since-described M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or something similar?
  • "In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, he determined" The study is the subject of the sentence, not Kuo. How about "In a 2008 study, Michael Kuo determined" or "In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, it was determined"
  • So the name Morchella deliciosa is no longer used at all? It's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but has no article
  • "although most are typically found in the narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" Should be "although most are typically found in a narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" or "although most are typically found in the narrower range of 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)"
  • You don't link "sclerotia" at the first mention (though I'd recommend keeping it linked at the second
  • Not the end of the world if you don't have them, but do you have any information about differentiating this one from similar species in the US? M. deliciosa used by western American authors.[4] North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa (deliciosa? diminutiva? virginiana?) Was there anything about similar morels in the Israel paper?
  • US, USA or United States?
  • "Unlike the North American version that fruits for only a few weeks in the spring" This is contrary to what was said in the previous paragraph

Very strong article. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images mostly good, but the source link on File:Morchella rufobrunnea 11174.jpg seems to be wrong. I'm also struck by what looks like atypical colouration on the lead image, but I'm happy to take your word if you're happy with it. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped this for an image of a more representative specimen that also shows the bruising reaction. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New image is good. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick comments on the sources (no spotchecks done)- You sometimes have 1 January 2000 (patents), sometimes 2000-01-01 (retrieval date). Sometimes you have "(PDF)" before the link, sometimes afterwards. Why do you italicise "California Fungi"? These are all real nitpicks, and it's possible no change is necessary. Otherwise, all sources look reliable and appropriately formatted. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like to have source dates & retrieval dates in different formats. "California Fungi" no longer italicized. Location of PDF is template-dependent (i.e. cite journal vs. cite report). Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both very much for your comments. I've already implemented some of the easier ones, and am pondering how to best action the others. Will post a full response soonish. Sasata (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and comment Mostly of the usual high standard, but I have doubts about the grammar of A choice edible species, a process to cultivate morels now known to be M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s. The first phrase is obviously intended to describe the fungus, but the subject of the sentence is "A process". I can't see anything else, so I'm supporting on the basis that that sentence will be fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its range was revealed to be more widely spread (??) - weird construct, why not just "Its range was revealed to be more widespread"
Done. Sasata (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"'The first scientifically described specimens of Morchella rufobrunnea were collected in June 1996 from the Ecological Institute of Xalapa and other regions in Xalapa, - I'd introduce "Xalapa" (city) with some descriptor as it is not well known - "The (southern) Mexican city of Xalapa"? or something
Now "and other regions in the southern Mexican municipality of Xalapa" Sasata (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the clades are subgeneric, should they be italicised?
I found this, which suggests that clade names should be unitalicized (to prevent confusion with traditional Latin names), and uncapitalized (which seems to align well with Wiki policies about capitalization), so I've uncapped them. Sasata (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
reddish-vinaceous - odd construction - if meaning "red to wine-red" say so, or alternately "vinaceous (wine red)"
Done (and found out we have an article for wine (color)). Sasata (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise little to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Pls review duplinks and see if you really need them -- you have Ucucha's script?
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 12:29, 14 May 2014 [6].

Caelum

Nominator(s): StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After the GA review and peer review of this article, in which I've been told that this article is both comprehensive and and understandable, I'm submitting this for an FA review. I also believe that it meets the FA criteria. It's rather short, but as I mentioned, people, including those who are passionate about the subject matter as seen at the peer review believe that it is comprehensive. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

Feel free to disagree with anything I say—not all of it is necessary for FA.

Image check

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Have tinkered with this constellation article a bit as it has been buffed by StringTheory11. Only slight query is a segment that has " consists of four stars, and 20 stars in total" - which should be changed to "4" and "20" or "four" and "twenty" I guess. Otherwise the prose has just the right amount of embellishment to make it flow nicely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

99of9

  • I've made a minor edit wikilinking a list of the 88 modern constellations.
  • "NGC 1679, a barred spiral galaxy with a spectrum containing emission lines." I would have thought most galaxies would have emission lines. The cited source doesn't give much context. Maybe this one has more than usual and thus contains hot ISM? --99of9 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  1. FN 1 Location?
    1. This ref wasn't sourcing anything that couldn't be found elsewhere, so I just removed it and replaced all the references with other ones. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FN 3 + 4 Access date? Publisher?
    1. Added. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FN 5 Why is VA linked? If we want to link the location (and I cannot imagine why) wouldn't it be better to link Blacksburg, Virginia.
    1. Linked Blacksburg. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Compare FN 14, 15 and 17
    1. Made consistent. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: ping! StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jakec

It looks like a decent article overall (though maybe it could go into more depth about the historical significance of it). I've made a few tweaks here and there while looking over it. All the references are reliable, as they are written by experts in the field or are located in reputable databases. The content cited to Reference 2 does not appear in Reference 2 and some of the content cited to Reference 6 a does not appear in ref 6. Reference 17 also appears to be about the wrong star. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Caelum#Stars is unreferenced. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 13:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 17 fixed. I'll get to the others as soon as I get a chance. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For ref 6 (now ref 1), I'm not seeing what's not from the ref. For ref 2, just click the TXT button next to Caelum, which has all the necessary information. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakec: ping! StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@StringTheory11: I think it was the content in the notes section, but I saw where that is stated in ref 1. I don't really understand the string of numbers and coordinates in the txt file you mentioned, but perhaps it should link to the actual txt file where the information is located? --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 20:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Let's hear other's thoughts on the matter, I think, since the TXT itself doesn't provide any context, while the original page does. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't hold up this nomination on that matter though. Since that unreferenced sentence is now referenced, I'll support. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 20:02, 11 May 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 12:29, 14 May 2014 [7].

Warlugulong

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a small article about a very big painting. An epic description of sacred stories from Central Australia, it set a record for the price paid for Indigenous Australian art when it was bought by the National Gallery of Australia in 2007. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - For a painting that's 6m2, File:Warlugulong 1977.JPG is tiny. I can't make out any details and thought it looked like stone and moss. Wikipedia's non-free policies may limit the size of that file, but consider adding a second image showing zoomed in details, highlighting one of the stories. - hahnchen 13:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I could, I would do that, but my 'print screen' function doesn't work (never has - I don't know why), and 'print to file' appears prevented by the host site (doubtless some sort of nifty copyright control). hamiltonstone (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Miegunyah Press or The Miegunyah Press?
  • Be consistent in where you include state: once Melbourne has it, the next time it doesn't
  • FN15: page? Also, that parenthetical probably shouldn't be italicized
  • It was an online article and I had omitted the link. I've fixed that. I'm pretty sure the parenthetical part should remain italicised as it is the title of that edition / part of the newspaper in question, but will take further guidance. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found.

Thanks Nikki! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Johnbod, i don't what those things mean or how to address them - for example, i don't know how to determine if a template parameter is deprecated or what the preferred alternative is - and i don't know how to view hidden categories. Any pointers? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can turn on the ability to view hidden categories via Preferences (see here for directions). Being able to access those categories may help you address those parameter and CSI date issues (though not having a real understanding of their purpose or effect on an article's quality, I'm not sure if they're really things that you would need to fix. I'll leave that up to the other reviewers). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 16:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ruby. Having read this, i was able to identify the deprecated cite template parameters and fixed them. My hunch is that the "CS1 errors: dates" message may be a false positive - I can find no parameter errors or deprecated template terms in the article that relate to dates. But I also can't get rid of the bloody message. Hopefully someone else will come up with something...hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't loose sleep over this, but maybe leave a request for assistance on the HIDDENCAT talk. Ceoil (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...Indigenous men at Papunya, in Australia's western desert, began... - these subordinate bits I often put in between mdashes, just to break up a whole slew of commas.
Sometimes agree, but don't think this phrase is an appropriate candidate for such dashes, as it isn't the sort of 'additional side observation' that best suits that punctuation.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
can we link "synthetic polymer paint" to something?
Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lungkata is italicised and unitalicised....also is it worth a redlink as a significant spirit/being?
Unitalicised the one instance where it had been, for some reason. Line ball on the latter. I'm probably inclined not to. Ive seen the term in three contexts: this painting by Clifford Possum, the middle name of another notable artist, and a walk in Uluru NP. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is pretty small and this might indeed be all we can get that is citeable - if there were any interviews where the artist had discussed the owrk or any more analysis of the themes in the painting (colours chosen/whatever), that would be good to add. However it is engagingly written and I can't see much wrong prosewise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this and this and have ordered a book from the library that i don't think i have yet checked, to see if i come up with anything further. Thanks, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better. A couple of other things..discussions of the themes seems a touch sparse but maybe nothing more exists to cite, so I suspect what we have fulfils comprehensiveness.....?
OK, i have checked two books that arrived, and one did allow me to add some significant material: the diff is here. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I presume the painting is on display in canberra....you haven't actually said. Has it been loaned anywhere?
Somewhat to my surprise, I couldn't find anything that says it is on permanent display, though i believe it to be. Certainly it is currently on display on level one, as the NGA website shows, but it doesn't specify that this is permanent, so there didn't seem much point in saying more than what the article currently specifies: that the work is in the NGA collection. I'm not aware of it having been loaned and the NGA text does not indicate that it has.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, unless I am missing something, the article as it stands now does not say the NGA has it on display, only that it has bought it....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, tweaked. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking on target on prose, pending reolution of comprehensiveness queries...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the standard usage in Australia, when referring to the indigenous people of this country. See for example this from Sydney Uni or this from the Australian National University; for an example of the capitalised usage, from an Australian government website, see here. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Hawkeye for taking the time.hamiltonstone (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very nice article. I have only a few comments:
    • I'd link Alice Springs the first time it's mentioned.
    • In the same sentence, you write "$2.4 million" and "$1,056,000". Unless the MoS says otherwise, I'd write these two in the same format (unless there's some other good reason, like that the source for the larger figure is not specific enough to expand it).
    • "As of 2014, the work is on display in the National Gallery." I've always been troubled by "as of" statements, but the guideline doesn't seem to offer a straight answer. It might be more informative to say "Since 20__, the work has been on display in the National Gallery." --Coemgenus (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it isn't the ideal formulation. The source however just says that it is on display now. It doesn't actually say when it was put on display. Now, given the amount of $$ they paid for it, I'd figure the gallery would have put it straight on the wall in 2007. But I can't prove it. hamiltonstone (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I didn't see a review of media licensing but the FURs for the two images employed look satisfactory to me, so we'll call it a day here, tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 14 May 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 12:29, 14 May 2014 [8].


Metalloid

A metalloid is kind of a cross between a metal and a nonmetal. They have a mix of metallic, nonmetallic and in between properties.

One of the FAC moderators, Ian Rose, suggested I ask User:John if he could copyedit this article. I did, he did, and it looks very sharp now. User:Dirac66 then checked the article, was happy with the standard of copy-editing, and made a few technical observations that I've addressed. More details are at the metalloid talk page here and here. Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

Support. As Sandh has generously pointed out I did a lot of work on this article. I know it intimately and have no reservations about supporting its promotion. --John (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took out "In contrast, Jones (writing on the role of classification in science) observed that, 'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.'<ref>[[#Jones2010|Jones 2010, p. 169]]</ref>" because I do not think it is essential to the article. Is Jones writing specifically about metalloids or is it just a general comment on classification? We already have enough about the difficulty of classifying elements as metalloids in any case. We used to have more. "In contrast" is one of the markers I look for in copyediting. So are "additionally", "actually" and "however". Unless the author has explicitly contrasted two things, we shouldn't use this term. --John (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is very good. If I may, I'd like to keep Jones as a plain note (without the 'In contrast'). He isn't writing about metalloids. He's writing about whether or not Pluto is a planet and, in that context, the role of classification in science. His writing is particularly cogent, and the parallel of what used to be the lack of a definition of a planet, to the lack of an agreed definition of a metalloid, is striking and interesting. Of course, I won't say that in the note but I can hope that someone else may read Jones and enjoy the analogies. Just replace wherever he says "Pluto" and "planet" with "selenium" (e.g.) and "metalloid" :) Sandbh (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Designate

Comment: I notice polonium and astatine are both marked as "Inconsistent" in the top infobox graphic, but only astatine is outlined in black in the bottom graphic. Shouldn't they both be outlined or non-outlined? —Designate (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the "inconsistency" at work ;-). The blue colors show the statistic outcome, the periodic table shows reasonings for the individual elements. Both statements are valid and sourced, but their contradiction requires explanation. As there is no space for that in the infobox (for a reason), the micro periodic table should go.
Note: I added the micro periodic table for overview, without giving it much thought back then [9]. -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom graphic could stay as the caption says it's 'a' periodic table, rather than 'the' periodic table. it's also linked to the periodic table article. I'm not fussed either way. Designate: if this would still seem to be too confusing I'll ask for the bottom graphic to be deleted. Thank you for your thought provoking comment. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh, as Designate simply pointed out: it may be right & sourceable, but it is unexplained there. That is a sin. And I think that that table box is not the place to explain it, so removal is my choice. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the top graphic you have four categories: Commonly, Inconsistently, Less commonly, and Rarely. Seems the bottom graphic could include the top two designations, or the top three, or all four, but right now it's jarring because it doesn't seem to have been made with the same reasoning as the top graphic. —Designate (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, could you please remove the bottom graphic? Sandbh (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. --John (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the one at the bottom of the infobox. —Designate (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see what you meant now. It is annoying that the code is so complex that it will require an expert to make this adjustment. --John (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the small periodic table is colored based on this code. All the elements have a |category listed—maybe astatine and polonium can both be changed to category=unknown instead of metalloid/metal. The individual page for astatine calls it "Metalloid (disputed)" while the page for polonium calls it "Other metal (disputed)". It doesn't seem to me that they should be given the same color on the top chart at Metalloid if At is more commonly recognized as a metalloid than Po. —Designate (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the small PT at the base of the infobox. Deleted two lines I think) of code. I must've been tired when I asked DePiep to do it, as I could've done it myself if I'd looked harder. I'll restore the PT at the very end of the article on the presumption that this'll be OK to restore. Sandbh (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --John (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from R8R Gtrs

Support. During the first FAC, I wasn't confident the article deserved the FA status, but Sandbh refused to give up, and the article was getting better and better over time. I've given a lengthy comment during the second FAC. The issues I raised were resolved, and I didn't support only because I suddenly lost the opportunity to get online, check, and support. The article has remained FA-worthy ever since.--R8R (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry Mitchell

This is not at all my are of expertise; I'm use to writing history articles, not science articles, but this is a really interesting subject so I thought I'd take a look.

  • The feasibility of establishing a specific definition has been questioned by whom?
  • That would be Hawkes. I've hopefully made this clearer by using a semicolon to join this sentence to the one that follows it, since the latter sentence ends with the applicable citation. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classifying an element as a metalloid has been described... ditto?
  • 'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.' You need a citation after a direct quote (I see you have one just before the quote; perhaps that could be moved to the end of the sentence?)
  • You need at least one citation in the 'physical and chemical' section
  • This section is the lede/high level summary for the following two sections, which include sourced text, and a main article link. As such, I didn't think it necessitated citation. I'm happy to revisit this however, if you feel that this will not do. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be done based on the extent to which an element exhibits properties relevant to such status. Is that from Hawkes? If it is, perhaps the citation could moved to the end of that sentence for clarity?
  • selenium […] is used to improve the workability of stainless steels what does 'workability' mean in this context?
  • You could do with a citation at the end of paragraphs two and six of the 'biological agents' section
  • Compounds of antimony are used as antiprotozoan drugs, and in some veterinary preparations. 'antiprotozoan' isn't a term I'm familiar with, and I'd be surprised if most lay people were familiar with it; an example of veterinary uses might be nice.
  • Tellurium is not considered particularly toxic. As little as two grams of sodium tellurate, if administered, can be lethal. Those seem to be two contradictory statements.
  • Watch 'with's, eg beryllium and lead are noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used...; this kind of use of 'with' is generally discouraged
  • compounds such as sodium arsenite or sodium arsenate are effective flame retardants for wood but were less frequently used... Were or are? 'Were' suggests they're now being used more frequently; is that the case?
  • requires a 'heroic quench rate' Who is this quoting? Why use a quote instead of a plain English phrase?
  • Kaminow & Li, as per end of sentence. I quite liked the concise way they expressed this hence kept it as a quote rather than recasting. I've now cited them after the quote, too. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terms amphoteric element and semiconductor are problematic as some elements referred to as metalloids do not show marked amphoteric behaviour or semiconductivity in their most stable forms. There's much less detail there than on the other problematic terms; is that deliberate? You need a citation at the end of the sentence.
  • Use of this latter term has more recently been discouraged Try to use active voice where practical; who discouraged the use of the term? IUPAC or somebody else?
  • 'remarkably inert to all acids, including hydrofluoric' according to whom? Perhaps spell out the what's remarkable about its non-reactivity with hydrofluoric acid (I can guess that it's remarkable because you mention boron does react with fluorine, but it would be nice not to make the reader guess)
  • It can form alloys with many metals; most of these are brittle. Most of the alloys or most of the metals? I'm guessing the former, but it's ambiguous as it is.
  • What's with the external link on electrode potential? External links shouldn't be linked inline per the MoS.
  • Classifying aluminium as a metalloid is disputed by whom? You cite some examples in the footnote, but it would be nice for the prose to elaborate. What's the scientific consensus? From the context, I'm guessing that it's to treat aluminium as a metal, but again, it would be nice to spell it out.
  • I've edited and restructured this section. It still starts with the same opening sentence but I've included a citation to a reference guide book on metallic materials. That's the closest I could get to scientific consensus that aluminium is a metal. The next paragraph is the one that says aluminium is sometimes classified as a metalloid. That's immediately followed by the disputing paragraph, with the authors doing the disputing given in the citation. Then there is the concluding paragraph with more moderate or nuanced views. I tend to minimize the use of active voice in an encyclopedia article such as this. Sandbh (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and may be more appropriately classified as either Do you mean it is sometimes or by some people or that it could be?

More generally:

  • I think the article uses a lot of technical terms, which makes it less accessible than it could be; I'd really love some brief parenthetical explanations of terms (I'll provide examples when I get chance)
  • watch uses of 'with'; use as a connective is discouraged (eg "p-block, with its main axis anchored by boron"; "noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used")
  • I love the comparisons with chemicals people know about (eg steel, tap water); how would you feel about adding some more? Not overdoing it, but enough that the reader has something to which they can compare the chemicals covered in the article.
  • When I write history articles, I like to see the author introduced by their full name with an explanation of their credentials (eg "the British metallurgist Cecil Desch") rather than just by surname (eg "Phillips and Williams suggested that"...); I think it would be nice to see this here.
  • Not sure if that might be more particular to history writing? I don't often encounter it in scientific writing unless it is for the giants. I'm not sure I see it that much in arts writing either. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is obviously a labour of love and you've clearly put a lot of time into it. I don't see anything that would preclude it becoming an FA, but there's a little bit of work still to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we may be done here for now Harry, thank you. (I'll keep an eye out for any ripe technical terms, and possibilities for new comparisons with ordinary things). Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod

I'm no chemist so I'm concentrating on accessibility. Generally I agree with Harry's comments above, though not about "introducing" noted chemists in the literature. It's obvious they are chemists, so only anyone who isn't a chemist needs to be introduced, imo.

  • "packing efficiencies" has a whole para, but is linked but not explained, which it should be, very briefly.
  • "Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion" is only explained in the notes, which is not ideal. Failing a short article, perhaps the explanation should go in the text.
  • The first para of "Number, composition and alternative treatments" pretty much entirely repeats, with added names of researchers, what has been said already. Better to merge it into the first time round? The first para of "Distinctive" is rather the same.
  • I like the section on medical etc uses, but selenium is missing in the final bit. As I'm sure you know, it's inclusion in dietry supplement pills etc has been criticised recently.
  • "The chemistry of boron is dominated by its small atomic size, relatively high ionization energy, and its having fewer valence electrons (three) than atomic orbitals (four) available for bonding. With only three valence electrons, simple covalent bonding is electron deficient with respect to the octet rule." Eek, help! More links please!
  • "Monographs" - Checking a couple, these don't seems to be used in the refs, so are what is normally called "further reading" on WP. This one "Vernon RE 2013, 'Which Elements are Metalloids?', Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 90, no. 12, pp. 1703–7, doi:10.1021/ed3008457", at 3-4 pages long, can't really be called a monograph, nor can Goldsmith and Hawkes, where only 2 page ranges are given. Others are sections or chapters in larger, more general, works. I'd just go with "further reading", maybe splitting the true monographs into a sub-section there.
  • Johnbod, my intent here was only to list the known single topic writings on metalloids, of which there are relatively few. I've changed the title of this section to 'Known monongraphs'. Here I'm using the broad meaning of 'monograph', as a written account of a single thing. I've added an explanatory note to that effect. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have split some too long paras and added links. More later. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently unlinked: oxygen, crystal, semiconductor is apparently only linked in a table - not sure about the rules here, Valence electron, Covalent bond, allotropic, halide. Several if not all of these come from the single para about boron where I asked for more links above. A lot more work is obviously needed here. Some of these may seem very basic terms (but you link "diamond") but they aren't. I still haven't read beyond the boron section, but will do so when assured the linking has been checked throughout the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I missed this one. Have rechecked the article and added more wikilinks. Guidance is that generally, a link should appear only once in an article (upon the term's first occurrence in the text of the article) but if helpful for readers, links can be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. And articles on technical subjects might need a higher density of links than in general-interest articles. Have used some judgement in deciding what to link; hopefully no oversights. Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have read through the rest of the article, and would have some small points, but I don't know when I'll have time to write them up. The nom seems to have attracted enough support - if the delegates feel it is otherwise ready for promotion, please don't hold that up on my account. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph length (PL)

Could I please have some opinions about this?

PL has been area of interest to editors and reviewers of this article. Short paragraphs have sometimes been merged; long paragraphs have sometimes been split. All of these changes and associated comments have been well-intentioned. When I look back on them it seems to me they sometimes inadvertently result in paragraphs that cover more than one idea; and at other times they inadvertently split the idea being developed with the result that it becomes harder to comprehend. As well, the end result of some of these edits is that it's no longer possible to follow the bones of the article by reading just the topic/first sentence of each paragraph, which is the way I was taught how to use paragraphs.

Wikipedia guidance about PL is that they should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus. One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs. All quite reasonable.

The upshot is that I've shortened or merged some of the paragraphs in the article so that (a) each paragraph develops the single idea unit that is flagged in its topic sentence: and (b) there is a logical flow from topic sentence to topic sentence, throughout the article.

I'm hoping that these latest edits will still be FAC-acceptable. Sandbh (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an issue of sheer length, especially when the material is dense (for many readers anyway). I split some paras when not editing on my usual machine but one with a smaller (laptop) screen, where with a table or picture at the side some paras lasted a whole screen. Heaven knows what they'd look like on a mobile. Allowing for screen-reading on a vast range of sceen sizes, I would err on the side of short paras, not worrying so much about developments of ideas. The "bones" are supposed to be in the lead anyway, though not all of them. Very long-looking paras just put readers off. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've split or re-split some of the longer paragraphs. I checked the article on a 13.3 notebook; no paras take up a whole screen. Checked on older iphone; most paras (>85%) fit on no more than one screen. Found some interesting external reading about paragraph length here and here. The recommendation you make about erring on the side of short paras, given the rise of small screens, is a good one. Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Job done on this, as far as I'm concerned. As with images the multiplicity of screen sizes now has rather over-taken our guidance I think. Useful links. My own style seems to favour short paras, at least online; I was struck after the event by the contrast between my online comment here, #8 in a very narrow space and the preceding 7 in terms of para length. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility

The colour-keys in the periodic table extracts fail MOS:COLOUR. Non-colour indicators, like asterisks or superscript numbers, should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this was raised early on in the development of the article. I believe it is addressed in the text boxes accompanying the images in question. This text explains in words which elements are covered by which legend/colour key. Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Sandbh's explanation answers (there is full textual descrtiption below). So it is not "colors only". Can Pigsonthewing agree? -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I gave myself a reminder when this was nominated previously that I'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as I believe it would be, if promoted, the nominator's first FA. I'll wait a bit to see if any reviewer above wants to undertake that, otherwise I'll make a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "spotcheck of sources"? I presume you want me to check if the sources really give the facts mentioned in the article, and that they don't lift. I'm on it. Friesland Princess Parcly Taxel 03:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, sorry, I'll backtrack somewhat. I think the only things worth checking are the references that quote things straight out of the sources. Princess Parcly Taxel 04:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever

This is one of the best featured article candidates (FACs) I've ever read! It's properly neutral, has good prose, and is filled with amazing grammar. All the pictures in the article look fascinating, and its worth tons of references everywhere. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind feedback! Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing content

@John:@Designate:@R8R Gtrs:@Harry Mitchell:@Johnbod:@Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever:
I added content re "Pyrotechnics" as a common application (an oversight), and "Abundance, extraction and cost" (polished from an earlier draft). Both copyedited by John. Sandbh (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I copy-edited it again. It is a good addition. --John (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting sources, claiming crowns?

Per the comment abve by @Ian Rose: and my replies to that I'm going to check the twelve (as I count) references that have direct quotes from their sources. The reference numbers are as of this revision, and if the flag isn't North Brabant's that means I haven't checked and cleared it yet.

  • #23: Salzburg (federal state)
  • #45: Vienna
  • #64: Vorarlberg
  • #65: Indonesia
  • #188: Monaco
  • #208: Hesse
  • #218: Canton of Solothurn
  • #375: Poland
  • #381: Tyrol (federal state)
  • #401: Upper Austria
  • #444: Singapore
  • #446: Conch Republic

...never mind.

I took this as meaning that the checker (User:Parcly Taxel) is happy with twelve direct quotes that they checked?hamiltonstone (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am happy. Georgia (country) Georgia (U.S. state) Princess Parcly Taxel 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- this has probably set a record for FAC duration but following the spotchecks by Parcly and Dirac66 I think it's finally ready to promote, tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 14 May 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 15:06, 9 May 2014 [10].

SMS Emden (1908)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The centenary of the sinking of this famous commerce-raiding cruiser (9 November 1914) is rapidly approaching, and I'd like to have the article run on the main page that day - I have a short list of such articles, but this being the most famous (and chronologically first) ship in the group, I figured it ought to go first to FAC as well. I wrote this article in October last year, and it passed an A-class review at MILHIST a couple of weeks ago; it is also a part of the largest GT on Wikipedia (and the first in that series to come to FAC). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article, I look forward to working with you. Parsecboy (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comment As a bit of a drive by comment, I'm surprised to see that the article doesn't note the disposition of surviving elements of Emden. One of her guns is mounted on the corner of a major intersection in Sydney, another forms part of a display on her final battle in the Australian War Memorial (complete with a rather odd sound and light show in which it occasionally "fights" a preserved gun from HMAS Sydney!), and I imagine that the AWM and Royal Australian Navy Heritage Centre have additional bits of the ship in their collections. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point. I've added info on the three guns that were recovered, along with the bell, stern ornament, and various artifacts in the AWM collection - the RANHC doesn't have as helpful a website, and I haven't managed to find anything there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I've added a much more plausible account of Emden's encounter with Glen Turret at Penang from Corbett.
    • Thanks for that.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • No DABs and no duplicate links.
  • Hyphenate 97 ton as a compound adjective.
    • Fixed.
  • Do we have any information on how many times Sydney hit Emden, or even ammunition expenditure?
    • Nothing I've seen - I'd wager no one bothered counting since she was pretty well swiss cheese by the time Sydney was done with her.
  • Link run aground.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Coemgenus:

  • Is there any particular reason she was named Emden? Explaining that Emden is a town, at least, might be of interest to readers.
    • Starting with the Bremen-class cruisers, all German light cruisers were named after towns - at some point, I'll need to create a German counterpart for United States ship naming conventions, since the reasoning behind some of the choices are fairly interesting (for instance, in the late 1890s, Kaiser Bill mandated that capital ships be named after the German states - and especially the land-locked ones - to drum up support for the Navy in a traditionally Army-dominated society). In any event, I added mention of the connection to the lead.
  • When you say "Ostamerikanischen station," does that mean there was a substantial German naval presence in the Americas? If so, where were they based?
    • Yes, there was a reasonably substantial German presence in the Americas (for instance, a few cruisers and a couple of gunboats joined the British in the Venezuela Crisis of 1902–03. I don't know where they were based for sure though - typically the German squadrons operated out of European ports (usually British, since they were the best-developed) in an area where no German base was available (for instance, before the Kiaotschou concession was seized, German ships in Chinese waters usually operated out of British Hong Kong, and in German East Africa, cruisers frequently overhauled in Capetown or Bombay before the floating drydock arrived in Dar es Salaam).
  • A link and brief explanation of the Kiautschou Bay concession might help the reader understand why German ships were based out of Tsingtao.
    • Added a link to the lead and a short line in the body explaining the seizure of the concession.
  • Throughout, you use the phrase "decided to" a lot. Sometimes it's appropriate, but often the action that's really of interest is what the captain did, not what he decided to do.
  • Where did Ayesha come from?
    • She was just moored at Direction Island - no idea where or even when she was built, apart from that she was ancient and barely seaworthy.
  • That's all for now, I'll take a second run at it later. Very nice article! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Nigel Ish
According to "Narrative of the Proceedings of H.M.A.S. Sydney" in the Naval Review (magazine), 1915, Issue 2, pp. 448–459 [11], Sydney fired 670 rounds, claiming an estimated 100 hits.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Nigel, I've added it to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 12 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 15:05, 7 May 2014 [12].

Thopha saccata

Nominator(s): 99of9 (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the world's loudest cicada - it ran through FAC before but generated little interest...we pondered about the prose so it has been through Peer Review, which has been very helpful (and thanks to those who commented there!). This has helped massage its prose alot and we feel it is at or near FA level. Let us know what we can do to improve it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • and red-brown and black underparts— "and has"
  • while the former has black markings of the leading edge (costa) of the forewing extend past the basal cell—first "of" should be "on", methinks, and "extending"
fixed both - well spotted - thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support; mostly had my say at PR. I still feel that the poems are a weak point to finish on (perhaps you could hide them in the middle of the paragraph somehow?), but that's a stylistic disagreement. A couple of comments... J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Adults are present from November to early March, prolific in some years and absent in others. It is found in dry sclerophyll forest, preferring to alight and feed on large eucalypts[13][14] with diameters over 20 cm and sparse foliage concentrated at a height between 10 and 25 m,[13] particularly rough-barked species,[10] apples (Angophora) and Tristania.[11]" The nymphs are feeding on roots, but what precisely are the adults feeding on? (I see you mention sap further down- this should be present elsewhere in the article!)
added general note - should be gone into much more detail at cicada Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the eggs are laid in trees, but the nymphs live underground? Do they burrow down through the tree, or make a mad dash down the side?
the annoying thing is missing information compared with (say) bird articles. I have not seen it written how they get down unfortunately Got something! added.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff- that's plugged the gaps, for me. Delegates- Please note that my support is conditional on there being no source problems, as I have not looked in detail. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Inconsistent caption use of SE vs Southeast - suggest the latter
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source link for File:Australia_Locator_Map.svg (the original source for the map) is dead.
Weird - the link seems to work ok now - see here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • In the infobox you have "Tettigonia saccata Fabricius, 1803" followed by "Cicada saccata (Fabricius, 1803)" -- any reason "Fabricius, 1803" is in parentheses for one and not the other? The parentheses look better to me FWIW...
the original description and binomial name does not have parentheses. Any subsequent name change has to add the parentheses around the original author. In animals the second author is never added while in plants they are - e.g for a plant Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this article during PR and my concerns were addressed. It still seems in good shape. Praemonitus (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (and source review) by Sasata (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, just nitpicks.

  • links: type locality, specific name, tribe, thorax (only linked in lead), disjunct distribution, Sydney
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there an error in the page reference in Guérin-Méneville (1838) "225–38 [80]"
not sure where the page range comes from - removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest collected specimen has a wingspan of 15.1 cm (5.9 in),[2] and they average 13.3 cm (5.2 in)." The “they” is a bit awkward (seems to be referring to the single specimen)
Tried this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The thorax is brown, becoming paler in older specimens." specimens->individuals?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is little variation over its range" I’d add "in morphology" or something similar, unless it was meant that there is little variation in colour?
"colour" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might help the flow a little bit in the description section if not so many sentences started with “The”
agree...it would....having a damn hard time trying to rejig sentences to avoid this...all input welcomed.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it be more logical to include the paragraphs on singing behaviour in the behaviour section?
possibly - with birds it has always been in the description section, but I see it would fit in the latter as well. OPen to move if there is more of an opinion on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Adults are present from November to early March, prolific in some years and absent in others. It is found” It?
reworded - kept to plural as I think the segment works better as plural Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over 20 cm"; "between 10 and 25 m" add conversions
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nymphs are susceptible to fungal disease while underground." this is reffed to a pretty weak, 100-year old source. Anything more recent, and perhaps a little more detail, like what fungus species/genera are involved-perhaps Massospora (will bluelink that soon)?
have removed it - it just refers to cicadas in general, not this species. I am trying to limit general material on this page - will add something on massospora if I can find it relates to this species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Live cicadas are often collected by climbing trees" I did not know that trees could collect insects (or could climb).
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elementary text-book of entomology should be title case
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #16: (Watson 2011) has "and" before the final author, unlike other citations
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • there’s a little inconsistency with title/sentence case in the citations; see refs #’s 16 and 38
title cased refs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #33: page range error ("pp. 348–39.")
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #38: (McIntosh 1963): remove space between initials and give full page range
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #39: (Tillyard 1926): formatting slightly off (note comma after year)
was in "citation" rather than "cite book" - should look better now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • isbns could be converted to the preferred ISBN 13s, if you’re so inclined

Closing comment -- I think we can safely call it a day on this review, if there's any further tweaks re. Sasata's comments then they can occur post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 7 May 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 Graham Colm 19:35, 6 May 2014 [13].

Oliver Bosbyshell

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about… Oliver Bosbyshell, a rather obscure figure in the history of the mint, but who also held some fame in his own lifetime for claiming to be the first person wounded in the Civil War. That rather seems to have fallen by the wayside, a local historian in Pennsylvania I consulted had never heard of Bosbyshell, and a book on the early days of the Civil War that has a play-by-play of the Baltimore Riot doesn't mention him in that context. Interesting character though. Early nom permitted by Ian Rose. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Those things are done. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco review

  • Per WP:LEADLENGTH, this 15k article should not have 4 paragraphs of lead.
  • Lead doesn't mention his later life
  • Perhaps link Confederate and Union at first mention?
  • Bosbyshell's - His, perhaps?
  • Watch for an over-reliance on semi-colons; I spot three in the first three sentences and section title
  • he contracted bronchitis while fighting the fire which destroyed his warehouse, then died shortly after a sea voyage he had taken in hopes of improving his health. The elder Bosbyshell died in Philadelphia eight weeks before his son's birth, - I get the feeling that these could be merged together.
  • returned from Mississippi by land - is the fact that she returned by land worth mentioning?
  • With Pleasants now on General Robert B. Potter's staff, - no frame of reference for what "now" means
  • at Philadelphia in 1876. In 1879, he was elected as commander of Post 2 in Philadelphia. - any way to avoid repeating Philadelphia?
  • On October 17, 1889, President Benjamin Harrison commissioned Bosbyshell as superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint. ... Bosbyshell filed his oath as Philadelphia Mint superintendent on November 1, 1889. - Any way to avoid repeating the name of the post twice in three sentences?
  • In 1890, Bosbyshell deposited $4,200 of federal funds in the Keystone National Bank, which then went bankrupt. Bosbyshell was responsible for the debt, which was only $300 less than his annual salary, and paid it off by stages, completing the payments in 1894. - can this be merged anywhere? It's really short
Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise his Mint career was uneventful?
So far as I can tell from the refs. Mint records aren't the most complete and Bosbyshell's not well-studied.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Pennsylvania National Guard on first mention?
  • With the outbreak of the Spanish-American War in 1898, Bosbyshell organized and served as colonel of the Nineteenth Pennsylvania National Guard Regiment, which was used for homeland defense. He remained in that capacity from August 1898 until November, 1899. - anywhere this can be merged?
Not that I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a bit in. I'm reluctant to go too far as just because a letter is from Bosbyshell, it may not have represented his views, the way the Mint was organized, you always went through your superior officer. With the quarter, it seems clearest.
Not sure. Generally it says "public schools" or "common schools". Most likely, from what you say. I think that's everything, thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "according to accounts in his lifetime, he was struck by a missile variously described as a stone or a brick. Although it gave him a large bruise and momentarily stunned him, the object drew no blood; Private Bosbyshell was purportedly the first man wounded in the Union cause": "purportedly", "accounts", "in his lifetime" and "variously described" leave me wondering whether historians today generally believe these accounts.
They don't seem to. There is a source which is a virtual play by play of the Baltimore Riots and other events of the first days of the Civil War and Bosbyshell is not mentioned in that context. Without Bosbyshell to push it, the claim seems to have dropped away, though I can't find a source that says it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think he was hit, then there may be a problem with the way the lead reads, but I'm just doing a prose review here. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a post he still held as of 1908": I think "serving until 1908" or "serving until at least 1908" would be clearer (although, like your wording, the latter raises the question of why we don't know how long he served).
Because Bosbyshell doesn't have biographers. This article is probably the best reference on him, and there's nothing I could find that discussed his employment later than that. I looked through the GMU databases too.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for the review and support, and for the copyediting.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your articles are always a pleasure to read. I'm doing a lot less copyediting while I work on copyediting software, but I couldn't resist this one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning to Support -- recusing myself from delegate duties to review, as I have a FAC open myself at the moment...

  • Copyedited as usual, so pls let me know if you disagree with anything. My only outstanding comment is that normally we pick people up for overlinking but I wonder if the lead isn't underlinked here... I'd have normally expected links to United States Mint, Philadelphia, Union, Confederate, and Baltimore -- and that's just in the first paragraph. Of course if you feel there's a good reason not to link I'm happy to discuss...
I tend to underlink in doubtful cases. It's really a question of what I think is going to be useful to the reader. I don't tend to link major cities.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- sources look reliable and formatting appears generally consistent, however:

  • You have a question mark for the publishing date of his Descendants work but seem definite about the date in the main body -- should be consistent.
  • I'd have expected to see retrieval dates for all the online newspaper refs, not just one.
I've removed that one, which is not a newspaper. As I understand the guideline, if it is something that is not going to change (page images of books or newspapers, for example), there is no need to provide an access date. Similarly, the page that had the access date, Smith's numismatic biographies, is a PDF and an online version of a published book (though I think it had a very small printing).
  • NYT is linked half a dozen times (on first use seems enough) but Philly Record not once.
  • I'm curious to know why the volume of the first Senate journal appears in bold but not the second, though it may be some quirk of the template. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain, I obviously copy and pasted one to the other, just filling in the info. In Franklin Peale, where I use the Senate journals similarly, both are bolded. If I haven't responded, it means I've gone and done it. Thank you for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 3 May 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 Graham Colm 10:55, 4 May 2014 [14].

Infinity Blade

Nominator(s): PresN 05:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Summer 2010, Apple wanted to show the world that you could make good-looking games for the iPhone, and Epic Games wanted to show that their upcoming iOS version of the Unreal Engine wasn't just good for tech demos- so they told a 12-person company they had just bought to make a game for a system they'd never developed for with an engine that wasn't finished yet, and to have a demo ready in 2 months and the game done in 5. No pressure! Presenting for your consideration Infinity Blade - if you saw an Apple advertisement in late 2010/early 2011 with a 3D game, it was this one, the game that told large developers that it was possible to make money on an iPhone game that involved no birds at all, no matter their emotions. Passed as a GA by J Milburn in 2012, despite his FAC recommendation I hadn't touched it since until Hahc21 mentioned that we could take it to FAC together; I couldn't wait for him to be free once I realized that the article was a lot better than I remembered. I've rewritten/polished the entire article in the past couple weeks, so now the sentences are grammatically correct, the images are rationale'd, the links are archived, and everything should be ship-shape for what will hopefully be a double-first: the first FA about an iPhone game and my first FA that is neither an indie game nor a Final Fantasy game. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 05:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comments From "A version of..." onwards, the lead basically becomes an iteration of "On X date, Y product was released." Why don't you instead say what you've said so lucidly here, "Apple wanted to show the world that you could make good-looking games for the iPhone . . . the game that told large developers that it was possible to make money on an iPhone game"?

The Legacy section should probably be renamed Sequels. Something's legacy is the influence it had, and how it is remembered; in this case, it is that Infinity Blade paved the way by proving that high-end iOS games could make truckloads of cash.—indopug (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if that's a well-documented statement about it, Infinity Blade's article should include something about its recognized influence. That's necessary for completeness at an FA level. Tezero (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the article because it's completely OR. If it was a well-documented statement then of course it would be in the article. I was just trying to make the nomination statement interesting. --PresN 23:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review from czar

In the interest of transparency: both the nom and I participate in the WikiCup czar ♔ 15:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review archived to the talk page czar ♔ 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded inline to Czar's comments; I'll give your article a review when I get a chance, though I might review some VG articles that are lower down the page first. --PresN 21:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose has a lot of "comma and" I edited a few into two sentences—not sure who is responsible for this, but wanted to point it out for future awareness
  • It was me, I like commas
I like commas too. Murder your darlings. ♔
  • Consider splitting the gameplay and repetition parts into separate ¶ to avoid redundancy
  • It's only two sentences so I'd rather not; what do you see as redundant?
It's fine, but I meant a split in the last Reception ¶ so one would address gameplay and one would address redundancy, as they're separate ideas ♔
  • I don't see why the novellas need to be named in the lede—they're garnish (not imperative to understanding the article)

Support on prose. I'm really contented with how the prose turned out. I need to move on to other things but ping me if you ever need an image review or source spot check (on this FAC or others) and I'll help out. And if anyone is interested, I'm looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC. czar ♔ 00:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by czar

czar ♔ 22:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done czar ♔ 00:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn

Glad to see this article made it to FAC!

  • "In the game, the player fights a series of one-on-one battles and journeys through a derelict castle in a fantasy world in order to fight the immortal God King." The player controls a character who does this. Perhaps you could also use this sentence to say who the character is?
  • "show off" is a little colloquial
  • In the lead, could we have a link for Unreal Engine?
  • Already linked in second sentence.
  • "It made US$1.6 million in four days and over US$23 million by the end of 2011." There's a tense switch here- perhaps you could go for "In the four days following its release, the game made US$1.6 million, and it had made over US$23 million by the end of 2011." My way's still not quite right- perhaps you could work something out?
  • "It was reviewed favorably by gaming critics. Reviews heavily praised the graphics, comparing the game favorably" Very repetitive
  • Is Infinity Blade: Redemption worth a redlink?
  • "as the player travels" Player character, not player
  • "Players can use two special abilities located at the top of the screen." The ability isn't at the top of the screen- presumably, you mean the abilities are activated by pressing a button at the top of the screen
  • You should probably link to Role-playing video game, rather than role-playing game
  • "The player is then given the option of either starting the next bloodline, or resetting the game and losing all gold and items, but maintaining their experience level, letting the player remaster the items and level up even further." I'm not sure I follow
  • "This expansion also added new equipment, enemies, and a new ending to the game where the player-character defeats an ancestor of his" Is this what you have already discussed?
  • "code libraries' lack of support" There are multiple code libraries?
  • "The five-month development was completed by a team of twelve people" As there's only 12, perhaps you could list them?
  • "an uncommon game based" Type of game? Style of gameplay? Something like that?
  • "and Nick Chester of Destructoid said that although the combat wasn't very complicated, it was fun to play." Is this a direct quote? There are no quote marks. If it's indirect, you shouldn't be using contractions
  • "The other role-playing game elements" Other?
  • "Destructoid called them "satisfying" and IGN said that they added to the game's difficulty. Eurogamer, however" Avoid personification (there are more later)
  • I switched to this because the review above said that just saying "Brown said blah" got confusing keeping track of who was who; what would you recommend?
  • "addicting" isn't a real word. Perhaps consider making it an indirect quote, and use addictive?
  • Sorry, tongue was in cheek. I agree it's generally accepted (in US English at least), but I think a lot of people (with good reason) don't consider it particularly good form. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "Sequels and spin-offs" for the section title?
  • "Like its predecessor, a novella by Brandon Sanderson set between Infinity Blade II and III, Infinity Blade: Redemption, was released on September 9, 2013." Instead of "Like its predecessor", how about "As before"?

Very nice looking article. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done; comments more substantive than "done" inline. (notification) Thanks for reviewing! (again) --PresN
  • The article's looking great- I'll be happy to support (pending the source check) apart from the hanging personification issue- I'll hold off for now and see where we end up. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's about the series as a whole instead of just this game, though at the time the series was just the first two games, but added the "most profitable series" bit; the sales numbers were already in the article. I threw in the Kill Screen review, since I liked it, but I couldn't do much with it; while certainly clever, it doesn't actually say much new about the game itself- we already have 8 reviews that mention that the game is cyclical, with small, evolutionary changes between each bloodline. Its draw is that the "feel" of the review is similar to the "feel" of the game; that's not really paraphraseable in a review section of an encyclopedia article. You should try to get the magazine/website added to WP:VG/RS, though. --PresN 01:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Czar and Hahnchen - Czar, are you satisfied with the responses to your review? Hahnchen, are you willing to do a full review or support/oppose the nomination? --PresN 02:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded above czar ♔ 00:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; no significant problems. I might prefer a bit more coverage of Awakening and Dungeons, but regardless, I feel that this is satisfactory for the FA criteria. Tezero (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the time being. I should've looked more closely before, but as someone had to do a source review, I took it on, and there are serious problems with misattribution as specified later. Tezero (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one again following source-related fixes. This FAC still needs an image review, which czar has announced plans for, so it should be good to go before too long. Tezero (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • I realise we've had some experienced reviewers looking through this piece but to me the lead left a bit to be desired prose-wise, which suggests the rest of it might benefit from a copyedit.
  • We still need image and source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I think you caught some changes to the lede, but the rest is fine overall. I did a spotted tightening but I found much of it acceptable, occasionally "brilliant". czar ♔ 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tezero

I wouldn't have supported if the sources didn't look fine from my glances, but here I go because someone needs to. Tezero (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • All sources look reliable and adequately archived. However, I'm running into problems with the sources not confirming what's attributed to them. Unfortunately, I'm going to temporarily rescind my support until these are cleared up.
  • 1. "Upon defeating the mechanized warrior, the chamber is revealed to be controlled by an ancestor of the playable character, who chose to serve the God King" and "New Game+".
  • 2. Likewise: "decreases the player's experience gain by 20%".
  • Also, why are four citations given at the end of two sentences comprising four reviews, rather than two citations after each sentence?
  • 3. "incorrect counters damage the player-character" - a little misleading; the source seems to state that you'll get damaged if you counter incorrectly because the sword will slice through it, not that the countering will actually damage you.
  • 4. Doesn't look like any of the end of the first paragraph of Gameplay is confirmed in the source, other than mentions of magic vs. Super.
  • 5. MP3s aren't mentioned, though the other additions are.
  • 6. Only mentions that there is a twist, not what it is.
  • 7. The source specifies very little about Arena mode.
  • 8. Doesn't talk about the previews.

More to come. Tezero (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Half of these are unsourcable minor details, while the other half are bits that got changed/moved in a copyedit sometime since the GAN. Grrr.

  • 1 - Plot points are generally implicitly sourced to the game itself, as no third-party source/review is going to cover every minor detail of the plot of a game. This is true even if (as here) the plot is merged into the gameplay section. As to NewGame+... that... is not where that sentence used to be. Added another source to replace that Destructoid cite that explicitly calls out what New Game+ does.
  • 2 - the 1UP source says that you don't earn experience points once an item is mastered; there's 5 items, that's 20%. Also, because it used to be one sentence and someone changed it; fixed.
  • 3 - Changed to "result in damage to", which is ironically the exact wording I used before all these copyedits.
  • 4 - Except that the source does mention that you have to swipe in the right direction, and that there are combo attacks (the actual sentence it is at the end of). The assertions that you reset after most battles right where you are and that some specific attacks can't be parried are left unsourced- there's no review in the world that's going to get that detailed. I'll drop the statements if you want, but the idea is that all claims that are likely to be challenged should have a source, not minor gameplay details that can be verified within 5 minutes of starting the game.
  • 5 - I'm just going to drop the MP3 bit, there's no point trying to hunt down another source for such a minor detail.
  • 6 - See point one. Also, the plot details are a restatement of an earlier mention in the gameplay section; the source here is just citing that it first appeared in that update, which is the new information.
  • 7 - added another source that gets more detailed about Arena mode
  • 8 - dropped the details as the only source I can find is the update itself, and it doesn't matter much that there's a preview for IB2 in IB1, even if it's on the main title screen.
  • Rest of them:
  • New sources - good
  • 11 - good
  • 12 - good
  • 13 - good, but I'd prefer "licensed" instead of "sold" as Epic got to keep the engine
  • 14 - good; interesting way of using two sources
  • 15 - good
  • 16 - good, I assume
  • 17 - December 9 not in source, and the bit about Apple is in a comment
  • 18 - good
  • 19 - good
  • 20 - good
  • 21 - eh, I'd change it to "Xbox 360" from "console"; that's less interpretive
  • 22 - there may be a slight difference between "effective" and "fun"; also, I don't notice any mentions of addictiveness

I have to take a phone call quite soon, so I'll be back with the last few soon. Tezero (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 13 - done
  • 17 - I didn't bother sourcing the release date, as it's not likely to be challenged, and the bit about Apple is from page 4 - "We had Apple touting us a lot, which was nice, but we didn't spend any marketing money on this."
  • 21 - done, not because its less interpretive but because console is ambiguous unless I said "contemporary console"
  • 22 - If we're not allowed to paraphrase what the reviewers say I might as well make the entire section one giant quote block and be done with it, but actually you misread it- 22 is the Pocket Gamer review, and is used to source "Tracy Erickson of Pocket Gamer described the swipe-based combat system as "easy to understand, though tough to master"" and "Erickson's review for Pocket Gamer said that the game had problems with repetition".

Remaining citations:

  • 23. Isn't it 1.6 million, not 1.4 million?
  • 24. good
  • 25. good
  • 26. good
  • 27. I don't see it directly stated that that's a metaphor for life.
  • 28. good
  • 29. Not in the text; I'd look for a more stable source, i.e. one that doesn't rely on videos or Java/Flash apps, which won't stick around if the site's layout is changed and archiving becomes the only option. Nevertheless, it's fine for now. (Dramatic, foreshadowing music plays.)
  • 30. It should probably link to this instead.
  • 31. good
  • 32. good
  • 33. good

That's all of them. Tezero (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 23 - Done
  • 27 - That is a hard source to find direct quotes for, but did you watch it all the way through to the end? (The text changes slowly when you move to the next bloodline, up to 5 times). When it starts changing the words to be instead "Infinity Blade may be a commentary on [...] the tiny, gradual ways we improve on ourselves. Mostly, we die like our fathers." "but to continue is to live better than before" etc., and bring up the metaphor of going to the same job every day?
  • 30 - Done
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 Graham Colm 10:55, 4 May 2014 [16].

Grand Theft Auto V

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (t) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto V is a 2013 video game, and the latest entry into the culturally significant Grand Theft Auto series. The game's five year development cycle was one of the biggest undertakings in the industry, and the game was subject to enormous hype. It shattered records for the entire entertainment industry and is on track to be the best-selling video game ever. I've worked on this article a great deal over the past six months. Having just culled down Reception and split Development off, I feel the article is well-written and, importantly, at a readable length which is why I feel it qualifies as FAC. CR4ZE (t) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment I just looked at the Controversy section, which can be significantly trimmed. The text often loses focus from the subject at hand. For eg, "Helen Lewis of The Guardian felt Petit's observations were valid, but were stigmatised by gamers who have become 'hyper-sensitive to criticism' " has little to do with GTA V but rather is about an article that criticised it. Another thing is: are those Forbes articles reliable? They're by Forbes "contributors"; basically anybody can become one, and you get paid by the number of hits you generate. I doubt there's any fact-checking etc.—indopug (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes are used three times in the article. The first reference (#74) is used to support the claim that the game outsold analyst expectations. Dave Thier's bio states that he is a freelance writer - that may be a problem, although his bio also states that his work has been reused by a number of RS. Going off the bio of Eric Kain (#122), he seems much more usable. I'd put Paul Tassi (#125) on par with Thier, but he can easily go as his article is only used in response to another. So I'll let you decide based on their individual merits which, if any, we can keep. Now, I think the whole controversy-within-a-controversy over Petit's review is a mentionable thing, because her comments, and the response to them, really instigated the whole "misogyny?" discussion. CR4ZE (t) 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the merge tag at the top of the page shouldn't be a problem for the article. Since the debate's been open for nearly two months, I yesterday asked at the WikiProject and Admin Noticeboard for closure. Because of Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto)'s content (not much to stand on its own two feet in my opinion), whatever the result of the discussion won't impact this article's content, although I invite anybody to go ahead and close the discussion off as we go forward with the FAC. CR4ZE (t) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By chance, the use of Forbes is currently being discussed at WT:VG/RS. The current consensus is that the staff are reliable, but the contributors might not be. You already have reliable sources for the $800M and gamer-misogyny lines, you don't need Forbes. And for a defense of the torture sequence, you should try Tom Bissell[17] or Tom Chick[18]. - hahnchen 04:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration I think the Thier's piece, which we're using to support the claim about the analyst, is a situational okay. I think the key difference is that Kain's and Tassi's work here are opinion pieces about the game's controversy, and I'll happily take them out and replace them upon Hahnchen's recommendation. Now Thier on the other hand is examining the sales GTA V posted on its first day against Arvind Bhatia's estimations. That's objective reporting; comparing one fact against another. So it really becomes a question about Bhatia... Well, I think given IGN is quoting him, it shouldn't be looked at any differently if Forbes is. CR4ZE (t) 06:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes' contributor pieces do not have editorial oversight, that in this case, they happen to be correct does not mean they're the best sources available. You already have the Reuters source, Variety can back up Bhatia's estimate. - hahnchen 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even though that's a subjective comment, if there's a better source available I'll happily replace it. CR4ZE (t) 07:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added Bissell's and Chick's pieces into the Controversy section. CR4ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I won't be thoroughly reviewing this article because I haven't properly played the game (release it on PC damnit!) Just a quick thing I noticed, there's no mention of microtransactions at all, despite it generating half of TTWO's digital revenue in the last quarter. That 70% of players have played online might be worth noting in the reception too.[19][20] - hahnchen 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a paragraph on GTA Online, but it got moved to the development article when I decided to split it. I can copy the paragraph over to here again? And add that note in Sales perhaps? Does the article need this? CR4ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not need the Allianz quote, it's a piece of trivia fluff for Allianz marketing. If it got picked up by secondary sources, it might be worthy of inclusion, but I doubt it.
GTA Online redirects to Grand Theft Auto V. The development sub-article is not where readers would go to find information on GTA Online. While details of the online component's development would sit in the development subarticle, its gameplay, revenue model and reception should not. - hahnchen 18:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted a new section into Reception titled "Multiplayer launch", and have written up a paragraph summarising the reviews I was able to collate. Now I need to make a few points here. Firstly, four of the five reviews in the table are considered 100% RS. Destructoid is situational depending on the writer, and in this case Chris Carter is an editor who is also "Reviews Director". The Polish review, GRYOnline.pl, is considered RS. I felt it was necessary to have this one because of the lack of RS to add to the table; the alternative is to add GamesMaster's review, but it's a print medium I don't have, so I can't supply author name, publisher etc. Finally, I have included publication dates in the table. This is because, given the nature of GTA Online's launch, the date of the publication is just as, if not, more important than the review score. Reviews were clearly impacted by the launch issues, so I think it's important the table includes dates next to scores. CR4ZE (t) 14:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add too that I'm not going to add the Metro article about GTA Online's revenue to the article, because it is sourced from NeoGAF. CR4ZE (t) 14:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can understand why the Metro piece isn't good enough. The MCV piece might still be worth a mention, I also spotted that Bhatia's estimates for GTA Online were picked up too.[21] You could link those two pieces together in a sentence summing up GTA Online's sales. - hahnchen 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added some post-release information for GTA Online. Not sure if Bhatia's estimations need to be mentioned though. CR4ZE (t) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I collated reviews while writing Reception, I really only found Destructoid's review gave mention to the sound design. I have inserted it into one of the paragraphs, because I don't know if I have enough for a full one. CR4ZE (t) 05:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty more that could be said about the soundtrack. Both IGN and Gamespot touch on it, but what you really need is the Edge review in print (Issue 259). There's a page long post script about the series' music. - hahnchen 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been able to get a small paragraph out of those handful of quotes. I have tried unsuccessfully to find scans of the Edge review online. I'd happily buy it, but it wouldn't arrive in my mailbox for a few weeks. CR4ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User:X201 who may have a copy of that issue. I do have a copy of that issue, but it's in storage and I won't be able to get at it until April. You can also just buy the digital version. - hahnchen 16:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've got it, will sort out a way to get the info to Craze. - X201 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I bought it. Will write something up tomorrow. CR4ZE (t) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query. This game has only bee out for about six months. It will, at some point, presumably have an impact and a legacy, which is what an encyclopaedia should be evaluating. Is it not a bit too early to have a 'finished' encyclopaedia article? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have featured articles on living people who's legacy is sure to grow. While an unreleased game has too much left in the air, a game that has been released and appraised is enough for a featured article in my opinion. - hahnchen 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia article is ever complete. Dishonored is likely to pass even without a Legacy section, because the article is complete with the information available now with no obvious omissions. Inevitably, yes, we'll probably have to add a Legacy section, but that doesn't stop the article from being finished with the content that's presented at present. CR4ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*not now too early, it has yet to be released on PC, and the game has only been out for 6 months. i forsee some pretty significant changes to the article. a Featured Article should be fairly stable in terms of content. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a very good reason. You're making presumptions based on future events that haven't happened yet. Has the PC version been announced yet? No. When it does, how exactly do you consider that the article will go under "significant change"? Are we going to have to rewrite the entire article because of a port to another platform? I bet not. The article has remained structurally the same since the successful GAN, except that the readability has been improved with a split Development and culled Reception. I'd say it was stable at the GAN and has remained so since then. CR4ZE (t) 07:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, stating that the article could go under "significant change," (and stating that this should prevent the promotion of the article to FAC) simply based on your own personal theories on the direction of the game development, is potentially WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 13:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps. I don't mean that it's a bad article. i guess you are right, rockstar, for whatever reason, has been completely silent about the PC release. i did make an assumption, based on the fact that GTA4 was released on pc, and that the PC market is quite large. however, in retrospect, i really don't see why it should stop a FAC. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over a week now and no new comments. Surely there are more editors interested in conducting a review. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. High quality prose and grammar. Mr*|(60nna) 07:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

  • Is Quarter to Three a reliable source?
  • Likewise with NintendoEverything – I've heard of it, but it was seen as iffy in Pokémon Channel's FAC. Here, it draws from a Famitsu source; it'd be nice if you found and cited that.
  • Reception (the non-subsection part) may still be bordering on too long. The points all seem well-supported enough for inclusion – perhaps too much, as I think you could cut out some of the details and redundant quotes.
  • "Depiction of torture" consists of one very long paragraph. Split it somewhere.
  • The article looks fine otherwise. Tezero (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quarter to Three is Tom Chick's website, and given his reputation in the field he should be okay to use. Hahnchen can probably give a better justification if need be.
  • I did some searching for a replacement for Nintendo Everything, and the only RS I found was VG247, but even then the statement in the prose is different to what is available via VG247 as they appear to be citing a different part of the Famitsu article. Not to mention the fact that the article is sourced from NeoGAF and NintendoLife, which to me comes across as sloppy. I've removed the information. Famitsu appears to be hard to get online, and even if I got it... I don't speak Japanese, so there's no point. It's information more relevant to the Japanese Wikipedia anyway.
  • It's possible to cite Japanese articles; I do it all the time. Some browsers have auto-translators; if not I'm sure you could Google Translate it to get a basic idea. Nevertheless, if you don't want to add it you don't have to, since GTAV is a Western game and this is the English Wikipedia.
  • I disagree. It's been cut down a fair bit, but with a game covered as widely in the media as this, a good-size reception section is kind of necessary. The only way I could see it being cut down even further is if we removed the second paragraph, the one about GTA V being this generation's magnum opus. However, take into consideration Dishonored, which recently passed FAC with a reception section at 1,243 words, and look at that in context with GTA V's slightly shorter 1,111 words. I'm not trying to use WP:WAX, but my point is that for some games, the wide scope of the reviews sometimes necessitates a lengthy reception section and cutting it down too much might not give the reader all the appropriate information they could get. Excepting its development, a game's reception is the most important thing to cover in a WP article.
  • That's fair. I ought to be less knee-jerk about that.

Support; my issues have all been addressed. Nice work! Before the large amount of work on GTAV and related articles, I assumed the GTA task force had been pretty much abandoned. Tezero (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review from czar

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.

  • That the game was published by Rockstar isn't cited in the article, nor is the "fifteenth" part
  • "Off-mission, ": "missions" needs explanation before introducing "off-mission"
  • general tip to use shorter words and conserve syllables wherever possible to make sentences easier (allow → let/put, utilize → use)
  • "freely roam the state's countryside": is it the state's or the city's countryside? Seemed more like the latter to me
  • "Players control the three lead protagonists simultaneously": would be better to say that the story for all three happens concurrently and that the player swaps player-characters at will rather than introduce the idea that one controller does three things at once. This ¶ can be a bit more precise
  • {{Infobox video game}} uses |media= only where the distribution is ambiguous—not sure it is in this case
  • producer/designer/etc. credits should be sourced and mentioned in the article
  • I don't think the list of Rockstar subsidiaries belongs in the infobox per the |developer= param description
  • I highly recommend list-defined refs for the future—makes editing much easier for copyeditors
  • First ¶ of Gameplay is out of order—the specific health and law mechanics should follow the basic overview of gameplay: action-adventure, how the characters are controlled, you shoot things, you interact with things, etc. HUD stuff might be best for its own ensuing paragraph. This is to say that "In combat, auto-aim..." jumped into "combat" when the reader doesn't know combat means gunfight here. Similarly, "its halfway point"—halfway of what? What is an "illegal act" or a "mission" (not necessarily a definition, but what does it mean in this game)? These are solid questions for people who know little about video games but want to read about the fastest selling entertainment of all time
  • Try to reduce the semicolons, which are awkward
  • Em dashes aren't spaced, en dashes can be (when used as an em dash)
  • I'll pause here for now since your Gameplay edits might alter the whole section
  • Note geographic parenthetical comma use in MOS:COMMA—it's tricky

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Menacer FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 11:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rockstar, actually, have been cited. Each of the first two sentences in Development cover both Rockstar Games and Rockstar North with reliable sources giving direct mentions. As for the game being the fifteenth entry, I can't find a reliable source for this. All I get is this, which isn't a fantastic choice. It isn't really an objectionable statement, however I can just remove it instead.
  • I've made the gameplay paragraph in the lead a little more precise now.
  • What's interesting about the media field is that the game had to be shipped on two Xbox 360 discs but only one PS3 disc. Rockstar had to put out an announcement reassuring gamers that there wouldn't be any differences between the versions. Wouldn't that be a mentionable thing? It's covered in a little more depth in the "Overview" section of the Development sub-article. Have a read first before I remove the |media= field.
  • Producer/designer again falls into the category of facts that got moved into the Development page upon the split. I can recycle the citations into the Infobox?
  • That could be true for most games, which is what the Infobox is designed to cover, but how many games can you name that required a core development team plus seven studios split between the UK and the US, and the manpower of at least 1,000 people? I can cite the fact that the game required all that widespread effort, but I can't seem to cite each separate studio's contributions unless you're okay with the game credits as a source. But if you still think the list can go I'll take it out.
  • There are lots of list-defined refs once you get down to the Awards, but it's an editorial preference anyway. You should turn the wikEd gadget on if it bothers you.
  • Added "meter" after "health" and reworded "illegal acts" to "crimes". I'm trying to think of a better way to describe what a "mission" is because any synonymous terms are even more confusing. Can't say I agree completely on the organisation but I'm looking into it. The thing is, we need to give the reader insight into the basic action gameplay mechanics immediately, before we get into the character-switching and the open world design. By the time they get to "In combat, auto-aim..." readers are already aware that there is combat, because the second sentence explains that players use guns and stabby things to kill people. Same for the Wanted system, which needs to be explained ASAP because it's a major underlying mechanic of the game. Now, what I could do is keep all those basic mechanics in the first paragraph, then trim bits from the others into a new second paragraph thoroughly explaining the open world design. Getting into the way the single-player story/switching works first before all that would be very disorganised.
  • The most grammatical correct way to introduce a "for example" is to put a semi-colon there. Other semi-colons are gone.
  • User:Czar, ping. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Rockstar cites, I meant the whole list of Rockstar NYC etc. from the infobox (I mentioned this above, re: subsidiaries). IBT ref works for me (though it may be citogenesis). I think the infobox media can go—if it's not worth mentioning in the article, is it worth mentioning in the infobox? "Roam" is used twice in the lede. Putting refs in the infobox when the item's not mentioned in the article is totally fine. If it's worth mentioning the transnational dev split, it should go in the prose (not the infobox and definitely not infobox-only). I'm not contending for a total reorg of the Gameplay, just threw out an idea. It does, however, need to read so someone such as my hypothetical person can pick up the article and understand it, which means situating the early, unavoidable jargon. Slogging through the rest now czar ♔ 04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: the transnational development is already mentioned in the appropriate section, Development. The source used doesn't give mention to each individual studio, so I have commented out the "Additional work" field in the infobox to run this by you. I can use the game credits to cite the development studios. Otherwise they can just remain hidden. I removed the second "roam" in the lede. I cited each individual producer/designer/etc, although I can't help but feel like the infobox looked nicer without citations there... Meh...it's either that, or mention them in the Development section, which I'd rather avoid because I'm trying to keep Development as short as possible. Though you weren't requiring that I do it, I have reorganised the Gameplay section and explained the open world design first with a little bit more detail. Do you prefer how it's arranged now? CR4ZE (t • c) 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the IBT ref came across to me as citogenesis as well, which is why I was bit uneasy about using it. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard for me to contribute during the week. I'll continue over the weekend, but don't let me hold up the review czar ♔ 03:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth incorporating the individual dev team leads into the article, but you know the sources better than me. I usually work them in by way of quotes that credit them as "lead writer X". Gameplay reads much better, but I just gave it an edit as I read (as far as I could muster—the in-prose refs, British English, and lack of serial comma throw me off) and I cut out nearly a kB. The whole article can use this treatment, especially considering its current length. There are a few things I see contributing to its distracting verbosity: repeating the game's italicized name instead of saying "the game", lots of "the x of y" constructions where "y's x" could work, long descriptions that are best said as a single word or two, and ideas repeated in adjacent clauses that should be altogether recast as a single or two separate sentences. (The ce link above shows a few examples of each.) I know that in my own writing, I tend to shove too much stuff into a sentence and then have trouble seeing how to fit in everything I want. Instead of making Frankenstein sentences, I see what idea I'm trying to build around (the "cancer" of my sentence) and then recast the sentence around a different idea. Anyway, I feel this prose could use more concision for better flow. It's very long, so would you like to give it a try? I might slog through it, but I don't have much free time for intensive copyediting. czar ♔ 20:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed down a couple of things, namely some additional critical reviews that were commented out in the table that wasted 2,000 bytes of data. I'll consider working the dev team key people into the prose, but I want to keep that Development section as short as possible. Regardless, it shouldn't hinder the article's featured candidacy. I think as you go down you'll find the prose a little clearer in the Development/Reception/Controversies sections. I've read through these sections many times over and I personally can't find too many ways to make cut-downs. It would need a fresh pair of eyes. I have made some small cuts in Development. The length of the article might seem long, but there's only so much we can do considering the scope of the game in news sources etc. Basically, I'd encourage you to give a run-through and make some final cuts yourself, because this candidate has been open for over a month now and it needs closing soon. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede says Los Santos is based on LA, but that ref was recently removed from the prose
  • Nice plot (saved me the trouble of finishing the game). This said, was there no way to source it? I know you don't "need to", but it would have been worth it for posterity (when the vandals come)
  • "that was meant for Michael instead" → "marked for Michael": clarify this—was it a plot reserved for him or where he was "buried" such that he could start a new life?
  • Plot could do more to explain that Trevor is batshit crazy
  • Usually people are referenced by their surnames—I'm assuming Michael, Trevor, Franklin are called as such because that's how it's done during the game?
  • "Franklin is pressured by Haines": this is a big deal—needs a few more words. Pressured?
  • Do you care about the serial comma? I think it makes things clearer. The prose has been omitting them, but I just removed one from the plot for consistency

More to come czar ♔ 02:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added the source back in.
  • My understanding is that when writing about fiction, you need to source claims about plot threads that not every player may encounter on an initial playthrough. As such, the only parts of the plot that really required citing were the three different endings, which I've done.
My understanding about WAF is that plots were allowed to be unreffed (to cast aside WP:V) since it's really hard to source for some subjects. I was saying that I think this plot is covered so well that reffing it wouldn't be an issue ♔
  • Looks like your copy-edit covered that.
I'm not familiar with anything more than the basic plot, so I was guessing about the purpose of the grave ♔
  • The plot's currently sitting at 769 words, which is already slightly over our target of 700. The idea of a plot section is to give an overview as concisely written as possible. As such, we've mostly kept it to key plot points throughout the game, and there's lots of threads that have been omitted, such as (spoilers) Michael performing odd-jobs for a Vinewood producer, the kidnapping of Michael's family, Trevor's initial business deal with the Chengs etc. I just don't see how getting into more of Trevor's story is going to help readers understand the plot.
Doesn't need his story. One or two adjectives would introduce his characteristics that were later called out in specific in the Reception section ♔
  • Most of the characters are referred to by their first names (Michael is often called "Townley", and Steve Haines is almost always just "Haines"). But I think the way that's it's been approached is that Michael, Franklin and Trevor are the characters you actually control, so for the sake of consistency between Gameplay/Plot they're always on a first-name basis.
  • I emphasised the imperative of Franklin being forced to choose Michael's and Trevor's fates a little more. Check my wording, and if you want a little more detail I'll go back and replay the mission to add a little more. If I can remember, Haines wants Trevor dead because of the fact that he's batshit crazy, and Weston, I think, wants Michael dead because he's been screwed over. Something like that...
It's more that why do the FIB agents have such a hold over Franklin that he'd be forced to make this call? As it stands, it says he received a phone call and has to make a choice. The group is so tight and they have been against the FIB agents for so long, why would listening be imperative? (Rhetorical question, answer in prose)♔
  • Here's the thing with the serial comma. Our MOS allows either its inclusion or omission as long as whichever choice is consistent throughout the prose. Now the article strictly adheres to British English, and every British English style guide I can recall recommends against it. There's advantages and disadvantages to it. As long as the usage is consistent, it shouldn't matter. If it's your editorial preference to use it, use it in articles with American English. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling was that it would be helpful in long articles such as these where it could be used a dozen times. I'm still not sure if you're for or against it, so I left it as is. ♔
  • "the open world space, where preliminary models were rendered in the game engine": Models of what? cl
  • "Production of the game world demanded field research trips": demanded? (would be easy to add Los Santos back here)
  • A bit of overuse of "considered"
  • "The team viewed the game as a spiritual successor": Did they view GTA V as the successor or idea of the project? Like, was it that the GTA sequel qua GTA sequel had to inherit the qualities of the other work, or was it just an opportunity to make their next game contain multitudes?
  • "and considered how they could innovate": How did this consideration work? In planning?
  • "Michael is forced by FIB government": forced how? be more specific
  • "a Triad": I don't think this construction makes sense. Members of the Triad? A branch of the Triad, perhaps?
  • Might want to explain that Trevor's reunion with Michael wasn't with vengeance (maybe he thought he was dead?)
  • "Rockstar collaborated with several retail outlets to provide special edition releases": needs more info—what was different about them, generally?
  • "Rockstar also ran a viral marketing strategy with a website": was it Rockstar or another ad company?
  • I know you said you looked this over, but I killed a ton of gerunds in this section alone. Avoid "-ing" constructions where possible, as they're overused
  • Clarified.
  • Looks like you clarified that.
  • It's used twice.
Not throughout the article, and I already changed a couple ♔
  • Uh...still not sure what the issue is? The sentence explains that they considered the game a spiritual successor to their previous games...
I was asking about the rest of the sentence—I didn't quote the whole thing ♔
  • Refined.
  • Refined.
  • True. Though your edit exacerbated things by removing the mention of Wei Cheng, who is one of the main antagonists.
I'm not sure Cheng's mention is vital to the plot section when the Triad is already there ♔
  • I wrote a little clarification there but I'm not sure how it sounds (really tired at the moment). I'll come back to it later and see if it needs rephrasing.
  • Added mention of the additional content that came with pre-orders, although it's not an exhaustive explanation for concision purposes.
  • It was Rockstar.
  • K. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to just respond that the bullets are acknowledged or were changed instead of responding individually. And editing while tired may not be a good idea if it makes you snippy czar ♔ 15:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to come czar ♔ 02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Critical acclaim" can be a controversial phrase. Now, all of games, GTA V may deserve it, but I'd still quote it as a phrase from a RS where possible.
  • I'd move the mention of the games it ranks behind to footnote notes—it's more trivia than essential to the (long) Reception section
  • I didn't see PSU.com on the WP:VG/RS list—might want to take it there for confirmation, though the staff looks okay if I trust their bios
  • Many of these quotes can be paraphrased, especially for want of space in this section
  • "Los Santos, a city featured in Grand Theft Auto V.": were there other cities?
  • This section's major structural problem is that a few sentences are constructed in a "X was acclaimed, Y person said Z" format that ends sentences only citing the "Y said Z" and not the "X was acclaimed". That portion of the sentence needs the refs necessary to defend that claim. This is a flow issue.

czar ♔ 03:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree, but I've added a "review round-up" from CVG to back the claim.
  • That's a good idea that I followed through on.
  • I'll take it there just in case.
  • Reception's sitting at just over 1,000 words (including the caption). Dishonored, for example, passed happily with over 1,200. I'd say that, while it's long, it's essential to the reader's understanding because GTA is historically most widely known for its very positive reviews. There's a good mix of quotes and paraphrasing, and I noticed in your recent copy-editing you paraphrased a few more. I'd contend the balance is good now.
  • I refined the image caption just slightly.
  • I disagree completely. I've reviewed your work before and I know you like to cite everything, but if I went through on your point here the section would be muddled with redundant citations. Here's why. Take the paragraph "The story and characters—particularly Trevor—polarised reviewers". Now there's no footnote at the end of that sentence, because it's a point that is expanded upon further in the prose. There are 13 citations throughout the paragraph each used to refer back to the opening sentence. There's no reason to over-cite. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Dishonored's Reception excessive, but I didn't get around to reviewing it (as you know, I put a lot of time into my reviews—jeez, the copyedit alone—and the longer the article, the greater the time commitment). My expectation for such sections would be to stick to high-level critiques and to collect "redundant citations" from meta-reviews as much as possible for the boldest claims. The thing is that GTA and Dishonored are totally capable of that quality due to their broad coverage. There is room for each Reception ¶ to sparkle by making sure its contents actually pertain to the idea of the ¶, but I'll leave it as a friendly suggestion. I think you misinterpret what I meant with the last bullet. The way it is now, I had broken sentences with two clauses into separate sentences, such that the ¶s have topic sentences now. Before ("X was acclaimed, Y person said Z"), the citation would appear to cite both the X and YZ clauses. Citing that separated topic sentence (for the sake of WP:V) is up to you. czar ♔ 03:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the way Reception is now, and you've made some good copy-editing here and there so it should meet the "brilliant" criteria. Re the topic sentences, this was an approach I took on in my big cull (this section used to be about 1,500 words I think) to get things as short as I could. There used to be topic sentences like we have now. The ones now are best left uncited. Rhain1999 is working on your last batch of points about the Awards section. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1,508, to be exact. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Escapist generally isn't reliable (WP:VG/RS)—consider killing it
  • " for broadening the scope of the game": I don't know what this would mean, so I removed it
  • Remember that when you use a one-off's surname and don't mention their parent outlet, we have no idea who they are (e.g., "McDonald felt that the licensed music": who the hell is McDonald?, "Gerstmann agreed that the score")
  • "felt that the game's mission design": did this jump from heist missions to regular missions? cl
  • GTAO GameSpot review by "Petit, Petit" fixed
  • "felt that in spite of the improvements, 'the auto-targeting system is twitchy": did this just switch from driving mechanics to shooting mechanics? Needs better signposting
  • "a single lead protagonist whose moral complex was muddled": not sure what this meant, cl
  • The prose in the Reception sentence drags and isn't quite brilliant... more variance from "X of Y (website) said Z"
  • "and the Social Club service": needs explanation
  • "during load screens for early missions": "load screen" is jargon
  • Online section's history can be summarized more since many of the details are not necessary for this article (other than the major events of the botched launch), but it isn't imperative
  • "This broke the previous record set by Call of Duty: Black Ops II ...": make this a {{refn}}, asides not immediately relevant to the text
  • "the largest digital release": in downloads? revenue? specify
  • "beat the lifetime sales of Grand Theft Auto IV": overall? worldwide? it jumps back and forth

czar ♔ 06:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not removing The Escapist. It's considered situational because of Yahtzee's popularity, but Greg Tito is a senior staffer who's been there nine years. He makes some perfectly valid commentary about the game. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was just for consideration, and I'm not sure the reliability concerns are localized to Yahtzee ♔
  • Everything else has been fixed. Load screen has been wikilinked the first time and reworded the second time. As for the multiplayer launch, I'll leave that to you at a point one day where you get the sub-article you created to a more suitable length. Almost all of it is just recycled from this section, which doesn't merit summarising here just yet. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone copied the Reception section, but the rest was newly written. ♔
  • Awards: consider killing rowspan
  • "Xbox 360, and won the latter": cl
  • Would help to know why it matters to be nominated for these awards—it just reads as a laundry list of accolades right now, which isn't helpful
  • In most cases of this list, the number of nominations doesn't matter. I'd group the mentions where the game won the Game of the Year and then group all like comparisons (awards for best audio, etc.) I started to trim along these lines in the last ¶ of Awards but it can go further
  • There is undue weight on controversies. Look how long they are compared to the other sections. It can still use trimming, especially in the By the Book mission description. Might want to break out the section into its own article so it can be kept brief in this one
  • (Now that it's been trimmed a bit, I think the weight is okay—it just looks bad by length)
  • "had an underlying commentary that made the violent content necessary": which was?

Okay, that's it for now. I think the issues are surmountable. For anyone reading this far, I'm looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently re-written the Awards section to reflect your notes on it, so be sure to take a look. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 09:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I also made a couple of fixes to the plot, and refined that sentence in the Controversies section. Looks like all of your points have been covered. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two abandoned ref errors at the bottom of the page—likely inadvertent, but wanted to check czar ♔ 13:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of very small typos from Rhain, that's all. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, sorry about that! I should have taken a better look at the article after my edits. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 06:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, Norton lives. He's loosely considered a "good guy", because he brokers the Ludendorff deal and gives Michael his new life. And they all live happily ever after. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: So... CR4ZE (t • c) 04:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry if I take longer to respond during the week—I typically only review over the weekends because that's when I can steal the time. Here are a few more
  • Isn't the Awards section missing more pre-release awards? There's nothing about E3 awards, for example
  • I'm not sure how the mentioned nominations were chosen, e.g., the "nomination at the Game Developers Choice Awards" does not seem consequential compared to winning awards from so many other sources. I'd recommend removing the nominations unless they are utterly vital (perhaps such as Biggest Disappointment noms, but even there I'd contend it likely isn't worth mentioning)
  • Did y'all see my suggestion about rowspan and readability?
  • The -ing gerund thing (mentioned above) is happening again in the Awards section rewrite (fixed, but I'm only halfway through the section for now)
  • GOTY mentions were missing. I added them, but they need refs (not sure how you want to mention Slant, if necessary)

czar ♔ 14:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's been well-documented that Rockstar have historically been absent from media conferences to promote their games. I'm quite certain, for example, that they haven't been to E3 in a decade. (Some background). It's a deliberate marketing approach, and it's clearly worked in the past. As such, nope, there's almost nothing when it comes to pre-release awards. The nominations may not be necessary in prose, but I'd say they should be left in the table. (We could, in future, split the table off into something like "List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V"). Now I'm personally terrible when working with tables (I scarcely have to use them), so I'll have to leave it to someone else (pinging Rhain) to deal with rowspan. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely keep the nominations in the table—I only meant the prose. In absence of preview awards, it may be worth including at least something somewhere on the great level of anticipation for the game.[22][23] And if there is only one pre-release award in the whole section, might be worth just putting that first instead of using the topic sentence that makes it seem that there will be plenty of pre-release awards. czar ♔ 19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented out the GOTY awards you added. Rhain and I were only able to find this source for GamesTM, which is completely unreliable (amplified by the fact that it actually cites Wikipedia as a source... citogenesis clusterfuck). In the meantime I'm pinging Hahnchen who may have GamesTM, but I can't find GamePro. And I'd rather not keep having to buy archives online. The pre-release anticipation was mentioned in the article, but this is (again) fact that got split off into the Development sub-article. I've added the statement back into the Development section. Now, as for the table, again, I have no idea how to work with them, but I have experimented with killing the "rowspan" parameter and all I seem to do is mess it up. Not sure how to handle this one. Can we just bring another editor in to have a look and make a decision? CR4ZE (t • c) 12:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do have the relevant GamesTM issue, but it's not something I'll have access to until late May as it's in storage. Their website suggests it's issue 142. I'm not sure how notable magazine year end awards are, GTA V will have had too many to list. - hahnchen 14:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GOTY awards from major publishers would be quite vital information for the Reception section's completeness, no? Checking the 2013 versions of the Dishonored list of GOTY/#1 awards won, I don't think GTA V's list would be much longer. Here's an unreliable source that purports a whole bunch more wins, if you'd like to try the more notable ones. czar ♔ 17:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: It is done. That took close to two hours to go through, back-check, add in prose and cite. So if you don't like the way I've set it out, spare my sanity and change it yourself. That's covered everything now hey? CR4ZE (t • c) 12:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't appreciate the jabs and snippiness. The Awards section is not 1a-ready and I know the editors involved are capable of making it brilliant, professional prose, but this encyclopedia is too big to pour time into articles where I'm made to feel unwelcome. So, support on prose and I'll edit a few last things on my own. czar ♔ 00:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. My comment wasn't meant as a personal jab, rather, it was an ironic statement about how numbing it was (on my part) to sort through and get all those awards into the prose. Sorry if it came across some way else, but social science shows that 93% of communication is non-verbal which lends to misinterpretation in text-based communications. I do appreciate your comments and copy-editing. I'll have a read-through of the Awards section and see if I can make the prose shine a little more. One thing I do note with you is that you don't seem to like semi-colons. In that big long sentence about the year-end awards, there's not much of a better alternative without getting into choppy sentences or prose skewered by emdashes. In any regard, I'll continue to look at ways to refine the prose throughout the section. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nicereddy

  • In "Gameplay", the multiplayer character/avatar is mentioned in second paragraph, where its mentioned that the southern point on the HUD compass represents the multiplayer character. While the three single-player characters are mentioned a few sentences prior, the multiplayer character isn't mentioned at all before this sentence, which is fairly confusing. If you could add a quick sentence to the beginning of the second paragraph, before the mention of the compass, I think that'd help clarify.
  • In the "Development" section: "The game required five years' work by a team of over 1,000 people...". I was wondering if this was grammatically correct, specifically the "five years'", as it looks off to me, but I could be wrong.
  • In "Plot", the FIB links to the actual Federal Bureau of Investigation page, which may be a bit confusing for readers.
  • In "Multiplayer launch", I think the following is a bit awkward: "Upon launch, users reported difficulties connecting to the game's servers and the Social Club service, or freezes during load screens for early missions." Specifically, the "or freezes during load screens for early missions." I'd also note that "the Social Club service" is fairly vague, and I don't believe it was mentioned previously in the article.
  • Also in the first paragraph of "Multiplayer launch", the phrase "A technical patch was released on *date*" is repeated twice only two sentences apart. You may want to reword one of these.

Other than that, the prose is fantastic, the article covers everything I'd expect, non-free imagery is used reasonably, and the sources seem reliable. I would consider archiving the references you're using (as I've done with Day of Defeat and Counter-Strike: Source's references, for example), since I've seen a pretty huge number of featured articles erode over time thanks to link rot. I think the longevity of Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability is reliant heavily on archiving references, and this would save you a lot of annoyance in the future. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now, a lack of archives would be a silly reason not to support the article's promotion. If you can fix the issues I've listed above, I'll gladly add my support. Fantastic job to everyone involved. --Nicereddy (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Nicereddy. I have attempted to clarify the compass system in "Gameplay". That sentence in "Development" wasn't necessarily grammatically incorrect, although it wasn't the best wording, so I have reworked it. I removed the wikilinks from the "Plot" and instead added a note explaining that the FIB and IAA were parodies, and sourced the claim. I have attempted to clean up those couple of awkward sentences in "Multiplayer launch". Please review my changes, and if you're happy, I'd love for you to throw down a Support vote. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Apologies, as I had nearly forgotten! All of my issues seem to have been fixed, and as I said in my previous comment, the prose is fantastic, the references all cite legitimate sources, non-free image use is minimal, and the article covers all material I'd expect. Really great job! --Nicereddy (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX

Several things to address:

Lead
  • Make note that it is the first game in the series with multiple playable characters
Reception
  • "According to review aggregating website Metacritic, the game received an average review score of 97/100 for both consoles, and according to GameRankings, the game received an average review score of 97.01% and 96.20% for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, respectively." is lengthy. Try splitting it into something like "MetaCrtic calculated an average rating of 97/100 for both consoles. GameRankings calculated an average rating of 97.01% for the PlayStation 3 and 96.20% for the Xbox 360."
  • ref#77 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than simply The Telegraph
Multiplayer launch
  • GTA$500,000 → GTA $500,000
Awards
  • ref#142 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just Telegraph
Controversies
Depiction of torture
  • Remove ref#26 (Daily Mirror)- it's a tabloid
Accusations of sexism
  • like ref#77, ref#154 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just The Telegraph or Telegraph
Legal actions
  • Find a better source than ref#161 (New York Daily News) or remove altogether. If the detail is to be included, "US$20 million" should read "US $20 million"

After these are addressed, you have my support for this becoming FA. Good luck! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: Everything has been taken care of. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. That should do it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment

@Ian Rose: Nicereddy approved the images in his comments. Would you like to see a full review? I can page some editors for an additional review of images if needed. CR4ZE (t • c) 05:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing for images (note that I'm coming from WT:VG where Cr4ze asked for help):
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V.png is cover art with proper rationale.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V combat.jpg is a game screenshot to demonstration sourced commentary on the gameplay, that's fine.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V Los Santos.jpg is a game screenshot to showcase the game's engine and the similarities to the real city of LA, both backed by sourced discussion, so okay.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V torture sequence.jpg is a game screenshot from one of the game's controversial missions (a scene involving torture, but here showing a scene where the player-character is selecting which torture weapon to use). This is a bit of a tricky case. No question the scene is of critical discussion, but the screenshot itself is not indicative of why (not played, but as I've read, you actually see the torture happening). I would consider it might be better to use a shot here that shows the torture about to be enacted - eg we see the victim about to be struck or the like - as to make a screenshot use here more appropriate along NFC lines. Using this specific shot begs the question if it is really needed. But that's a point of debate to build on. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: I'll happily replace the image, but what I liked about the one we had now was the fact that there was an on-screen prompt for the player to pick a weapon, which reinforces that it's imperative to mission progress to torture the victim. There are, however, replacements available. Take your pick. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of those, I'd recommend a shot of the actual waterboarding. The IGN shots are relatively dark. I'd pick the one with the water canister, but I'd recommend using an image that actually illustrated the action that needs illustration. czar ♔ 15:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd agree this might be a better shot. While a facet was that there were a number of ways to torture that the user could chose from, that really doesn't need a visual guide to show. But to show that the game actually showed the player doing this is what struck a nerve and the commentary on this scene and thus would be a clearly allowed screenshot moreso than the choie of tool. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: @Czar: Here's four images that I have made as replacements. My inclination is to go with Trevor pulling Mr. K's tooth out (#2) because it's the most up-close and graphic. Although, they all would serve a similar purpose. What are your suggestions? CR4ZE (t • c) 01:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're still quite dark. Have you tried lightening them? Also I thought the waterboarding scenes were more effective than the tooth extractions, no? Did they not show well? (Currently working on my review above) czar ♔ 01:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with the tooth-pulling image as well after some brightening. While none of the images show Mr. K's face that well, the tooth-pulling image gives the clearest view of Trevor's face. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The waterboarding segment also features a close-up camera on Mr. K's covered face with water being poured onto it. The camera switches between the view from the screenshot I snapped, immediately to the close-up just as Trevor begins pouring. Trevor is barely seen on-screen there (you see a hand and two feet) so that I feel would lose the impact of the image. My inclination is still towards the tooth-pulling, because featured on-screen are the faces of both men, a contextual prompt and a close-up view. If I do a re-up of either image, can somebody else do a lightening touch-up with Photoshop for me? I don't have the program. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that tooth-pull is a better choice. Also, one more thing I noticed- remove ref#97 (Metro, which is a tabloid) or replace with a better source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, the point of using non-free images (and this is what Masem was stressing) is that it should be showing something that just isn't possible from text description alone. So a picture of Trevor standing with pliers would not be as effective as an image of an actually traumatic action, such as seeing the target in the throes of the action. Whether or not we see Trevor doing it isn't the point. I can try lightening whatever you choose to upload czar ♔ 02:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The shot that I suggested wasn't just of Trevor standing there with pliers. He's towering over Mr. K ripping his tooth out. It would have been just as powerful a shot, however I'm going with the waterboarding shot only because the camera angle in the pliers scene doesn't clearly show Mr. K's mouth enough. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I brightened the shot and think it looks better. Feedback? czar ♔ 04:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the extra clarity looks great. Thanks. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Are the supports/review comments sufficient enough for closing? CR4ZE (t • c) 03:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I counted a dozen instances of "the game" in the lead, which seems excessive. I realise you don't want to use the game's title all the time either but there might be a few instances you can just say "it" or something else. Same goes for the rest of the article, where by my count there are about 90 instances each of the title and "the game"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks for picking up on that. I have gone through and reduced as many of these instances as I can. Take a look. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, that's improved things. Spotchecking prose/phrases, it seems close now but not quite there so I can't in all conscience promote it as is; as I have a FAC open myself at the moment and was planning to review a few articles, I may just recuse myself from delegate duties for another pass at the prose later today and allow my colleague Graham to close it as he sees fit afterwards. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I notice that you've made a couple of changes here and there yourself. If you find bits of prose that don't work for you, I encourage you to fix them, but some minor copy-editing here and there wouldn't interfere with your role as a delegate would it? I mean, whatever you deem appropriate, but I would like to have my very first shiny gold star atop an article. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: What would be your approach for closing? If you have outstanding objections regarding the prose I'll happily work at them, unless you were planning to do a run-through yourself. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Torchiest on sources

I looked at this version. I checked sources 1, 4–5, 7–12, 29, 31–35, 48, 55–59, 62, 67, 69–74, 93–100, 105–116, 123–138, 140–142, 144–152, 202, and 206–208.

I found a few problems:

  • Source 4 is used to support "[Key members of the game world production team] ... shared their photo and video documentation with the design team." I can't really find that. The closest I've found is "We sent out quite a large team on a number of occasions who spent time with location scouts, architectural historians, off-duty police, DJ Pooh and our own research team. ... We’ve shot over 250,000 images and hours of video. We’ve driven all over Los Angeles and out into the surrounding desert, towns, and forests. Throughout the project I’ve visited California quite a number of times, sometimes with the art team and sometimes meeting up with [Rockstar co-founders] Sam and Dan Houser and [longtime series producer] Les Benzies." But that doesn't quite match up with the claims, as far as I can tell. Is there somewhere else in the source that supports the text better?
  • Source 5 is used to support "Rockstar North began to develop Grand Theft Auto V in 2008, following the release of Grand Theft Auto IV." The source, dated 2013, says "Grand Theft Auto V arrives after four years of development".
  • Source 9 is used to support "The Internet lets players purchase properties such as homes and businesses, and trade in stocks via a stock market." That is not in the source, which in fact says "you won't be able to buy property". I did see that Source 71 supports those claims though.
  • Source 11 is used to support "If players commit crimes while playing, the game's law enforcement agencies may respond as indicated by a "wanted" meter in the head-up display (HUD)." That doesn't seem to be in the source either. I found "In this new game, we can still try to escape the circular zone that flashes on the mini-map when cops come after our malcontent protagonist(s)." That's semi-related, but not a clear match.
  • Source 34 is used to support "Key members of the game world production team took field research trips throughout the region" but I don't see anything about that. It's just a mention of a trailer.
  • Source 35 is used to support "Google Maps projections of Los Angeles were used by the team to help design the road networks of Los Santos." That source never mentions Los Angeles, although it does include a quote from Aaron Garbut: "“We do a lot of Googling and StreetView scoping,”".
  • Source 71 doesn't fully support "Critics concurred that Grand Theft Auto V was one of the best games of the seventh generation era of video game consoles, and a great closing title before the emergence of the eighth generation." Although 70 and 72 do, 71 only supports the first half of the sentence.
  • Source 108 is used to support "Three days after release, the game had surpassed one billion dollars in sales, making it the fastest selling entertainment product in history." But that is actually Take Two's guess in the text: "We believe this marks the fastest that any entertainment property, including video games and feature films, has reached this significant milestone." Not sure if that is essentially fact or not. although I see multiple sources report it as such.
  • Source 133 is used to support "an honourable mention by Canada.com", but the source gives it that honour for multiplatform. It also calls it Xbox 360 game of the year.
  • Source 138 is used to support "second by ... the Canadian edition of The Huffington Post", but the source actually lists it at number five.
  • Source 149 is used to support "the game was named the Best Xbox Game by ... Cheat Code Central," but the source lists Bioshock Infinite as its Best Xbox Game Winner 2013.
  • Source 152 is used to support "Rockstar Games and Rockstar North won ... the BAFTA Academy Fellowship Award at the 10th British Academy Video Games Awards." I only see nine nominations for the game itself, and nothing about actual winners.

Everything else I looked at checked out fine. —Torchiest talkedits 04:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for conducting a source review. I'll get back to you some time either today or tomorrow. CR4ZE (t • c) 05:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything has been taken care of. Some bits of information got moved around, others were outdated, and so on... With Source 35 (now Source 34), Garbut is talking about the research for LA. He also talked about it prior to this interview, in the big Game Informer feature from 2012 (Source 29). Game Informer ask him about the research they did on LA to create Los Santos. His exact quote is "We pored over the various online mapping and street-view tools". There are scans of that preview readily available online if you wish to check. So I've added this source in addition to support the claim. Both sources are referring to the same thing, just his wording was slightly different.
With regards to Source 108 (now 107), I agree that "We believe" might appear to be rocky, but the claim has been echoed by countless reliable sources (see here) and has sort of become fact. We go with what the sources say. Take Two have never gone on record to deny the attribution since. It was also featured In the news, so I think the claim is justified. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are scans for Source 29. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Few more items:
  • The stock trading item still isn't supported by what is now source 9, which only says "GTA IV's mobile phone returns, but a lot of its features have been altered. You can use it to access the internet." I added the source I found above support that claim. In fact, I pulled source 9 from the article completely, since it was a really early source with less-than-perfect information, supplanted by more comprehensive reporting later.
  • You removed the source support the part about the HUD and wanted meter, but the following ref to source 11 doesn't quite support all the details either. The HUD in particular isn't mentioned, just some of the mechanics of being chased.
  • I'm fine with your point on the fastest time to reach $1 billion. It's been widely reported.
  • The main issue with the Google Maps point is that the article didn't specifically mention Los Angeles. But the new source looks good.
Just fix the HUD part and I'll be ready to support on sources. —Torchiest talkedits 12:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I found a replacement. I also swapped out the GamesRadar review for a preview to support the fixed-wing aircraft addition. Just a more direct mention, that's all. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:04, 27 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 Graham Colm 10:55, 4 May 2014 [24].

Ontario Highway 402

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article as it has been recently promoted to A-class and meets all the standards expected of a Featured Article. The successful promotion of this article would be my and WP:ONRD's fifth FA, the third 400-series FA, and would interconnect Michigan's and Ontario's highway FAs with the future nomination of I-69. Floydian τ ¢ 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my review and spotcheck at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ontario Highway 402. --Rschen7754 22:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this article at the ACR and feels it meets the criteria. Dough4872 03:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—overall the article looks good, and I'm inclined to support. I have some comments through. Starting with the references:
    • Overall, there's a tendency not to match the case of the titles in the references. This gives an unpolished look compared to APA or Chicago style which directs authors to force sources titled in one case into another. (APA prefers sentence case for journal article titles; Chicago prefers consistently using title case regardless of how the original source was formatted.)
      • As one example, you have "The Corporation Of The City of Sarnia", which in title case would have both instances of of and the second of the in lower case.
      • The press release in footnote 3 is in title case, while the news article in footnote 4 is in sentence case. Can we pick one and harmonize them all to it?
    • "Ontario Ministry of the Environmnet" in footnote 3. Also. "Dr." can be dropped as such titles are normally omitted from names in citations.
    • "pdf" should really be rendered in all caps; it's an abbreviation for "Portable Document Format". That formatting queue should also be added to any citations missing it (footnote 3 again) especially because there is discussion about removing them.
    • Footnote 18: "Press Release - Sarnia to London (Hwy. 402)" it probably would be nice to drop the "Press Release - " from the title since we have (Press release) appearing right afterwards.
    • Footnote 21: "The Observer (Sarnia: Sun Media)" Thank you for including the location, but you can probably drop the publisher.
    • Footnote 25: you should add |link=no to suppress the link on Google there since it's linked in FN 23.
    • Footnote 31: "New Section Opens on Highway to U.S". This is one of those cases where because the citation template applies the period after the quotation mark )per WP:LQ), that I would say you should drop the period and go with "US" instead. Otherwise, "New Section Opens on Highway to U.S.". is your only solution to making the abbreviation not look half punctuated.
    • Footnote 35: "Detroit Free Press (Michigan)" the location there is superfluous unless there's another newspaper called the Detroit Free Press published elsewhere.
    • Footnote 38: that's listing the wrong publication. You've cited an article from The London Free Press that was written by a reporter employed by The Observer of Sarnia. Such crossover is common with papers owned by the same publisher. The Mining Journal here in Marquette, Michigan, reprints articles written for their sister paper The Daily Mining Gazette in Houghton, but I would still cite the specific paper who published the edition of the article I consulted.
    • A request for consideration, but could you include scale information on the map citations? Several citation guides I consulted over the last year for citing maps in APA, MLA or Chicago style (since none of those three guide actually specify directly how to cite maps) recommended "Scale not given" for fixed-scale maps (not dynamic ones like Google Maps). Also, it would be nice if you could supply cartography information, even if it means repeating the name of the publishing organization. (I will list "Michigan Department of Transportation" as the publisher and "MDOT" for the cartography if the map doesn't specify a more specific item to list.)
  • Prose—not much here
    • I noticed that you abbreviated the American Interstates in the lead. It's up to you, but since you listed I-69's full name with the abbreviation, you can probably abbreviate I-94's first mention, even though it's in the same sentence. Then I'd recommend that you abbreviate all of the other mentions for consistency.
    • The sentence stating with "However, construction of a new route known as the Rt. Honourable Herb Gray Parkway ..." can probably be put into a lettered footnote and dropped from the body of the article. As it is, it feels like a tangent and a diversion from the topic, which is the western end of Highway 402. (Use {{#tag:ref| sentence with footnotes|group=lower-alpha}} to embed the cited text into another footnote.)
    • "as a result of the efforts of Lambton Wildlife Inc." can probably also be dropped as getting off topic. (the former rail line aspect of the trail does add some interest, and maybe a link to rail trail is appropriate?)
    • "Planning for the route that would become Highway 402 began following the completion of the Blue Water Bridge in 1938. A divided highway was constructed through Sarnia following World War II; it was completed and designated in 1953.[16] The intent to extend the route to Highway 401 was announced in 1957.[17]" It would read better, and give some more information to readers if you used the active voice here. "X starting planing for the route... " and "Y announced its/their intent to extend..." for example.
    • "Since completion as a four lane route, ..." that needs a hyphen since four-lane is a compound adjective.
    • "Highway 402 is one of the original 400-series highways, having been numbered a year after Highway 400 and Highway 401, in 1953." those two words are unneeded and awkward.
    • "The short 6.1 km (3.8 mi) dual highway" should really be using |adj=on instead of |abbr=on. This level of writing is really better served by spelling out the unit of measurement, something we should only do in tables and infoboxes where space is at a premium. I would change the other measurements to remove the abbreviations as well throughout the prose. [This compares to the "two metres (6 ft)" lower down, which would be "2 m (6 ft)" if you were going to consistently abbreviate.]
    • "Lambton OPP monitored ... " I know OPP = Ontario Provincial Police, but other readers won't.
  • Overall, the article looks good, reads pretty well, and I'm inclined to support promotion once my minor concerns are addressed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made all the ref changes. The Google maps titles still use lowercase since they are descriptive titles of my own doing; however, the remainder should be all good now, from what I can see.
  • As for the scales, that will take me time to compile, but I should be able to add it
  • I've abbreviated all the Interstate listings, but I kept the instance in the lede as I feel it looks odd to not have both in full.
  • Regarding switching the one bit to active prose, I don't think much is to be gained since it's just the department of highways in each case. When specific ministers make big announcements, I try to include that, but in this case I've only got maps and dates to go by and no construction companies or specific PR announcements.
  • The rest of the changes have been made. I left OPP abbreviated but linked to it, as "Lambton Ontario Provincial Police" just doesn't read right. The abbreviations should be all fixed (and I agree that they should be written in full, but was encouraged to use abbreviations in my early road-article writing days.
- Floydian τ ¢ 00:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Looks good, so I can't see any reason to hold back promotion now. Imzadi 1979 → 00:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scales have been added. As far as I can see, the cartographic information is included, except for the cartoony Point Edward map. The official maps simply say "Cartography by Cartography Section" or "Compiled by [the same]". - Floydian τ ¢ 20:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Evad37
    • "Highway 402 has a wide grass median separating the carriageways for the majority of its length." – source?
    • "Blue Water Bridge Approach" – why the italics?
    • "The new four lane roadway is divided into specific lanes for cars, trucks (two lanes), and local traffic, and includes a marked lane for NEXUS card holders as well" – can you clarify, as this doesn't seem to add up: 1×car + 2×truck + 1×local + 1×NEXUS = 5 lanes ?
      • Also, per Imzadi above, "four lane" should be "four-lane"
    • Sources for the dates in the notes column of the exit list?
  • Looking good otherwise - Evad37 [talk] 04:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- still like to see someone from outside the Roads project read through for comprehension/readability (if you can't find someone in a few days ping me and I might recuse myself from delegate duties to do it, as I have an open FAC myself and will be reviewing some here and there). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Prototime I'm not a member of the Roads project, and I have just finished reading it over for comprehension/readability. I did not see many concerns, but I do have a few suggestions:
    1. In the lead, the sentence "The freeway is four-laned and controlled access for nearly its entire length, except on the approach to the Blue Water Bridge, where it widens" is a bit ambiguous; does the "except ... " mean that the lane is also not controlled access on its approach to Blue Water Bridge? I don't think so, since that's not made explicit, but it's not entirely clear. I suggest rewording.
    2. The phrase "as well as" is used a few times throughout the article in place of conjunctions. Using a conjunction like "and" would reduce wordiness and be more grammatically sound.
    3. In Route description, the first sentence is slightly disjointed; I suggest adding "and thus it" or "and therefore it" or something similar in front of the word "providing" (and changing that word to "provides"). I also suggest changing the word "over" to "than"; at first glance, I was confused into thinking that Blue Water Ridge somehow went "over" the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. And one last thing: there is a space between the source citation and the footnote at the end of the sentence.
    4. In History, third sentence, the passive voice leaves me wondering who announced their intent to extend the route.
    5. In History, last sentence, the comma after "Sarnia" is unnecessary.
    6. In Construction, first sentence, I'm confused by what it means that the highway was "one of the original 400-series highways ... in 1953". Does that mean it was one of the original 400-series highways that finished construction in 1953? That it was designated a 400-series highway in 1953?
    7. In Construction: "As such, the highway was appropriately named the Blue Water Bridge Approach." -- The word "appropriately" is expressing an opinion (albeit an obvious one); I suggest removing it.
    8. In Construction: "Then, on February 28, 1968..." -- the word "then" isn't needed.
    9. In Construction: "Minister of Highways, George Gomme" -- that comma probably shouldn't be there.
    10. In Construction: "Initial construction began near Highway 7 in 1974, under two contracts extending 23.2 kilometres (14.4 mi) westward." The way the words are arranged, it sounds like there are two 23.2 kilometer-long contract documents. Also, the sentence's subject is unclear; construction of what? I suggest rewording to something like "Under two construction contracts, construction of Highway 402 began near Highway 7 in 1974".
    11. In Construction: "The section between Highway 21 and Highway 81 north of Strathroy was the next to be completed, and was opened to traffic on November 26, 1979." What comes after the comma is a dependent clause, and thus there shouldn't be a comma. Alternatively, inserting the noun "it" after "and" would make it an independent clause, and the comma could stay.
    12. In Construction, last sentence: "Both were completed in time for the official opening, held in Sarnia on November 10, 1982." -- I suggest dropping the comma and "held".
    13. In Since completion, first paragraph, last sentence: "A single death was reported; that of a man who succumbed to hypothermia on a nearby county road." To help the semicolon work better, I suggest dropping "that of" and "who".
    14. In Since completion, second paragraph, last sentence: 100 kilometers per hour does not equal 100 miles per hour.
    15. In Since completion, last paragraph, last sentence: I suggest adding "vehicular" in front of "blockade" and wikilinking to the blockade page. Those clarifications may help readers who aren't familiar with the term.
    16. In the Notes, the independent/dependent clause comma problem resurfaces; either the comma should be dropped or a noun like "it" should be inserted after "and".
On the whole, great work on this article; I'll probably support promotion after these points are addressed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you don't mind, but I adjusted your bullet points into numbers for ease of replying. I really love some of the wording issues you've found, as I think it really highlights the subtleties of writing these articles that may be obvious to roadgeeks and those writing the articles, but confusing to the average reader. I've only responded to the points I need to, and the others have simply been fixed; my right hand is really swollen right now so it's difficult to type.
  • 2. I've switched most, but I think "as well as" reads better when there is an "and" not far back in the sentence or for multiple pairings of info, i.e the start and end termini of a construction project. "...between the Blue Water Bridge and Lambton County Road 26 (Mandaumin Road) and included the reconstruction of several bridges, as well as completely rebuilding the Christina Street exit..." and "By the end of that year, construction was progressing on the section between Highway 21 and Highway 81 near Strathroy, as well as on the section connecting Highway 2 with Highway 401." are the two examples of this.
  • 10. Used your suggestion but snuck the length of the contracts in a more appropriate spot. Hopefully it works this way.
  • 11. Done, but switched the comma to a semicolon and dropped the "and"... somehow it seems off with just a comma.
  • 14. Nah its something like 100 kilometres to 60 pounds/in2 or 40 furlongs or something... crazy imperial system. Haha, actually just a mistaken rounding number.
Thank you for the review. Hopefully I can remember to apply your suggestions into my future writing. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 02:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:49, 2 May 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/May_2014&oldid=608531543"