Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Featured article candidates)
Jump to: navigation, search
For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Graham Beards, Ian Rose, and Laser brain—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the coordinators may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may want to create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use emboldened subheadings with semicolons, as these create accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.



Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, now orange is the new black and Sasata and I have been buffing the false chanterelle. I feel it's come together well and within striking distance of FA status if not over the FA line. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

George Mason[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... George Mason, an ornery fellow who hung out in Fairfax County Virginia, and went to Philadelphia once in his life and never went back. Through what he said and wrote in both places, he's had a considerable influence on the basic rules of American law and society, and indeed elsewhere as well. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: (just getting started and I'll post piecemeal, please bear with me here). Great article, totally FA quality! My only real concern is a number of examples of "fancy language" where ordinary terminology would do. This is important if someone outside the US/UK is reading it, where this sort of language might not be understood.

  • "which served in place of the dying royal government there."

This statement will not be clear to anyone outside the US/UK. This should be clarified, and "dying"...

  • He also penned a constitution for the state; others who sought to have the convention adopt their ideas, like Thomas Jefferson (who wrote from Philadelphia), found Mason's plan could not be stopped.

It is not clear what "Mason's plan" is in this case. Is it the constitution? If so, just say that? And "written" is better than "penned".

I've adjusted this, mostly by avoiding side issues.
  • "the children. In 1736"

Perhaps a para break here?

  • "the guardian's characteristics would appear in his ward"

Perhaps be specific here: "; Mercer appears to have been a strong influence on Miller, who demonstrated the same tendency to voice strong opinions."

The source doesn't go quite that far, though it would likely be a fair statement. I've gone as far as I could.
  • "election as a vestryman for Truro Parish and a place, eventually as a colonel, among the officers of the county militia soon followed"

Perhaps "was elected as a vestryman for Truro Parish, and took a position among the officers of the county militia, eventually rising to the rank of colonel".

  • "one of these, perhaps William Waite or James Wren, constructed Gunston Hall"

I find it unlikely that a book built a house. Suggest "one of these, perhaps by William Waite or James Wren, was used as the basis for the design of Gunston Hall" Actually I have a reaction to "perhaps by", is there any evidence that suggests this is true? I suspect there were many similar books available, and without evidence this seems like name dropping.

These were the possible builders. I'm not sure the books had authors per se, I gather they showed plans and such. I've clarified.
  • "As his forebears had, Mason"

"Like his parents, Mason..."

I'm really trying to imply the three George Masons before him. I've deleted it for now, finding no simple way to express it.
  • "from Pennsylvania all operated to defeat the "

"all conspired to defeat" (or something like that, not that I like that word very much)

  • "Despite the importuning of many delegates"

Despite pressure from many of the delegates

Up to Declaration of Rights so far, ping me when you're ready for some more Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, thank you for your kind words and for the review. I've done the above, with a couple of things noted. I tend to write in a formal tone, and sometimes it shows. Whenever you like, happy to deal with some more.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mason was elected for Fairfax County, though with great difficulty"

Can you expand on that difficulty? I can imagine a number of definitions of difficulty that might work, even some fun ones.

We don't actually know. This just comes to us from a brief reference in a letter that really doesn't say any more than this, recounting the election results for various people.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "pass a declaration of rights,[50] Due"

Comma in there should be period, or "due" should be lowered?

  • "after the vote, but was appointed"

Suggest splitting this into two sentences.

I'd rather keep it together. I've eliminated a comma.
  • "Wythe, with Mason eventually resigning"

Maybe split this at the with?

I've recast it instead.
  • "financial affairs; the general"

See no reason not to split these.

  • "federal and state rights. He found Mason "

Who is the "he" in this statement? It does not seem clear. I think Madison, and if that's the case I'd suggest re-arranging this statement.

  • "ratification, and his age may"

Add his age in parens as an aid to the reader?

And that's it! This is a really fascinating article. I had never heard of Mason before, but clearly he played an enormous role at the time. His character shines through in the article, which is never easy. And I think you've covered the potentially controversial topics perfectly, notably the diametrically opposed views on slavery written post facto. I'm glad I got to review this, I enjoyed reading it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it. He is quite a character. Thank you so much, Maury Markowitz for the review. I've done those except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Black American Sign Language[edit]

Nominator: Wugapodes (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a dialect of American Sign Language (ASL) spoken by the Black Deaf in the American South that arose out of the segregation of schools for the deaf prior to Brown v. Board. It covers the sociocultural history that led to the language split as well as the features that distinguish it from other dialects of ASL. Research into the dialect has only been going on intensively for the last two decades and the article incorporates the most comprehensive studies of the dialect as well as a number of small scale studies. Wugapodes (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Hi Wug. (I'm proud to say, I got the joke in the name, right down to "octopodes".) Reading through now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "the first school exclusively for the Black deaf—The School for the Colored Deaf, Dumb, and Blind": It doesn't sound like the school was exclusively for the Black deaf; was it?
  • I'm occasionally removing repetition of words when there's a way around repeating them. My crude understanding is that psycholinguists approve of this kind of copyediting; see for instance The Sense of Style (and I'll be happy to hunt up a page number). You can always revert, and then it's up to the FAC coords to decide if it makes a difference to them. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "The use of repetition by BASL signers is considered to be pragmatic rather than clarifying as most instances were of declarative statements and, cross-linguistically, pragmatic repetition in statements is common.": I'm sorry, I didn't follow that.
  • "A study in 2004 by Melanie Metzger and Susan Mather found that Black male signers used constructed action, with or without constructed dialogue, more often than White signers, but never used constructed dialogue by itself.": At a minimum, those links will need to turn blue for readers to know what you mean.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Glad you brought this to FAC. It's a fascinating subject, and I'd like to see it on the Main Page one day. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback and especially the copyedit. The article's better for it. I rechecked the source about the Skinner school and revised the sentence accordingly, I tried to clarify the sentence on pragmatic repetition as best I could, and I plan to create an article (or two) on constructed action and dialogue, I just need to find more sources. Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Your changes look good. Welcome aboard. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Gregor MacGregor[edit]

Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Gregor I, Sovereign Cazique of the Principality of Poyais, who came out of the Highlands of Scotland and became a king by his own hand. That is not to say he conquered anywhere—while Conan the Barbarian took "by his own hand" to mean that, Gregor MacGregor of the Clan Gregor figured out that in 1820s Europe it was feasible for men with a certain military bearing to return home from exotic faraway adventures and simply claim to have become prince of some made-up country. Why did our hero do this? To con gullible investors out of their savings, of course. But the con went much further than that. The so-called Cazique persuaded hundreds of people, mostly his fellow Scots, to emigrate to what was really an untouched jungle. He persuaded the Bank of Scotland's official printer to produce Poyaisian "dollars" for him, which his victims happily accepted in exchange for their real British money. And about 250 actually made the journey to where Poyais was supposed to be (five more ships followed, but were turned back by the Royal Navy). Of the aforementioned 250, over half died and fewer than 50 ever came back. A 2012 analysis in The Economist suggested that in terms of sheer audacity, MacGregor's con trick outdoes anything modern charlatans have been able to muster, and I'm not inclined to disagree.

This article has received a successful GA review and a very thorough peer review from a pantheon of staid FAC regulars. The GA reviewer, Maile66, gave a thorough source review at the GAN stage, including spot-checks and checks for close paraphrasing. The peer reviewers called the article a "disgraceful tale, [told] in masterly fashion", a "fascinating read", and "an amazing story". I hope you enjoy reading it as much as they did, and I look forward to any new input on it. All comments welcome. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - It was with some degree of fascination that I did the GA review on this unrepentant Scottish scoundrel. Since that review, I have been very closely monitoring the article changes and the Peer Review. Filmmakers have missed a beat by not telling this story. There is nothing left for me to add, except to say this is a tale well told. It is my pleasure to add my support. — Maile (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – One feels guilty for so enjoying this deplorable tale all over again at a second, post-PR, reading. The article meets all the FA criteria, and I gladly support its promotion. – Tim riley talk 13:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for the support and the extremely kind words. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:MacGregor_(R._R._McIan).jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:1827-07-02_Poyaisian-Stock-Certificate.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Excellent storytelling. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Dan for the help with the prose, the support and the kind words. Hope you're well as we approach the festive season. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Belgium national football team[edit]

Nominator(s): Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the national association football (or soccer) team of Belgium, more specifically the senior men's team. I believe it should be featured because of the broad scope and the high care given to sourcing, prose and illustrations. Comments of independent editors were "[g]ood work", "quite a lot of research and effort has gone into this" and "excellent, thorough and widely comprehensive". After it obtained GA status, a double peer review and copy editing by members of the GOCE (among others) lead to further prose improvement. Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Already of high quality during PR, it only got better since. Congratulations, Kareldorado. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Todd Manning[edit]

Nominator(s): User:Flyer22 Reborn, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the groundbreaking character from One Life to Live and General Hospital, played by the incomparable Roger Howarth and Trevor St. John. Flyer22 Reborn and I have worked on this article, on and off, for about two years, as you can see by our long and often contentious (but collaborative and always positive) discussions on the talk page. Todd's article, like the character himself, is controversial and causes lots of arguments, but Flyer22 Reborn and I feel like it's finally ready to go a round or two here at FAC. We welcome your feedback and anticipate much discussion here. We're proud of what we've been able to accomplish, despite the article's complexity and history and look forward to this process. Its first FAC unfortunately failed due to lack of response, so we hope that it's able to go through this time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hard Justice (2008)[edit]

Nominator(s): WillC 12:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominating this article since I'm working on an FA topic. Other PPVs from this year that are FA are Lockdown and Turning Point. This article passed GA in December 2008. I redid the entire article in recent weeks. Added more material and better sources. Reads better in my opinion and has a better format. All comments welcome. I'll review a nomination of your's in return for a review here. To address some concerns now, I'll list the reason some of the sources are reliable.

  • TNA - Company hosting event, primary reference.
  • Pro Wrestling - covers little information such as contest duration and attendance. Used for those non-controversial aspects. Reliable enough since it gathers information from interviews and event broadcasts, etc.
  • WrestleView - Primarily ran by Andrew Martin who has special connections in the industry and regularly interviews large names in the industry. Basically has ties to special information. Reliable in the sense that they have enough credibility to get interviews about the behind the scenes discussions.
  • PWTorch - Ran by Wade Keller who published the Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter since the 80s and 90s. Also has ties to the industry.
  • Slam Sports - Canadian Online Explorer, should be obvious why it is reliable.
  • The Wrestling Observer Newsletter/Figure Four - Dave Meltzer, mainstream journalist for MMA, Wrestling, and other sports. Should be obvious to his credibility.
  • Discovery communications and - Both funded and operated by Discovery channel to my understanding.

This should help clear up any possibly sourcing issues.--WillC 12:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Jumping Flash![edit]

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Jumping Flash! is a 1995 platform video game that has the distinction of being one of the most overlooked games of all time as well as the first platform game in "true 3D". It was originally hoped by Sony that this game would give them the opportunity to create themselves a "platform star" like Sonic and Mario, but that never materialised. This game was nothing more than a technology demonstration for the then-new PlayStation console and was very quickly overshadowed by games like Super Mario 64. Despite all that, many critics recognise this game's legacy and importance associated with early 3D gaming.

I've been re-working this article for a while now and I believe this meets the FA criteria. I know that after I've exhausted every possible source, and with the help of some others, I've gained some more that I didn't think were possible, so a big thanks goes out to everyone who has helped over the months. FYI, the reason why it failed last time was due to some misinterpretations with some sources, but after an extensive peer review and a copyedit, I believe they have all been addressed. JAGUAR  16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this a read and let you know what I think! I haven't reviewed an article for some time, but this just happened to catch my eye.--SexyKick 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Skin Trade (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Metal121 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 action film Skin Trade, which co-stars Dolph Lundgren and Tony Jaa. The film's subject matter is human trafficking, while Lundgren portrays Nick Cassidy, a New Jersey police detective seeking to avenge his family's murder. I believe this article should be featured because, in my opinion, it meets all of the "featured article" criteria. I, Metal121, am responsible for getting the article promoted to "good article" status. Although I have made a lot of edits to the article since it was promoted to GA status - some of which may seem compulsive - I strongly believe that this article has been well written. The article has received a number of copy-edits by other Wikipedia editors, and I see no issues with the way it is written. I look forward to hearing back from any reviewers and will take any constructive criticism in a positive manner. Any suggestions by the reviewer will also be taken onboard to improve the article, if needed. All the best, Martin (aka Metal121). -- Metal121 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Maaibre Sheshi, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh during the Second Intermediate Period. Sheshi is the best attested king of this time period in terms of the number of artefacts attributed to him and yet Egyptologists cannot agree on any single thing regarding him beyond his name. Hence the dynasty, chronological position, duration of reign and extent of rule of Sheshi are highly uncertain and the object of a strong ongoing debate in Egyptology. These issues are closely intertwined with the arrival of the Hyksos in Egypt and thus of paramount importance in understanding the sequence of events associated with the fall of the Middle Kingdom c. 1700 BCE. Iry-Hor (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from P. S. Burton[edit]

  • There appears to be an error in the page numbers for the reference "von Beckerath 1999, pp. 180–109." should it perhaps be "108–109" or "180–190"?
Done it is 108-109, thanks for spotting this! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What does "king f." mean in the reference "von Beckerath 1999, pp. 116–117, king f..", is this an error?

P. S. Burton (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is no error: von Beckerath gives letters to the kings for whom he is not sure of the chronological position. Hence Sheshi is given as "king f." in von Beckerath's XV/XVI dynasty. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed the article for GAN, and found it thoroughly impressive. The prose is excellent, the balance admirable and, as far as a layman like me can tell, the sourcing is comprehensive. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I am very pleased to add my support for its promotion. Tim riley talk 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!! Iry-Hor (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Sheshi_scarabs_locations.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I did the image myself from the GPS coordinates of the archeological sites where seals of Sheshi have been found. The list of these sites is found in Ryholt's 1997 book "The political situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period". Only those sites for which I could find the GPS coordinate have been added to the map. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): ðάπι (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first season of HBO's anthology crime drama True Detective, which was created by Nic Pizzolatto and starred Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their pursuit of a serial killer over a seventeen year period.

Having achieved GA status last August, further improvements have been made since, and I believe this article meets the FA criteria. This is its second FAC; unfortunately the first one received minimal attention. Graham Beards has given me permission to renominate the article within the 2 week limit. Cheers! DAP388 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment – Nice beefy article. I made a few small manual of style changes. This sentence "Critics have offered many readings of the influence of weird and horror fiction on True Detective‍‍ '​‍s narrative, specifically Thomas Ligotti and Robert W. Chambers' short story collection The King in Yellow (1895)" probably needs to be rephrased. To me it reads as if The King in Yellow is a work written by both Ligotti and Chambers. P. S. Burton (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Noted and done, I switched the order of the wording if that's enough. Thank you for your feedback. :) DAP388 (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man 2[edit]

Nominator(s): D'SuperHero (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 American film of the Spider-Man film franchise. As per the article has been edited and sources have been cited up. D'SuperHero (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Why did you jump right past the WP:Good article process to the WP:Featured article process? Further, as stated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Your account showed up at "11:50, 9 November 2015." You are not a WP:Newbie, but you also lack experience in other areas of Wikipedia editing. This article is not ready for WP:Featured status. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment The article had many other deadlinks and so much of grammatical errors. And not more, I've seen much links of blogs were used in it. I've been working on and i will work on it. D'SuperHero (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed - I've added some info to the SPI for TekkenJinKazama as the recent behavior of this sock has strongly reinforced D'SuperHero as being a TJK sock, incluing some deceptive moves for their user and user talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Johnbod and Ravensfire. That comment by Dharmadhyaksha is obviously helpful. That D'SuperHero is a WP:Sock was certainly on my mind since new accounts do not start a WP:Featured article process so soon; they usually have to be told about the process. And they usually don't know certain other things that D'SuperHero knows. But to outright call D'SuperHero a WP:Sock can be considered a lack of assuming good faith, common sense be damned. And as my user page/talk page currently shows, I'm somewhat backing off from sock cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the family of French descent who were pivotal in later medieval English history and the contemporary view of it. Recently received a warm welcome at FAC before becoming embroiled in questions of sourcing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

  • I'm looking at this diff of the changes since the last time I did a prose review, in September. It's kind of slow going, because the intervening edits have a lot of typos. I've fixed a few; I'm down to "In the early 12th century, the marriage of Geoffrey V of Anjou to Empress Matilda, King Henry I's only surviving legitimate child and heir to the English throne.", which isn't a sentence. Please check the diff (from that point) for more typos before I do another prose review. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Richard_II_King_of_England.jpg
  • File:Agincour.JPG: what is the basis for the "PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR NON EDITORIAL USAGE" notation?
  • File:MS_Ghent_-_Battle_of_Tewkesbury.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Telopea truncata[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been buffing this article over some years and was pleased to take some more photos that could be useful when I was in Tasmania recently. I've scraped just about everywhere for sources and am satisfied it's comprehensive and engaging....and has some pretty flowers. Let me know what you think and if there is anything I can do to make it more betterer. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Some quick comments: Josh Milburn (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • You're inconsistent on whether your provide publisher locations: they're lacking in Crisp and Weston 1995, Crisp and Weston 1987 and Mackenzie 1987, but present in other book sources. You also provide publisher/location for one "journal" (Willis 1959) but no others.
a hangover from editing this article a loooong time ago. aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
yeah, strikes me as overkill...removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Are those really the only two cultivars out there?
this species is much harder to grow than the others, so little has been done with it WRT horticulture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I assume yes, but is this describing one of the cultivars talked about in the article? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes - this 'mellow yellow' is 'champagne' and/or 'golden globe'. At this stage it was not named (yes I know the other two were registered in 2006 but they weren't widely advertised till later). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Support. I had my say at GAC. If I was going to quibble, I'd probably find some nitpicks in reference formatting (perhaps there are some unwarranted italics, but maybe we simply have different tastes) and ask for a bit more ecology information. I'd be interested, for example, in a little more about any animal species (and maybe plant and fungi species) which have some kind of ecological relationship with this species, but I appreciate that there simply may not much of a mention in the literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

thx/Sigh...I've trawled and come up with nada :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Seiken Densetsu 3[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 03:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In 1995, American/European role-playing video game fans were eagerly awaiting the release of what they called Secret of Mana 2—the sequel to 1993's Secret of Mana, widely considered then and now as one of the best 16-bit RPGs ever made. Their wait was in vain, though, as 20 years later, Seiken Densetsu 3 remains the only non-mobile game in the Mana series to never be released outside of Japan. Over the years, the vanished game took on a mythical quality, spurred on by a 2000 fan translation patch that allowed gamers to play it in English on emulators. Was it cancelled in favor of the ill-fated Secret of Evermore? Due to a rivalry between the Japanese and American branches of Square? Or, as it turns out, was it much more prosaic—the era of the Super Nintendo was drawing to a close, and sales projections weren't high enough to invest in an expensive translation/programming bug fix just to release the game into the then-niche Western JRPG field. Regardless, it became a right of passage- even xkcd has noted that if you haven't tracked it down, you can't call yourself a real JRPG fan. If only those poor gamers in 1995 could have had this article, now polished up for the 20th anniversary, to know what they were missing. The whole Mana series is a Good Topic, and this article, promoted to GA in Spring 2014, will be the 4th FA in the series, assuming it's as good as the other FAs in the series. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 03:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • No caption for the infobox image?
  • The lead states that it was released for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System whilst the infobox states Super Famicom. Is this a VG preference I'm not aware of?
  • "Although the game was only published in Japan, Western players have been able to play Seiken Densetsu 3 thanks to an unofficial English fan translation" - the body mentions nothing about western players, only that it was published on the internet? This could be reworded, but feel free to ignore this
  • "whichever character is currently selected, the other two companions are controlled by the computer" - how about by artificial intelligence?
  • "The remaining three characters act as non-playable characters (NPCs) when encountered" - Non-player character could be linked
  • "One type of weapon is available for each character" - are these weapons unique for each character?
  • "According to Fehdrau, the game did not tie up any people who would have been involved in a translation of Seiken Densetsu 3;" - I'm not quite sure what this means
  • "A second preview in Next Generation in February 1996, now calling the game Secret of Mana 2 as well" - sounds a bit too present tense if it's referring to a 1996 review. Alternately, I would personally remove "as well" because I think it sounds a tad informal
  • "Overall, the game is regarded by many as a SNES classic" - 'by many' is a bit vague. I know a lot of FAC reviewers don't like this language (I've had similar experiences in previous FACs), so I feel this could be rephrased to by many critics or something similar?
  • "The review agreed" - would reviewer sound more appropriate?

Those were all of the minor prose issues I found during my read-through. I also checked the references and found no paraphrasing issues, otherwise anything I would have spotted would be listed here. All in all this is a great article that displays all traits of the FA criteria. JAGUAR  17:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: replied below
  • I typically don't put captions for infobox cover art
  • No, the preference is according to WPVG guidelines to always use SNES unless there's a good reason because it gets confusing (like when I then talk about it being one of the best SNES RPGs). Changed to Super Nintendo everywhere.
  • Reworded to "English-speaking"
  • Done
  • Done
  • Yes, reworded to make more obvious
  • Reworded to clarify
  • removed both
  • Changed to semicolon to link the sentence more with the cited statements; I don't want to change it to "critics" since the sentence after that is about the GameFAQs reader polls ranking it highly for years.
  • Changed there and in a couple other spots where I quote a "review" instead of a reviewer. --PresN 03:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them. I've had another look through the article and everything seems good to me. As before, I couldn't find any issues with the references so I'm willing to support this article. Just one thing, the infobox is appearing much wider (I think due to the inclusion of 'Super Nintendo Entertainment System'), not sure if this is only happening to me because of my wide monitor resolution but I wouldn't worry about it anyway. Nice work with this one! JAGUAR  15:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, looks like the infobox widens itself if the parameter is long (but only if its wikilinked...); corrected. --PresN 15:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

I will be coming back for more comments, but some things must be said at once.

  • The Wayback Machine archiving of 1UP links no longer work due to robots.txt. You must use WebCite for these pages. I would also recommend looking through for any other links like that.
  • GameFAQs, being primarily a user-based website, is classified as an unreliable website. Also, Seiken Densetsu 3 being one of the most searched-for terms on the site seems small recognition compared to other things mentioned there.
  • "...such as "Debussian impressionist styles, his own heavy electronic and synth ideas, and even ideas of popular musicians"." - This quote refers to one reviewer, but the sentence infers that it is the opinion of multiple critics. You should either specify that it is one reviewer's description, or remove the quote and put an additional reference at the end of the sentence.
  • The image for Hiromichi Tanaka should have a full stop at the end of the sentence. It might also be prudent to add a minor not as to when the picture was taken. The second part is not that important.
  • The image for Hiroki Kikuta: not only should you add a full stop within its box, but the image itself has a glaring "Low quality picture" warning message in it, which may impact its usability. Can this be addressed?
  • This is purely option, I think, but despite it being stated that the game was not released overseas, I think it would be good to specify that the game's quotes are from a fan translation. As I said, purely optional.
  • The "Seiken Densetsu 3 Original Sound Version" has two release dates attached. While this is explained in the text, I think some note of the second date being for a re-release should be present.

What is there is all I could see that stood out. Aside from that, it looks good. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Done
  • Removed
  • Noted the specific critic; looks like the line was originally just "described as", then JimmyBlackwing added "by critics" in the Secret of Mana FAC, and no one else commented on it.
  • It is not a full sentence, so it does not get a full stop; added "in 2007"
  • Modified to not be a full sentence, and have the year taken. I higher-res version does not exist; it's a tight crop of [1], and the original was only 640x427. I found a copyrighted one from 2011 on flickr that might be better; I'll ask for a re-license but I usually get a ~30% success rate with that.
  • It worked, put in the new photo; it's only slightly higher-res but it's still a net positive. --PresN 22:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "(fan translation)" added to platform in quote citations
  • Done --PresN 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't see anything else outstanding preventing this from moving ahead. I Support its promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SnowFire[edit]

Mostly looks good, but a few nitpicks.

  • Where exactly are these character name translations coming from? Not the Corlett translation, which IIRC used Hawk, Lise, Carlie, Navarre, Rolante, Beast Kingdom, etc. Are these systematic Romanizations of the Japanese names, or are you using a different source? Either way it should probably be referenced somehow.
    • Related, but the article uses both "God Beasts" and "Mana Beasts". Might be best to standardize on one ("God Beasts" I assume?) unless there is actually a distinction.
  • "Unlike the previous game, where each spell was improved through use, the effectiveness of spells depends on the magical ability of the character and the element of the spell in relation to the enemy." --> This seems to imply that Secret of Mana didn't have enemy elemental resistances & strengths, which isn't the case. Additionally, while stats ("magical ability of the character") didn't have *much* impact on SoM spell power, they did have some, and anyway this kind of magic-damage-algorithm-comparison is probably too technical for the article even if it was true. I'd just delete the sentence.
  • "When in battle mode, the character adds one point to his or her "power gauge" by making an attack which hits a monster. When the gauge is full, special moves can be unleashed, which vary according to the character." --> Seems like excessive detail, too. "Attacking monsters fills a gauge that allows the player to use character-specific special attacks" or the like?
  • "A week cycles much more quickly than an actual one—a day passes in a number of minutes—but it still affects gameplay in certain ways." --> Is there reason to think that a quickly cycling day cycle wouldn't affect gameplay? These are two separate thoughts. "A week cycles much more quickly than an actual one, with a day passing in a number of minutes. The day affects gameplay blah blah blah..."
  • "Kevin (ケヴィン Kevin?) is the inarticulate prince of Ferolia" -> "Inarticulate" isn't the right word, and I'm not sure the current link to speech impediment is right either? Kevin speaks *broken* English in the Corlett translation (although none of the other Beast Kingdom members do). It's much more "English/Japanese as a 2nd language" / "Caveman talk". I have no idea what the original Japanese script did with him, of course, but "inarticulate" would just mean he's not very convincing or charismatic in his speech, not "he uses a very basic and grammatically incorrect style of speech."
  • " or the Deathjester and Heath, who has joined forces with him," -> "or Deathjester and a mind-controlled Heath" perhaps?
  • "the connections between each title are more abstract than story-based, linked only on the karmic level" --> This is a nonsensical use of "karma", and checking the source, seems a pretty strange summary. Just leave it as "connections between each title are more abstract than them being direct sequels" or the like.
  • "so as to gain ultimate power, politically and magically" -> Cut the last three words? And it's mostly magical ultimate power.
  • There's an awful lot of detail on Secret of Mana+, which IIRC is mostly SoM remixes and less SD3 tunes (I reserve the right to be totally wrong here). Even if it was a 50/50 split... seems like it'd be worthwhile to trade a sentence on SoM+ for more sentences on the SD3 OST itself, at least if there are any other sources covering the OST to be had. SnowFire (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@SnowFire: Responded below:
  • They're romanizations of the Japanese names; changed everywhere to use the Corlett version, since that's the most common English one.
    • God Beasts
  • Removed the comparison; while the issue would be fixed by saying "only" by the character's magic stat and the element used, the comparison to SoM is too detailed. I do want to keep the idea that the element of the magic matters; the 8 elements (with their stones, elementals, beasts, etc.) are a big part of the background of the game and they don't get a lot of detail here.
  • Agreed, done.
  • Ended up just cutting the second half of that- no need to state that the day of the week affects gameplay, if the very next sentence discusses exactly how it affects gameplay anyway.
  • Can't think of a good replacement word, and as the concept doesn't deserve a big explanation since it doesn't affect gameplay or the plot at all, dropped it
  • Hmm, it's a little spoilery- you don't know he's being mind controlled the first time you run into them, right?- and I left out the other twists, like the Darkshine Knight being Duran's father, but changed anyway
  • Done.
  • Cut.
  • Dropped a sentence, but there's not much else to be had for the regular OST.
Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

First Tennessee Park[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a minor league baseball stadium in Nashville, Tennessee. I believe it meets the criteria to become a featured article. It has recently been peer reviewed and copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I resubmit this article on the crested and marbled newts after having been unable to respond in time during the first FAC review. I've responded to comments from that archive on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance for reconsidering this one and looking forward to your comments! Tylototriton (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent article. The problems identified in the previous review seem to have been addressed. I am just a tad concerned about the utter lack of references in the lead. People sometimes say the MoS discourages references in the lead, but I've yet to see the specific policy that says so. It's important to remember that some users may only have enough time to read the introduction, but they may still want to know where a specific claim comes from.--Leptictidium (mt) 07:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be two schools on that. I stick with this essay and think that if references can be left out in the lead, they should be, as they only clutter a section which is supposed to be easily readable, and because "the use of references in the lead is a duplication of effort". Every fact in the lead is supported through references later on. Abstracts of scientific papers also usually don't contain references. Tylototriton (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I kinda agree, it's just that I wondered whether there was some specific WP guideline involved. So, with that out of the way, I see no reason for this great article not to get FA status.--Leptictidium (mt) 17:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
yeah, I'd leave refs out of lead. Will be along soon to review article. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments - I'll copyedit as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and copyediting! Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Two species of marbled newts and six species of crested newts, formerly considered subspecies, are accepted today - "today" redundant.
Removed "today". Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
when did Triton become Triturus? Straightaway or recently?
It became Triturus when Rafinesque described that genus in 1815. It is possible that the name Triton was still used by others, as it was often the case with scientific names in those days when there were no databases on the internet... I don't think I can make this any clearer? Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Aaah my bad/sorry, I misread it, that's fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
most ponds inhabited by the northern crested newt in the UK today are human-made - "today" redundant
Removed "today". Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
In the common characteristics section, I changed one template so that it gives 20cm=8in rather than 20cm=7.9in. There are two other units there that need imperial units, and you might want to think about the other - do you want it to be in fractions of an inch or decimals? because adding "|frac=4" as a parameter to the convert template will do that.
I added the missing imperial units (except in the morphology table), hope I spotted them all (do millimetres need conversion?). Decided to stick with inch decimals rather than fractions, but as I am not used to imperial units, I don't know which is more common/recommended. Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I don't bother with converting mm as too small, I'd think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The northern crested newt and the marbled newt are the only species in the genus with a larger range overlap - "large" not "larger" as there is no comparator...?
Replaced "larger" with "considerable" – I meant larger than the very narrow overlaps between other species. Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Tentative supportOtherwise I can see little to complain about. I am not seeing any other clangers prose-wise but will read through again. The external video is sensible...but not sure how it goes with out image/EL policies so will defer to @Nikkimaria: on that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears to have been uploaded by the copyright holder, so there's no WP:LINKVIO concerns, and using external media is appropriate where they are not compatibly licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The comments I made when this article was previously at FAC have been dealt with satisfactorily. I am now supporting it on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • "but Linnaeus had already used the name Triton for a genus of sea snails." You could mention when.
  • "differences between subspecies were however noted and eventually led to their recognition as true species." Does the source really say "true"? "Full" might be more conventional.
  • "resolved all divergences in the genus with high statistical support" Any divergence dates?

Juan Manuel de Rosas[edit]

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC) • Astynax talk

Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the key figures in South American history, probably the most well-known 19th century dictator in that region (after Francisco Solano López). For a brief moment he was almost able to turn Argentina into the main power in South America, and almost conquered nearby countries. He became so powerful that the Empire of Brazil under Emperor Pedro II forged an alliance with his enemies to crush Rosas. This article uses dozens of well-known sources in academia, although is mostly based on John Lynch's biography, regarded as the best one available in any language. Lecen (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for its previous FAC; I wasn't catching everything then, but I see that a lot of helpful copyediting has been done, and I'm happier with this version. I can't really comment on questions of tone and NPOV, which I'm not in a position to judge. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  • ready to Support pending comments from those who know something about the subject. A good read. Are there no depictions in film etc? A character in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories is very clearly based on him in exile - the "Tiger of ..." somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • John, it's good to see you here. I'm afraid we have no Wikipedians with true knowledge of Platine history, except for me and Astynax. About your other comments, Rosas showed up in movies indeed. We left out pop culture facts on purpose, since there are already two articles focused on Rosas' legacy. We kept what was most important, as to maintain the article simple and straight forward. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything on films (which generally should not be referred to as "pop culture") in other articles - where? Even if there is, it should be summarized briefly here. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I couldn't find an equivalent section in other FA biographies, which seems that any mention in movies is optional. Since Rosas's appearances in other media is not vital to his character, I can't see the reason to add something here, especially because it would be pointless to add a line saying "Rosas appeared in X movie". What would that add to the article? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There have been several depictions in literature, films and television but almost entirely in Argentine media and much of it unabashedly partisan exploitation feeding on the ongoing historicity problem mentioned in the Legacy section. Although depictions of Rosas in literature and media might be appropriate for some sort of separate list linked to within the article's Legacy section, there is also the problem of finding coverage in reliable historical sources that establish the notability of these and their relevance to political and popular culture. If a RS comes to light that explores how Rosas has been depicted in media then I see no problem of including a mention, but I cannot recall coming across such material. • Astynax talk 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Johnbod: The Sherlock Holmes story is Wisteria Lodge (1927), the second part of which is The Tiger of San Pedro, here for easy reference [2]. Rosas is disguised as "Don Murillo". Conan Doyle would have got the reference from W.H. Hudson. Far Away and Long Ago (Dent:London and Toronto:1918), pages 107-8, here: . Might it worth doing two lines as per "In fiction"? Ttocserp 09:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll support. I think it's pretty good. And I believe you can add my name to Lecen and Astynax to those who have some "knowledge of Platine history" (sorry, had to get that off my chest!). Ttocserp 09:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising is a sitcom that I enjoyed immensely when it originally aired in the United States on the ABC network back in the early 1970s. Although it has yet to be made available commercially on DVD I have been able to obtain some episodes via a private source. I still think it is a very funny show and would like to see it brought back into circulation. My interest in the series inspired me to learn as much as I can about its history. Thus I have spent the last few years accumulating a large amount of information about the series (mainly vintage newspaper articles). Using this information I re-wrote and greatly expanded this article last year and attempted to elevate it to FA status in January of this year. The article was not promoted despite the support of four people. Since then the article has achieved GA status. I have had several friends (many of whom are published authors) look it over and offer comments to improve it and, just last week, it received a "makeover" by the Guild of Copy Editors.

I am now making another attempt at FA status. If anyone can make suggestions on how to improve this article please feel free to over up any that you have. Also note that some of episodes of Temperatures Rising are available for viewing on YouTube. Take a look and have a few laughs. Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll take a more detailed run down tomorrow, but it looks good.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

  • Four dead links need looking into
    • Three fixed and one deleted.
  • Pilato in the bibliography isn't used in the article and should be removed
    • Removed.

- SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle F. (October 16, 2007): I think we can cut the date back to 2007, rather than the full date.

Sorry it's a bit bitty, but I've got a full work schedule at the moment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

    • Cut back to just 2007. Jimknut (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Nice work - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I supported last time. Looking at the later comments on that review I think I understand why that candidacy didn't go through, but this one looks pretty solid to me. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC), Ssven2, Kailash29792

This article is about Mayabazar, a 1957 Indian bilingual film known for its performances, music and especially its cinematography by Marcus Bartley. At this juncture, i want to thank my co-nominators Ssven2 and Kailash29792. A special note of thanks to Dr. Blofeld and my copy-editors Miniapolis and Corinne. This is my first FAC attempt and also the first Telugu film related article to be nominated for a FA. Looking forward for constructive comments. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher[edit]

  • Can you add two-three names from the principal cast in the infobox?
  • Mayabazar is a 1957 Indian biligual....would be more specific.
  • Remove either "few" or "small" from the third sentence in the lead. Since both words nearly mean the same.
  • You can add "epic" before Mahabharata in the fourth sentence.
  • Budget and BO info should be also in the infobox. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Done Added the budget, but we could not find any reliable information about the box office information.
  • "..participated in the development of Mayabazar." It should be participated in the development of the film.
  • "In February 2010 acting coach and director..". Needs a comma after 2010.
  • "...the reason for which is not known." Replace "not known" with "unknown".

I'll post more comments once i'm finished reading it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Author-link Subhash K. Jha at ref 63.
  • Akkineni Nagarjuna's comment about remaking the film should be under inverted comma's.
It is a translation from the original quote written in Telugu. So, i can't do this.
  • Wikilink The Hindu at ref 5, and delink it at ref 7 and elsewhere.
  • Wikilink The Times of India at ref 28 and delink it elsewhere. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Support. I don't have any issues with the article now. All the best :) Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Yash! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "Rama Rao was initially reluctant to play the lead role, but his portrayal of Krishna received acclaim and turned out to be the first of many such performances" - might sound better as Rama Rao was initially reluctant to play the lead role, however his portrayal of Krishna received acclaim and resulted to be the first of many such performances
  • "The soundtrack features 12 songs" - twelve (I know smaller numbers are usually written out in prose, but for me 'twelve' seems the limit)
  • "Telugu lyrics were written by Pingali Nagendrarao (Telugu)" - why is Telugu in brackets?
Done Removed.
  • "The film is considered a landmark in Telugu and Tamil cinema" - The film is considered a landmark in both Telugu and Tamil cinema
  • "with praise for its lead cast, and for its technical aspects" - I would cut "for" here
Done Removed.
  • "The updated version was released on 30 January 2010 in 45 theatres in Andhra Pradesh" - link Andhra Pradesh for accessibility
Done Linked.
  • "It was a commercial success with mostly positive reviews, one only expressing a preference for the original" - need a conjunction; It was a commercial success with mostly positive reviews, with one only expressing a preference for the original
Done Added.
I respectfully disagree with User:Jaguar on this. (a) It's not good writing style to have two "with" prepositional phrases one right after the other, and (b) the phrase following "reviews" is an appositive noun phrase followed by a participial phrase. "One only" could be changed to "only one" or "only one of them". Corinne (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this upon looking at it again. Pavan, would you like to change this? JAGUAR  13:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Done Changed. Thanks Corinne!
  • "Gummadi Venkateswara Rao and Mikkilineni Radhakrishna Murthy were cast as Balarama and Karna, respectively, in the Telugu version and Sita had a supporting role as Sasirekha's maid" - this may read smoother as In the Tegulu version, Gummadi Venkateswara Rao and Mikkilineni Radhakrishna Murthy were cast as Balarama and Karna, respectively, whilst Sita had a supporting role as Sasirekha's maid
  • "Bartley then created an illusion of moonlight, which according to Ambu Rao was a first for an Indian film" - needs a comma between "Rao" and "was"
Done Added.
I respectfully disagree with User:Jaguar that a comma is needed after "Rao". "According to" is a two-word preposition. It either requires two commas or no commas: "which, according to Ambu Rao, was..." or "which according to Ambu Rao was...". Prepositions do not always require commas. Commas represent where a native speaker would pause. Here, a native speaker is unlikely to pause. Corinne (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this upon looking at it again. Pavan, would you like to change this? JAGUAR  13:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Done Changed. Thanks Corinne!
  • "A commercial success, Mayabazar had a theatrical run of 100 days in 24 theatres and went on to become a silver-jubilee film" - silver jubilee should be linked here
Done Linked.
  • "According to a 29 January 2010 government order, the remastered version was exempt from entertainment tax, but theatre owners charged full price" - however
  • "However, the foundation opposed digital colourisation, saying that they "believe in the original repair as the way the master or the creator had seen it" - stating
  • "Words and phrases, such as "antha alamalame kada"..." - I think this might sound slightly better as Various words and phrases
Done Added.

I remember copyediting this article and watching the film shortly after, in which I loved. The article is solid throughout and I could only find a handful of minor prose issues. Good work with this so far! JAGUAR  11:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Jaguar! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Upon reading through this again, I'm satisfied that it meets the FA criteria and I'll now give my support to this article. Good work on this! I think I'll watch Mayabazar again soon. JAGUAR  13:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, Jaguar! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

"laddoo gobbling"? Why is the article spelt "Laddu" then? I think it would be best to paraphrase and something in brackets for non Indian readers on what Laddoo actually is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Because The Hindu‍‍ '​‍s "Blast from the past" article mentions it in the same way. We linked it to "Laddu" back then. Now, i have added a note for the same. Would that suffice?

The music section seems undercooked, usually the opposite is the case! I'd expect to see the track listing and a bit more even in the main article I think.However in seeing the length of the track list it would bloat it to agree best not to list. I think you need to mention more songs and some form of reception on the most popular ones though.

I've added critical reception from "Blast from the past" and Dhananjayan's book. I've also added a few facts regarding the soundtrack's development from the main article. Would these suffice?

Critical reception is also undercooked, also usually the opposite! I think it could use some stronger reviews and a more solid structure.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Currently, we have very limited reliable sources in the case of Mayabazar. I could find three reviews, one from CNN-IBN's 100 great films list, two from books published in 2013 and 2015. And now i hope that the section meets your expectations.

"colored" -I thought we used Indian/British English for Indian films?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Rephrased. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Leaning towards support on comprehension, but I'm not fully convinced that the prose is quite FA quality in places. I'll await to see what others say about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Dr. Blofeld. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to give it another read this weekend (tomorrow) and help if I can. I think we can get it there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I'll try to give it another read/copyedit tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"While the trio manage to trick Sarma and Sastry, Shakuni's lackeys, Ghatotkacha (in Sasirekha's form) makes Duryodhana's wife rethink the marriage arrangement and teases Lakshmana Kumara. Ghatotkacha plans the wedding in his hermitage in such a way that Krishna, using his divine powers, is present as a guest for the real marriage ceremony of Sasirekha and at the same time present at the marriage taking place in the Mayabazar." -a very long sentence!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Made it into four, in this way : "They manage to trick Sarma and Sastry, Shakuni's lackeys. Ghatotkacha (in Sasirekha's form) makes Duryodhana's wife rethink the marriage arrangement and teases Lakshmana Kumara. He also plans the wedding of the real Sasirekha and Abhimanyu in his hermitage which is attended by Krishna. Using his divine powers, Krishna also attends as a guest for the marriage taking place in the Mayabazar". Would it suffice? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
yes but you could lose one "also".
Done Removed in the sentence "He also plans the wedding of the real Sasirekha and Abhimanyu..." Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "versions, with a slightly different cast for each. In place of Akkineni Nageswara Rao as Abhimanyu in the Telugu version, Gemini Ganesan appeared in the Tamil version. Savitri was the female lead in both versions; her character was named Sasirekha in the Telugu version and Vatsala in the Tamil version.[" -can you find a way to reword "version" here, it repeats a lot.
How about this Doctor : "versions, with a slightly different cast for each. Gemini Ganesan appeared as Abhimanyu in the Tamil version, which was portrayed by Akkineni Nageswara Rao in Telugu. Savitri was retained as the female lead in Tamil also; where her character was named Vatsala instead of Sasirekha". I've rephrased it in the article also, feel free to make changes if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

" Its outdoor filming lasted for 10 to 15 seconds." -that all? Where was the rest shot then?

The source says "The evergreen song "Lahiri, lahiri lo" was shot at Ennore near Madras (now Chennai) at noon. The outdoor shooting lasted only for 10 to 15 seconds", and we wrote "The song "Lahiri Lahiri" was shot in Ennore, a suburb of Chennai. Its outdoor filming lasted for 10 to 15 seconds". Now, what else can i do? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Was the rest shot in the studio then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
May be. Sadly, i don't have the liberty to go ahead like that though. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Nageswara Rao was injured on the film's set, and action sequences featuring himself and Ranga Rao were shot only after his recovery, causing a three-month delay in the release of the film." -do we know what injury it actually was?
Nageswara Rao said, "Actually, the movie release was postponed by over three months. On the sets of the film , I met with an accident and was hospitalised. Action scenes between me and S.V. Ranga Rao in Maya Bazar were yet to be filmed and were shot only after I was discharged". More than that, nothing was available. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Weak support I think it's close now, but I really think this FAC would benefit from a lot of people looking at it to really make sure it's clear cut, but unfortunately the turn out is poor as usual with Indian films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Blofeld. I'm optimistic that surely someone will post their views very soon. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum[edit]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a film showcasing the superstar Rajinikanth as a character actor, widely considered his best performance. I have worked on this article for over two years and I feel it is very FAC worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "is loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name" - what year did the novel come out, and does it have an article?
  • "Although Mahendran read only part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali, his affection for his sister and the tragic loss of his arm" - could read as Although Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the tragic loss of his arm
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2009 Balu Mahendra compared typical Indian hero-heroine dancing to "watching two drunken monkeys dancing", which was why he "kept music as the background while the screen had lead characters expressing their emotions"" - I don't understand how a statement made in 2009 affected his decisions in the film?
I've now written, "In 2009 Mahendra compared typical Indian hero-heroine dancing to "watching two drunken monkeys dancing", stating that this was why he "kept music as the background while the screen had lead characters expressing their emotions". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Because Mahendran had no previous directing experience, Balu Mahendra" - no need to repeat his first name here
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mahendran agreed on a montage after Babu sang a line or two (much to the actor's disappointment)" - this could work fine without the brackets
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Chettiar was perplexed by the finished film's lack of dialogue (since he had hired Mahendran as director because he was a successful screenplay and dialogue writer), and did not expect such a visually-rich film" - again, I think this sentence would read smoothly without the brackets. I'm not sure what to recommend, but I feel that this sentence could be rephrased slightly
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Rare for Tamil cinema, Mullum Malarum has no duets" - could read as Mullum Malarum features no duets, which is considered rare in Tamil cinema
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • " Chettiar apologised to Mahendran, offering him a (politely refused) blank cheque, and the director thanked him for "letting [me] make a movie with Rajinikanth"" - a bit choppy. Could read as Upon the film's release, Chettiar apologised to Mahendran and offered him a blank cheque, to which he politely refused. The director also thanked him for "letting [me] make a movie with Rajinikanth"
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "After he saw the film Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander" - missing comma; After he saw the film, Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "A 25 August 1978 review in The Hindu said that the film" - stated
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although Chettiar did not enter Mullum Malarum in any award competitions, it won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil and two Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film" - syntax error, should read as Although Chettiar did not enter Mullum Malarum in any award competitions, it won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil, two Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film awards

Those were the minor prose issues I came across during my initial read-through of the article. All in all, I think the article is solid and very comprehensive - good factors for a FA. JAGUAR  10:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them Kailash! With all of that out of the way, I'll support this transition from GA to FA. The article is broad, comprehensive and well written. JAGUAR  13:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

  • Wikilink "winch" for those who might not be familiar with the term.
I have linked it in the lead and plot sections. Anywhere else I should link it? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have a simpler word for "Itinerant"?
I found no synonyms on Wiktionary. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "won first prize" — "won the first prize".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although Ashok Kumar and Ramachandra Babu were initial choices for cinematographer, actor Kamal Haasan intervened and Balu Mahendra made his debut in Tamil cinema." — Sounds vague. Why did Haasan intervene and what for? For requesting Mahendra to be the cinematographer? If so, then did he make the request to Chettiar or Mahendran?
The source reads, "Ashok Kumar came recommended to me from Ramachandrababu, an established cinematographer, who I wanted to work with for Mullum Malarum. Meanwhile, Kamal Haasan introduced me to Balu Mahendra, and we ended up working on that film together." Kailash29792 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: I've rephrased it myself for you. Do resolve the other comments and let me know by pinging me. Face-smile.svg  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I like it this way. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "since he had hired Mahendran as director because he was a successful screenplay and dialogue writer, and did not expect such a visually-rich film" — "as he hired Mahendran as director due to successful stint as a screenplay and dialogue writer, and did not expect such a visually-rich film."
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That's about it from me. The article looks good.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thanks for resolving my comments. This article has my support for its transition from GA to FA.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Will look at it tomorrow if I can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "Although Ashok Kumar and Ramachandra Babu were the initial choices for cinematographer, actor Kamal Haasan recommended Balu Mahendra for the job, which Mahendran accepted, leading to Mahendra making his debut in Tamil cinema.[8][9][10]

Although "

-rep of "although"

Reworded. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mahendran refused to direct the film if Rajinikanth was not cast,[11] and Chettiar capitulated;[6][5] however, he was still unhappy with the director's decision and called it "ridiculous" and "preposterous" every time he visited the set.[15] Ra" -As my good friend Tim riley always says, "however" is rarely needed. The sentence is too long and could be reworded to avoid it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • " Latha said that she was compelled to refuse a part in the film due to scheduling conflicts" -compelled isn't the right word here, what you mean is that "Latha was offered a role in the film but had to it turn down due to other filming commitments".
Blame it on the GOCE, don't blame it on me. But I prefer your wording. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to Naman Ramachandran's Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography, Umachandran's novel and Mahendran's film metaphorically liken the sibling relationship to flowers which need sharp thorns to protect them.[26] According" -rep of according
It appears to be reworded. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "He also noted that films like Mullum Malarum stereotype the poor as representing all that is pristine and traditional; although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness." -doesn't quite read well in one sentence. I don't follow what you mean by "although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness." -Can you reword?
I have merged the sentences. See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "with strands of sweetness." -it this a quote, I think it would be best quoted what is said there.
It is a translation. What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Quote it in English and put the original language in a footnote?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • ""A good product needs no publicity, whereas a bad product cannot be pushed in the market however much you publicise it"." -is this supported by ref 50 further down?
  • Perhaps you could lose a couple of quotes in the retro views of reception to improve readability and flow
  • "The winch in Mullum Malarum prompted director P. V. Prasad to use a winch fo" -no need to repeat, replace winch in second instance with "one"
  • "Mullum Malarum appears on several lists of great films. In December 2012, Aishwarya Bhattacharya of Koimoi included the film on her list of "Top 10 Rajinikanth Movies".[73] Daliya Ghose of Bollywood Mantra ranked the film fourth on her list of "Top 10 movies of Rajinikanth"" -mmm it's a bit of an exaggeration in appearing on several lists of great films though as you mostly cite the best films of the actor. It's not as if it is cited among the greatest Tamil or Indian films top 100 or anything. Perhaps reword to something like "The films consistently ranks as one of Rajinikanth's best films in polls."
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Overall a very good article, I'll be willing to support once the above are addressed. It could still use a little tightening up in the reception section though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Don't know if you've addressed all points but I think it's nearing the line for FA considering the film industry and time period. It would still benefit from a few more people giving it a read and edit in places perhaps but good enough in my opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • When did the filming take place?
Didn't find details yet. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In order for this to be comprehensive in coverage, it will need such detail since this is a major aspect of films. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • How much did the film gross overall?
Unavailable. I guess Indians back then weren't so fussy about fiscal information. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Odd. Box office is a pretty big part of film articles, and it would especially help to demonstrate the claims of commercial success.
But back then, a film's commercial success would be measured by the number of days it runs in theatres. And that has been covered here. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Excluding cast member names, the plot is currently 364 words long. It should be 400–700 words per WP:FILMPLOT.
I'll try to expand it.Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems redundant to have cast members both in the plot and in a list. If including a cast list, the members need to be referenced; there is nothing in WP:FILMCAST that makes them exempt.
Though they have already been sourced in the "casting" section, I don't mind sourcing them again in the "cast" section. But there are other cast members who I have not included in the article due to lack of reliable sources, though they appear in the film's opening credits. Can I use that as a source here? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS, can I use the opening credits of the film as a source here, to add the other cast members? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Fine with me. Just remove cast members from the plot section to avoid redundancy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Tragic" in "tragic loss" is not neutral.
I never added that term. Blame it on the GOCE, don't blame it on me. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. Removed "tragic". Kailash29792 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Are "BehindWoods" or "Bollywood Life" reliable?
The former, yes. The latter, though owned by Zee Network, does not typically qualify as RS. It does conduct exclusive interviews though, and this is one example. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Twitter and WordPress are discouraged as references. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
But the accounts are of Mohan V. Raman and Baradwaj Rangan, both are noted journalists here. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Even so, I'd recommend using something else if possible. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: In Baradwaj Rangan's wordpress URL, it states "Copyright 2005 @ Man's World" in the end of the article. Man's World directs to Man's World (magazine). So I've added it to the citation.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Lemme know when all of my points are fulfilled. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see how the article is now. Suggest improvements if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I currently count 399 words (less than the recommended 400–700) in the plot section, and there's still no time frame for when filming took place. At the very least include a year for filming. If possible, include months as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I know a film historian named G. Dhananjayan whose email ID I have. I guess I'll ask him if he has any info on this. But does the plot need anymore c/e now? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Plot is fine now. Just get a time range for filming and we're good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Courtney Love[edit]

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about musician and actress Courtney Love. I have done a great deal of work on this over a period of years, and have refined the citations and bibliography immensely to bring it to standard (especially being such a contentious topic). I hope you will consider the article. Drown Soda (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not able to review, but I notice three uncited sentences occurring at paragraph ends. See 1998–2002 second paragraph, 2012–present third paragraph, and the final sentence of the Cultural Impact section. These should be fixed to conform with FAC standards. I hope you get a full review soon. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input-- I just added appropriate citations to those statements. I appreciate it! —Drown Soda (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments - taking a look now. I will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Love debuted a new solo single in early 2014 - "released" ..."debuted" would mean a first one surely....
"moniker" for mine is a tad too informal for an encyclopedic article....but I am having trouble thinking of an alternative...

Source review - make sure all ref titles are in sentence case or title case..not a mix of the two.

Tropical Storm Thelma[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

What would appear to be little more than a non-notable tropical storm at first glance, Thelma is in actuality one of the worst natural disasters in the history of the Philippines. In mere hours, flash floods produced by Thelma obliterated cities and killed at least 5,000 people—with Ormoc City sustaining the worst of its wrath—marking (at the time) the second-deadliest tropical cyclone in the nation's history. Although the true toll will never be known, Thelma soundly rests as a benchmark storm for the Philippines in terms of flash floods. In 2013, Typhoon Haiyan devastated similar areas and proved to be the worst disaster in the history of the Philippines.

It's been about 2.5 years since I wrote the article, but it should still be the most comprehensive account of this event available. Thelma is a reminder to all that just because a storm is "weak", doesn't mean it's not capable of catastrophic impact. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Union Station (Erie, Pennsylvania)[edit]

Nominator(s): Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

While there are several railway station FA's (mostly British), there isn't one from the US, only a handful of GA's. Wasn't sure there would've been enough for an FA when I started, but was surprised by Union Station's unique, and often overlooked, history as well as how it went from neglected and abandoned to being revitalized and a hub of activity. This article has previously been reviewed by Finetooth and West Virginian who were instrumental in helping to get the article ready for FAC. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Erie_PA_Panorama_c1912_LOC_6a14402u.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Sourced from the Library of Congress who indicate that it's original copyright was to Haines Photo Co. in 1912. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, but the tag you're currently using is intended for images published, not just taken, before 1923 - do we know whether the company published the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Must have is listed in the 1912 Catalog of Copyright Entries as "Erie, Pa. two panoramic views. © Sept. 18, 1912." [3] (page 20049, if you're interested). Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Great, then just add that detail to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Added, thanks for doing the image review. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginia[edit]

Support As Niagara has stated above in his nomination of the article, I've already engaged in a thorough and comprehensive review at this article's peer review. All my comments and suggestions were addressed there. I still assess that this article easily meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria because it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, and has a lede that adheres to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Once again Niagara, you've done a splendid job illustrating the storied past and revival of this historic building. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Finetooth[edit]

I peer-reviewed this article in August 2015 and did some minor copy editing, and all of my original concerns have been addressed. I'm leaning toward support, but after re-reading the revised article again today, I have two (or several, depending how you count) additional suggestions:

  • I see four sentences in the article that appear as unsourced last-sentence additions to paragraphs. The first of these (Fellheimer) is at the end of the first paragraph of the "Design" section, and the second (railroad offices) ends the third paragraph of the "Design" section. The other two are in the "Operations" section, at the ends of paragraphs 2 and 3 (express trains and Bliley). Can you add reliable sources for these claims?
  • For the books in the bibliography that are too old to have ISBNs, I would add OCLCs as in the Harriet Tubman bibliography. You can generally find these via WorldCat. For example, WorldCat lists the OCLC of History of Erie County, Pennsylvania as 8622308 here. Readers who use your bibliography will then be able to click on an OCLC link to see the WorldCat listings, which include information about other editions and formats and where to find them. For example, the History of Erie County, Pennsylvania, has appeared in nine different forms, including a 2006 reprint. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Added the appropriate sources and OCLC numbers. Thanks for catching those! Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Support. A very well-done and interesting article. Finetooth (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Sledd[edit]

Nominator(s): Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Andrew Sledd, an American Methodist minister, theologian, Latin and Greek scholar, and academic administrator who was the founding president of the modern University of Florida. Sledd achieved a large measure of notoriety when, as a young Latin professor at Emory College in 1902, he wrote an article for The Atlantic in which he condemned the all-too-common practice of lynching African-Americans who were accused of crimes or other acts that transgressed the strictly enforced racial segregation of the era. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN, several years ago, and am delighted that Dirtlawyer1 has decided to nominate this here. I think it's a fine article and I expect to support. A couple of minor quibbles first:

  • "declined all such offers": I think "such" is not quite right, since as far as we know there were no others. How about just "declined these offers"?
  • There are more links in the "See also" section than I think are necessary. This is a matter of editorial judgement, so I wouldn't oppose over this, but couldn't some of these be replaced by categories?
  • In the GA review you mentioned a fist-fight Sledd had with another professor, and after some discussion I think you were planning to mention it in a footnote. As far as I can see you haven't done this; any particular reason? I think it's your call, as you're the one looking at the sources, but it's a nice tidbit to add if you can source it properly.

-- That's all I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: In regard to the three issues you raised above --

  1. I made the change you suggested, removing "such";
  2. I pared the tangential "see also" articles for which there are corresponding categories; and
  3. At the time we discussed it, I thought about the inclusion of the purported "fist-fight," but it was based on a second-hand account in an unpublished manuscript by James M. Farr. In my editorial judgment, that was a little too shaky to include.

Please let me know if you have any other comments, suggestions, or questions. Thank you, once again, for your past reviews of this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Support. The minor issues I raised have been settled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Finetooth[edit]

I peer-reviewed this article in 2009, and it has improved steadily since then. The prose is of professional quality, and the article seems comprehensive. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a short list of suggestions:

  • The bolding of the quotation and Sledd's name in the pull quote is overkill. I'd delete the bolding.
  • The Buckman Hall image is displacing the University of the State of Florida head. The image would look fine if moved down one paragraph and inserted between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of that section, after the sentence ending with "as the location for the new men's state university."
  • Five portal links in the "See also" section are too many. I would delete the geographic ones, Florida and Georgia, at least, on grounds that they are too general to be useful to the reader in the context of this article. I have doubts about the Christianity and Education portal links as well. Wouldn't readers find related materials easily without these links?
  • For the books in the bibliography that are too old to have ISBNs, I would add OCLCs as in Harriet Tubman. You can generally find these via WorldCat, taking care to choose the edition you are citing. For example, WorldCat lists the OCLC of Andrew Sledd: His Life and Work as 1127786 here.
  • The lead image is good but has a few visible imperfections (dust motes, perhaps) that should be relatively easy to touch up. If you can do that, great; if not, I'd be willing to try, if you like.
-- Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Finetooth: In regard to your five suggestions above --

  1. I am strongly in favor of the pull quote -- how would you suggest that I present it? Given the quote's relative brevity, I am afraid it will be lost in the surrounding text. There is an even stronger quote buried in the text, in which Sledd describes lynching as a "diabolical carnival of blood," if we need something longer. The mild-mannered minister did have a gift for words when his anger and indignation were aroused.
My suggestion would be to keep the quote and template as they are but remove the bolding. The fancy quotation marks already draw special attention to the quote. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Finetooth: Per your suggestion, I have removed the bolding from the pull quote text. What do you think? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. I have moved the Buckman Hall photo to avoid the subheader displacement per your suggestion.
  2. I have removed the Christianity, Education, Florida and Georgia portal links.
  3. I have added the OCLCs for all of the bibliography publications for which an OCLC entry exists.
  4. The infobox head-and-shoulders shot of Sledd is one of my favorites, and was made from a large-format glass negative, with all of the fine resolution and other imperfections of the medium. I do not possess the Photoshop skills to touch up the photo as you suggest, but I certainly would not object if you want to take a crack at it. My only caveat is that I would not want to see any loss of the fine, granular resolution of the original. It's a beautifully representative photo from that era.
I agree. I will tinker with as few pixels as possible, and you'll be free to choose between the two options. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded the retouched version moments ago. I changed one pixel at a time using the eyedrop tool and pencil tool in; the largest changes involved a total of about a dozen pixels. You can easily revert to the original if you prefer. Finetooth (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Your retouched version appears to minimize the scratches and dust specks, and looks to be an improvement. If MrToes, the original uploader and a University of Florida library employee, turns up in the near future, I will request that the university archive folks re-perform the digitalization of the photo in the hopes of improving the resolution in some of its marginal areas. That's on the wish list, but I have no control over that. Perhaps if this article is promoted we can get the university's attention. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps Mrtoes could provide a higher-resolution image as well. His account is still active. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any other comments, suggestions, or questions. Thank you, once again, for your past reviews of this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose, coverage, Manual of Style issues. I defer to User:Nikkimaria on the license questions. All of my other concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Why italicize the lead caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Simply to visually distinguish the photo caption from the surrounding infobox text. IMO, it has always been a defect of our present Infobox person design that it does not already do so in a visually recognizable manner. That said, if it is a condition of FAC approval (or your support), I will certainly remove the italics from the caption. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not a problem, just something we don't see very often so I thought I would ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • File:UF00031408.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The truth is I don't know with anything like 100% certainty, but I can make a reasonably educated guess based on my knowledge of Sledd and the University of Florida. Please keep in mind that I am not the uploader of the photo, and I simply accepted a photo from Wikimedia Commons with a valid rationale, which I uncritically accepted at the time because it was on Commons. That said, I am pretty sure the c. 1910 date on the photo is incorrect. Here's the source for the original upload, the University of Florida Digital Collection from the university's Smathers Library: [4]. Please see photo No. 5, which is our subject photo, which the university archivist ambiguously dates to the "1910s". Please note that subject photo No. 5 appears to have been taken at the same time as photos Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (same necktie, same suit, same eyeglasses, same hair color). Now, compare Sledd's appearance in photo No. 2, which includes his wife and young children, and we can date with some accuracy to c. 1906 because it only includes three of his eventual seven children. Compare Sledd's physical appearance in No. 2 (dark hair, appears to be about 35 years old) with his appearance that in Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 (silver hair, and appears to be 50 to 60 years old). Sledd was effectively fired by the state Board of Education in 1909 (see article for details), and to the best of my knowledge only attended one function at the university thereafter, in 1933, when then-president John J. Tigert invited Sledd to give the commencement address. One of the apparently contemporaneous photos, No. 1, shows Sledd in his Ph.D. regalia, apparently dressed for graduation. Given his self-evident age in photo No. 1, it was clearly not taken during his 1905–09 tenure as president, when he was 35 to 39 years old. Assuming the validity of this bit of amateur detective work and photo analysis, it is extremely likely that the four contemporary photos, including No. 5, were taken during graduation weekend 1933. This conclusion is, of course, based on a series of educated guesses by me. That said, the 1933 date should not be a problem for the subject photo being in the public domain because the University of Florida owns the prints and negative, it's a state institution, and there is a specific public domain rationale for the documents and images of Florida state institutions under Florida law. The Commons PD rationale should probably be changed to reflect that, thus making the date of publication moot for PD purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, if you would update the image description page to reflect your explanation I'll re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Which description page -- the Wikimedia Commons description and PD rationale? If so, I am happy to accommodate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's the one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • NM, I have changed the PD rationale for Wikimedia Commons as discussed above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, now good to go on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Leaning to support. An interesting article about a man who deserves to be remembered. I have a number of relatively straightforward prose issues:

  • Early life section: "He received his early education..." – as the last person mentioned is Sledd senior, "he" had better be specified as Andrew.
  • Same section: "Sledd also completed his doctorate" – the word "also" is redundant.
  • Emory College section: I am sure that the lynching was indeed horrifying, but you refer specifically to the "horrifying aftermath". Was there some additional horror? Also, however justified the term "horrifying", I believe that encyclopedic neutrality means that emotive descriptions should be avoided.
  • The highlighted quotation is the same wording as provided in the text. Perhaps the quote box could give us a bit of context, otherwise we are merely reading the same thing twice.
  • University of Florida at Lake City section: I assume that the "previous president" is the unpopular one referred to in the previous line, though the wording is slightly ambiguous. If that's the case, you could clarify by saying "ineffectual" rather than "previous".
  • University of the State of Florida section: The following sentence reads rather clumsily: "After a spirited debate, the Board of Control, the new state board charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville, by a vote of six to four, as the location for the new men's state university." I suggest losing the unnecessary intro comment and rephrasing: "By a vote of six to four, the new Board of Control charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville as the location for the new men's state university."
  • Same section: "Sledd did not anticipate that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and he naturally assumed that Lake City would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." I suggest: "Sledd had not anticipated that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and had assumed that it would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." etc
  • "Sledd's future as its likely first president" – delete "likely"; his anticipated future was as first president, not "likely first president".
  • "there were other possible candidates to become its first president" → "there were other possible candidates for the presidency" (to avoid close repetition of phrase)
  • I would delete the words "to become the president of the new men's university in Gainesville"; they are clearly implied.
  • Albert Murphree could be just "Murphree" after first mention.
  • Methodist ministry and Southern University section: the final sentence in this section is unnecessary, since the move to Atlanta is fully covered by the first sentence of the next section.
  • Candler section: "volunteered for the additional duty of serving as the board's treasurer" – a trifle verbose. "volunteered to serve as the board's treasurer" would suffice.
  • In the final paragraph of this section I would delete the word "also", the word "bitter" (too subjective) and the first "only" in the last line.
  • Death and legacy section: Do you need to spell out the full Candler name in the first paragraph? Previously it's just been "Candler".
  • Suggest delete the terminal "however" (Third para, first sentence)

I see few problems in dealing with these, and look forward to moving to full support shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: In reply to your comments above --

  1. BB suggestion: "he" had better be specified as Andrew.
    Agreed. Done.
  2. BB suggestion: "Sledd also completed his doctorate" – the word "also" is redundant.
    Agreed. Done.
  3. BB suggestion: Also, however justified the term "horrifying", I believe that encyclopedic neutrality means that emotive descriptions should be avoided.
    Hmm. I think this deserves a moment of discussion. I understand the need to avoid emotive terms per NPOV, however, in this case the scene was truly that and goes a long way to explaining the rage this young Methodist minister felt. They emasculated the victim and burnt him alive. Sledd witnessed the aftermath when men and boys were collecting carbonized digits and kneecaps as souvenirs. The use of the word in this case is neither metaphoric nor exaggerated. Perhaps in lieu of the emotive word, a sentence of factual description would be better?
    FYI, I live in metro Atlanta, about 20 miles from where this horror story unfolded, and it's a dark part of local history.
    That might be better, but I'll go along with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Having re-read the entire section, and the footnote with the extended quoted passage describing the scene of the lynching witnessed by Sledd, I have decided to let the man's words speak for themselves. I have deleted the word "horrifying".
  4. BB suggestion: Perhaps the quote box could give us a bit of context, otherwise we are merely reading the same thing twice.
    I'm still contemplating what to do with the quote box in light of your suggestion. Are you suggesting that I add additional quoted text for context? Can you elaborate a bit?
    A quote box should enhance and supplement the text, not simply repeat what's in it. A slightly longer quotation, incorporating the "There is nothing in a white skin" comment, would be appropriate. If you think that nothing useful can be added to the brief quote, then it would perhaps be better to scrap the box. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    I have expanded the quote and added some additional context material in the quote box attribution.
  5. BB comment: I assume that the "previous president" is the unpopular one referred to in the previous line, though the wording is slightly ambiguous. If that's the case, you could clarify by saying "ineffectual" rather than "previous".
    Good suggestion. Done.
  6. BB comment: Sentence reads rather clumsily: "After a spirited debate, the Board of Control, the new state board charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville, by a vote of six to four, as the location for the new men's state university." I suggest losing the unnecessary intro comment and rephrasing: "By a vote of six to four, the new Board of Control charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville as the location for the new men's state university."
    Your rewrite flows better. Done.
  7. BB comment: "Sledd did not anticipate that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and he naturally assumed that Lake City would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." I suggest: "Sledd had not anticipated that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and had assumed that it would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." etc
    Past perfect tense sounds marginally better. Done.
  8. BB suggestion: "Sledd's future as its likely first president" – delete "likely"; his anticipated future was as first president, not "likely first president".
    Agreed: "likely" is redundant. Done.
  9. BB suggestion: "there were other possible candidates to become its first president" → "there were other possible candidates for the presidency" (to avoid close repetition of phrase)
    Agreed. Done.
  10. BB suggestion: I would delete the words "to become the president of the new men's university in Gainesville"; they are clearly implied.
    Tighter, better. Done.
  11. BB suggestion: Albert Murphree could be just "Murphree" after first mention.
    Agreed. Done.
  12. BB comment: Methodist ministry and Southern University section: the final sentence in this section is unnecessary, since the move to Atlanta is fully covered by the first sentence of the next section.
    Brian, how strongly do you feel about this? I think it provides a needed segue; Sledd resigned from the Southern presidency, and was not effectively fired as he had been from his previous Emory and Florida positions.
    What I would recommend is: scrap the final sentence in the "Methodist ministry" section and recast the beginning of the next section as follows: "In the fall of 1914, Sledd resigned the presidency of Southern University and returned to Emory College, by then renamed Emory University and relocated to its new main campus in northeast Atlanta. He became the first Professor of Greek and New Testament Literature at the Candler School of Theology, the newly established seminary of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." That would maintain continuity and avoid the present repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed. Done.
  13. BB suggestion: "volunteered to serve as the board's treasurer" would suffice.
    Agreed. Done.
  14. BB suggestions: In the final paragraph of this section I would delete the word "also", the word "bitter" (too subjective) and the first "only" in the last line.
    Agreed: neither is necessary. Done.
  15. BB comment: Death and legacy section -- Do you need to spell out the full Candler name in the first paragraph? Previously it's just been "Candler".
    Brian, I think we may have the problem of confusing "Candler" antecedents here . . . Bishop Warren Candler, wife Florence Candler, Coca-Cola founder Asa Candler, Candler School of Theology. Unless you feel strongly about this, I think a little repetition may be helpful to the reader in this case.
    I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    With your acquiescence, I'm going to leave this minor point as is.
  16. BB suggestion: delete the terminal "however" (last section, third para, first sentence)
    Agreed. Done.

@Brianboulton: Thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. The text is tighter and cleaner as a result. Please see my comments and questions under items 3, 4, 12 and 15 above, which require your responses. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Subject to my outstanding notes I'm happy with your responses. Please re-ping when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I have addressed each of the outstanding four points above, making the suggested changes in the first three instances, and leaving the minor repetition in the case of the fourth. Please let me know if you have any further comments, suggestions or questions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Support: All my queries/suggestions have been dealt with adequately, and I'm happy to support the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

FAC process, general comments, etc.[edit]

@Graham Beards, Ian Rose, and Laser brain: Gentlemen, I'm new to the FAC process. Is there anything else for me to do here as the FAC nominator? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Just at a quick glance it looks like we may still need a source review for reliability and formatting, and, assuming this is your first nomination, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. We can request those at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the reviewers above can undertake. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Please do whatever is required to advance the ball, sir. All online footnote sources were checked and all links were found to be in working condition during the first week of November 2015. Several of the academic publications are offline, but available through JSTOR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Happy to pop round to the British Library to do a spot check if wanted. Tim riley talk 19:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tim riley: I would be grateful for your help. As noted above, most of the academic references are available through JSTOR if they are not linked in the footnotes. Some non-controversial "early life and education" details are provided by three unpublished manuscripts, which were graciously lent to me by the University of Florida and Emory University libraries. The footnote style for newspapers and journals is old-fashioned, straightforward and simple -- and I hope very consistent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


Some preliminary carping before setting out the results of the spot-checks. I'm afraid I found the referencing quite confusing:

  • I can't work out the logic for having the bibliographic information for some books (e.g. Bauman and Lazenby) in the References section rather than in the bibliography. (Bauman lacks its ISBN, too, which is 978-0-8108-1368-7; Lazenby lacks its OCLC, which is 1632564.)
  • Unfortunately, there was no "logic": the omission of Bauman and Lazenby from the Bibliography section was accidental. I have now added both to the Bibliography, and I have added the Bauman ISBN and Lazenby OCLC, respectively. It's been four or five years since I wrote it, but I may also have omitted Bauman from the bibliography because it was relied upon for only one infobox fact: the correct full name of Sledd's wife, who is invariably referred to by one of two nicknames (Annie or Foncie) in other references. The subject of Lazenby's book is Sledd's father-in-law, and if memory serves only mentions Sledd incidentally. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It is mildly disconcerting to have authors listed by First Name Last Name in the References and by Last Name First Name in the Bibliography.
  • That's not an accident: the Bibliography is alphabetized by author, as is typical for all bibliographical lists. There is no reason to present the reference authors' last names first in the reference section. The references are presented in the form of "spot references," including the pages where the cited facts may be found in the text of the particular reference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There are publications listed in the Bibliography that haven't, as far as I can see, been referred to in the text. If I am right about this (apologies if I'm not) I think publications cited in the article should be listed as "Sources", and the rest hived off to a "Further Reading" list below it.
  • I assume you are referring to the three works by Andrew Sledd which are not cited as references in the article text . . . None of these are relied upon for sourcing facts in the Wikipedia article, and I have moved them to a separate "further reading" section per your suggestion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that sources available online such as Lazenby's book and the Warnock article deserve to have url links (with the {{subscription}} tag where appropriate).
  • Tim, I was unaware that Lazenby's book and Warnock's article in The Journal of Southern History were available online. Can you provide links, or provide the names of the services where they can be found? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There are url links to paywalled sites (e.g. ref 15) that lack a "subscription needed" tag.
  • I have added the "subscription required" tag to The Atlanta Constitution newspaper articles which are linked to paywalled newspaper websites. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There can, I admit, be two opinions about squashing explanatory notes such as refs 17 and 45 in with the citations, and I don't press this point.
  • I would prefer to keep the two explanatory footnotes as part of the inline References. There are only four or five of them, and breaking them out for so small a number strikes me as unnecessary. Several of them also rely on the same source cited for the preceding main body text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Spot checks of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing:

  • Drafting is all fine: no hint of close paraphrasing. (On at least two occasions I noticed a much more elegant phrasing in this article than in the original source.)
  • Ref 1 – fine
  • Ref 9 – fine
  • Ref 12a – this source doesn't say what the text says, but as ref 9 covers the information satisfactorily, 12a can safely be ditched.
  • I deleted 12a (ref name=hwarnock251) per your suggestion; please note that footnotes have subsequently renumbered, and footnote no. 12 is now Ralph Reed, and the Henry Warnock article is footnote no. 14. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 14 – fine
  • Ref 18a – fine
  • Ref 18b – fine
  • Ref 35a – fine
  • Ref 35b – fine
  • Ref 35c – fine
  • Ref 35d – fine
  • Ref 35e – fine
  • Ref 35f – fine
  • Ref 36a – fine
  • Ref 36b – the source doesn't mention most of the information in the 82-word sentence ascribed to it.
  • Well, f---, that's embarrassing. I know the information regarding historically black Florida A&M University and the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind to be historically/factually correct, but I have clearly omitted the reference for about half of the facts mentioned in that sentence. I have removed the FAMU and FSDB information from the problematic sentence for now, and will re-add it when I can locate the appropriate reference in my 5-year-old notes. This may have originally linked to an earlier 2010 version of the cited University of Florida webpage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 36c – fine
  • Ref 36d – fine
  • Ref 36e – fine
  • Ref 36f – fine
  • Ref 36g – the source says that most of the new faculty members were from Lake City but doesn't say (as the article ascribes to it) that Sledd "had previously selected [them] to be professors" at Lake City. But this information is given in Pleasants, p. 9, which should, I think, be added to the citation here.
  • To the best of my recollection, there are multiple sources for Sledd's selection of the new faculty, but the Pleasants citation will correct the problem now. Per your suggestion, I have added the Pleasants p. 9 citation, and I have also partially rewritten the text. Please note the UF Past Presidents bio does support this in part, however, saying in pertinent part: "Sledd oversaw the transfer to Gainesville in 1906 and selected the initial faculty, most of whom were instructors at the Lake City campus." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 39a – fine
  • Ref 39b – fine
  • Ref 40 – I couldn't find any reference to annual appointments on the page cited, though I think I remember seeing it in other sources in passing.
  • Tim, there were multiple sources for this, and I will hunt it [them] down. I may have to pull some of my old reference materials out of storage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 41 – fine
  • Ref 42 is an explanatory footnote which has no citation for the information contained in it.
  • Ref 43a – fine
  • Ref 43b – fine
  • Ref 43c – I couldn't find any mention of the salary on the page cited.
  • The UF Past Presidents bio states a $2500 annual salary. To the best of my recollection, I found one or more reliable sources that stated the lower salary of $2250. I will track the $2250 amount down or change it to $2500; I suspect that my source was the unpublished Sledd autobiography, which, given the author, I would treated as more reliable than the UF online website bio. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That's it from me. I enjoyed the article, and I have no doubt whatever that every statement in it can be justified from a reliable source, but at present there are rather more failures to name the right source than I feel comfortable with for a featured article. – Tim riley talk 12:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Tim riley: I have addressed the first nine points you raised above, with the last three issues remaining to be resolved. I could rewrite and/or delete text in order to eliminate these three problems, but I would prefer to resolve the sourcing and preserve the text in these instances. I will ping you back in a day or so, after I've done the required homework. In the mean time, I would be grateful if you respond to my request for the online links to the Lazenby book and Warnock article mentioned above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure. Urls h/w:
  • Ref 9: -- (Lazenby)
  • Ref 12: -- (Reed Jr)
  • Ref 14: -- (Warnock)
  • Ref 45: -- (Van Ness)
The last three need the {{subscription}} template, being JSTOR articles.– Tim riley talk 17:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tim riley: Thanks for the assist, Tim. I have added those four article links provided above and the subscription templates. Now I need to go chase the last three missing/incomplete references, but given Thanksgiving holiday time constraints here, it may be two or three days before I can resolve all three of them. In the mean time, can you review and sign off on the other comments? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Apart from the three outstanding points mentioned immediately above, I am now happy with the results of the spot-check.Tim riley talk 12:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslav monitor Sava[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Another in my series of Austro-Hungarian/Yugoslav river monitors. As the Austro-Hungarian Temes-class monitor Bodrog, she fired the first shots of World War I. She then went on to serve in three more navies under the name Sava, being scuttled and raised twice. She still exists, although she has been reduced from her former glory and is now an ammunition barge! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Map labels aren't very legible - suggest scaling up
  • File:Dunarea_romaneasca.png: what is the source of the data presented here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


  • Lede is rather a bit too detailed, IMO and could stand to be more of a summary.
  • Add a link to the knots conversion template by adding "|lk=in" both in the infobox and the main body.
  • Her armour consisted of belt, bulkheads and gun turrets 40 mm (1.6 in) thick and deck armour 25 mm (0.98 in) thick, and her conning tower was 75 mm (3.0 in) thick. A few too many "and"s here.
  • Link mine, launched, lighter, tug, patrol boat, minelayer, division (naval).
  • Any information on her pre-WWI activities?
  • How's your German? Die österreichisch-ungarische Donauflotille im weltkriege, 1914-18; dem werke "Österreich-Ungarns seekrieg, 1914-18" by Olaf Richard Wulff; Hans Hugo Sokol; Gábor von Döbrentei ought to be useful.
  • Commencing on 30 October 1915, they escorted a series of munitions convoys down the Danube to Lom where they were transferred to the Bulgarian railway system for shipment to the Ottoman Empire. The antecedent for the second "they" is unclear as the monitors certainly weren't transferred to the RR system.
  • Under the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Bodrog was transferred to the KSCS along with a range of other vessels, including three other river monitors,[18] but was officially handed over to the KSCS Navy and renamed Sava in 1920. Why a "but" here?
  • Armed only with personal weapons and some machine guns stripped from the scuttled vessels, started towards the Bay of Kotor in the southern Adriatic in two groups. Who started?
  • Sava was raised and repaired by the navy of the Axis puppet state the Independent State of Croatia, and served under that name alongside her fellow monitor Morava, which was raised, repaired and renamed Bosna. Missing a comma.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Craig Kieswetter[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 09:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Craig Kieswetter was one of those England cricketers who bounced in and out of the team. He had a good run in one-day cricket early in his career, and was man of the match in the final when England won the World Twenty20, the first one-day trophy won by the team. He later lost his England place to one of his Somerset team-mates. At domestic level, he was one of Somerset's star players until he was struck in the eye by the ball, ending his career prematurely.

This article underwent a GA review by Sturmvogel 66, who helped to reduce the amount of jargon used, or at least reminded me to explain it or wikilink it. Relentlessly very kindly copy-edited the article, both improving the quality of the prose, and identifying a number of areas where the referencing fell short. Crisco 1492 took a quick look at the images. Harrias talk 09:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Comments from Dweller

  • Significant omission: description of his batting style and keeping abilities, and his role (opener, etc)
    • I've added a section about this, although I've yet to find anything (other than glowing praise from a local paper after his retirement) about his keeping worth adding. I know there is some stuff around, it's just a case of sifting through sources. Harrias talk 10:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Added a little about his keeping (and bowling!) now too. Harrias talk 11:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Cricket helmet says "grill". This article uses "grille". Which?
    • Both seem common online, the Daily Telegraph certainly uses "grille" though. Harrias talk 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What's he doing now?
  • What's his vision like now?
    • With both of these points: there's been nothing in reliable sources (ie, not Twitter) since he retired. He did say he was interested in getting into the media, which was mentioned in an interview he did around his retirement, but he certainly hasn't as yet that I've seen. Harrias talk 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I've added a sentence on this at the end. Harrias talk 10:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If he was 18 when he went to Millfield, was he 2 years older than all the other kids?
    • Presumably, but then and again, Millfield may well have a range of ages, given its reputation for sports; it would be speculation to add anything to the article, I think. Harrias talk 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm less sure about this now, there is nothing particularly verifiable, but it looks like he might have turned up mid-year, literally just to do his A-levels. Harrias talk 10:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No explanation that I could see about how he managed to qualify for England
    • Ooops, mentioned this in the lead, and not thereafter. Will add it to the body. Harrias talk 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Added this now. Harrias talk 10:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Family? Interests?
    • I've mentioned his parents early on, I know he has at least a brother, but I was loathe to mention him without any sources that specifically mention if he has any other siblings, could add it though? Interest-wise, there is nothing note-worthy, anything that could be added would just be trivia really; football team supported and that sort of rubbish. Not sure any of it could be sourced anyway. Harrias talk 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

More to come, perhaps --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: Thanks for those comments; I've replied to a few and would be interested on your thoughts, while some others I need to spend more time on. Harrias talk 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Operation Sandwedge[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 09:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is less about a minor cog in the Watergate machine than about one which was never even set in motion—Operation Sandwedge was the proposed covert strategy eschewed by Nixon in favour of what ended up happening. This article is part of a continued fascination of mine with things that didn't happen (cf. Ronnie Rocket, Project A119) and I hope you find it as intriguing as I did. It received a GA review from Sp33dyphil in 2012, and a recent peer review from Nikkimaria which identified a potentially troublesome source which has since been removed. The text also benefitted greatly from a copy-edit by Relentlessly. Of note to anyone taking the time review this, I've also been wondering about possibly replacing the image used with File:Jack Caulfield, photo portrait, Nixon Administration, black and white.jpg instead, I'm not sure which one would work better, although personally I lean towards the hint of conspiracy given by the covered speech in the current one; an idea which, granted, may be a little more yellow-journalistic than it should be. Thanks in advance to anyone who has a look at this one. GRAPPLE X 09:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed (including the proposed replacement). Personally I like the current image though. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Good, and interesting. I have a few comments.

  • "statuses" I think "status" would do.
  • "proposals for the proposed" can this be boiled down into one proposition?
  • Both amended. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Nixon and Haldeman had first worked together in 1956, during Nixon's successful bid for the vice-presidential nomination under Dwight D. Eisenhower." I don't think you are reading the source right. He first worked for Nixon in 1956, but it mentions the re-election of Nixon as vice president and does not mention the nomination. Saying "worked together" implies colleagues, whereas Haldeman was in 1956 relatively junior. In any event, I don't think it's fully supported by the source.
  • I had intended "worked together" to simply mean "working for the same purpose", but I've reworded it to directly relate that Haldeman worked for, not at the same level as, Nixon. And you're right about the goal, I had misread the source to refer to his bid for the vice-presidential ticket rather than his bid for the vice-presidency itself, that's also been reworded now. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Nixon's re-election campaign for the 1972 presidential election" I would make this a bit less clunky "Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign" should be sufficient.
  • Changed in both instances. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Nixon's Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs." Nixon's domestic affairs assistant carries the same information at less cost.
  • Agreed. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • assistant director of criminal enforcement" On the White House staff, or is this Justice Dept?
  • Of the ATF, which I'm now puzzled I didn't specify (it's there in the source so it's an omission of mine). In now. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
General comments: The prose is a little clunky and could benefit from slimming down phrases like the ones I've flagged above. I'd like to ask the nominator, have you checked other bios of Nixon and other books in the long shelf of books that keep getting written on Nixon and his administration for content? Because I'm a little uncomfortable about using Black's bio as the backbone. It's fine to use (I've used it myself) but it's a bit controversial, as is Black himself. I'd welcome your thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a comb over the prose again myself, but I'll admit that I'm not the best at it. As for the use of Black as a book source, I could try to find something else if preferable, but the book is only used for the numerical facts of his 1968 election victory; the 0.7% popular vote margin in particular (I cribbed the source itself directly from the Richard Nixon article so didn't realise it may have been a biased one). A quick search on Google Books turns up this as a possible alternative, if you would prefer? It doesn't explicitly state what the margin of difference was but it should be safe to produce it from the two results being given. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that's fine. As you pointed out, we used him ourselves, and also for similar things. Sounds good to me. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Christ Church, Newton[edit]

Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a historic church and Anglican congregation in northern New Jersey that was chartered by George III. It was originally nominated by User:JackTheVicar who has since been banned. I have picked up this nomination as a revival of the original nomination with Graham Beard's consent. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Hogwarts Express attraction at the Universal Orlando Resort. Dom497 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Driveby comment from Iridescent[edit]

Is there a better source for "The entrance to the station, which is a quarter-scale replica of the real London King's Cross railway station" than the current 'source', which is clearly just a reprinted press-release (even if it weren't obvious from the "sponsored content from" disclaimer) right down to the use of the Am-Eng "one-fourth scale" in a British newspaper? The actual King's Cross Station is a melange of Victorian plate-glass and post-modern spun-steel which looks like the Starship Enterprise has crashed into a Victorian crematorium, and assuming this photo is representative has no particular resemblance other than the colour of the bricks and the arched roof. (The "King's Cross" used in the films was actually the more photogenic St Pancras railway station, so there's no particular reason a ride based on the films would choose to replicate the actual King's Cross.) ‑ iridescent 11:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Hi Iridescent! The entrance to the station is a quarter-scale replica; not the interior.--Dom497 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick Comment[edit]

I don't quite understand the difference between the grading of featured vs. good articles, but I would be more behind getting this article featured if it correctly used the infobox. Currently, it is using multi-park version vs. the single park version, even though it's only in one park. Elisfkc (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Elisfkc (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: Hi Elisfkc, where is the infobox using the multi-park version. It appears to be using the single park parameters.--Dom497 (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I fixed it from what I saw as the problem. It's all good now. Elisfkc (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Fay (2014)[edit]

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Despite not being as long as my last several nominations, this article may be one of my best. I personally find the storm fascinating, so I've spent an inordinate amount of time polishing the article over the past year, and the result is something I'm quite proud of. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed it for GA status, so I think it's appropriate that I also review it for FAC, especially in light of the changes you've made.

  • "Despite being plagued by strong disruptive wind shear" - seems a bit excessive. If you cut out "strong", the meaning still applies, and the sentence reads better.
  • Great prose in the MH. It makes sense to me, but it should get a read through by a layman to make sure it's understandable.
  • Your call, but when you mention Fabian in 03, it might help to say that the storm passed nearby or something. The implication in the first half of the article is that Fay was the strongest storm to affect Bermuda since Emily, but you are only focusing on the landfall. I'm not sure how you want to deal with that though.
  • "Indeed, in a report to the World Meteorological Organization, the Bermuda Weather Service speculated that all insurance claims totaled "tens of millions of dollars"" - this is from Fay alone, right? Was there a combined damage total?
  • I also did an image review. The storm images are NASA, they're good. The track map generator is PD, as always for every TC article, so that's good. And the yacht damage is creative commons, also correctly done and noted.

All in all a great read! I'm happy to support it now, as my comments are very minor, and the images are good. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review and kind words! I made several changes that should have taken care of the things you mentioned, plus a few other minor issues I came across. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – A well-written, and in-depth article on a damaging storm that was quickly overshadowed by its "big brother". No complaints on my end so I'm happy to support. As with any nomination, I'd suggest adding alt text to the images. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for the review. I've made my feeble attempt at adding alt text... you might like to check and see that it's satisfactory. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. All tropical storms articles are somewhat technical; I thought this one struck a nice balance. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Source review - goddamn...I have to resist the temptation to change all the names....but good news is they're all consistent. Some ref titles are in sentence case and some in title case...choose one and forever hold yer peace....otherwise all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Spot check pending....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

earwig's good
using this version for reference for ref numbers etc:
FN 1 used 4 times - material in source and faithful to source without copyvio. all good.
FN 13 used 2 times - material in source and faithful to source without copyvio. all good.
FN 12 used 5 times - I don't see in the source where the time of the watch was given. Otherwise all other items in source and faithful to source without copyvio.

Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This article details the history and architecture of a historic Whipple truss bridge on the National Register of Historic Places in West Virginia. This article recently underwent an extensive peer review. I am nominating this article, as I feel it meets the Featured Article criteria. I look forward to your comments and suggestions, and I will be very appreciative of any guidance than can be offered to improve the quality of this article. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Dank, thank you for your edits and for your support; both are very appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
formerly known as South Branch Bridge and Romney Bridge, - to my ears, "or" sounds more natural than "and" here
  • Added or per your recommendation! Thank you for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
''The Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge is the oldest remaining example of a Whipple truss bridge in West Virginia, and is the oldest extant metal truss bridge in the state. - should be able to rewrite so we just have one mention of "West Virginia" or "state"
  • I've modified the sentence as follows: "The Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge is West Virginia's oldest remaining example of a Whipple truss bridge and its oldest extant metal truss bridge." Let me know if this works better! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The Whipple truss bridge replaced an 1838 wooden covered bridge - does it refer to the Capon Lake or the larger bridge?
  • I've added "larger" to differentiate between the South Branch Bridge and the Capon Lake Bridge. This of course was in reference to the first larger construction of the bridge. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The first four paras of the body of text all start with, "The Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge....." - you wanna mix it up a little.
  • Thank you for catching the repetition! I've changed some instances of "Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge" to "bridge." Let me know if you see anything else that requires tweaking! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I did mean more like this, but only one of the paras lends itself to this. I think it is diversified enough now anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise looking good/on target.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Cas Liber, thank you for your kind words and thoughtful suggestions. I've addressed them all, so please let me know if you have any outstanding issues or concerns with the article. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rodw: A few questions from someone who knows nothing of the engineering involved or the geography of this part of the world:

  • I assumed Capon Lake was a body of water until I found it is an Unincorporated area, perhaps this could be clearer on 1st mention (but I'm not sure how) and I wonder why it is Capon not "Cacapon" (but that may be incidental for this article).
  • Capon is just a shorter form of Cacapon; and the two are used interchangeably when referring to the river. Capon Lake refers to the river's lake-like formation near the bridge and from that formation, the unincorporated area has taken its name. In the first paragraph of the lede, I have added: "...thus connecting the unincorporated communities of Capon Springs with Capon Lake." Will this suffice? Thank you for raising this question. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In the section on South Branch Bridge do we need to be told that T. B. White and Sons was also known as Penn Bridge and Machine Works as this has been covered in the previous section? It is repeated again as a direct quote in the next paragraph.
  • I've removed "Penn Bridge and Machine Works" per your suggestion. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Refs 29 & 30 "Some dates..." & "The new Rt..." seem to have "" twice - once italicised and once not italicised - any reason?
  • That is a template issue more than anything. I've modified it so that the name only appears once. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Munske, Roberta R.; Kerns, Wilmer L., eds. (2004). Hampshire County, West Virginia, 1754–2004. Romney, West Virginia: The Hampshire County 250th Anniversary Committee. ISBN 978-0-9715738-2-6. OCLC 55983178" is included in the bibliography but I can see where it is used as a reference.

I hope these comments make sense.— Rod talk 15:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Rod, thank you tremendously for engaging in this review and for sharing your suggestions here. Please let me know if I need to make any further corrections or additions. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. All my issues have been addressed therefore I can support as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Rod, thank you so much for your support, and thank you again for your thoughtful suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I peer reviewed this article previously and found it extremely comprehensive and well-written. The fact that it is also on an obscure, local topic makes it much more interesting and is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia great. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Niagara, thank you again for the peer review, and for your kind words and support here. -- West Virginian (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppenheimer security hearing[edit]

Nominator(s): Figureofnine (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Robert Oppenheimer's 1954 security hearing, which resulted in his Q clearance being revoked. This marked the end of his formal relationship with the government of the United States, and generated controversy as to whether his treatment was fair, or an expression of McCarthyist anti-Communist hysteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited again later
  • References need to be alphabetized
  • Notes and References should use the same date format
  • Be consistent in whether you use "DC" or "D.C."
  • Be consistent in whether References entries include locations, and if so when state is included (eg. for University Park) and whether locations are linked (eg. New York). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    • All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


  • "was sufficiently hardened Communist": was a sufficiently hardened Communist?
    Had to check the source. Missing "a". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "blank pad rule": A gsearch and a WP search don't produce anything; what's a blank pad rule?
    The blank pad rule is a legal concept that the court and jury in a criminal case know nothing about the dispute between the two parties involved, and the only way they come to know about it is through evidence that is properly introduced. @Newyorkbrad: Do we have an article on this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not a criminal practitioner, but that's not a phrase I'm familiar with, and although a search confirms that it exists, I don't think it's that commonly used, at least in the US. To answer your specific question, a search indicates that the only place the phrase currently appears on Wikipedia is this article. So I think explaining or rephrasing makes sense. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    I've provided an explanation, also correcting along the way my own earlier misconception that it applies only to criminal matters. (How do I know all this stuff?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Rejoice! Notecardforfree has created an article on the blank pad rule. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Hawkeye7. I hope the article is helpful! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • " In five "security findings", Nichols said that Oppenheimer was "a Communist in every sense except that he did not carry a party card," and that the Chevalier incident indicated that Oppenheimer "is not reliable or trustworthy, and that his misstatements might have represented criminal conduct. He said that Oppenheimer's "obstruction and disregard for security" showed "a consistent disregard of a reasonable security system."": There are missing quote marks somewhere.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • " A 2002 book by Gregg Herken, a senior historian at the Smithsonian Institution, based on newly discovered documentation, contended that Oppenheimer was a member of the Communist Party.": I need to think about this one. Back later. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    It is awkward, and my adding the name of the book probaly doesn't help. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say awkward, more like a hard call ... that stuff probably all belongs in one paragraph, but it's hard to fit it in. I'll leave it alone. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Great writing. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Freida Pinto[edit]

Nominator(s): Vensatry (ping) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an Indian actress who shot to fame with Slumdog Millionaire. I had to withdraw the candidate last time as there were reservations about prose. I went for another peer review and the article has really benefited from it. Thanks to Jaguar for copy-editing the article and the ones who took part in the PR. I believe the article now meets the FA crtieria. Look forward to constructive criticism and feedback. Vensatry (ping) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a great article on a topic (Indian cinema/stars) that has huge popular appeal both in India and around the world. I would love to see it as a featured article. I'm also voting for it because having it on the main page would bring some much needed diversity to the page (which appears to be dominated by articles about white men and their sport and history!). Great work. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary
And there is nothing wrong with many FA articles about white men getting featured on the main page. It isn't "domination" when it isn't exclusive to biographies, everything has its fair share. What matters more is the quality of the article, not race and gender. You will need a better reason. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by an IP[edit]

  • The article states that Pinto "works predominantly in American cinema". What is meant by work? Is this more on the number of American films she participated in? Her filmography doesn't support this claim.
    • Most of her films are American/British co-productions, with a few of them being independent ones. Got a suggestion? Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I suggest incorporating that information--the mix of US/UK films--instead of saying predominantly, which needs to be backed by a reliable source. Also, a reader might be curious how come this lady of Indian origin mainly doing films produced abroad? I mean its normal nowadays, but such a claim for a relatively new artist should be properly attributed. -- (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Done. I think the word "predominant" is essential because the majority of her films are American/British co-productions. Vensatry (Talk) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
          • That must be supported by a reliable source, I'm afraid. -- (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Not really, it's more like a case of WP:OBVIOUS. Vensatry (Talk) 18:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
              • The examples given in the link do not support the case for Pinto. It's not a general fact, either, and not obvious, per se, for non Pinto afficionado. Aside from this, she's an actress hailed from India. To state that she "predominantly" do American films must be an established fact, and must be supported by a source compliant with WP:RS. To state that she acted in various American and British films is rather neutral. -- (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

*The filmography is barely supported with citations.

    • I don't think it's necessary. The films are already discussed in the article and a majority of them are blue-linked; the red-linked ones ares sourced though. Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That year, The Daily Telegraph reported Pinto as the highest-paid Indian actress, although she had not appeared in a Bollywood film. This isn't supported by Telegraph source. And the connection might be misconstrued (or unnecessary).
  • Pinto is credited with breaking the stereotypical image... By whom? Stereotype should be linked, too.
    • Media. Linked "stereotypical". Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The lead must be properly attributed. Who said it, basically. -- (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. The two images under the section "acting career" should be switched. In basic layout, the direction of the face/gaze (for lack of better term) should tell which side the picture should be placed (i.e. if facing to the left, should be placed on the right side of the article).
    • Is it not a convention to place images (at the beginning of a section) at the right side? I don't think swapping works because the images would look out of place as they become irrelevant to the paras. Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I meant getting the picture on the right to left, and vice versa. Done it myself. -- (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I understood that very well. You got my question? Vensatry (Talk) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Apologies. Did you mean the convention? I have looked up the relevant guideline, which states: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, it is not necessary to reverse an image simply to have the subject facing the text." (emphasis mine) -- (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
          • The infobox image is rather odd, also, being that the face looks outside the monitor. Though the guideline states its not necessary to reverse. -- (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
            • The problem is most of the images (of hers in Commons) are that way. We normally use high-quality images in FA/FLs; the current one is a Valued image. Vensatry (Talk) 18:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
              • Not pushing this idea, either. Are you OK now with my changes on the two images (the switching)? So I could strike this out. -- (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Slumdog Millionaire emerged as a sleeper hit, receiving acclaim particularly for its plot and soundtrack. Might imply that because it was a sleeper hit, it received acclaim such and such, or it received the latter because it became a sleeper hit.
  • The Telegraph states that Pinto was unknown even in her native country until her starring role in Slumdog Millionaire, and that its success paved the way for her future projects. Is this included in the article?
    • It's quite natural; you can't expect someone to become so popular before attaining celebrity status. To answer your question, the opening sentence of the 'Media image' clarifies this (although not directly). Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I believe Wikipedia must seize that opportunity, by including such clear information from a reputable source. -- (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is premiere in the French form première?
    • Because the copyeditors seemed to have forgotten that she's an Indian lady. Done Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • she spoke out against the Indian government's ban on India's Daughter... the phrasal verb means "To talk freely and fearlessly, as about a public issue." Is this the intended meaning? Also, is there any additional content / information? What did she say about it?
    • Added a bit. Voicing opinions against a thing which has been banned in your motherland is certainly a bold act.

Thanks for your comments. Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • "To prepare for her role, she watched the videos of the English anthropologist Jane Goodall." Why that of her? Any linking information would help. -- (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support from Jim My concerns were addressed at PR, and I have no new issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think I've come late to the party but after a read-through of the article (and comments made in this FAC) I'm happy to conclude that this meets the FA criteria. Nice work here! JAGUAR  17:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jaguar: Thanks for that! Vensatry (Talk) 06:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. This is the second nomination following a previous one that spent a month without any input by other users save for the Image review. The article is a GA, recieved a Peer review and a copy-edit. Plus, it was translated to Portuguese and Afrikaans and it is now a featured article in Portoguese, Afrikaans and Azerbijani Wikipedia pt:Palmira, af:Palmyra, az:Palmira.

Palmyra was a unique city and a melting pot between the East and the West. Its warrior queen Zenobia left a lasting romantic impression in the minds of classical writers and its ruins are (were) one of the best preserved from the Roman era. Sadly, a monstrous militia (ISIS) is destroying it piece by piece.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • Now Support, as points fixed - Fine Work! Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a pity such a fine, and (sadly) topical, article received no comments last time! By the way, this got 256K desktop views in the last 90 days. I have I think edited it a few times. On a first look:
  • Lead: I might shorten para 3, but include a link to the short-lived Palmyrene Empire. No need to drop the next one.
  • Sections: My main comment is that the sequence of the sections, though in the conventional WP order, does not serve this subject, treated at this length, at all well for most readers. They mainly want information on the ruins, their recent destruction, and the culture that produced them. At the moment the main "Notable structures" section begins on the 16th screen down on my computer, which is just far too low.
    • Taking them in turn:
Location and etymology - I'd split this, & put etymology at the end of the article. I'd add the "City layout", now many screens lower, to the current 1st para on "Location".
History - very long, and not the priority for most readers. Move lower. You might even split the section, keeping the pre-Muslim history higher, but the commendably full subsequent history much lower, as until ISIS this contributes very little to the fame of the city.
"People, language and society" then "Culture" - ok to follow location and layout. I'd then have "8.2 Cemeteries and 8.3 Notable structures " next, with the ISIS destruction just after. Excavations might go into the history section.
Government, Religion and Economy next, but the rulers table right at the bottom of the article. I even wonder if all the redlinked Al-Fadl dynasty should not be moved out to a dedicated list page. If that is done the House of Odaenathus might go below the relevant section in the history.
  • If not this, then something else needs to be done.

Thanks for taking the effort. I dont mind the rearranging of the sections but would like propose a similar arrangement. The etymology section (as I've seen in most articles) is always at the beginning. It is just too out of place to have it at the very end.

Para 3 of the lead is the shortest and probably summaries the reason why Palmyra is famous : Odaenathus wars and the rebellion of Zenobia. I feel strongly that it should remain.

I made the changes you asked but kept the etymology up. Im thinking about creating an article for the list of rulers. Hope this is adequate.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I think that's much better! The removal of the rulers reduces the crude size somewhat, to 177K, which is a good thing also. I'll do a detailed read-through, but not today. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, this will have to wait for a few days. I am likely to support, & I'd encourage you to stick with the process, tedious though the referencing issues are. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've done some small copyedits for language. In the notes, I can't be bothered to hunt these down:
  • Palmyra as a polis is not extensive, and the earliest known reference is an inscription dated to 51 AD, written in Palmyrene and Greek, mentioning the "City of the Palmyrenes" in its Greeks section.
  • No evidence for Germanicus visiting Palmyra exist.
  • Although a mainstream view is that Palmyra benefited from Petra annexation,
  • The Mesopotamian Jewish population was deemed by the Palmyrenes as loyal to the Persians. - "regarded" better than deemed.
  • Richard Stoneman propose that the law regulated taxes imposed on goods destined
  • Let me know if the problems with these aren't obvious. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Will support when remaining points sorted. Excellent article! Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Beginning, as is my custom here, by examining references and reference formatting:

  • Right off the bat, I have to note that you're doing some very nonstandard things with your reference formatting. In particular, I'm not certain what criteria you're using to include books in the bibliography; there are a considerable number of book-format works referenced but not included therein. Also, while things like sfn aren't required, there's no connect between the citations and bibliography entries. The net result makes it rather difficult to evaluate the referencing properly. Considerable editorial discretion is given to reference format choices, but this may actually rise to the level of MOS-noncompliance.
  • You format author names first last in citations but last, first in the bibliography. Regardless of choices within editorial discretion, you need to be consistent about the standards you enact.
  • As an apparent consequence of the referencing formatting choices, print sources that appear in the citations but not in the bibliography do not have a full bibliographic entry anywhere in the article. Murtonen 1989, for example, lacks a publisher or ISBN. Charnock 1859 lacks a publisher (and, ideally, an OCLC). And so on.
  • In what is currently citation 1, you italicize and wikilink CBS News. In citation 11, you do neither for BBC News. Italicization of web sources is a contentious topic in the MOS at this time, but here, especially, consistency needs to be applied.
  • You've fallen prey to what I'm increasingly deeming the "Google Books trap". Google Books does a terrible job at extracting bibliographic information from scholarly journals that it has indexed as if they were books. The material you have cited as "Space archaeology" by Shiruku Rōdo-gaku Kenkyū Sentā isn't a book at all, but a journal: Silk Roadology, the published proceedings of the Research Center for Silk Roadology. I don't have access to this material, so I can't even try to construct a proper citation, which would need the article title, author, and pagination, in addition to the volume (and issue, if assigned) of the journal. None of which can Google Books be trusted to accurately provide. I offer no opinion as to the reliability or academic rigor of this source at this time.
  • The same is true of Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. This is actually material from Les Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes, a journal published by the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums. I'm not convinced this was an Arabic-language publication, either (or, alternatively, that the cited volume is incorrect). I know that AAAS changed publication language several times, and relatively recent volumes exist in both Arabic and English, but as of volume 42, may have still been in French. Regardless, whatever is being cited here needs confirmation from a more accurate source.
  • Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is a scholarly article republished in a book-form journal proceeding. This one does appear in the bibliography, but isn't formatted appropriately in either location. Among other issues, it needs to include the editors of the bound work.

At this point, I'm done attempting a thorough survey of the sources. Many, perhaps most of the sources used here lack a complete citation. At least two, and likely more, are cited in a factually incorrect manner because of mangling by Google Books. That is especially problematic for obscure and foreign-language sources as used here. Accordingly, I have no choice but to strongly oppose promotion on 2c and probably 1c grounds. No opinion on prose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

OH WOW , strong oppose because of this!!!!!!!!!!!! imagine if the article lacked some sources, whats then ? delete the article ?!!!. I didnt expect that FA was a process to see if the sources are neat, tidy and packed in a pretty way. I thought this was about articles being informative and cited. This is a very shallow criteria to oppose !!! its not because the article isnt sourced but because the sources change the style of naming the authors !!!! Does it really matter to the reader !!!! He can click on the link and the book and page will appear in front of him, is he really going to care that the name order is changed between the cite and the biblio !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dont think that the reader immediately jump in excitement to the bibliography section once they have clicked on the article. So it doesnt matter using the most reliable academic sources or comprehensiveness but the way the name of the author is given in the citation and the bibliography or the italicization of BBC and CNN!

Now, to tackle your issues :

  • I know for sure that I have the privilege of choosing my style of citation and since I've chosen a way that doesn't require a bibliography (templates) then I've decided to delete the bibliography all together
  • I provided every citation with full information to compensate the deletion of the bibliography so now every source have a complete citation.
  • As for the journals, they are now in an adequate format : (cite journal). So Space Archaeology is properly cited now
  • As for the Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes : you said a more accurate source. AAAS is one of the most reliable sources about Palmyra, you cant get more accurate than that. The issue cited is in Arabic and you dont need to doubt it. If you dont know for sure then you really shouldn't doubt that it is written in Arabic or not. I wrote the key word Qatna in Arabic so you can see that it is written in Arabic.قطنا but anyways, it is not needed as the next source also cover the subject so I deleted the AAAS.
  • This journal "The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Difussion of Useful Knowledge" from 1840 didnt normally mention the names of its authors so I cant have them.
  • This book for example : Local Etymology: A Derivative Dictionary of Geographical Names by Richard Stephen Charnock is from 1859 and have no ISBN. Many old books and journals have no ISBN or ISSN, how can I get you ones ?!!!!
  • Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is now properly cited.
  • BBC and stuff are consistence now in regard to italicization. By the way, it wasnt me who italicized CBS. I didnt add that reference and the difference isnt because of intended italicization but because of the templates. the "cite news" template will give you an italicized publisher while the "cite web" template will give you a non italicized publisher. I cant even believe that this is a serious problem !!!!!
  • You cant oppose this on bases of 1C. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable
  • I just spent 7 continuous hours to make every citation full, hope this is appreciated and will make your strong opposition a normal one. If this way <re f>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ ref> or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) is the only accepted way of citations and the citation templates are refused then Im gonna think about withdrawing the nomination because this is just a complete child play. Spending months writing and reading hundreds of books then getting the article refused because "the style of the citations isnt pretty to my eyes".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The Featured Article process is very demanding. It makes expectations not only of the quality of the prose and references, but that references are fully cited and presented in an internally-consistent manner (which, no, does not mandate short-form references). I realize that this isn't the "fun" part of article writing, but it is a well-established aspect of the Feature Article candidacy process. Please don't take it personally; my interest is in ensuring that the articles we highlight as our best work meet all of our criteria for that standard, even the ones that aren't exciting. Taking a moment to opine, I often wish that the GA criteria were more stringent, so that the leap in expectations between GA-quality work and FA-quality work were not so large as it is. But we work with the criteria we have.
  • Following up on your comments about AAAS: AAAS is, without question, a high-quality source. My suggestion that you might need to consult another source was not meant to imply that it was unacceptable, but that Google Books was giving you insufficient and possibly incorrect material. Specifically, as with several other references, this is a scholarly journal; citations to it need to be to the individual articles, not the journal as a whole.
  • Publishers should generally not be abbreviated. For the Bryce source, Oxford University Press, not OUP. And definitely not "OUP Oxford", even if that's what Google Books claims in its sidebar.
  • The Arbeitman source is not correctly cited. Yoël L. Arbeitman is the editor of the book, not its author. Each section is an independent article with its own title and author. Arbeitman needs to be moved to |editor and the article title and author indicated with |chapter and |author. In this case, "The etymologies of Tadmor and Palmyra" by M. O'Connor (at least for anything citing pages between 235 and 254, inclusive). Ideally, the citation would provide the full pagination of the cited article within the larger source, but citing exclusively to the referenced page is probably acceptable under the MOS, and I won't quibble. Pedantically, the publisher is styled as Peeters, not Peeters Publishers.
  • Brill, not BRILL, in the Murtonen source. This is one part of a very large multivolume work. The full set of sub-subtitles here is unwieldy, and can probably be safely omitted, but adding |volume=13 is probably warranted. Murtonen is correctly identified as the author here; whether you also indicate J.H. Hospers as editor is probably discretionary. Use this tool to convert the ISBN to a properly formatted ISBN-13.
  • For works like Charnock, that predate the establishment of the ISBN system, it is possible to provide an OCLC number, which can be found via WorldCat search. There is some art to using WorldCat, as individual printings often receive different OCLC numbers (and sometimes, due to errors, the same printing may have more than one OCLC number assigned). When you can unambiguously identify an OCLC number, and no ISBN exists, it's helpful to include it, because it makes it easier for readers to access the work. I will note that OCLC numbers are sometimes assigned to e-copies of books. Established precedent indicates that when you are working from a faithful reproduction of the print source (as full Google Books scans [usually] are), you can cite the original format of the work; that you are working from an archive doesn't change what you're actually referencing. In any case, always use OCLC numbers, not OCoLC numbers. Accordingly, to get things started, Charnock is OCLC 4696115.
  • In the Le Strange source, "A.D.", not "A. D.", and "to", not "To". Cosimo is a print-on-demand publisher and so its works would often not be deemed reliable sources; in this case, however, this is a reprint of a work now in the public domain, so you're fine in that sense. The publisher needs to show the actual imprint it was published under, Cosimo Classics, and not the parent company. Finally, you should add the original date of publication, 1890, using |origyear.
  • The BBC article, "Syria uncovers 'largest church'" has an explicit date: 14 November 2008. Because you provide these dates (when available) for other web sources, you need to be consistent.
  • Convert the ISBN for Stoneman.
  • There are still problems with the Izumi source that you have styled as Space Archaeology. Because you split the author name into the |last and |first fields, it displays in last, first order. Personally, I prefer that. But elsewhere you've used |author and forced names to appear in first last order. You need to be consistent, whichever you choose. More importantly, this journal is not called Space Archaeology, despite what Google Books is telling you (that's basically the cover story of this issue). I don't really blame you for getting tripped up by this. Situations like this got me in the past, too. Google Books is very, very bad at dealing with digitized journals. Very bad. The journal is actually styled as Silk Roadology. Scholarly journals do not need their publisher specified.
  • Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is still not okay. You need to indicate that those three individuals are the editors of the work (use the editor fields). The title of the work should be the title of the book: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 29 March–3 April 2004, Freie Universität, Berlin. Use author and chapter fields to specify the individual article and its author. Finally, this is a multi-volume work, so you should indicate that you are referencing |volume=1
  • For Dirven: again, Brill, and ISBN conversion.
  • For Young, Google Books malformed the date range in the title by converting an unspaced endash to a spaced hyphen, because Google hates typography, or something. That part of the title should read 31 BC–AD 305.
  • For Smith II, Oxford University Press, not OUP USA.
  • The "'Imitation Greeks'" source is problematic. This isn't actually a book published by ProQuest (they aren't really a publisher; they are a microform reproduction distributor). What this actually is is a doctoral dissertation by Nathanael John Andrade. Material such as this is sort of in a gray area regarding WP:RS, as noted in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you can replace this with a higher-quality source, that might be ideal. If consensus here is that it is acceptable to retain, you'll need to reformat it with {{cite thesis}} and include the relevant bibliographic information.
  • Some days I hate Google Books. I don't know what they did with the source you cite as Hillers and Cussini, but the cover and copyright page make clear that Eleonora Cussini is the sole editor of the work. As in several other cases, restyle the publisher and convert the ISBN. Also, this is another case where the chapters are individual articles with their own authorship. Page 55 is part of "The City of the Dead" by Michal Gawlikowski.
And here I'm stopping again. I've gone through the first 25 of 389 references. Some of these are problems are nitpicking concerns over styling. But several are significant problems with the accuracy and completeness of citations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I didnt take it personally but a strong oppose without giving me directions on how to fix the problems (since Im a noob here, I didnt even know that there are editor and original year parameters) made me upset (and my insomnia didnt help me to stay calm). Now when I read back, i can see that I was rude and overreacted. apologies.
  • Yoël and Charnock fixed
  • OUP and BRILL fixed
  • I replaces the cosimo la-Strange with the original one
  • BBC date for the church fixed
  • last name/first name problem fixed
  • Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner fixed
  • Young and ISBN's fixed
  • Andrade took his PHD thanks to this thesis and got it printed as a legitimate book by Cambridge university press Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World. But anyway, I replaced the thesis with other sources.
  • Hillers fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, well. A belated welcome to FAC, then! My apologies for not recognizing that you were new to this process, which can sometimes very much be a trial-by-fire. I'll certainly have more material to address when I get a few minutes to review further. The goal, as always, is better articles. As a drive-by comment, there's absolutely no problem with citing Andrade from the Cambridge University Press book, just a problem with citing the Andrade thesis directly. But if other sources serve just as well, that works too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by an IP[edit]

  • "The Palmyrenes were primarily a mix of Amorites, Arameans and Arabs,[2]" The lead should ideally be devoid of any inline citation. The information cited is something that should be discussed in the main prose, where the inline citation should go.
  • "In 1929, the French began moving villagers into the new village of Tadmur." Is there a way to avoid this repetition?
  • "its incorporation into the Roman Empire in the first century." AD? Such as this, "By the third century AD"
  • "Palmyra was a prosperous metropolis and regional center" is there something missing? center for?
  • "Before 273 it enjoyed autonomy for much of its existence." Is this a date? Sorry, not an aficionado.
  • "In 260 the Palmyrene king Odaenathus defeated the Persian emperor Shapur I. He fought" I suppose "he" refers to the king Odaenathus?
Fixed. As for the citation in the lead: We have a problem with Assyrian nationalists who go around and remove the word Arab from every article about a historic Fertile crescent civilization before Islam. Thats why the reference is important or the word Arab will be removed by one of them. It is encouraged to have citations in the lead for any information that can be disputed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations.
For the regional center: nothing is missing, it was a center of its own region.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Al Ameer son[edit]

I contributed to this article not too long ago (added a bit of content to the "Arab caliphate" section and otherwise made some copyedits here and there). I've already commended the nominator for his efforts and I do so again. With what has been happening to Palmyra lately, many people who don't know much about the city but hear about its ongoing destruction on the news will come here to learn about the site. I'm glad someone has devoted their efforts at improving their learning experience.

  • That being said, having read the entire article, it clearly meets criterion 1a, 1b and 1d. There has not been any real edit warring, but whenever Palmyra is in the news cycle, the article attracts some unnecessary additions made in good faith, but overall it meets 1e. From the outset, the article appears to meet 1c, but I cannot say for sure yet because I haven't gone through all the sources. I will verify a sample of citations throughout the article and anything that seems extraordinary, and from that I can confidently make a conclusion regarding 1c soon.
  • The lead is a bit too long, but not totally overwhelming. I think it could be shortened and maybe even restructured a bit to be less a summary of the entire history from the Neolithic period until the present day and more a summary of the article, i.e. the site and its major ruins, the parts of its history most relevant to the ruins and its role as an ancient power (including the city's distinct ancient culture and civilization). Currently, the lead focuses too much on history. The current structure of the article, after Johnbod's suggestion, is fine. The citations format is consistent.
  • There is excellent usage of pictures in the article and it appears any issues with the images were addressed in Nikkimaria's image review in the first FAC.
  • The article is lengthier than the average FA, but deservedly so due to the sheer amount of information on Palmyra's ruins, history and culture. The article does not go into unnecessary detail, although the lead might. Then again, this is just my opinion.

As of right now, I can say with confidence that the article meets criteria 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2b, 2c, 3 and 4. I await the nominator's response to my suggestion on shortening and possibly restructuring the lead. I will give my take on 1c soon, although I'm pretty confident that the nominator, who has been researching the subject and has been working on the article for so long, has been diligent in adding material that correctly reflects the many and diverse sources he has used. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes, now, the political history isnt the focus of the lead. I will be thankful if you have any specific suggestion (i.e specific sentence to be deleted and another to be written).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The lead is much better now, in my opinion. I just made a few copyedits to it as well. After the changes you've made, I think the following fragment could be removed: "The city was governed by a senate", unless you think this line is critical to the lead. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the first line is grammatically correct: "is an ancient Semitic city in present Homs Governorate, Syria". Shouldn't it be "in present-day Homs Governorate"? If a copyeditor or reviewer previously copyedited the article, it wouldn't hurt to ping him or her and ask if they could take a look at the revised lead and see if they could make further improvements. You could also ask someone who has never read or edited the article before to do the same thing, but that would likely be a longer process since they might not make any comments about the lead without reading through the article first. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Senate part deleted. It was the copy editor who wrote (present). I added (day). No new sentences were added, I just deleted some, so the lead didnt change grammatically and pinging the copy editor wont be necessary.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Support After a few days of looking through various citations to see if the sources matched up with the text (for verification's sake), I am confident that this article meets criteria 1c. As I noted above, I also believe it meets all the other FA criteria as well. This is a highly informative, beautifully written, and well-sourced article that should grace Wikipedia's home page in the very near future. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks Al-Ameer.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the greatest RPG games of all time, featuring a level of choice and consequence rarely replicated, and with a loyal fan base that has added content to the game for over a decade. The article is as detailed as can be, with a beefy development section developed with some very generous help from producer David Mullich who corresponded with myself to help clarify things and even provide information in future interviews that I was then able to use as a reliable source! It's thoroughly sourced, well laid out with a bevy of images to compliment the prose, and I believe the article is close to as perfect as it can be.

Of course if you disagree, remember that "I'm a mighty thesaurus. Rawr" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

  • A general comment here: the lead is quite large, even compared to the size of the article itself and the lead for Bloodlines. It may be best to find a way of trimming it down.
  • The word "game" was used a lot in the lead's second paragraph. Maybe try cutting the usage down to about half.
  • "Troika's 32-member team began development of Bloodlines in November 2001, as an indirect sequel to the previous years Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption." - You're missing an apostrophe in the word "years".
  • "As of 2014, Bloodlines has been developed for ten years by its fans, who have supplied fixes and restored lost and deleted content." - Your definition in the Release section of it being "post-release support" as opposed to development. I think the lead section should be altered for consistency's sake.
  • "Bloodlines is a role-playing game optionally presented from the first- or third-person perspective." - I think you should specify that it's an action role-playing game as you did in the lead.
  • "Attributes represent physical..." - This sentence looked a little strange. Maybe consider rewriting as "Represented Attributes are physical...".
  • "...four areas of 21st-century Los Angeles: Santa Monica, downtown, Hollywood and Chinatown" - You should link these locations, and perhaps alter "downtown" to something a little more descriptive. The second thing is completely optional.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Setting" section uses an "idealist"-type word in reference to two different vampire clans. Is there a difference in their different idealist tenancies, or is it just a general phrase to describe them without further context being available?
  • Who is Nines?
  • The Honest Gamers review redirects. The live url needs updating.

@Darkwarriorblake: That's everything I can see on a first pass. When these are addressed, I'll have another look through to find anything else. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, always forget that it doesn't automatically add to my watchlist.
  • The lead overall seems fairly in line, but I trimmed the third paragraph which was by far the bulkiest and could survive without all the information present.
  • Changed to "action role playing game"
  • Added apostrophe to "year's"
  • Linked the locations, the game just calls that area "downtown" so I don't think I could link to anything else, it would just be guessing.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by who Nines is. He's introduced in the plot as an Anarch. What do you suggest or think needs adding?
  • Tried to tone down usage of "game" in second paragraph.
  • For use of idealist, this is the reference used as a source which uses the word for both. The difference I guess is that the Brujah are a clan and the source claims they are idealists who fought for change in life, while the Anarchs are a political group. But if that isn't explaining it properly let me know if it needs clarifying more in the article.
  • Changed development to post-release support for fan creations in lead.
  • Fixed HonestGamers link.
  • Changed "attributes represent physical" to "Attributes are represent by physical" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Right. This article looks alright to me now (though other editors will probably find holes somewhere). I'll willingly Support its promotion to FA status. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @ProtoDrake:. Are you happy with the Nines and Anarchs explanation or would you prefer I change that? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: It's fine. If it was there before, I think I must have missed that or something. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tony1[edit]

Some nice writing, but it needs scrutiny. Just the start:

  • Hyphen issues ... 21st century Los Angeles. (And does LA need to be linked? There are some reader-valuable links hanging around that might be better off without the dilution, do you think? And "first and third-person perspectives"—needs a hanging hyphen after "first".
  • "The selection of clan affects how the player is perceived in the game world and which powers and abilities they possess, opening up different avenues of exploration, and methods of interacting with or manipulating other characters."—Quite a long sentence, and a few ands. I've tweaked. Is it better? "The selection of clan affects how the player is perceived in the game world, and which powers and abilities they possess; this opens up different avenues of exploration and methods of interacting with or manipulating other characters."
  • "Troika used Valve Corporation's then-in-development Source game engine which was being used to develop Valve's own Half-Life 2." See Chicago MOS for good advice about which and that. (Prefer that normally unless there's got to be a comma before it—previous is a subset, or not?) –> "Troika used Valve Corporation's Source game engine, then-in-development, which was being used to develop Valve's own Half-Life 2." Is that better? The triple-bunger was awkward. But there are still two "develops" (and a third a few secs later). I don't know how to fix this without more field knowledge.
  • "After three years in development with no end in sight and running over budget, Activision set a strict deadline for its release, and Bloodlines was released in an unfinished state on November 16, 2004."—"its" refers to the budget? "release(d)" twice. "and on [date], Bloodlines was released unfinished"—is that possible?
  • "eighty-thousand"—numerals, please, and in any case surely not hyphenated.
  • Serial comma after "choice" would make the list easier to parse.
  • " As of 2014, Bloodlines has received"—had.

Tony (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Changes made
  • "After three years in development with no end in sight and running over budget, Activision set a strict deadline for its release, and Bloodlines was released in an unfinished state on November 16, 2004."—"its" refers to the budget? "release(d)" twice. "and on [date], Bloodlines was released unfinished"—is that possible? - Any better? - "After three years in development with no end in sight and running over its budget, Activision set a strict deadline for Bloodlines completion, and it was released in an incomplete state on November 16, 2004."
  • I'm not clear if you mean that "21st century Los Angeles" needs a hyphen in it?
  • Thanks for your input! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"no end in sight and running over budget, Activision set a strict deadline for completion, and Bloodlines was released incomplete on"
It does need a hyphen. There's one further down for the same expression.
Are you auditing the whole thing for sentence length (and within that, good rhythm from commas)? Can you pick up any possilbe grammatical simplifications, throughout? Tony (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Changed the first sentence.
Added the hyphen.
It's been copyedited by the guild if that's what you mean? I've just gone through it to try and find missing serial commas as well.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt[edit]

Comments (having stumbled here from my FAC)

  • Support. I can now Support. Thanks very much to Darkwarriorblake for the impressive Quality improvement effort to this article. Thanks for providing such admirable and high-quality contributions to Wikipedia on this topic. — Cirt (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Cirt! 22:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from PresN[edit]

  • "sold fewer than 80 thousand copies" - I think this would read better as "sold fewer than 80,000 copies"
  • "but receive bonuses for intelligence and computer skills which access more information" - unclear; "which" is adjacent to skills, but might also be referring to bonuses
  • "More physical vampires can enhance themselves to become fast and lethal killers or summon spirit allies to attack their foes; others can mentally dominate their targets to force their cooperation or render themselves invisible to hide from detection,[2] and others can boil their opponent's blood from afar." - you split up the three clauses with one semicolon and one comma.
  • The clan descriptions in Setting are slightly-expanded repeats of the same thing in Gameplay; you shouldn't be repeating the information
  • "Each ending has Jack watching from afar with the mummy taken from the coffin, and the enigmatic taxi driver who transports the fledgling between locations who says "The blood of Caine controls our fate... Farewell, vampire"." -> "Each ending has Jack watching from afar with the mummy taken from the coffin and the enigmatic taxi driver who transports the fledgling between locations, who says "The blood of Caine controls our fate... Farewell, vampire.""
  • "In accordance with a suggestion by fellow writer Chad Moore[37] the Malkavian player character has a dialog script distinct from that of the other eight clans, Mitsoda said it was one of the simpler aspects of the development cycle." - should be a semicolon, not a comma
  • "Activision considered that there was insufficient test time, and removing it was a more stable option" - Activision "felt"; considered doesn't work in that context as they're making a decision, not thinking about an option
  • "During the nearly four years of development, he estimated that the team did not work overtime for only two months.[35]" -> "During the nearly four years of development, he estimated that the team worked overtime for all but two months.[35]"
  • "In February 2004, the game was scheduled for release in spring 2005, partially to avoid competing with Half-Life 2 and the competitive Christmas period." - awkward, since you just got finished saying how it was released in February; it would help to throw on the end something like "...Christmas period, before Activision moved up the release date."
  • "The relative failure of Bloodlines‍'​ release contributed to the demise of Troika Games" - at this point in the article, you haven't actually said that the release was a failure, though you were clearly leading up to it and implied it with the Mitsoda quote in the prior paragraph. Maybe "Bloodlines‍'​ release was a relative failure, and contributed to the demise of Troika Games", though you also need to explain what you mean by "relative failure".
  • "Unofficial patches have been created by the game's fans to develop Bloodlines." - to develop Bloodlines? Maybe "to fix problems with Bloodlines and restore missing content."
  • There's not a lot of grammar problems for the length: there's just a general vagueness on occasion- like Tony mentioned, you use "which" sometimes in ways that are slightly off and make it hard to link to the correct subject (look out for those, I've probably missed a couple), and sometimes you have sentences that are not actually wrong but certainly involve a lot of commas, making the sentence a bit tiring to get through
  • Now that I've gone through Reception, the line in the lead "Contemporary criticism has recognised it as one of the greatest games ever made." is completely overblown. A cult classic or a flawed masterpiece, sure, but placing in the 80s or 90s in a few polls doesn't support calling it "one of the greatest ever".
  • Refs look fine, good job on the archives
  • The biggest issue with the article- and it's more a style thing/personal preference- is pretty unfixable at this point, and that is the exhaustive length: it's taken the crown from Anachronox as the longest FA/FAC. It's a lot of detail for a single game, especially without a spinout "Development of" article. It is what it is, though, and its certainly well-done at any length. --PresN 21:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry @PresN:, I had this on my watchlist but didn't notice these comments. Will address them immediately, thanks for commenting. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed
  • "but receive bonuses to their intelligence and computer skills, which enables access to more information."? Does that make it better? I don't think I quite understood.
  • Changed the "'" to a ";"
  • I get what you're saying but this is a struggle for me. Stylistically and from a reading perspective I think the setting section does a solid job of providing sufficient and concrete information about the scenario of the game and I want to keep that altogether, so I've tried to give a very broad "type" to the clans in the gameplay just to address that there are different clans (since I discuss differing powersets and such) while using the setting one for a bit of expanded detail. I'm not sure how to rectify that.
  • Changed
  • Changed
  • Changed
  • Changed
  • "In February 2004, the game was scheduled for release in spring 2005, partially to avoid competing with Half-Life 2 and the competitive Christmas period, before Activision moved the date to November 2004."?
  • Ok so I have moved the sales information from the "REception" section to this part about Bloodlines relative failure. It's a bit too much content to post here so I will add a link at the bottom showing all the changes I've made based on your input in a single edit.
  • "Unofficial patches have been created by the game's fans to address Bloodlines‍ '​ technical problems, and restore missing and incomplete content."?
  • Fair enough, I will take another look through. (This will be after this current pass im doing for you now as I don't have enough time tonight to complete it)
  • Changed
  • Thanks
  • Fair enough, I feel bad it's kinda short tbh and I wish there was more I could add about it. I definitely like to use up that 60kb limit.
  • LINK TO CHANGES Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ iridescent 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret is a somewhat peculiar 19th century history painting. Probably intended as a moral test for male viewers to view a scene of sex, violence and vulnerability without feeling lust, at least one academic considers BRFA as marking the turning point in art history at which nudity ceased to be symbolic of innocence and instead became symbolic of domination and coercion. BRFA is a very odd-looking work to the modern eye, but that's because The Faerie Queene has fallen out of favour in recent years—at the time, Spenser was as popular as Shakespeare in the English-speaking world, and audiences could reasonably be assumed to understand the references without explanation. ‑ iridescent 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:The_Knight_Errant_b_John_Everett_Millais_1870.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    I'm a little reluctant to amend it, since this version is used on so many articles (15 articles on eight different language Wikipedias) and someone could—conceivably—want to know exactly where the particular upload in use came from. That The Knight Errant is out of copyright isn't in dispute; here's its entry in the Tate catalogue showing that it was first exhibited in 1870 and is credited solely to John Everett Millais, and it's not in dispute that Millais died in 1896. (We do have an alternative upload of it, but the colour balance is slightly oversaturated so I don't really want to use it.) ‑ iridescent 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
And that doesn't even give a source. "Sources" for old museum paintings are really rather a nonsense - the actual photo is always the museum's (or one of them) as they don't allow anyone else to take the painting down, set up lights, etc. Us worrying about which particular website re-using it that we took it from is rather pointless. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Up to the usual standard, and I can't find anything to comment on. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - only found one tweak to do, which I did myself. Only (minor) question is (as I can't tell from the image), did Fuseli also have Amoret unharmed in his image and is that worth noting (as long as we can source it.)? Otherwise looks comprehensive and niceprosive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Stepping to the wrong side of the WP:OR line, Fuseli's version shows Amoret hanging naked and unconscious with her torso in deep shadow, so while there's a clear implication that she's been the victim of violence of some kind, there aren't any visible injuries. Nowadays, Fuseli is a much bigger deal in German-speaking countries as Sturm und Drang went out of fashion very quickly in the London and Paris art markets which tended to drive public taste elsewhere, and I suspect that if there are any modern sources that discuss this painting in detail they'll be German-language. (I wouldn't be surprised if none exist; because this painting hangs in the Goethe House, rather than a major art gallery, it probably doesn't get the level of attention from historians it would receive if it were with in the Kunsthaus Zürich or Tate Britain.) ‑ iridescent 13:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • the end of the day we have to stick to sources. Interesting though....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I basically agree with User:John that "a number of" is to be avoided, though my reason is that my data suggests it's ambiguous in writing (but not necessarily when spoken, when you know your listener). I replaced a couple instances with "several"; please fix that if it's wrong. I really look forward to seeing this one at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Kalavrye[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine 10:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A not very long article about a rather unknown battle in one of the Byzantine civil wars, it is nevertheless one of the few where we have a complete description of its course and the manoeuvrings of the opposing armies. It was also the first major battle of the future emperor Alexios I Komnenos, and hence determined the course of later Byzantine history. The article was created back in 2010 and uses all available sources that deal with the event in some depth. It passed GA and MILHIST ACR easily enough, but for some reason I did not nominate it for FA back then, so I'll try to remedy it now. Constantine 10:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Diagrams could stand to be scaled up
  • File:Seal_of_Alexios_Komnenos_as_Grand_Domestic_of_the_West.jpg: the seal itself is PD due to age, but we should still say so explicitly. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Nikkimaria! On the diagrams, I have left them in this size for smaller screens; I think the gist of the diagrams is evident even at this scale. On the PD for the seal, how exactly would this be done? A seal is not a 2D work of art, so the usual PD-art tags don't apply... Constantine 09:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Life+100 still works for 3D art. On the sizing, that's why I would suggest scaling rather than fixing a larger pixel size - this allows for a more responsive design that considers the user's settings. See WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments I sympathise with slow FACs, having had a few myself. I'll take a look now and see if it is something about the article or just because it's an esoteric area. Queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
There is nowhere for Halmyros river to link to?
AFAIK no, the river is unidentified with any modern analogue.
It'd be nice then to have a footnote stating that if you can find a source that says its present day analogue is unknown.
Correction, I was able to find an identification, and even the approximate coordinates of the battle. Constantine 13:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Bryennios's army fell into disorder after having seemingly won the battle, and due to the attack on its camp by its own Pecheneg allies. - this sentence is ungainly, the "and due" is confusing. If "due" remove the "and" but otherwise is odd as there is no reason and then one is added as an additional reason.
I've rephrased that.
who sent 2,000 warriors and promised even more - "even" redundant here I think
I am not sure. If I leave it out, it reads odd... Without the "even", I feel it becomes unclear what this "more" refers to.
Hmm, to me it clearly implies more soldiers, which it would do whether or not there was an "even" there...I must admit I don't feel it's a dealbreaker by any means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Curiously, and in contravention of established practice, - "contravention" strikes me as breaking a law or something. I think a bit strong for here...
Simplified to "against".
It was then that Alexios realized his position - do you think this sentence adds anything? As "despairs" is in next sentence.
I've merged the two sentences.

Overall a nice, tight article and interesting read. Hope my changes are ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Cas Liber and thanks for your review and your edits! I've fixed most of the points you raised. Is there anything that you feel might be missing or inadequately explained in terms of context? Given the relative obscurity of the topics I write in I am much concerned with understandability for the average reader. Constantine 20:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cas Liber for your review and support. Best, Constantine 09:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Source review - all refs look like they conform with each other ok. Spot check to follow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Spot check - going through Birkenmeier refs - FN 9, I can't find on page 58 where it says Alexios's forces were far less experienced than Bryennios's veterans. sorry, my bad, I see it in Tobias 198 and 200 now. All Birkenmeier material looks in order. Tobias refs checked as well and support material in article. All good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


  • I can't find any issues that still need addressing. Formatting of the refs looks fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

William Sterling Parsons[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Deak Parsons, the Naval officer who was the deputy head of the wartime Los Alamos Laboratory, and the commander of the mission that bombed Hiroshima. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:MK53_fuze.jpg: source link is dead and image is tagged as lacking author. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Question from John Why the hard-coded image sizes? Per WP:IMGSIZE we would generally allow readers to set their own display sizes and use the "upright" parameter to enlarge particularly important ones. --John (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

At the time it was written, WMF was demanding fixed widths to make the Visual Editor's life easier. They later relented, but the article was not changed. I have removed the hard-coded sizes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


  • an American Naval officer Why is naval capitalized?
    Shouln't be. Decapped. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Link weaponeer, flagship
    The second is done. We don't have a weaponeer article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The bit about being the weaponeer on the Enola Gay is repeated twice in the lede.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert each measurement on first use.
    Should be. Did I miss anything? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Tell the reader what type of ship each ship is on first mention.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Why should the reader care who his secretary was? Or that bit about Newkirk. Just because information is available, doesn't mean that it should be used.
    It was to illustrate the way he had naval personnel posted to Los Alamos. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Shokaku-class carriers were completed just before the beginning of the Pacific War and have been judged to have been the best aircraft carriers in the world at that time. They participated in almost every carrier battle during the war until their loss in 1944. Both ships missed the Battle of Midway and thus, by default, became the core of the IJN's striking forces for the rest of the war. They sank two of the four American fleet carriers lost during the war, plus a British light carrier. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review which included a thorough image review. I'd like reviewers to see if there is any unexplained jargon and look for any infelicities of prose as I believe that this article meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fig_of_japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shokaku_in_1942.gif: what is the source for the information presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It's CC-BY-SA-3.0 and is the work of the copyright holder.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
      • That's fine, I'm not worried about copyright status so much as verifiability, in terms of where the information presented came from. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments leaning support. Just a few things:
  • What does "endurance" mean in this context?
  • Are the guns or the gun mounts grouped in pairs?
  • Both. Each mount had two guns and the 8 mounts were grouped into four pairs, one pair on each quadrant of the ship.
  • "25-millimeter deck of Ducol steel" English equivalent might be worth adding.
  • converted on first use.
  • It might be worth knowing where the ships were located in relation to Honolulu at the time of the attack.
  • I don't see a good place to add that without adding a sentence or two to set that up.
  • The second sentence of the second paragraph has the word "attack" four times in close proximity. Suggest synonyms. Struck?
Excellent idea.
  • "on 5 April" the second consecutive "on" phrase. Suggest "5 April" be inserted before "Easter" and the existing words, er, struck.
  • " Following the lesson taught by the Battle of Midway" given that Battle of Midway is mentioned and linked just before, perhaps, "Having learned the lesson taught at Midway" or similar.
  • I like that.
  • "he bulk of their air groups were transferred to Rabaul to bolster the defenses there, just in time to participate in the raid on Rabaul" Two Rabauls and a "there".
  • Reworded.
That's it. Well done as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Source review all sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and except for possibly below, are consistent in their citation.

  • "Jentschura and Jung" this is the only source to have the publisher be the United States Naval Institute, the others from Annapolis say Naval Institute Press. Are we OK here?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the name was changed after the Jentschura book was published.

Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM67

  • I reviewed this article for Milhist A-class last month and am happy with the prose.
  • all toolbox checks are ok except alt text.
  • the speed in the infobox doesn't match the speed in the body
  • the range in the infobox doesn't match the range in the body

Otherwise, I consider this article meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Good catches. I didn't even have the designed speed in the text. Glad you looked at this so thoroughly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
No prob, supporting now. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Support per my comments above. I'm satisfied that it meets source review standards, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Barbarossa[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Another article in my series on German warships, this one passed an A-class review about a year ago, and has been waiting in line for FAC since. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:SMS_Kaiser_Barbarossa_Bain_picture.jpg: if this is a news service image, why is it a government image?
    • No idea - fixed to the standard Bain copyright tag.
  • File:SMS_Kaiser_Barbarossa.png is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Fixed - thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. This article is well-done, and I could find nothing worth bringing up for correction. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Just a few quibbles:

  • all toolbox checks are ok except alt text (not an ACR requirement), there is no overlinking, and the article is dash compliant
  • the ihp/kW measures in the body and infobox are slightly different
  • the speeds in the body and infobox are slightly different
  • the belt armor in the infobox gives a range, but there is no range in the body
  • if she underwent sea trials in May 1901, wasn't she completed by that point? Just referring to the lead, body and infobox. Perhaps use commissioned rather than completed in the lead?
  • you introduce the term Heimatflotte as if it had been mentioned earlier. Was KB part of the Home Fleet? From what point? There is some assumed knowledge here that needs explication.
  • I'm not sure about the construction "the V Squadron" and "the I Squadron". If it is consistent with other articles, fine, but it rankles me somehow, I keep thinking it doesn't need "the", but if Dan is happy, I'll shut up.
  • I think Prince Heinrich should be linked
  • the para commencing "Prince Heinrich" commences abruptly. Suggest tacking the first sentence onto the preceding para.

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Construction
Tonnes should be linked on first mentioning, same as knots
'Marine-type': According to Gröner they were Thornycroft's.
  • Service history
Princess Luise Sofie of Prussia: Her common name seems to be 'Sophie' rather than 'Sofie', although that is consistent with the source given. However, the article fails to mention that she was Willy's sister-in-law. Suggestion: change to 'Princess Luise Sophie, the Emperor's sister-in law' or similar.
Third paragraph: Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse is mentioned - cut & paste error?
Decommissioning in December 1903? I am confused. There is surely a difference between in and out of service and commissioning, isn't there?
Fourth paragraph: '1-pounder' is not a category used by the Imperial Navy. According to Hildebrand et al. those were 37mm machine guns, the German WP speaks of 'revolver guns'. Which?
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


  • Link and tell the reader what kind of engine a triple expansion engine is in the infobox.
  • Link to knots, nautical miles in both infobox and main body; be sure to add range to main body.
  • Move the note for the gun nomenclature to right after use.
  • Cylindrical boilers aren't water-tube boilers; not sure about Marine-type boilers. The former are also called Scotch marine boilers.
  • Need an OCLC number for Brassey's and an ISSN for RUSI Journal.


Nominator(s): — Rod talk 07:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bristol is the largest city in south west England. It has over 1,000 years of history and has become a major centre for trade, business and culture - all of which are reflected in the article. Since its creation in 2002 the article has received over 4,000 edits, four peer reviews and a recent copy edit. The previous nomination (in August 2015) which was archived a few weeks ago, included a lot of discussion about whether a specific image could be included. The issue was resolved however there were few other comments on whether the article meets the criteria.— Rod talk 07:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Images are now appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Reassessing after changes...
  • When expanded the railway map causes significant formatting problems - could we use {{clear}} or something to fix it?
  • File:Uplands_StandBRFC.JPG is tagged as lacking description. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick comments:
  • What happened to the 19th century in the history headings? A couple of mentions in "17th and 18th centuries", but really not much.
  • "Competition from Liverpool (beginning around 1760)..." - wasn't it that by then Bristol Docks simply couldn't handle the larger ships being built? Worth saying. Avonmouth eventually had the same problem, but was able to solve it - unlike Liverpool.
  • The sport section seems pretty long, and the architecture one rather short, and not very informative; eg the cautious assertion that: "Buildings from most architectural periods of the United Kingdom can be seen in the city", which is just about true, but not very helpful. It's more true if you mean post-1707 architectural periods, but I suspect you don't - use English. Fully 1/3 of the Grade I listed buildings are in Portland Square, Bristol and Blaise Hamlet, so why not mention them? Bristol's surviving significant architecture pretty much all comes from after 1700, except for the Cathedral, and St Mary Redcliffe, which is outstanding and well-known, & worth mentioning. What about Clifton?
  • "Outside the city centre are several Tudor and later mansions built for wealthy merchants".[1] is not covered by the reference, which just talks about one, though certainly true. In fact Bristol has I think no reasonably intact Tudor houses, so it may not be good to raise expectations.
  1. ^ Historic England. "Red Lodge (380113)". Images of England. Retrieved 27 August 2015. 
  • Should probably expand a bit on Bristol as a centre for baccy, & rescue W.D. & H.O. Wills from "see also".
  • Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I have attempted to address these by adding a 19th century section to the history and expanding the architecture section - incporating the other issues identified along the way. Could you take another loom and see whether you think these are appropriate?— Rod talk 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Near Support (just waiting to see if there are other comments as much of it is out of my range) Ok, All the above dealt with, though the long lists of unique new references (mostly Historic England) should be rolled up into combined ones to avoid unsightly taxi ranks of citation numbers. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Strong support - Well-written article. Iggy488 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your support.— Rod talk 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I may not have time to fully appraise the article, but am opposing based on the Arts subsection which I did review. The subsection is a collection of unconnected facts with no logic governing its flow. The lead sentence is "Bristol was a finalist for the 2008 European Capital of Culture, with the title awarded to Liverpool." How is that the most important take-away from Bristolian culture? Why is See No Evil then mentioned next? Is a street art festival that began in 2011 and seemingly ended by 2013 even notable enough for this article? If it is, why not place it with the bit on Banksy and other artists? Why are the capacities for different theatres listed in brackets, yet capacities for concert halls not? I did not expect such a disconnected passage to make it to FAC. - hahnchen 23:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. I have rearranged some of the material in the section. Could you take another look and see whether you feel this is an improvement?— Rod talk 16:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Apart from what Hahnchen said, there's also the problem that Arts is overloaded with names. The point of the section is to give a sense of the city's arts scene, not to list every last actor, comedian, band, museum etc. The worst offender is the last para, which is almost entirely a sea of blue:

Comedians from the city include Justin Lee Collins,[1] Lee Evans[2] Russell Howard[3] and writer-comedian Stephen Merchant.[4] University of Bristol graduates include illusionist Derren Brown,[5] satirist Chris Morris,[6] Simon Pegg,[7] Nick Frost of Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz,[8] Matt Lucas[9] and David Walliams[9] from Little Britain.[9] Cary Grant,[10] Dolly Read, Ralph Bates and Norman Eshley were born in Bristol, and Peter O'Toole, Kenneth Cope, Patrick Stewart, Jane Lapotaire, Pete Postlethwaite, Jeremy Irons, Greta Scacchi, Miranda Richardson, Helen Baxendale, Daniel Day-Lewis and Gene Wilder attended the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School[11] (founded by Laurence Olivier). John Cleese attended Clifton College,[12] Hugo Weaving studied at Queen Elizabeth's Hospital School[13] and David Prowse (Darth Vader in Star Wars) attended Bristol Grammar School.[14]

Other Culture sub-sections are guilty of this too, with long lists of names of newspapers and radio stations. The citing is lop-sided; on the one hand over-referenced ("[234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242]", which also severely hampers readability), while at the other end, the entire second half of Sports is uncited. A quick glance through the References suggests that using scholarly-books sources (instead of exclusively web-based ones) might make for a more balanced section.—indopug (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Morris, Sophie (11 December 2006). "Justin Lee Collins: My Life in Media". The Independent (London). Archived from the original on 1 July 2015. Retrieved 7 March 2009. 
  2. ^ "Lee Evans Biography (1964–)". Film Reference. Retrieved 7 March 2009. 
  3. ^ Cavendish, Dominic (1 March 2008). "Russell Howard: Russell who is not a brand". The Daily Telegraph (London: TMG). ISSN 0307-1235. OCLC 49632006. Retrieved 21 July 2011. 
  4. ^ Ellen, Barbara (5 November 2006). "Barbara Ellen meets the 6 ft 7in comedy giant Stephen Merchant". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 7 March 2009. 
  5. ^ "Derren Brown Info". Derren Brown. Retrieved 7 March 2009. 
  6. ^ "Chris Morris Profile". BBC News. Retrieved 7 March 2009. 
  7. ^ "Simon Pegg Profile". BBC News. Retrieved 7 March 2009. 
  8. ^ Hattenstone, Simon (5 February 2011). "Simon Pegg and Nick Frost: Losers in love". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 March 2014. 
  9. ^ a b c Viner, Brian (16 December 2006). "Matt Lucas: Pride and prejudice". London: The Independent. Archived from the original on 1 July 2015. Retrieved 5 May 2014. 
  10. ^ Biography for Cary Grant at the Internet Movie Database
  11. ^ "Past Graduates". Bristol Old Vic Theatre School. Archived from the original on 17 June 2008. Retrieved 20 December 2008. 
  12. ^ abcd
  13. ^ Biography for Hugo Weaving at the Internet Movie Database
  14. ^ Biography for David Prowse at the Internet Movie Database
Thanks for your comments. I have removed some of the "sea of blue" lists of names from the culture section, however I feel that leaving some of the key individuals and venues allows the reader to follow those up in more detail. I have rearranged (and added references) to the sport section. I have made the long number lists of references into one reference for each site, however this is a function of the ways in which Historic England details each site. If there are specific references you feel are not RS (or any other outstanding issues) I will attempt to address them.— Rod talk 13:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "was named the best city to live in Britain in 2014 by The Sunday Times": Missing an "in", but that would give it 3 of them in close succession, not good. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Reworded to avoid three "in"s.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "The most recent city council election was in May 2014.": See WP:DATED.
  • Removed.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "the fifth highest of any city in the United Kingdom (behind London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Nottingham)": sixth highest?
  • Changed.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "The 18th- and 19th-century portrait painter Thomas Lawrence, 19th-century architect Francis Greenway (designer of many of Sydney's first buildings). ": ?
  • Sentence completed.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stop motion animation films and commercials (produced by Aardman Animations).": ?
  • Completed sentence.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • " Residential buildings in the Georgian Portland Square[1] and the complex of small cottages around a green at Blaise Hamlet, which was built around 1811 for retired employees of Quaker banker and philanthropist John Scandrett Harford, who owned Blaise Castle House.": ?
  • "in" should have been "include". Changed.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Bristol has teams representing all the major national sports. Bristol City and Bristol Rovers are the city's main football clubs. Bristol Rugby (Rugby Union) and Gloucestershire County Cricket Club are also based in the city. Bristol has two Football League clubs Bristol City and Bristol Rovers": ?
  • Reworded.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "south west": Check for consistency on hyphenation.
  • I didn't find any hyphenated but did some written as southwest rather than south west. I have changed these except where they are part of URLs or title of references or publications.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • " The unique feature of this accent is the "Bristol (or terminal) l", in which l is appended to words ending in a or o. Whether this is a broad l or a w is a subject of debate,[1] with "area" pronounced "areal" or "areaw". The ending of "Bristol" is another example of the Bristol l. Bristolians pronounce -a and -o at the end of a word as -aw (cinemaw).: Seems to contradict itself, two or three times.
  • Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by this.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you're saying. How common is the "Bristol l"? Is it stigmatised? Do some pronounce l and others pronounce w, or is it a consonant that's hard for non-Bristolians to make out, so that people hear it as different consonants? I haven't yet found a source that calls a final w a "Bristol l". - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I am not an accent expert (or native Bristolian) but can confirm the "Bristol l" is in quite common usage among natives. Probably the one I hear most often is the supermarket Asda being pronounced Asdawl. I'm not sure about "stigmatised" but it is sometimes referred to humorously. The Trudgill paper (page 7) and Gick paper are quite good on the Bristol l. There is some information at Culture of Bristol#Dialect and West Country English but I'm not sure where to look or ask for help with this one.— Rod talk 09:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "service – including": if I'm remembering right, you also use em-dashes. FAC generally requires consistency on this.
  • I never get em-dashes and en-dashes right. I have reworded the sentence to avoid them.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. The items above need attention, but overall, this is a fine article on an important city, and it would be really nice to see this at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments (and copy edits) I hope I have addressed them apart from the query re punctuation - which I don't quite understand.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Which punctuation? - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry that should have been "pronounciation" and relates to the discussion above.— Rod talk 09:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments ...Arrrr's a big 'un....I'll give Brizzle a read, have a pint of scrumpy and jot some notes below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering to take a look but can I just check was that a comment on the West Country English/Culture of Bristol#Dialect and stigmatisation comment above?— Rod talk 13:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I combined these sections as the next two centuries were and it makes for less choppy small sections.
''In 1739 John Wesley founded the first Methodist chapel, the New Room, in Bristol - this sentence just sorta sits there...can we incorporate it somehow?
I've expanded this a little more re the foundations of Methodism in the area.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Competition from Liverpool (beginning around 1760) and disruptions of maritime commerce due to war with France (1793) and the abolition of the slave trade (1807) contributed to Bristol's failure... - Any reason why we have "X and X and X" as the three subjects rather than "X, X and X"?
Changed.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
the first protested against the renewal of tolls on Bristol Bridge, - reads weirdly - why not just, " the first over the renewal of tolls on Bristol Bridge,"
Changed.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
In 1901 Bristol's population was about 330,000, and the city grew steadily during the 20th century. - wanna align the about, "From a population of about 330,000 in 1901, Bristol grew steadily during the 20th century."
Your wording is better so I have used it.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Its docklands were enhanced ..."enhanced??" - you mean "renovated" or "rebuilt/enlarged" or something...
Changed to enlarged.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd put it to you that the "Physical" in Physical geography is redundant and can be removed without compromising meaning.
I've always thought of geography as including climate, population, flora & fauna etc while physical related to rocks etc, but changed.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Err, I wouldn't have classified population, flora & fauna and climate is just as physical....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


  • The arrangement of the second and third paragraph of the lead is unsatisfactory, starting with history, then geography and going back to history.
  • I've moved the geography sentence.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I would specify in the lead that Cabot was Venetian, as otherwise the description of Weston as the first Englishman looks odd.
  • Added.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Archaeological finds, including flint tools believed to be 60,000 years old made with the Levallois technique, indicate the presence of Neanderthals in the Shirehampton and St Annes areas of Bristol during the Middle Palaeolithic" I am doubtful about this. According to Pettit & White's history of the British Palaeolithic, the Levallois technique is almost never found is 60,000 year old deposits. There is a similar comment in the report by Bates and Wentian-Smith you cite (unpaginated) "Levalloisian technology first appears in England early in the Middle Palaeolithic, probably late in MIS 8 circa 250,000 BP although there may be some earlier manifestations, and does not appear to have been used at the few boutcoupé sites that are dated to after the peak last interglacial (MIS 5e,circa 125,000 BP). Therefore the Levalloisian evidence in the Bristol region probably reflects early Neanderthal occupation in the period MIS 8 to MIS 6. No bout coupéhandaxe finds are known from the region, but the finds from Wales (Coygan Cave), Wiltshire (Fisherton), Somerset (Cheddon Fitzpaine, Pitminster and West Quantoxhead) and Dorset (Bournemouth and Sherbourne) suggest that there was a late Neanderthal population in southwestern England in the later Devensian." The list of late Neanderthal sites does not include the Bristol ones, which may date to the earlier Neanderthal occupation c.180,000 years ago, contrary to the Bristol Council page. If you are going to cover the Palaeolithic, I think you need to delete the council page as not an RS and check the Bates et al paper in detail.
  • I need to go back to the sources for this, so will do it later.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate further guidance/expertise here. The city council page, which you suggest removing as non-RS is based on the Bates et al paper which they commissioned and does say "There is a predominance of handaxes in the collections, but flake-tool and Levallois technology are present where more extensive collections exist from certain locations, particularly Shirehampton." which I think supports the claim in the article.— Rod talk 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This quote does not give a date. The paper also says "Palaeolithic remains are present in Terrace 2 in the Shirehampton stretch, and in Terrace 1 in the Upper Avon, Shirehampton and Severn stretches. Due to the abovementioned problems, we presently have little clear idea of how old these terrace deposits are however, it is likely that they date to the later parts of the Middle Pleistocene". The Middle Pleistocene is 781-126,000 year ago. Similarly the passage I quoted above dates the Bristol occupation as MIS 8 to 6, which is around 300-125,000 years ago. The 60,000 years ago on the Bristol Council page is an error. I suggest changing 60,000 to 300-126,000 and deleting the Bristol Council ref. (It should really be 300-180,000 as there were no Neanderthals in Britain between 180,000 and 60,000 years ago.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Dates changed as suggested.— Rod talk 08:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "capable of resisting an invasion sent from Ireland by Harold Godwinson's sons". According to Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, it was a raiding party led by three illegitimate sons of Harold.
  • I need to go back to the sources for this, so will do it later.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems there is agreement on three sons of Harold, are you suggesting the inclusion of the word "illegitimate"?— Rod talk 20:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not (on checking sources) suggest the word illegitimate - there seems to be some dispute about this. However "capable of resisting an invasion" is different from fighting off a raiding party, which did not necessarily depend on the town's defensive capacity. I would suggest "and in 1067 the townsmen beat off a raiding party from Ireland led by three sons of Harold Godwinson". This is based on Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed 1971, p. 600. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed to raiding party as suggested.— Rod talk 08:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "By the 14th century Bristol, York and Norwich were England's three largest medieval towns after London, but one-third to one-half the population died in the Black Death of 1348–49.[30] This checked population growth, and Bristol's population remained between 10,000 and 12,000 for most of the 15th and 16th centuries" I do not see why there is a "but" here. Presumably all three towns suffered similarly. Also it would be helpful to give a population estimate before the Black Death.
  • "But" removed. I will look for pre & post population figures.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "including Robert Sturmy's (1457–58) unsuccessful attempt to break up the Italian monopoly of Eastern Mediterranean trade.[" I would leave out the word "up".
  • "Up" removed.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "A 1499 voyage, led by merchant William Weston of Bristol, was the first English-led expedition to North America.[" Perhaps "the first expedition commanded by an Englishman".
  • Done.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "During the 16th century, Bristol merchants concentrated on developing trade with Spain and its American colonies" Did not Spain forbid direct trade between England and the Spanish colonies? If so, I think you need to say so.
  • I will look again at sources.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The next sentence says "This included the smuggling of prohibited goods..." so isn't this covered?— Rod talk 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This refers to the smuggling of goods to Iberia, not Spain's colonies. I know next to nothing about this subject - I am just a bit confused. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "the town incorporated neighbouring suburbs, becoming a county in 1373.[" Is anything more known about this? So far as I know it is the only town outside London to become a county.
  • I believe so but need to go back to sources.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Myers agrees with you that "Bristol was the first provincial town to be given this status" with a charter saying:

We have conceded to our beloved burgesses of our town of Bristol and to their heirs and successors in perpetuity that the town of Bristol with its suburbs and precincts shall henceforth be separate from the counties of Gloucester and Somerset and be in all things exempt both by land and by sea, and that it should be a county by itself, to be called the county of Bristol in perpetuity, and that the burgesses and their heirs and successors should have in perpetuity within the town of Bristol and its suburbs and precincts certain liberties and exemptions and enjoy them fully and use them as is more fully contained in the said charter.Myers, A. R. (1996). Douglas, David C., ed. English Historical Documents 1327–1485 IV (2 ed.). London and New York: Routledge. p. 560. ISBN 978-0-415-14369-1. Retrieved 6 December 2009. 

What do you think should be added from this (which is covered on History of local government in Bristol & full text here)?— Rod talk 21:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not disagree with your wording. I just find it fascinating that Bristol was (so far as I know) the only town to become a county before London in 1889, and I would be interested to know why it received that distinction if information is available. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added in that it was the first & the Myers ref.— Rod talk 08:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Renewed growth came with the rise of England's American colonies in the 17th century" This implies a previous slowdown, which you have not covered.
  • I have removed the word "Renewed" and replaced it with "Growth of the city and trade...".— Rod talk 21:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Some household slaves eventually purchased their freedom in England." However, the Somersett Case of 1772 outlawed slavery in England.
  • "partially as a backlash to the symmetry of Palladianism" "against the symmetry"?
  • Done.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "As air travel grew in the first half of the century, aircraft manufacturers built new factories" Why "new"? Are you saying that manufacture migrated to Bristol from elsewhere. If so, I would clarify.
  • Done.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I've dealt with some of the quick ones. I will need more time (after work) to tackle the others.— Rod talk 08:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Finishing comments
  • "At 4 June 2009 council elections the Liberal Democrats gained four seats and, for the first time, overall control of the city council." This is dated. According to Politics of Bristol the Lib Dems are now down to the fourth largest party.
  • Updated.— Rod talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The details about Concorde seem excessive.
  • Trimmed.— Rod talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "The round piers predate the hospital, and may come from an aisled hall, the earliest remains of domestic architecture in the city, which was then adapted to form the hospital chapel." What round piers and which hospital? This needs clarification.
  • "Commercial buildings such as the paired Exchange" What does paired mean here?
  • This relates to The Exchange, Bristol relating to the different spaces (and uses) within the building, but I agree it was unclear and I have removed the word.— Rod talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Bristol has teams representing all the major national sports." This paragraph is unreferenced.
  • It is just an intro to the sport section with the fact that these clubs are in the city referenced in the subsequent paragraphs. Do you want me to duplicate them here or remove the sentence?— Rod talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "The two Football League clubs are Bristol City and Bristol Rovers" This repeats the previous paragraph.
  • The preceding sentence doesn't say they are "football league clubs or include the previous inclusion in the premiership.— Rod talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably no change needed, but it is remarkable that no Bristol team has ever won the highest prize in any sport. Worth mentioning W. G. Grace? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Its a enjoyable article to read, typical amount of decentness and the Somersett Case of 1772 outlawed slavery in England. I suggest that is going to be a perfect featured article on Wikipedia and it will clarify well enough. Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 10:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Dwayne Jones[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a Jamaican teenager who was murdered in an act of anti-LGBT violence as a result of his gender non-conformity in July 2013. The event attracted press attention both domestically and in a number of foreign countries, bringing about international scrutiny and condemnation of the state of LGBT rights in Jamaica. Having achieved GA status in December 2013, further improvements have been made to this article, and it now meets the FA criteria. It has previously undergone FAC twice; on the first occassion, in December 2014, it was barely looked at, while on the second in July 2015 it received one statement of support (from User:Johanna) and no oppositions, but unfortunately that wasn't enough for it to pass. Third time lucky? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator (if that may be permitted? If not, feel free to strike this out.) Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. As mentioned by User:Midnightblueowl, I supported on the second FAC, and all my comments (mostly prose) were dealt with, so I will support again. To other reviewers—don't be fooled by its short length--it's a very nicely done article. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Outside my usual editing categories by a longshot, but no one should see a nomination die repeatedly for lack of attention:


  • There's really no need for things like "J-FLAG editor" as an author. Some sources, especially some web sources, simply do not have an author byline. There's no need to disguise that.
    • A good point. I have made the change accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that Web Pro News is a reliable source. I believe it's an advertising-driven news aggregator with no listed editorial policy. On the other hand, I think this article may have been published elsewhere for the same reason; a version from a reliable source may be available.
    • I've had a look through Google and cannot find any other instance of this particular text. Thus, I do believe that it was originally written for Web Pro News and that that is the only site where this particular article may be found. This being the case, I would suggest that this website does provide original content and thus does constitute an RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The source of the Dan Littauer article appears to be styled as "LGBTQ Nation", rather than just "LGBT Nation" as currently referenced.
    • Well spotted! I have made the change accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have some misgivings about the Quality of Citizenship Jamaica press release. First, if it is retained, it does have an authorship byline. But second, I'm not sure that this is a statement whose inclusion respects WP:UNDUE; according to the organization's website, it's almost entirely operated by two individuals. Its website is a (heavily skinned) Wordpress blog. I don't want to belittle their efforts, but I'm not convinced that QCJ represents a significant viewpoint. On the other hand, the Lonely Planet guidebook to Jamaica lists both J-FLAG and QCP as relevant organizations, so perhaps this isn't problematic after all...?
    • As you say, QCJ have been mentioned in the Lonely Planet guidebook, but they have also been mentioned in press sources, including international press, as with this example or this one. Furthermore, while they do use a Wordpress blog they do also have an independent website that (as far as I can tell) has nothing to do with Wordpress here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely convinced this is a comprehensive review of the literature:
  • I've taken a look at the article and incorporated it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it worth including the passing mention given to Jones in a briefing by US Department of State Acting Assistant Secretary Uzra Zeya here, in the context of "International reaction", a topic otherwise addressed in the article only by LGBT rights groups?
  • That's a good reference, I have incorporated the information within it into the article at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This German-language book appears to place the murder of Jones into a wider context of events. Perhaps there's some background here worth mining?
  • There's nothing here post-May 2014:
  • I've added a quotebox to the article which contains a quote taken from this particular source. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reporting on the August 2015 gay pride celebration in Jamaica indicates some of the legacy of this murder, and provides a more recent "as of" date.
  • I've incorporated this source into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


  • I think the "Early life" section is inappropriately titled; not everything in this section applies to Jones's "early" life.
    • I've gone with "Jones' biography" but am of course open to any other suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Following up on that, the information buried in the footnote about terminology and choice of gender pronouns is not something that should be buried in a footnote.
    • I felt that the note was the best place for this particular information, given that it reflects a division in the way that Jones' gender identity has been perceived, and thus I didn't want to bring too much confusion into the lede itself. However, I am happy to discuss this issue further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You call J-FLAG "the country's only LGBT rights organization", but I don't think that's true. Despite my misgivings about the weight offered to Quality of Citizenship Jamaica, it also offers itself forward as a LGBT rights organization.
    • True; I have altered the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In general, I'm neutral regarding promotion here. This article's really light on background, for one thing. Sure, the context behind the "batty boy" insult is there for readers who follow the link, but there's no context given here. No indication that this event was one that actually got media attention, amidst an environment that Time in 2006 considered potentially "the most homophobic place on Earth" (and then the 2015 [follow-up article] that mentions Jones in passing via link). There are other media sources that place the event in a wider context of violence, too (I'm not 100% sold on the RS-status of that link, but, then again, Time linked to it, so...). And it's not original research to provide a contextual background; even sources you're already citing, like Palesh Ghosh, explicitly draw links between the murder and cultural elements like Buju Banton's "Boom Bye Bye". But all of that is at least a link away from the reader. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Squeamish Ossifrage; thus far, I have acted upon a number of them and believe that the article is definitely better as a result. A lot of your comments focus on the idea of expanding this article to offer a broader coverage of the problems faced by LGBT people in Jamaica. This was something that I was cautious about doing. On the one hand I tried to set the killing within its wider societal context, while at the other I didn't want to be accused of engaging in Original Research and Synthesis. I'm happy to add in a few further mentions of things like Buju Banton's song, but at the same time I am wary about overloading this article with too much background context. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Squeamish Ossifrage: I have added a new sub-section on "Anti-LGBT sentiment in Jamaica" in which I have covered much of the background information that you believed to be deserving of inclusion. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Check for BrEng vs. AmEng spelling; for instance, search for ise/ize and or/our.
    • I'm standardised the spelling in Jamaican English (which is closer to BrEng spelling). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In the last section, Reactions, there are too many quotations, and a potential issue of tone. I wouldn't go so far as to say there's an NPOV issue ... it's not like there are pro-murder and anti-murder RSs. FAC loves sedate history articles. You can't write an article about a recent murder of a teen and expect that the tone is going to be sedate ... but something could probably be done to take it down a couple of notches. I'm not going to make the call on this though, I don't see that as my job here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. Added: in the last section only. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So that's two votes for support and one of neutrality; can we get any other opinions or will this article have to go in for a fourth round of FAC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I've added it to the FAC Urgents list. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Earwig's showing up some false positives due to (correctly attributed) quotes.

Overall, I feel mixed. I think the prose is fine in that there are no deal-breakers or clangers left and it is an engaging read. I too worry about the lack of personal life, however I note that some discussion (and I presume search) has taken place with no success, and that I have seen other homicide cases recently in popular press where the personal/family details are lacking. Hence, do I think there are any specific improvements to be made? Probably not, so its a tentative support from me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 Vuelta a España[edit]

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015 Vuelta a España, one of the three most important races in road cycling. It is a three-week race where riders have to deal with hot weather and the mountainous terrain of any cycling race. The race was notable for all the four top finishers in the 2015 Tour de France starting; none of them finished on the podium in the Vuelta. The race was close and competitive throughout and was decided on the final climbs on the penultimate day. This article is relatively short because it has been split out into two articles describing the stages themselves; it's just been through a useful peer review. Relentlessly (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


To preface this, my time is very limited on Wikipedia, but these are a few things that I noticed about the article in a quick glance over it:

  • "These included Caja Rural-Seguros RGA, the only Spanish-registered Professional Continental team. Two French teams, Cofidis and Team Europcar, were also invited. MTN-Qhubeka were invited for the second consecutive year after also securing their first ever entry into the Tour de France. The final team to be invited was Colombia." Each sentence should be sourced, just because the information within it could be challenged.
    • After reading through more of the prose from the favorites section, I'd say go through the prose and cite after each sentence just to be sage - I know this is probably annoying to hear, but it will help as the review goes on longer as reviewers won't have to challenge you on whether it happened and whatnot.
  • Include the two-three sentence body of text just below the team list in the block of text above. It just looks smoother that way in my opinion
  • I would remove the three sub sections in the race overview section
  • Move the part about the first stage being controversial in the route and stages section in its own paragraph

I didn't really have much more time to give the text a thorough read through, but I hope this helps out. I'll try and check this out next time I'm free and able to get on here. Great start. Disc Wheel (T + C) 13:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Disc Wheel. I have done all the above except adding citations after every sentence. I will go back and have another look at citation density; I have attempted to follow WP:CITEDENSE closely. Relentlessly (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Almost all of it, you forgot to remove the part about the route of the team trial controversy to the route and stages section. Disc Wheel (T + C) 20:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake, Disc Wheel, I misunderstood what you meant. I've done it now, and you're right: it's an improvement. Relentlessly (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • One thing that jumps out at me is the Classification leadership by stage table. The colours are pretty, but unfortunately don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color. The contrast between the background colour and the foreground text colour need to meet WCAG 2.0's AA level; the pastel colours used in most of the table are fine, with the exception of the salmon, which could be lightened, but the darker Final colour at the bottom is a problem for all but the "lightskyblue" and the "offwhite". (Checked with the Colour Contrast Checker). My suggestion would be to just remove the colour entirely. It does add a "wow" to the page, but I think the information is conveyed just as well without it. I'll take a closer look at the rest of the article shortly. Harrias talk 18:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Harrias, thanks for this. I've adjusted the colours. Several were purely decorative, so I've ditched them. The others are actually the colours of the jerseys, so I'd like to keep them. I've adjusted both background and foreground colours. I'm no expert, but I think they're now compliant. What do you think? Relentlessly (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Harrias, can I prod you again to see if the table is now OK by your reckoning? Many thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Sorry, got a bit distracted by other projects and real life. I'll take a look at the weekend, but a quick glance suggests it is much improved. Harrias talk 07:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
          • The table is compliant now, good work. Harrias talk 11:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Route and stages section, "with Chris Froome (second in 2014) and" doesn't need to have the bit in brackets, as you mentioned in the previous section that he had finished second in 2014.
  • What is a "third-category summit finish"?
  • What is a "bunch sprint"?
  • "The fourth stage again included an uphill finish, though it was not a categorised climb. The stage was again.." Repetition of "again".
  • "Astana rode hard in the second half of the stage and, with a strong team effort... I think it would improve clarity if this started something like "Aru's Astana team rode hard..." This will help make it more obvious who this benefits.
  • What does "won the intermediate sprint" mean? (Reading the next section, this makes more sense, but I think it needs explaining either here, or in the Route and stages section.
    • I've explained it in Route and stages. Possibly the best solution would be describing the classification section higher up the page, rather than alongside the leadership table. I'm a bit reluctant because this is contrary to general Wikipedia cycling practice, and it's by far the least interesting section. Relentlessly (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As Neelix suggests, and you are aware, the prose contains a lot of jargon, and though I have a basic knowledge of how these races work, I still got a bit confused at times. I've highlighted some area's that specifically need changing, but the whole Race overview could still do with "dumbing down" a little bit to be honest if it is possible. Harrias talk 11:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Harrias. I've done my best at dumbing-down! It's tricky, though. I've removed, clarified or linked everything I thought was obscure. Is there any chance you could have a look through and tag anything unclear with {{clarify}}? Relentlessly (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Nice work. On reading through it again, it reads well. The problem seems to be more the quantity of "jargon" rather than any specifically difficult concepts. There are wikilinks provided for anything uncertain, just sometimes it requires going back a bit to find them! Overall, I think what is left is mostly unavoidable, and the article deals well with quite a technical sport. Harrias talk 09:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Parutakupiu[edit]

As usual, my comments are mostly related with phrasal construction. These are only suggestions, although I believe they can improve the article's prose. Still, take them critically since I'm not a native English speaker. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


  • I think the sentence "The race was the 70th edition of the Vuelta a España." should come somehow right after the introductory sentence;
    • Done, though this required some rephrasing. Relentlessly (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "... with a three-second lead over Aru. Aru, however, attacked..." – Closely repeated instances of "Aru";
    • Done, though there are still several uses of "Aru" in a short paragraph. It's hard though, to see how this can be adjusted while retaining clarity. Relentlessly (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I tend to alternate between using a person's name and that same person's nationality, or another unmistakeable reference, to avoid repetition. Parutakupiu (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In the infobox: Rafal MajkaRafał Majka;


  • When I read "These included..." I expected a running enumeration of the five invited teams, but after mentioning Caja Rural-Seguros the sentence ends abruptly.
  • "This included riders from 37 different countries..." – What is this referring to?
  • "The average age of riders in the Vuelta was 29.13 years: they ranged from...""The average age of riders in the Vuelta was 29.13 years, and ranged from..."
    • Fixed, though not exactly in this way. Relentlessly (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Pre-race favorites

  • "... none of the riders took up the challenge." and "... though it was expected that he would be tired following his victory in the Tour." – Citations needed;
  • Last paragraph: two close instances of particularly.

Race overview

  • "Sagan, who came second on the stage, took over the lead of the points classification."
  • "The following stage was a mixed stage, too difficult for the pure sprinters.""The following stage was a mixed stage, which proved difficult for the pure sprinters."
  • "The final stage before the first rest day was stage 10, which ended in another bunch sprint. This was won by Kristian Sbaragli (MTN-Qhubeka)""Stage 10, the final stage before the first rest day, ended in another bunch sprint, won by Kristian Sbaragli (MTN-Qhubeka)".
  • "Landa's teammate Fabio Aru took second place on the stage and moved into the race lead."
  • "... was caught in the final kilometre of the stage."
  • "... putting himself just one second behind Aru. Aru, Majka and Chaves, however..." – Closely repeated instances of Aru.

Classification leadership table

  • "The first of these was the general classification. This was calculated by...""The first of these was the general classification, which was calculated by...". Also for the team classification paragraph.
    • Done for the GC, but not the team classification. It's a confusing arrangement and I think it's clearer in separate sentences. Relentlessly (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I think both cases are pretty similar and clarity is not affected by this merge, but it's your call. Parutakupiu (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the points classification, you need to explain that the 4th, 5th and 6th riders receive 14, 12 and 10 points respectively, before saying "... down to 1 point for the rider in fifteenth."
    • Done, though I do wonder if the detail is really necessary! A table would be ideal, but there isn't room. Relentlessly (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It's not much a question of detail, but of clarity: if you say that the 3rd rider gets 16 points and then it goes "down to 1 point for the rider in 15th" it doesn't make sense, because you cannot assign 15 individual marks (15, 14, 13.... 1 point) to 12 riders (4th to 15th place) unless some of these marks are skipped, as is the case. Parutakupiu (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Parutakupiu, for your very helpful review. I think I've taken care of all your points. Relentlessly (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. Very satisfied with the state of this article. Again, good job, Relentlessly! Parutakupiu (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Neelix[edit]

It has taken me longer than I had anticipated to find time to review this article, but better late than never, right? Another great job on this one, Relentlessly! Here are my thoughts, questions, and suggestions for improvement:

  • The 2015 UCI World Tour should be mentioned somewhere early in the lead, preferably in the first sentence, to contextualize the topic of the article.
  • It would be helpful to fully spell out Astana Pro Team in the lead rather than shortening it to Astana. As someone unfamiliar with the world of cycling, I was confused about whether the bracketed term after Fabio Aru's name was his birthplace, his nickname, etc.
    • Where, sorry? This is already done in the lead, although I haven't done it throughout the article. Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
      • In the sentence "It was won by Fabio Aru (Astana), with Joaquim Rodríguez (Team Katusha) second and Rafał Majka (Tinkoff-Saxo) third", it would be helpful if the sentence began instead "It was won by Fabio Aru (Astana Pro Team)..." Neelix (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah yes indeed. Done. I was reading the source, where it was generated by {{ct}}. Relentlessly (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What does the word "attack" mean in this context? It is used several times without explanation. I assume that the cyclists don't physically assault each other.
  • What does it mean to drop someone? Can this be made clearer somehow for the general, uninitiated public?
  • "Wildcard" is another term that most people are not going to know. You could extend the sentence to clarify the meaning, or you could add a footnote explaining.
    • It's linked and I've rephrased the sentence to make it clearer, and to add context to "UCI Professional Continental". Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • After the phrase "none of the riders took up the challenge", I would recommend switching the colon to a period. The sentence is already made lengthy by the semicolon, and I'm not convinced that this use of a colon is correct punctuation.
  • What does the following phrase mean?: "it was unclear which rider would be protected". Protected from what?
  • Paragraphs should consist of more than a single sentence; the second-last paragraph in the "Pre-race favorites" section should be merged into one of the adjacent paragraphs.
  • In its first mention, I would recommend expanding "sprinter" to "cycling sprinter" for clarity and in accordance with the linked article's title.
    • Not sure about this one. It's not a wording that would ever be used in cycling – it's obvious it doesn't mean Usain Bolt! I'd argue the article should be renamed! Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In the phrases "stage 2", "stage 9", etc., the "s" should be capitalized because they are proper noun phrases. It is only in phrases such as "sixth stage" and "seventh stage" that the "s" should remain lowercase.
    • Done, though this is inconsistent with cycling media use! Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Who is Eusebio Unzué? He is mentioned only once and without explanation of his connection to the subject of the article.
  • What is a peloton? It should be both linked and explained, either in the main text at its first mention or in a footnote.
    • Linked and explained on the first mention. Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Race overview" section is quite long. I would recommend splitting it into two subsections, one called "Stage 1 to Stage 11" and the other called "Stages 12 to Stage 21". Then, the "See also" template could be replaced by two "Main" templates.
    • I'm less sure about this one. The division in the two sub-articles is entirely arbitrary. I originally had it divided into three weeks, but changed it as above per Disc Wheel's comments. Not sure what to do with this: to me the three weeks would be the most logical division. I've changed the {{see also}} into a {{main}} for now in any case. Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree that the division of these subarticles is arbitrary, and, consequently, my strong preference would be for the subarticles to not be divided at all; just have one subarticle called "Stages of the 2015 Vuelta a España". The level of coverage outside doesn't seem to justify multiple subarticles anyway. Neelix (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
        • is the best source, but far from the only one. The Vuelta was covered in depth in lots of European media (especially Spanish and French) and in both cycling-specific and general news sources in English, but Cyclingnews is the most comprehensive and convenient source. The two subarticles total over 70kB of prose, so they should probably stay divided, though I personally would have set it up as stages 1-10 and 11-21. The general setup is very well established practice in Wikipedia cycling articles, including FAs. Relentlessly (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "Four riders were immediately forced to withdraw from the race". It might be helpful to add "due to injuries" to clarify what forced them to withdraw.
  • I would recommend replacing the word "puncture" with "flat tire" or "tire puncture". After all the discussion about injuries, my first thought was that Poppel's body had been punctured rather than his tire.
    • I've gone for "tyre puncture" because (a) UK English and (b) his tyre wasn't actually flat! Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What is the combativity award? I don't understand what being combative has to do with cycling.
    • Added a quote from the race regulations. Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "For the same reason, Tom Dumoulin, second in the combination classification wore the white jersey.", there should be a comma after the word "classification".
  • There should be a comma after the phrases "In stages ten and eleven, Joaquim Rodríguez", "In stage sixteen, Tom Dumoulin", "In stage seventeen, Esteban Chaves", etc.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful! My overall concern is that the article is not currently very accessible to readers who are unfamiliar with cycling. Apart from that, the article looks great. Neelix (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Neelix, that's all really helpful. I very much appreciate the comments from someone unfamiliar with cycling: it's a somewhat jargonish sport and it has been my biggest concern with the article throughout. I've dealt with all your concerns, I think, except for the race overview subsections. I'll continue to think about this one. Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate you responding to my concerns so quickly! You have addressed all but two of my concerns. I have responded to your comments above in those two instances. I don't think it's obvious that "sprinter" doesn't refer to runners also trained to cycle, but I won't press the point. Neelix (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Support - Thank you for doing such a thorough job at addressing my concerns. I have considerable reservations about the subarticles of the "Race overview" section; they seem to me to consist solely of intricate play-by-play, providing a level of detail that is unencyclopedic and analogous to articles that solely consist of plot summaries of books. Nonetheless, this is not the forum for such a discussion, as the main 2015 Vuelta a España article is the subject of this FAC and that article is quite encyclopedic. Well done! Neelix (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

2006 Subway 500[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 Subway 500 (today called the Goody's Headache Relief Shot 500 for sponsorship purposes), a NASCAR stock car race held at Martinsville Speedway won by Jimmie Johnson. I created this article in January 2015 and it attained GA status that same month. I made a further expansion of the article in August and it had a copy-edit from the GOCE in September. I look forward to any comments regarding this article. Z105space (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • The article lead doesn't mention that Labonte took the race lead on lap 406 -- at least, that's how I understand the race section of the article. Johnson led for over 250 laps, right? I can see the lead doesn't need all the details, but I'd either give every lead change or make it clear that some are omitted.
Added mention of Labonte moving into lead on lap 406 in the lead section. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "The result advanced him to third in the Drivers' Championship, forty-one points behind Matt Kenseth (who took over the lead when Jeff Burton retired during the race; this caused him to fall to fifth in the championship, one point behind Hamlin)." I don't follow this. Kenseth took the race lead or the Championship lead? Who fell to fifth; Kenseth? If Kenseth fell to fifth, what did he take over the lead of?
Kenseth took over the lead of the Drivers' Championship which I have added into the lead section. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, but who fell to fifth? Johnson went to third, so it's not him; Kenseth was in the lead, so it's not him. If it's Burton, make it "this caused Burton". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Burton fell to fifth in the Drivers' Championship after the race. Z105space (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Is "banked at zero degrees" the usual way to describe it? If so, that's fine; to a non-aficionado it would sound more natural to say "not banked", but if this is the usual phrasing there's no need to change it, since it's clear what is meant.
Your suggestion has been taken in. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I tweaked it some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Gordon had the highest speed of the three days, at 175.553 miles per hour": in the fourth session? You don't say so and so it's not clear when he recorded this speed.
Gordon did record the speed in the fourth session of the test. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't make the speed arithmetic work. If the fastest lap is 19 seconds, and a lap is 0.526 miles, then that's about 180 laps an hour, which would be around 100 miles per hour. How come the top speeds are around 175 mph?
I think that would be an answer for more experienced NASCAR editors to answer as I'm fairly new to the sport. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, but I think it needs to be answered. I see further down the article that the top speeds in the race are around 99 mph, so how could they do 175 in practice? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment This test was taking place at Homestead-Miami Speedway, which is a longer track and thus allows for higher speeds. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
D'oh. My fault; that's in the article. Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "At the start weather conditions were overcast, with the air temperature around 48 °F (9 °C) and rain showers (which occurred earlier in the day) forecast." This sentence structure doesn't really work, because if we're at the start the rain showers have already occurred, so they're not forecast any more.
Sentence structure has been amended. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
If I didn't misunderstand the earlier form of the sentence, what you now have is factually incorrect -- at the start rain was not forecast; it had already happened. How about something like "Rain showers were forecast for the day of the race, and at the start weather conditions were overcast and some rain had already fallen. The air temperature was around 48F."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The above suggestion has been taken in to account Z105space (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Jeff Burton drove to his garage on lap 218 when a carburetor problem (after switching to a second ignition) caused him to run slower than his rivals": another sentence structure problem. Tell us about the second ignition before mentioning the carburetor; it's clumsy as a parenthesis.
I have amended this sentence structure. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Most of the drivers stayed on the track during the caution, allowing Johnson to remain the leader at the restart." Why do other drivers staying on the track allow Johnson to remain leader? Surely it only matters if he stays on the track?
Those drivers chose not to make pit stops which I have included. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that the sentence doesn't make sense -- if Johnson is in the lead, and if nobody can pass him because there's a caution, then if he doesn't pit he stays in the lead. What other drivers do makes no difference. So saying he remained leader because other drivers didn't pit seems like a non sequitur. Am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the sentence to say Johnson maintained his lead at the restart. Z105space (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. I think the prose is now FA-quality, and the article seems comprehensive. I have not spot-checked the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias[edit]

Table comments

  • The sortable Race results table should sort by the driver surname, not first name.
  • When sorting by Points, Kurt Busch sorts of out position, I guess because of the footnote?
I have removed the sortable section in the race results table to fall in line with two other NASCAR race reports which are FA. Z105space (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Image comments

  • The first image, File:Martinsville Backstretch.JPG claims to be from the "2005 Martinsville spring race", but the EXIF data says 2 April 2006, which was the date of the 2006 DirecTV 500 at Martinsville. The description should be updated to reflect this.
Done. Z105space (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. Z105space (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Done though the two links are to the same picture. Z105space (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oops! The second was meant to be File:Matt-kenseth-bristol-2009.jpg. Harrias talk 12:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Harrias: Are there any other outstanding issues? Z105space (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

All the images are appropriately licensed, and the table meets the guidelines. Harrias talk 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


  • Background: "and was replaced by 2002 Daytona 500 champion Ward Burton. Burton...". Try not to have the last word of a sentence start the next one like this.
    • Sentence has been reworded Z105space (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Practice and qualification: Hyphen needed in "thirteenth fastest".
  • Also need a couple others in similar instances later in the section. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Giants2008: The issues raised have been rectified. Z105space (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – Now that the few issues above have been taken care of, I believe that this meets the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Support. I made one minor copyedit to tweak the date and archive formatting in some background section refs but saw no other outstanding issues. Prose seems okay after the GoCE looked at it and the remaining minor problems have been addressed by others. Looks good to me. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment; the lead image is very small and even in mediaviewer the text is fairly unreadable, is there not a higher resolution alternate? --Errant (chat!) 22:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Errantx: Unfortunately not. I have replaced the image with the event's logo which should be more easier to read. Z105space (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Second Malaysia Plan[edit]

Notified: Johnleemk, Nakon, Borisblue, WikiProject Malaysia

There are some unsourced statements such as "Due to this wide disparity ... improving the economic status of the Malays" and "new conundrum was therefore considered". The article is heavily reliant on a single source that was written in 1977, calling into question whether the criterion 1c ("thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature") is met. The phrase "It was also alleged by some" should attribute the allegations to specific persons or organizations. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Belarusian Republican Youth Union[edit]

Notified: Zscout370, WikiProject Belarus, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Socialism

There is an update tag on one section, and when I tried to address it I couldn't verify the article content. The dead links and age of the material also indicate that the article needs updating on a broader scale. The latest information in the article is from 2006, which is almost ten years ago. DrKay (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Percival[edit]

Notified: Singaporean wikipedians' noticeboard, WikiProject Malaysia, WikiProject Military history. Main author and nominator inactive since 2013

Several paragraphs and sentences are unattributed [I've marked two but there are others], some of which contain potentially controversial statements, including "difficulties with his subordinates", "Bennett was full of confidence, but faced a mixed reaction", "Percival threw away potential advantages", "restrained rather than self-serving", and "Unusual for a British lieutenant-general". DrKay (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Walter Model[edit]

Notified: Hongooi, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military history

I am nominating this featured article for review because as noted on the talk page last year it is tagged for citation in many places, some of which contain peacock and weasel words such as "his audacity and improvisational skills (and the tactical ineptness of the Russians) had brought him rich rewards", "he felt great displeasure towards officers bearing the red trouser-stripe", "meteoric rise" and "His stubbornness, energy and ruthlessness were more qualities that Hitler found admirable, and Model's blunt and direct manner of speaking also made an impression". These examples are also typical of some of the prose employed in the article, which is not dispassionate or idiomatic, such as "he gave the U.S. 12th Army Group a bloodied nose". In places, the prose is also overcomplicated, such as "The statement that he was no strategist can be agreed to because the conditions for that existed for no general in the Third Reich". DrKay (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment As a quick comment, the article notes that Model expected to be prosecuted for very large scale war crimes following the war, but his involvement in these is never discussed. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Illuminatus! Trilogy[edit]

Notified: WP Books, WP Novels, WP Sci-Fi. Main author and nominator inactive since 2009

Criteria of concern are prose and reliability. On prose, there are many single-sentence paragraphs. On reliability, there are dead links, fansites, and unsourced sentences, including "joke typical of the trilogy", "new lease of life to flagging sales", "they suggest closely resembles the face of Weishaupt", "authors are well aware that it also provides an excuse for mere titillation", "books espouse the use of mind-altering substances to achieve higher states of consciousness", "trademark of Wilson's writing", and "Interest in Lovecraft reached new heights in 1975". It is not clear whether the quote from Leary (sourced to the trilogy's blurb) is a real quote or one made up by the trilogy's authors. DrKay (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Hip hop, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Reggae, WikiProject Songs

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not up to today's FA standards. Meant to put it up for review earlier after leaving commentary on the talk page, but somehow forgot until now. Anyway, this is how it currently compares against the FA criteria:

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • No major problems, but could be better. For example, I feel that "Lisa Haines of BBC Music referred to the song as" could be something like "Lisa Haines of BBC Music called the song" or "Lisa Haines of BBC Music described to the song as", and "Ben Wener told Stefani that the song was disingenuous and 'absurd'" would probably be better as "Ben Wener criticized the song as disingenuous and 'absurd'".
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Almost. The music video section doesn't contain any reviews, and it feels incomplete to just list live performances without any commentary or detail other than the names of events.
  • 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
  • Absolutely not. The "live performances", "use in visual media", and "track listings" sections are completely uncited. That alone would automatically fail the GA criteria if nominated today. There are also some dead links, and I'm not sure if "Rebel Waltz" (one of the dead links) or "Neumu" are reliable. ATRL is a forum and definitely not reliable, and neither is Jason Shawhan's review per WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources/ Critics Table. Video director and theme also need references. Not sure why "Above deck Stefani, the Harajuku Girls, Eve, and more pirates dance on the deck and rigging. Stefani is also seen dancing with the Harajuku Girls in a treasure trove, often carrying a sword, and swinging from an anchor. When the girls dunk the toy ship in a fish tank, the galleon engages in cannon fire, causing Stefani and the pirates to fall all over the ship, and Stefani and the Harajuku Girls are soon shipwrecked." is unreferenced when other music video bits are cited. Since its reception and composition seem to rely heavily on album reviews, more reviews dedicated specifically to the song would be helpful.
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • Looks good.
  • 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
  • Seems OK.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • No. It fails to take into account the music video, genres, and what critics said about the song. It also doesn't name any of the nations where it charted in the top ten.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • As far as I can tell, there are no problems here.
  • 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
  • Not exactly. There are a few bare URL's, and some references contain the publishing companies for works (a practice that became largely deprecated this past January) while others don't. "The" is not part of the title for Orange County Register, "" should read simply Top40-Charts, and "" should just be "Top 40 Web".
  • 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • No excess detail detected.

The edition that passed for FA in June 2007 wasn't exactly ideal and is not something I would've supported if reviewing at the time, but to be fair, the criteria was less demanding back then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Banff National Park[edit]

Notified: MONGO, WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject World Heritage Sites, WikiProject Alberta

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a 2006 promotion, and I don't think this still meet the criteria. Like I mentioned at talk page, there's still some paragraph lack footnotes.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll mention it to the primary author...all I did was nominate it. You could of course look for some references yourself and help out, as I mentioned on the article talkpage back in May. Some things are generally common knowledge that wouldn't need an inline ref.--MONGO 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at your meager contributions to, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Come up with specifics troll or be gone. Surely you can come up with That should be easy shouldn't it?--MONGO 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Guys, enough of the sniping here. Jarodalien, can you please specify which of the criteria you feel are not met and why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Already add cn tags more than 5 months ago, and mentioned at talk page. Lots of paragraphs have no inline citation at all.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that, but just so we're clear - your only concern with FA status here is the state of the article's sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing is my main concern, but shince you mention it, I also hope infomation like "As of the 2005 census, the Town of Banff has a population of 8,352, of which nearly 7,000 are permanent residents", "Climate data for Banff", "with 3,927,557 visitors in 2004/2005", "with 32 wolf deaths along the Trans-Canada Highway between 1987 and 2000, leaving only 31 wolves in the area" along with other data could least update to 2010s. Thank you.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I have added more sources, and could update some of the information like the census numbers. Aude (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak close. I have fact checked the entire history section, finding no problems. Consequently, although the geography and geology sections are not fully sourced, I'm inclined to believe that the content of those sections is also verifiable. There don't appear to be any statements in the section that are controversial. Other editors have done some updating of the figures, and I've done a copyedit and review of the images. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Amakuru, Lemurbaby, BanyanTree, WikiProject Rwanda, WikiProject Countries

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it currently falls short of being comprehensive and well-researched. Parts of the article are rather dated. For example, the data on religion is from the 2002 census, not the more recent 2012 census, and much of the data in the economy, education and health sections is from the late 2000s. There are some questionable statements, such as "It is not clear who funded the next batch of 100,000 XO-XS laptops nor the additional laptops leading to the 400,000 XO-XS laptops", which is sourced to a wiki site. The section Millennium Development Goal 6 lacks context, with no explanation of what this MDG is. There is a general need to update the article, which quite a few relatively old "as of" statements present. I have personally rewritten the sport section, and have tried to encourage other editors to help with improving the article, but not much progress has been made. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

An inconsistency: the introduction states that "Rwandans are composed of three ethnic groups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa", whereas the demographics section states that "the population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: there's a general problem here, because it is quite a hotly disputed topic in sources as to what the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa groups actually are. In some sources, Banyarwanda are regarded as one ethnic group, sharing a language and culture, with Hutu and Tutsi being social classifications, while in other sources the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa are themselves regarded as separate ethnicities. The text tries to explain this issue, and I've changed the lead to match what's in the Demographics section. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but I still think this part needs work. The lede states "The Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda, although within this group there are three subgroups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. The Twa are a forest-dwelling pygmy people descended from Rwanda's earliest inhabitants. Scholars disagree on the origins of and differences between the Hutu and Tutsi; some believe differences are derived from former social castes, while others view them as being ethnicities or tribes". The scholars who consider Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups can't consider that the Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic group. I think we need more of a sense that there is disagreement between scholars who think there is one ethnic group, and those who think there are multiple ethnic groups (both in the introduction and the demographics section). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, Cordless Larry. I think part of the difficulty here is that the term "ethnic group" is not clearly defined. In the UK we tend to talk of an "Anglo Saxon" ethnicity, but that is of course itself a hybrid of various different peoples, not just Angles and Saxons, but some native and other peoples as well. The main source I used in this section is Mamdani's book "When Victims Become Killers", which looks at some of the arguments in the matter but doesn't really give a definitive answer. One thing he says is "If we understand an ethnic group to mean a cultural group, comprising those who speak a common language, then the Banyarwanda must be considered East Africa's largest ethnic group". So he's saying it doesn't matter what their origins are, as long as they share language and culture, then they're a single ethnic group. I've just edited the article and replaced "ethnic and linguistic" with "cultural and linguistic" to make this more clear, and I've removed the bit saying Tutsi and Hutu may be ethnicities, to more explicitly say that those scholars on that side of the fence believe they come from separate origins, but without treading the minefield of whether that means they're separate ethnicities or not. Let me know what else I can do to make this clear. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. I think the new text works better than the old, and while there's more that could be said, I think this is about right for a main country article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Education and health[edit]

The main focus for my efforts this weekend is going to be bringing the health section into line. I would like some feedback on one thing though - at the time of featuring, this as the version of the article: [5]. Then, education and health were in one paragraph (which I had modeled on a similar paragraph over at Cameroon, an earlier FA). The education part has not changed much, apart from the addition of some over detailed analysis of laptops. The health section, however, has been hived off into a separate section, and largely filled with non encylopedic and over detailed information.

My question is whether it makes sense to fold these two back into one paragraph, with just a summary of the details of each. The thing to bear in mind is that this is strictly a summary article. Country articles can never hope to go into very much detail on any particular topic, which is why we have child articles Education in Rwanda and Health in Rwanda to provide much more detail on that. In fact, the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates does not suggest including any detail about education and health at all. Personally I would favour the approach of updating the paragraphs from the FA version, to reflect up to date information, but keeping the two subjects in one short section, as before. What think you?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few of the country featured articles do have health and education sections, often as sub-sections of demographics. Do they naturally belong together in one section? I'm not sure they do, personally. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've now rewritten the health section, it gives a general overview, with citations and some relevant statistics, but without going beyond two paragraphs. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru, that now looks much better. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sport sub-section[edit]

Amakuru's post above reminded me that I meant to mention that the sport sub-section that I wrote is currently quite long. There is perhaps a need to create Sport in Rwanda, to move the content of the sport sub-section there, and to summarise it for the Rwanda article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I had thought of that myself a while ago. That's a very good idea.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Things that need updating[edit]


  • Confirm relgion figures. - Already done.
  • Check females in government posistions fact - Done.


  • Last paragraph updated for recent developments - Done.

Politics and government

  • Mention the two term limit and current proposals to remove it - Done.
  • Update with recent sources for criticism of constitution - Done.
  • Update numbers of deputies with more recent election, including facts about female majorty - Done.
  • Check on latest status of courts (in particular gacaca) - Done.
  • Update facts and figures on corruption - Done.
  • UPdate cites on the RPF dominance - Done.
  • Update relations with France and Francophonie - Done.
  • Update relations with Uganda and Congo - Done.

Administrative divisions No changes needed


  • Make sure still 149th largest country (given new countries that have come into place) - Yes it is.
  • Make sure climate figures are up to date - Yes.


  • Update GDP figure - Done.
  • Update USD exchange rate - Done.
  • Update plans for EA shilling - Done.
  • Update farming figures, and GDP contribution - Done.
  • Update crops - Done.
  • Update industrial sector figures and products - Done.
  • Update tourism figures - Done.
  • Update media and communications - Done.


  • Update water figures - Water is up to date.
  • Update electricity figures - Electricity up to date.
  • Update transport


  • Make sure basic figures and densities are up to date - Done.
  • UPdate faith figures - Done.
  • CHeck languages - Done.


  • Check national holidays - Done.


  • Check beers - Done.


  • Check and update - Up to date.


  • Go through all references, check for deadlinks and format correctly.

@Cordless Larry: now that the sport and health has been dealt with, the above is a list of things I'd like to check and update now, based on a read through of the article just now. If you can think of anything else, please let me know. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work, Amakuru. I'm incredibly busy off-Wikipedia at the moment, but that looks like a good list. If I get some time, I'll help out making the checks you identify. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've not looked at this for a week or two, but it's still on my to-do list and I hope to get back to the tidy up very soon... please keep open for now!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I checked for more recent tourism figures yesterday, but could only find official statistics to 2011, though more recent figures have featured in reports such as this, so they must exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I also found this potential source for beers. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the number of public holidays from 11 to 12, but the source also lists Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Are these full public holidays too? If so, it should be 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The relevant law suggests that they are official holidays, so I will update to 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Cordless Larry. I have no idea why I looked at the new source and thought there were still eleven. I must have counted very badly!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry and Amakuru: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've not been able to commit much time to this, but Amakuru has been chipping away at it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry it's taking so long, (I've been very busy in real life), but as Cordless Larry says, I have been doing it little by little over the past few weeks. If it's OK I'd like to keep it open until I can polish off the remaining items on the list above, and then we can see where we are. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The statement "Clans existed across the Great Lakes region, with around twenty in the area that is now Rwanda." has been tagged for clarification since June 2014. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    @DrKay: I was about to look in to this, but I see you've already cleared the sentence in question. Well that's fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Close without FARC. Thank you for keeping the article updated. I have cleared the final tag. DrKay (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • On the issue of referencing, there are some full citations in amongst the shortened footnotes of the notes section (mostly, if not entirely, my doing). Is this a problem? If it is, I can attempt to fix things. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Cordless Larry: not to worry - I'm slowly moving them all down to the sfn format, and once that's done I will go through and fix all the deadlink refs. Then I'm pretty much done with my fix ups I think. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Phew, finally finished checking and updating the refs, so I've now finished my list of things to do. @Cordless Larry: do you see anything else that needs doing? Assuming not, my vote is as for DrKay, Close without FARC. I believe with the work we've done, this is now back to FA standard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The work you've done would be much more accurate, Amakuru. I haven't had time for a thorough read through, but a skim read suggests that all is well. My only concern is with consistency and linking in the sources section. Take the Guardian articles, for instance. Some have London set as the place of publication, some don't, and there are two links to The Guardian, neither of them on the first instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Pulaski Skyway[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Bridges, WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force, WikiProject Organized Labour, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because after a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, the following issues were left unresolved with a project-level consensus that this article should be reviewed here.

  1. There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
  2. There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
  3. The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
  4. There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.

I left a notice on the article talk page on September 27, and nothing changed with respect to the article, so it's time to move things here. The account for the original FA nominator (SPUI) has been inactive for years, so notifying that editor is a futile endeavor. I am placing the customary notifications on the appropriate WikiProject talk pages. Imzadi 1979  01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will rehash the points I brought up at the ACR that touch upon the issues with the article, which include many minor and some major issues:

  1. "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
  2. "The landmark structure", WP:PEACOCK.
  3. The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
  4. "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
  5. Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
  6. Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
  7. Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
  8. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
  9. "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
  10. The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
  11. Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
  12. The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
  13. "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence.
  14. The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
  15. "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
  16. "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
  17. References 3 and 103 are dead links.
  18. The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
  19. Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
  20. Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
  21. Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source. Dough4872 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
With regard to suggestions above:
  • "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.

X mark.svg Not doneCategory:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type

X mark.svg Not doneLandmark aptly describes the structure, designated by NRHP, and referred to as such:

  • The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.

X mark.svg Not done not necessarily as the the separate ideas derive no benefit from combining

  • "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.

Yes check.svg Done fixed; it is clearly established that the Skyway is in NJ

  • Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."

Yes check.svg Done link to Route 1 Extension covers topic in appropriate article

  • Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.

Yes check.svg Done countless road articles, including most in Category:FA-Class U.S. Highway system articles route description mention places w/o references; why here? Many appear to be from observations taken from maps and satellite imagery; info is pertinent, while pertinent, is non-esstenial, thus parenthetical. Nonetheless refs added.

  • Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.

X mark.svg Not doneWould seem to add unessential information into an already long article. An exit list has been previously deleted by consensus:

  • I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.

X mark.svg Not done please do so, though

  • "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.

Yes check.svg Done It is clearly established that the Hack and Passaic are rivers; it is common to call rivers "the"

  • The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.

X mark.svg Not done combing could possibly create confusion about what reason for maintenance: the weight or lack of concrete jacking. Clear as written

  • Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."

Yes check.svg Done removed

  • The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.

Yes check.svg Done fixed

  • "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence

Yes check.svg Doneannouncement in January; "end of year" would not be specific enough, thus named "end of 2013" consistent with Wikipedia:DATED

  • The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.

Yes check.svg Done split

  • "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.

Yes check.svg Done fixed

  • "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?

Yes check.svg Done fixed Per source: "Construction began a year ago, and was expected to be finished by April 2016. A new completion date has not been determined yet." at end of the same added

  • References 3 and 103 are dead links.

Yes check.svg Doneref 3 de-linked, 103 not dead link

  • The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.

Yes check.svg DoneMap focus supports statement: Google Maps includes the Route 139 eastern approach.Google (October 16, 2010). "Jersey City, NJ" (Map). Google Maps. Google. Retrieved October 16, 2010. 

  • Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.

Yes check.svg Done location= Hoboken, NJ added

  • Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.

Yes check.svg Done removed

  • Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source.

Yes check.svg Done removed Djflem (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll reiterate that everything above is ignoring some fundamental issues with the article, and unless those issues are discussed, we're just doing work to text that will end up trimmed, summarized or even outright deleted. Imzadi 1979  09:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • With regard to above:
  • There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.

but bit of a non-issue since many FA articles are continually be edited such, as Statue of Liberty, a FA with lt more hits than Pulaski Skyway, has had 120 revisions since October 2014; this article has had 56; but the point is, especially since you mention:

  • There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status

which would make sense since that time, the specifics of it the reconstruction have come to light as has the political backlash for it's funding

  • The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.

which which is long and would make sense since, as mentioned above, Pulaski Skyway#Rehabilitation covers a $billion reconstruction of the which is no small undertaking; it covers the reasons why it's being rebuilt, how it's being re-built, the alternatives to traffic while it's being re-built, and the political scandal that springs from the funding. While there is no WP:UNDUE issues (do you contend that there are differing points of view about the facts being presented/), can you be specific as to why it is too long and what should be removed?

  • There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues,

but the last edit made by that person was in April 2014: 140 revisions ago & the work has greatly changed since then.

Your statements, while clear, do not address improvements to the article with regard to content, style, and structure. Without specific concerns as to what appears Wikipedia:Published in the Wikipedia:Namespace, there seems little to be done with your concerns. Can you please state exactly what is wrong with the with the article in regard to Wikipedia:Content policies Djflem (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC. The paragraph on tolls looks incomplete: the last sentence should have a source or explain why tolls were not implemented. I'm not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue, given that not much appears to have happened in the history of the skyway: it was built, it stood, cars drove over it, it was shut for repairs, etc. Once the design and construction is covered, there's only a limited amount one can write about what happened during its years of use. As work on the article seems to have stalled, without obvious consensus on the article's status, I think we have to move to declarations. DrKay (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    It is unclear why you have moved this to FARC. The article is not stalled. You will note that where specific issues have been brought up, they have been addressed. Other commentary has been about "concerns" which have not been articulated in a way that express any reasoning for what the specific problem/solution is or have been thoughts or opinions based on personal taste. Other observation and broad generalisations have not been constructive or instructive about making improvements to the article. As seen above, the editor who suggested other changes has been asked to clarify on this page what their wishes are and to react to responses given to those wishes. (By the way, those concerns were never brought to the article talk page, where they should been hashed-out. They were presented as an afterthought in Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, a closed discussion was posted there). The editor has time to do so, so the lack of response IS consensus. I have waited for answers to questions as to how to handle statements for which are no sources to verify, but none have been forthcoming, and therefore, they have been removed. Any discussion about the claims about UNDUE cannot be talked about without there being an rationale as why they are being made, which has not been offered, thus not fulfilling the criteria for a to proceed from FAR to FARC.Djflem (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - While many of the minor concerns I brought up were addressed, there are still major concerns with the article that need to be touched upon for this to remain a FA, including the undue weight given to the rehabilitation, unsourced information, and poor structure. Since it seems no one wants to address the major issues, we need to move this article to FARC. Dough4872 15:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    You will have to be more specific than the vague statement you have made above as you are stating opinion, but not backing it up with anything substantive. It appears most the items you brought up have been dealt with. Others are just a matter of preference for a writing style, which is a perogative. Please explain which issues are not addressed and why they should be, particularly in regard to the following. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section. Please explain why it would be better to present the material as you propose; otherwise your claims of improvement cannot be considered constructive. Also, please explain what and why you find the rehabilitation section has undue weight, citing exactly what you are talking about, as is stated above you have not "not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue".Djflem (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC—the only progress here so far is some minor polishing and window dressing, yet substantive issues related to weight of coverage remain untouched. There doesn't seem to be any interest in tackling those substantive issues, so I don't foresee this remaining as a FA at this time. Imzadi 1979  19:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't move to FARC Inappropriate at this time since no explanation, justification, or rationale has been given to any of the claims made re:substantive issues on this or Talk:Pulaski Skyway. As stated per Wikipedia:Featured article review

The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.

This has not happened. Firstly, there is conflict with regards to [[Wikipedia:UNDUE as there are no opposing point of view about the simple facts presented. Further, the comments made do not provide for changes that are actionable, as explained in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions. Djflem (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

@Djflem: we generally only conclude Review sections as Keep if it is striaghtforward. Moving it here doesn't mean it is demoted, but it can undergo a more protracted editing period to ensure it gets sufficient time to be worked on (sometimes months...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's clear. So why move an article it to FARC if the review is not complete? If there are concerns they should be expressed by those who have them in such a way that other editors can address them, no? Djflem (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Victor12, Materialscientist, Peru Wikiproject

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because...the article no longer meets the standards.

  1. The history has become too long and with focus on random areas (such as Inca worship and Fujimori inflation statistics).
  2. Citations are missing from several parts of the article. For example, foreign relations and military sections.
  3. Too much focus is placed on unimportant topics, such as water supply and sanitation, making for a terrible structure.
  4. The reference formats are too inconsistent.
  5. Demographic statistics are of dubious neutrality, especially when considering the complex racial structure of the country.
  6. Too many images, causing excessive text sandwiching.
  7. The article is wordy as a whole and does not follow WP:Summary guidelines.

These are just a few of the many problems in the article. Unfortunately, it no longer meets the criteria for FA status.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where you have followed step 1 of the FAR process (raising issues directly on the talk page and giving editors a chance to respond). --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Laser! Good to see you again. I made a comment on several of these same issues back in July 2014 ([6]), these include: the references, the use of images, the increasing use of text contrary to summary guidelines. None of these points were addressed at the time, despite promises by an editor working in the article to do so, and the article has fallen under further disarray. Victor12, the editor who had the most extensive knowledge of the topic, as well as being the article's original FA nominator, seems to have stopped editing Wikipedia (except for a few, minor and sporadic edits)—at this time, nobody is addressing other important points raised in the talk page ([7] and [8]).
I'd volunteer to work on the article and fix it, but have no time at present (in addition to being tied to an AN/I issue that is taking away what is left of my free time in WP). The article's FA status may be giving the wrong impression to potential editors who can help it. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. No-one working on it. DrKay (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Moved here as no action for one week since DrKay's comment above. Article's length as such is 36 kb readable prose, which is within generally accepted article size limits. Outstanding concerns are five dead links, and unreferenced segments. Image rationalisation may be needed as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist. Unsourced statements include, but are no means limited to, "resistance was suppressed when the Spaniards annihilated [the Incas]", "the church came to play an important role in the acculturation of the natives", "massive native depopulation", and "reduced the power, prominence and importance of Lima". Entire paragraphs have no sources, or are sourced to "" and "", which do not appear to meet the criterion for high-quality reliable sources. Potentially non-neutral statements without counter-balancing comments include "people were forcefully converted", "the church employed the Inquisition, making use of torture", "marred by atrocities", "symbols of the human rights violations", and comparing "free and fair" elections with "tainted" ones without providing a source. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


Also note: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tamil people/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tamil people

Notified: Vadakkan, Sundar, Subramanian, Wikiproject India, Wikiproject Dravidian civilizations, Wikiproject Tamil civilization

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review. The article has been a prime candidate for FAR since 2010 and at that time Dana boomer and I had some discussion on getting this here. However, I didn't follow through on time. We've had posts about some of the problems on the talk page: Nov 2010, Oct 2013, Talk:Tamils#Featured Article Review. The major issues include (a)quality of sources used within the article, (b)image use -- while copyright vios are a regular concern, the random use of images without context is also a problem (c)Undue weight to certain aspects, including synthesis of information from external sources, (d) some copyvios have been inserted into the article and have stayed in for a while (a deeper check is still needed). I have also started a deeper source evaluation here; hoping it would be ready by the time we go to FARC. —SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I was hoping this would get some comments. Personally I don't think this is an easy fix, the history is complex and over the years a lot of unsourced content has been dropped in front of references. There's a lot of OR and POV stuff that's being edit warred over even during this review.—SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. Sourcing, stability and copyright problems. A couple of years ago, I tried to fix up Azerbaijanis and eventually gave up after a large amount of work because it proved to be a wasteful time sink. This article appears to be suffering in a similar way, and I doubt it will be possible to fix it through this process. DrKay (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Got to know about the FAR just today. Agree, the quality of the article has come down in the recent years. May I ask to kindly allow a reasonable period of time? Vensatry (ping) 06:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

I note recent editing by blocked users. The articles's size and broadness/complexity means it needs a detailed FARC to come though with its star intact. Concerns are fidelity to sourcing, stability and risk/presence of copyvios. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, but that's only one part of the whole mess. If you see this revert of mine (since reinserted) you'll notice how some of the POV nonsense is taking over the article:
    • "The Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka reflected some elements of Tamil martial traditions which included worship of fallen heroes (Maaveerar Naal) and practice of martial suicide. They carried a Suicide pill around their neck to escape the captivity and torture."
    • "A remarkable feature besides to their willingness to sacrifice is, that they were well organized and disciplined. It was forbidden for the rebels to consume tobaccos, alcohols, drugs and to have sexual relationship."
  • It is really unfortunate as this is a subject that has significant scholarly study, but over the past three to four years the article has become a place to promote fringe perspectives and most editors who've been interested in maintaining this article have simply given up. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced statements from February 2011; dead external links from August 2015; apparently unsourced weasel words, such as "what is considered to be folk Hinduism"; mixture of American and British spelling; inclusion of material in the lead that is not found in the article body. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Any update here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Georg Forster[edit]

Notified: Kusma, WP Libraries, WP Germany, WP Plants, WP Journalism, WP Birds
URFA nom.

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standard; it has uncited text and some MOS issues, as mentioned on talk in April 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe in the future you could ping the appropriate projects, rather than just putting a comment on the talk page and hoping someone might notice? We didn't know there was a problem until you pinged us today with news of the review. :P Will see what I can do. MeegsC (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm thrilled to see people descending on the article for improvements, even though the talk page notice was ignored for more than two weeks, indicating that we had another older unwatched FA. Meegs, your suggestion is impractical for many reasons, which we could take up at WT:FAR (so as not to muck up this page) if you are interested. Please keep in mind that one of the main objectives of FAR is to improve articles, and being here is not a "punishment". Also, I hope you've noted from the FAR instructions that we can KEEP without FARC, which is an outcome that delights most of us here ;) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I am a bit busy IRL these days, and do not have much wikitime to dedicate to this right now, especially not without a bit more detail on what is wrong. As I haven't kept track of everything that happened at MOS: could you point me to the major issues that you see? Also, not every sentence is followed by an inline citation, but if you could tell me where you would expect additional citations I am happy to go hunting through my Forster biographies. Sadly, my current university library doesn't seem to have a copy of Saine's biography, but I'll see what I can do. —Kusma (t·c) 13:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes-- happy to see people willing to work here! I will start a list, not yet comprehensive, and add to it as issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your list. I'll try to improve the messiness. Fortunately, there actually are page numbers in most citations to Saine's biography, but they are visible only in the wikitext, not in the displayed result. I do not recall why this is the case and whether they used to be displayed when the article passed FA. On the whole, the article has been quite stable since it became a FA, but I certainly agree it no longer looks like the best we can do. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • spaced WP:EMDASHes ... the article should use either unspaced WP:EMDASHes or spaced WP:ENDASHes.
  • What is the order of the Works section? Alpha, chrono?
  • Book sources need page nos.
  • Citations do not have a consistent style (as but one example, look at the many different ways author names are rendered)
  • Citations are incomplete or incorrently written. All sources need a publisher, all websources need an accessdate, and author and date should be supplied whenever available, also ...
    • [2], English translation at (archived link, 19 July 2008) needs to be cleaned up to a correct citation.
  • Check image captions (for example, The Pinnacle of liberty, A satire by James Gillray)
  • Italics should not be used here, and I'm wondering if this can be reversed (that is, put the English version, with a footnote to the original ???) ("The freedom of the press finally reigns within these walls where the printing press was invented.) See WP:NONENG. That is one sentence: I don't think it needs a pull quote, but Maralia may know better.
  • There's sort of a mess everywhere in terms of WP:ITALICS in relation to words as words, translations, quotes, etc:
    • called "Freunde der Freiheit und Gleichheit" ("Friends of Freedom and Equality")
  • Avoid WP:OVERLINK on common terms known to most English speakers and not needed for understanding of this article (samples, Latin, England, philosophy, there is more) and link on first occurrence.

This is not a complete list, but is enough to get started. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


  • Fixed all dead links, captions and a few overlinks.
  • Improved dash-usage (opted for spaced en-dash), but this will need another look (especially in refs).
  • WP:ITALICS, "page numbers and other ref details", and "sorting of works" in a meaningful way is above my paygrade.
  • I could try to transform references into cite-templates - if nobody is objecting against that citation style. Only a minority of references use cite-templates currently. GermanJoe (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC to keep on progress. Is anyone willing/able to finish this up? There are still inconsistent citations, minor amounts of united text, italics issues (e.g. quotes), and Overlinking, at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    I am still giving this 100% of my wikitime, but that hasn't been much at all (travelling, work, sick kids). I hope I'll get through the citations next week. —Kusma (t·c) 06:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, Kusma; I will be traveling for a few weeks if you don't hear back from me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kusma: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Back from the dead (marking exams and other business meaning no wikitime at all), back to normal not-enough wikitime. Will report on progress as it happens, hopefully during July. —Kusma (t·c) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I am having difficulties with the "Works" section, it is a completely random mess in my opinion. I am uncertain how to best approach it between OR and copyvio concerns. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Why not just remove the works section then? FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Would anybody object if it is gone? —Kusma (t·c) 18:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe I am saying that, but the list should stay imo. Granted, it is a bit messy and borderline-useless for most average readers, but someone interested in in-depth research about Forster may find the information useful. I trimmed a few entries with no conceivable immediate usage and sorted the list. GermanJoe (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It does look a lot better (thank you!) and does not compare too poorly to some other Works section in FA-class biographies. Something like Charles Darwin bibliography, while desirable, should not be necessary here. —Kusma (t·c) 14:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have cleaned up some of the more obvious problems with citations, switched to "surname, given name" format, and removed the optional publisher locations. Unfortunately several of the references include non-standard information and additional remarks, where I have no real clue how to improve them - or if it's even necessary. And I lack all of the older sources to add eventually missing details. Another look on the reference progress and additional advice would be great. I hope, we can give old articles a bit of leeway :), but can clean up some more if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

I have moved this here to clarify who thinks what about whether this article is kept or removed. So please comment here if you think it now meets FA criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The notes are still a bit of a mess, with lots of problems in formatting and consistency. I'll start going through them as I have time, and then I'll do a read-through of the prose for any other problems. I'm hoping we don't have problems with missing page numbers from inaccessible sources. --Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems to be within criteria now. DrKay (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Laser brain: can you let me know your feelings on the article now? I am keeping a coordinator hat on so I can close this....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway[edit]

Notified: Michael (original nominator, retired), Jj98, WP Buses, Australia noticeboard
URFA nom
Talk page notice Jan 2015

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has been tagged for a year as outdated. There are other issues, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

The review section concerned the article's datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Needs updating and copy-editing. Unaddressed concerns with sourcing and comprehensiveness on the talk page: Talk:O-Bahn Busway#FA Concerns. DrKay (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - This needs a fair amount of work. In addition to other text previously tagged as outdated, the fares are out of date. The claim "The O-bahn design is unique among public transport systems..." seems to have been invalidated by the 2011 debut of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Some attention is needed to representations of money: Australian dollar is not linked until the sixth section of the article; some figures are given as A$ while others are simply $; and no conversions are given at all. The See also and External links sections need pruning. The citations need work: there's a bare url, a dead link, missing accessdates, and an undefined source (UBD Adelaide?). Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hold, improving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I am going to be traveling and may not have internet access (don't know yet); once Maralia is satisfied, I'm satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A couple of us have put some work in to returning it to standard, but none of us are FA experts, so are really only responding to specific concerns, not the general principles. Any additional advice and assistance would be welcome, although it may be too late now. --Scott Davis Talk 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I will be out all day, but will look in this weekend. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Too much happening in this image caption, it took me a long time to figure out what it was trying to say: "Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied Mercedes-Benz O305 on the O-Bahn guide-way".
  • Is this hyphen an Austrlian or English thing? "city's rapidly expanding north-eastern suburbs".
  • Per WP:V, how would one go about verifying sources like these ?
    • Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson
    • Busway Information, Paper Three: Operational Strategy, South Australian Department of Transport (1983)
      • Are these published documents or some sort of in-house thing?
  • Where is this information from the lead cited in the article?
    • The Adelaide O-bahn was the first bus rapid transit system in Australia and among the first to operate in the world.
  • Is there any problem with the simpler language of:
    • The population of Adelaide more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • instead of:
    • Adelaide has had significant population growth since the industrial expansion following World War II, with the population having more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • In addition to the growing population, there was an explosion in the number of new motor vehicle registrations, a 43-fold increase in the period from 1944–65. This was fuelled by nation-wide full employment, annual economic growth close to 10%, and the discontinuation of government fuel rationing after World War II.
    • More unnecessary verbiage which sounds like a political promotion.
  • There have been a number of proposals to extend ...
    • is sourced to 1983, suggesting the article still needs updating (what happened with that)?
  • On a quick skim, I didn't find current usage/ridership/whatever data.
  • Sentences should not start with numbers.
  • Convoluted bodied bodied bodies ... I don't know what it's saying:
    • Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied 41 rigid and 51 articulated bodied buses, their cost included in the original $98 million budget.
  • These along with a single Mercedes-Benz O405NH make up today's fleet.
    • No as of date, no idea what "today" refers to, and an incomplete citation, with no date as a clue.
  • Biodiesel fuel was trialled between July 2005 and May 2006.
    • And ???

In summary, there are prose issues, but more significantly, I am still concerned about needed updates, and quite a few of the citations are incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: are you still following? More than a week has passed ... I am still at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks, sorry, I thought I had! @ScottDavis: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry @SandyGeorgia: - I had seen your more detailed notes but not had time to look at them and the article properly since you posted them. Thank you, I'll try to address some in the next few days. I hope that @BarossaV: might drop back in to help too, but he/she might be away as they haven't edited for over a week. --Scott Davis Talk 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Review response

Thank you for the detailed review. I have attempted to address most of your points, and perhaps a few others I saw for myself.

  • I think I have trimmed and simplified the captions
  • Yes. north-east is spelled with a hyphen in Australian English (ref: Macquarie Dictionary online)
  • I have not found those documents online, not sure if that shows I didn't look hard enough, or if they are only available in hard copy somewhere due to their age. a comment on the Railpage forum confirms that one of them exists and can be found from that reference.
  • I deleted the sentence about first BRT - I think it is probably true, but I have never heard it called that, so unlikely to find a reference that it was first, other than a complete list with start dates, if such exists.
  • Thank you for the suggested simpler language. I think I went further in a few other places too.
  • No extensions have eventuated, so references are simply to a selection of proposals. Something might come of the current proposal to add a tunnel or lanes closer to the city, but the consultation is not complete yet, so it probably won't look exactly like the concept drawings. If anything, I'd like to shorten that section to avoid undue weight, but I think it needs to remain in some form.

Thank you for the help on this article. I don't know if I've done enough to save its FA status, but I'm certain it has improved through the review process from where it was when it was nominated for review. --Scott Davis Talk 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for continuing, ScottDavis, and for the improvements; I can give it another pass to see where we stand, if you indicate that you are committed to restoring it to standard. If not, I'm unsure if I should invest the time, so please let me know of your availability to continue work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes @SandyGeorgia:, I am prepared to continue working on it. Thank you for helping. I don't have easy access to resources that are not online though, so I can't verify or expand the citations for things that are cited to documents without URLs from the 1980s. --Scott Davis Talk 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. The WP:LEAD is short and doesn't adequately summarize the article, but the work of finishing the lead is usually best left to last, after content in the body is nailed down.
  2. In the "See also" section, I suspect that Bus rapid transit could be linked somewhere in the article and removed from See also, but I'm unsure where to link it.
  3. Citation consistency, some have author first, some have author at end, some have author last name first, some have author first name first ... pick on :)
    • (author is last here). Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson ... and this is missing publisher ... where does one locate this document?
    • First name last name. Susan Marsden. "Hindmarsh – a short history". Professional Historians Association (SA). p. 23. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
    • Last name, first name. Donovan, Peter (1991). Highways: A History of the South Australian Highways Department. Griffin Press Limited. ISBN 0-7308-1930-2. (Books need page numbers)
    • tom name ? Pengelley, Jill; Zed, tom (16 October 2009). "South Road Superway to connect Regency Rd, Port River Expressway". The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  4. More citation consistency, some of the citations are rendered by manual (rather than template), and there is no consistent punctuation ... for example,
    Hunt for O-Bahn fleet Adelaide Advertiser 29 September 2007
    has no punctuation whatsoever, while other citations have periods after title and publisher. All of the citations should use the same format ... preferably with punctuation :)
  5. Missing accessdates ... these things change ... Route 500 timetable Adelaide Metro ... and again, no punctuation ... you all might discuss whether you would rather use citation templates for consistency.
  6. It is not clear that all of the External links are necessary ...
Prose (this is not a comprehensive list ... skipping around for samples)
  1. "developed with American assistance" ... US ? Venezuelan? Argentine? All are America ... unclear what is meant here, government, private enterprise ? Vague.
  2. The same as problem as before ... excess wordiness ... why not instead of:
    • A transport blueprint, developed with American assistance, was presented to the government in 1968: the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS).
    • A transport blueprint, the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS), was developed with assistance from (??) in 1968.
  3. Isn't "abandonment" kind of a one-time thing? How do successive governments abandon something? The plan was abandoned by successive governments, ...
  4. alluvial soil could probably be wikilinked ...
  5. comma ? On some sections 115 km/h (71 mph) was achieved in tests.

This article is definitely improving, and you're on the right track, but I suggest that @Tony1: might help on the prose matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Maralia:, @DrKay:, fresh eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, getting better. I removed three external links (one was about transport in Adelaide generally; another was a personal website that had only 3 images; and the last literally did not mention the O-Bahn). I also took care of the rest of the citation formatting. Agree that some prose work is still needed, but this is getting close. I've struck my delist comment above. Thanks for your work, ScottDavis; just a little more tightening for clarity, along the lines of SG's "Prose" list immediately above. Maralia (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: Thanks for taking care of the specific issues mentioned above. This is getting close to ready, but the prose isn't quite there yet. I undertook a major rewrite of the Planning section in an attempt to demonstrate a more logical flow. I still think this article would benefit from a full copyedit. Maralia (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Maralia: I have read through and tweaked a few phrases, but I suspect I've reached the limit of my ability. The "Expansion proposals" section feels very long and somewhat incidental. It also seems to assume a fair bit of knowledge of Adelaide landmarks and geography. To someone reading from further away, does the article lose anything significant by deleting the heading and first three paragraphs of that section? --Scott Davis Talk 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have stalled, but while the issues with the original article at the time of its writing seem to generally have been fixed, I think it's out of date. There is no mention of the extension in the lede, and gets all of two sentences in the article, which seems drastically short since it's both politically controversial and probably the signature public transport policy of this term of the Weatherill government. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

My reason for not putting any more about the current proposal to extend is that it is currently still only a proposal. I agree there could be an update that there are now four versions of the proposal in 2015, but it doesn't belong in the lead until it is actually happening; there have been many other proposals that have not eventuated. The political controversy probably belongs just as much in Rymill Park or Weatherill government. I need help from someone else to polish the text further, as FA-standard text is not what I usually practice. --Scott Davis Talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I can understand it not going in the lede on that basis, but there still needs to be more details in the relevant section of the article since it is a significant political issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the quality of the text is fine.--Grahame (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. FARC section open for 4 months with no substantive delist votes remaining. DrKay (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


  • is a self-published source.
  • Last two sentences of the second paragraph of Development not sourced
  • First paragraph of Buses is not sourced
  • The article would really benefit from a map of the route
  • I would expect a more detailed route desription for the busway – from one end of it to the other, describe the direction it travels in, features it passes, type of development around it, suburbs it goes through, etc. See the route descriptions of Kwinana Freeway, Great Eastern Highway, Forrest Highway for some examples of how a route from point A to point B can be described – readers should be able have a basic idea of what a journey on the route is like.
  • The Route table, which uses {{AUSinttop}}, can have an interchange column turned on. This will allow the location column to be used for the actual suburbs, which is its purpose.
  • Does any reference show the distances ad being exactly 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 km? If not, don't use a false precision.
  • Converted speed limits should be rounded to the nearest 5 – the extra precision doesn't serve any purpose for readers
  • In terms of structure/organisation, I would usually put a description-type section first, before a history-type section. This allows readers, especially those not familiar with the subject or area, to understand more of and have some context of what is discussed in the history section.
  • The lead is meant to summarise the article, and so there shouldn't be information in there that isn't in the rest of the article – I don't see O-Bahn etymology, passenger capacity, operated by Light-City Buses, and current passenger numbers elsewhere in the article.
  • The lead seems quite short and an inadequate summary of the article – whole sections aren't mentioned at all (Effects on local development, Environment).
  • Has an infobox been considered? {{Infobox rail line}} has some appropriate fields, and allows ones that aren't applicable to be skipped. The route diagram could also go in the infobox.

Those are the more major issues issues I can see – I haven't done a full check for MOS or other minor/copyediting issues. - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to attempt to address all of those at once tonight, but am making a start...
  • OzRoads is a secondary reference for two points about the MATS plan, the text probably is suitable by just removing it, but they are offline sources difficult to access.
  • It appears the unreferenced sentences were referenced until a significant copyedit in April seems to have just dropped the reference, so I have put it back.
  • I've cited the first sentence of that paragraph, haven't found a WP:RS for the rest yet.
  • I've tried making a few maps for Wikipedia, but my computer system is not really up to the job yet. I think the SA roads datasets has the relevant data with a suitable licence. I hope to get a suitable computer within 12 months.
I've learned a new parameter for {{convert}} - thanks :-)
Route table, lead and infobox can wait for another session.
--Scott Davis Talk 14:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@ScottDavis: and @Jj98:, do you feel you've covered all of @Evad37:'s issues raised above. I don't think leaving this open a few more weeks is a problem if we are in striking distance of keep territory. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the nudge @Casliber:. I had thought I had addressed @Evad37:'s issues, but have made a couple of new edits to the lead section after looking with fresh eyes today. The "O-Bahn City Access Project" also now addresses comments from @SandyGeorgia: months ago, and @The Drover's Wife: before any certainty that the extension would go ahead this time. --Scott Davis Talk 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)