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 prior to a nomination. 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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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.



Smooth toadfish[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This article got a detailed GA review. It's not very big so am confident I can deal with issues promptly. I scoured everything I could for info, so gaps reflect gaps in real knowledge....have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

NB: wikicup nomination. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 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)

History of York City F.C. (1908–80)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This article details the history of York City Football Club, an association football club based in York, England, from 1908 to 1980. This nomination comes on the back of the successful FAC for Bootham Crescent, the club's ground, and as part of my drive to improve the York City F.C. featured topic. The article has held GA status since December 2007, and upon its recent expansion was copyedited by Baffle gab1978 of the WP:GOCE. Thanks in advance, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Schmerber v. California[edit]

Nominator(s): Notecardforfree (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important United States Supreme Court cases of the twentieth century. In Schmerber, the Court established that police cannot forcibly intrude into the human body (i.e. by taking blood samples, taking tissue samples, or forcing people to undergo surgery) without a warrant. The Court also established that physical evidence taken from the body is not "testimonial" and the prosecution's use of such evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment's protections against forced self-incrimination. I have used the Bluebook citation style for this article, which is the prefered citation style for legal scholarship. Although many editors dislike Bluebook, it is a perfectly acceptible citation style, per MOS:LAW and WP:CITEVAR (it has also been used by other Featured Articles, such as United States v. Kagama and United States v. Washington). Thank you in advance for everyone who reviews this! Notecardforfree (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Atsme[edit]

Nicely written. Will comment further after I do a little copyediting. Atsme📞📧 21:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Per FA criteria:

  • prose is of a professional standard;
  • comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • 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;
  • neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
  • 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.
  • It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    • a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    • appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;
    • Bluebook ref acceptable
    • 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.
  • Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

Final Fantasy Type-0[edit]

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... Final Fantasy Type-0, a game in the Final Fantasy series released for the PlayStation Portable (PSP) on October 27, 2011. It was produced and published by Square Enix, and forms part of the Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy subseries. The original PSP game was not released outside Japan, and relevant information for its localized HD remaster Final Fantasy Type-0 HD has been given its own article. The article was nominated for and passed GA review in September of this year. It has undergone copyedits from multiple editors, all references are as clearly formatted as possible and archived using sites that enable the archived pages to work as best as possible. I feel that this article is ready to be submitted to FA review. ProtoDrake (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

India House[edit]

rueben lys(s): rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an Indian nationalist organisation that existed in London in the first decade of the 20th century. It is a slightly overlooked but important topic, in being the first prominent arena of nationalist works of a number of Indians who later became famous for various different reasons. Most famous amongst these people is V.D. Savarkar, but there is also leaders like Har Dayal, M.P.T. Acharya, V.N. Chatterjee and others who are associated with different political thoughts in India. The article failed FAC twice in the past almost seven years ago because of prose. It has remained stable since. I copy edited it recently to improve prose on the back of two other copy edits in the past by other editors. Would like to see this article meet FA criteria. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FAC Coordinator's Comment - there are too many unsourced statements throughout the article; there should be no none. There are problems with the formatting (click on refs 2,7,11,26,31,33,36,44,52,73,and 85 for examples) and there are unused sources in the references. Graham Beards (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have addressed the references now (as many as I could identify). If you highlight which sentences maybe require citations, I will try to find these ASAP.
One dead link, which I have tagged, remains along with the unused sources. Graham Beards (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou Graham. The dead link has now been replaced with literature ref. Unused sources have been removed.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

A few initial observations:

  • You say in the text: "India House was a large Victorian Mansion..." etc. As the house is very much still there, the present tense should be used. The word "mansion" should not be capitalised; I don't thinbk the pipe-link to Victorian architecture is particularly helpful to readers.
  • There is too much use of the phrase "such as", throughout the article, sometimes in very close proximity – see "Indian nationalism in Britain" section. Try and use some variant phrasing.
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, you include a list of "prominent Indian revolutionaries and nationalists associated with India House". Of these, " V. V. S. Aiyar" is not mentioned in the body of the article at all, while "V.N. Chatterjee" and "P.M. Bapat" are only mentioned once, in passing, from which I must assume that their association with India House was fleeting. AS the lead is supposed to highlight the most significant aspects of the text, maybe you should reconsider the inclusion of these marginal names.
  • Incidentally, you need to be consistent in formatting the initials in names: V. V. S. Aiyar has spacing while other names do not. Choose one format (the spaceless one is much preferred)
  • In the final paragraph of the lead, the first sentence needs re-punctuating: "In 1909 a member of India House, Madan Lal Dhingra, assassinated..." etc. You should also wikilink Secretary of State for India.
  • "Countermeasures" is one word, not two.

These are minor issues in what appears to be a well constructed and comprehensive article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Brian,

  • India house "was" is now corrected to "is".
  • "Such as" is now appropriately reworded.
  • Name formatting has been consisten(~ified, for want of a better suffix)
  • The members mentioned in the lead are mentioned in the body as well, either in the transformation section or in the world war I section. V.N. Chatterjee is perhaps a bit undementioned but his role in wwi is more notable.
  • Secretary of state is already wikilinked (or an elf has done this interim).
  • Countermeasures oneworded.

rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Frank Jenner[edit]

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an English Australian street evangelist who was little-known while he was alive but whose story became widely repeated and distorted after his death. The article received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors and was later promoted to good status. Neelix (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Hi Neelix, welcome back to FAC. It's fine by me that this article was initially tagged with the WP:Milhist cat ... because you never know, sources might have been found that added details to his military career. But it hasn't happened yet ... apparently, the sources don't say much more about his military career than that he deserted from two navies and bought his way out of a third ... so I don't believe this meets the bar for Milhist-tagged articles, and I've removed the tag. I'm open to hearing other ideas, though. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this article, Dan! I don't mind that you've removed the Military History WikiProject tag from the article's talk page. If you have any further thoughts about the article, please let me know! Neelix (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jaguar[edit]

  • "When he was 24, he deserted again, this time in Australia." - did he desert from the United States Navy to the Australian Navy?
  • "but after he died, tales of his evangelistic activities circulated widely" - I'm not sure if 'tales' sounds informal or not, but feel free to ignore if I'm wrong
  • " in Southampton, Hampshire, England, United Kingdom" - this is too much. I'd remove either 'England' or 'United Kingdom' (also in the infobox)
  • "but deserted in New York City, New York, United States" - too much here again! I would remove either 'New York' or 'United States'
  • "Jenner's daughter said in an interview" - stated
  • "the United States Navy took him to Melbourne, Australia, and he deserted again" - this gives me the wrong impression that the United States Navy specifically took him to Melbourne. Were they on a training exercise etc?
  • "in 1937 when he was legally discharged from the navy" - the lead doesn't mention that he joined the Australian Navy nor that he bought his way out
  • "they returned to Sydney on SS Oronsay" - I think the SS Oronsay is linked incorrectly
  • "Stanton went on to found the Jesus Army" - when? In what year did he found it? It also would be interesting to know if Jenner had an influence with the Jesus Army
  • You might want to consider the option of using either British or Australian spelling for this article, given that they have an equal amount of ties to this subject. Personally I'm neutral with it, but it's just something to give you a heads-up over just in case other reviewers mention it

That's what I could find with the prose, other than that though this is another excellent and interesting article. Well done on writing this! A couple of the points I mentioned were minor, so you can ignore them if you want. JAGUAR  18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sonam Kapoor[edit]

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the "Masakali girl", a not-so-good actress, yet a fashion icon. It was reviewed and promoted straight away by the user Jaguar on October 2015 for GA. Anyway, the article is pretty comprehensive as it covers important aspects of her life and career. This is my first attempt for FAC (not for featured as I have already a bunch of FLs under my belt). The article is well-researched. Comments, in any form and from anyone, will be very much appreciated. Happy reading! -- Frankie talk 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash[edit]

I have some comments to make, but I'll examine the article first. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to point out errors, but I have cleaned the prose up a bit. Please tell me if you like it. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that! :) -- Frankie talk 15:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher[edit]


  • "Kapoor has been nominated for three Filmfare Awards and won two Stardust Awards." Only filmfare and National awards should be mentioned.
  • Because she has only been nominated for Filmfare, and she has only won Stardust Awards.
  • Delhi-6 (2009) is not a political drama, it's more like a comedy drama.
  • This says otherwise.
  • "She also featured briefly in the highly successful biographical sports film Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013)"...The word "highly" should be removed.

Early life and background

  • "Her sister is producer Rhea, and actor Harshvardhan is her brother." Harshavardhan hasn't acted in a single film yet. Is it wise to call him an actor.!?
  • Mention her relation with actress Sridevi.
  • I don't think she is the relative of Sridevi; she is only her uncle's wife.
  • "As a child, she was interested in reading books, and was a bibliophile." Looks trivial to me.
  • Being a bibliophile seems quite notable to me.
  • "For health concerns, she visited Jindal Health Camp in Banglore." Again.
  • The media does not have info on whether she was treated after her diabetes or not, and I believe this is the only info available on her treatment regarding diabetes.

Debut and career fluctuations

  • Is it important to include Stardust Award for Superstar of Tomorrow – Female? coz in india, every channel has there own awards and they'r not important.
  • Yeah, as this is the only award, which she won.
  • There is a repeat use of the sentence "The film underperformed at the box-office." You can replace one of them with "the film failed at the box-office", or "it was a box-office disappointment."

Personal life and other work

  • "The actress currently lives in Juhu, Mumbai." Why not include this in the early life and background section?
  • That section already says that she moved to Juhu while a month old.
  • Mentioning her relationship with Ranbir Kapoor, Sahil Berry sounds like a gossip column stuff. They didn't lasted long enough unlike Shahid-Kareena.
  • Nope, they have been widely reported in the media. Although they (she and her boyfriends) haven't acknowledged, it's important to know what the media has reported.

In the media

  • Her opinion on her approach to acting doesn't looks relevant to "In the media" section". It should only include opinion's of other's about her.
  • I think it's important to know on what basis she chooses roles.
  • IMO this section has too much quotes, please remove one of them atleast.
  • I can't remove or paraphrase them as the media section is always about this; what they think of her. @Yashthepunisher: I have paraphrased a quote from the section. I can not think of paraphrasing (or removing) other quotes as they are pretty important ones and some things are best when original. -- Frankie talk 15:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Yashthepunisher. I have resolved the rest. -- Frankie talk 14:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • FrB.TG, thank you for submitting this article for FAC. I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I do, however, have a few comments and suggestions that must first be addressed. Thank you for your hard work on this article! I have completed an image review and found no issues. The details of the image review are included in my comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you West Virginian for your excellent and comprehensive review. I have replied them in your capped comments. Also, I will try to return the favor by reviewing your FAC. -- Frankie talk 14:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support FrB.TG, thank you for your timely responses to my review. Upon my re-review of your article, I find that it is ready for Featured Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt[edit]

  1. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Image review: I as well have reviewed all the images. All check out except File:Sonam Kapoor Dheere Dheere Unveiling.jpg = tagged with: This image, which was originally posted to Bollywood Hungama, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid.
  3. Alongside her career, Kapoor supports charities and causes, such as creating awareness on breast cancer. = this sentence is oddly phrased for several reasons. "awareness on breast cancer" and "alongside her career" are awkwardly phrased.
  4. Early life and background - could be just titled more simply, Early life.
  5. Acting career - similarly the two subsection titles within this sect would be better if simpler titles used.
  6. "has become" ... "has been"... can be changed throughout the article to simpler "became" "was"
  7. They lived in an apartment with one room furnished. After her father became a popular Bollywood actor, he built the entire house. - you mean "furnished" the entire house? Was it not built before? Or not furnished?
  8. Kapoor was educated at the Arya Vidya Mandir school in Juhu,[13] following which she enrolled at the United World College of South East Asia in Singapore for her pre-university education, where she studied theatre and arts - sentence is a bit long, consider splitting.
  9. "However" = used eight (8) times in the article, consider removing these outright.
  10. "Also" = used twelve (12) times in the article, consider removing these and phrasing differently.
  11. According to Kapoor, she started working at the age of 15, and her first job was that of a waitress, which lasted for one week. = too much use of commas in this sentence, consider splitting.
  12. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Impression overall: Quite meticulously sourced, high-quality article for its present stage of WP:GA, which is good and I'm glad it reached that level -- so thank you to all for the Quality improvement efforts that went into improving this page for our Wikipedia readers. However, the writing quality could stand with some improvement from a few Native-English speakers and/or Professional-Level-English speakers. Specifically with regards to awkward phraseology, too much use of commas, "However", "Also", etc. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Thanks for your comments. The source (regarding furnishing the house) itself is quite unclear and we can not necessarily assume either. I have removed that. I have copy-edited the article. I am not going to request copy-edits from a "few" English speakers as I think the prose is now good enough. And most of the Indian articles are written this way (I have modeled it based on them). Please revisit and share your thoughts with me. Thanks. -- Frankie talk 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that was not a sufficient response. Many of the above issues are unaddressed. Just because some of the Indian articles are written this way and you modeled it based on them, does not mean this one should have sub-standard prose. I do wish you the best of luck -- but the article needs significant copy-editing from Native-English speakers or Professional-level-English speakers. — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia)[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is a comprehensive illustration of the history and architecture of a 19th-century church building, which houses a congregation founded in the 18th-century. The property is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I am eager to solicit and incorporate the input and guidance of other FAC editors and administrators. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – very good piece of work; however, I have got a few things. Could you define "Simple" for me in the alt text of the main image? "Hebron Church was founded in 1786 as Great Capon Church" – do you think that Great Capon Church should be in bold as from the sentence I assume it is its original "name". Also, could you archive two links in beige (not quite sure if beige or..) here? Additionally there are quite a few MOS:DASH violations in titles of references. -- Frankie talk 19:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FrB.TG, thank you for taking the time to engage in this FAC review. I've actually removed "simple" in favor of rendering the alt caption as: "The main façade of the church with two white doors and upper windows." I've also added "Great Capon Church" to the first sentence of the lede as an alternative name of the church. I had trouble archiving the two links before with Internet Archive, but I had success archiving both links with Webcite. I've also added the en dash to titles with year dates in them. Please let me know if you see anything else in the meantime, and thank you for your support. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I have a particular interest in historical churches, particularly those established by German immigrants to the United States. I seldom see one so well written me. I am seriously impressed by this article. — Maile (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Maile66, thank you for your appreciation and kind words, and for taking the time to review this article! If you like this one, you may want to check out Old Pine Church, a German Brethren church also in Hampshire County. I hope to bring this to FAC one day, too. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • "The original log church was … used as a sexton" – the linked article, and the three US English dictionaries I have just checked online, use the word "sexton" to mean a person and not a building. (The word is again used as though it meant a building in "Construction" in the main text.)
      • I've changed sexton to sexton's house, as that was the building's function according to the Brannon source on p. 477. Thank you for the catch! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • "attended by West Virginia governor Herman G. Kump" – really by the governor, or just the future governor?
      • I've changed governor to future governor in both mentions. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Geography and setting
    • "predominantly-rural agricultural" – not sure we want a hyphen here
      • The hyphen has been removed. Thank you for this catch, too! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Church interior
    • "Two inoperable stained-glass windows" – does the adjective mean that they can't be opened? Not altogether clear.
      • It does indeed. I've rephrased the sentence as this: "Two stained-glass windows, which cannot be opened, are along the northwest wall." Let me know this works better. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • References
    • On my screen there is a message at the foot of the refs: "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "Munske4" defined multiple times with different content"
      • I just noticed this myself, and I've corrected it. At some point two separate references became one. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. A remarkably thorough article, with the principal writer's enthusiasm for the subject very clear (and very enjoyable). – Tim riley talk 20:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Tim riley, thank you tremendously for taking the time to perform this review. Your catches, suggestions, and comments are greatly appreciated and I've incorporated all of them into the text. Please let me know if you gave any other comments or questions in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a substance that plays a very important role in biology; it receives several thousand page views per day. It is currently rated B class, but I've been through the FA process before and I think it's ready for nomination. Let me say a bit about the referencing scheme. The basic concept is that each sentence should cite a reference, with the exception of introductory material that serves only to introduce and summarize material appearing underneath. Thus the lead and several brief introductory paragraphs and introductory sentences don't have refs; they are supported by refs that appear in the following text. There are also a couple of "sky is blue" statements that don't cite sources, but with those exceptions, everything else ought to. I have tried to follow the principles of WP:MEDRS throughout, even though the article is only partly medical. Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment seems like the diagram for the dopamine pathways is missing the tuberoinfundibular pathway... Mattximus (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It omits a number of minor pathways -- it only shows the largest ones. The caption says "major dopamine pathways", but I suppose that could be further clarified if you think it would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well from the literature there are four major pathways and many minor pathways, and this picture has 3 of the major ones. No biggie, just a comment in passing. Mattximus (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Chiswick Chap[edit]

It's a nicely-organised article and it certainly looks well-cited.

The sections are each on meaty topics and it struck me that many of them ("Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder", "Drug Addiction", "Psychosis", to name but three) deserve a "main" or "further" link. In fact I'd suggest you might go through all the section headings to see if they need such a link, and to add links where needed.

There are inevitably plenty of acronyms. These should be spelt out the first time they occur in the body of the article; ADHD for instance occurs first (not counting the lead) as an acronym. Similarly in the diagrams and captions, for example DAT appears in the "Cocaine increases dopamine levels..." diagram without explanation, whether in the diagram, caption, or even the nearby text; a link would also be helpful.

It might be helpful to wikilink the first occurrences of terms in the image captions. For example, synapse, ventral tegmental area, substantia nigra, striatum, methamphetamine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't like to use a "main" when the term appears in the first sentence of a section, but in the cases where it doesn't and seems appropriate I've added one. I have also, as suggested, spelled out acronyms and wikilinked terms in image captions where it wasn't already done. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions from John[edit]

  • In the lead, what does "organic" mean?
  • The phrase "a number of" is used seven times in the article. I always find this a very woolly phrase to use, especially on a science article. I am left wondering in each case "What is the number?" Zero is a number, and so is pi, and so is the Avogadro constant. It would usually be better to state the number, or else just say "several" or that the true number is unknown.
  • In the lead, the second and fourth paragraphs repeat the information that antipsychotic drugs act by suppressing the effects of dopamine. Saying it once would be fine.

This level of error and infelicity speaks of a lack of copy-editing. If this is how the whole article is written I could not support it on prose. Sorry. --John (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Good copy-editing is hard to come by, and more is always welcome. I have wikilinked "organic chemical" -- my initial thought was that it would be overlinking, but I accept your guidance. Regarding "a number of", another editor has kindly reworded all the occurrences of it, but you might consider the possibility that your dislike of it is a personal idiosyncrasy. It is widely used by professional copy editors and even in style guides themselves. I haven't seen any style guide that discourages it. Wikipedia's citation guideline includes the sentence, "A number of organizations have created styles to fit their needs; consequently, a number of different guides exist." Etc. Regarding the repetition, the second paragraph is about diseases, the fourth is about drugs. This fact is crucial in both contexts, and really shouldn't be left out of either paragraph. One possible solution would be to add "As already mentioned above..." or something similar for the second occurrence. I generally dislike that sort of thing, but perhaps it is needed here. Looie496 (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from RexxS[edit]

I've done an accessibility check. The table is readable with a screen reader and covers the points in WP:DTT apart from row headers, but the table is small enough for that to not be a concern. The use of colours outside of the images complies with WP:COLOR. The images all have acceptable alt text (now the infobox has been upgraded to take the parameter), although the multiple images in the Chemistry section have captions that repeat the alt text - that could possibly be improved. Three of the images (Synapse dopaminergique.png, Dopamine pathways.svg, Basal ganglia circuits.svg) try to cram too much information into the space they have been allocated and I am unable to read the text. This can be overcome by clicking through to the image page where the text can be read (except for the last one where further zooming is needed to read the black text "Substantia nigra" against a brown background). It's not ideal to force a reader onto another page to read information, but it's not inaccessible. These are relatively minor concerns and should not adversely affect the article's FA candidature. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding image sizes, my experience from previous FACs has been that it's usually best to stick with the defaults, but I have no problem with enlarging images if that's the recommendation. Regarding the images in the Chemistry section, I really don't know what else to say there. Looie496 (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Image size is always a judgement call, and sticking with defaults is usually the safest course. It's not your fault that the amount of information in those three images is too much for the default size. In this case, you have to balance the inconvenience of sending the reader off to another page with the potential problems caused by having over-large images taking up a lot of space in the article. You won't please all of the people all of the time. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if one of our illustration specialists like Evolution and evolvability might be willing to redo File:Synapse_dopaminergique.png? Not only is it hard to read at thumbnail size, it's not very professional-looking. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Redrawing could certainly improve readability. Most of the text labels are very short, and could be increased in size and weight (bolded) without making the diagram larger. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Seppi333 might also be of help, given his experience in similar synapse diagrams. I can't commit to any diagram-making this month, but if it's still in need in November, I can have a go. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I could draw the standard dopamine neurotransmission model if a different image is desired. Main question I'd have though is whether or not it should use {{AI4}} for the labels or just normal text in the image file. If the former is used, the diagram should ideally be large enough so that it can be seen clearly in the article; I'd probably just end up drawing the image so that it's a centered page-spanning (i.e., relatively large width compared to height) diagram anyway though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • From "Functions", subsection "Storage, release and reuptake", paragraph 3: "Tonic dopamine transmission occurs when small amounts of dopamine are released independently of neuronal activity, and is regulated by the activity of other neurons and neurotransmitter reuptake." If it is regulated by neurons, how is it independent of neuronal activity? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
That's one of the few things in the article that I didn't write. I'll look into it. Looie496 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • From "Functions", subsection "Nervous system", paragraph 2: "These dopaminergic cell groups were first mapped in 1964 by Annica Dahlström and Kjell Fuxe, who assigned them labels starting with the letter "A" (for "aminergic")." Perhaps move this statement to the "History" section? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems useful to me to explain at that point why the dopamine areas are labeled A8-A14. Looie496 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • From "Functions", subsection "Nervous system": "These neurons are especially vulnerable to damage, and when a large fraction of them die, the result is a Parkinsonian syndrome." More specifically, the result is Parkinson's disease. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No, our Parkinson's disease article explains this. Parkinson's disease is defined as a parkinsonian syndrome that is idiopathic. Looie496 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I refer you to the second sentence of that very article: "The motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease result from the death of dopamine-generating cells in the substantia nigra." Later, in the "Pathopysiology" subsection: "The primary symptoms of Parkinson's disease result from greatly reduced activity of dopamine-secreting cells caused by cell death in the pars compacta region of the substantia nigra." In this context, "idiopathic" means that the cause of neurone death in the substantia nigra is unknown. Contrast this with, for example, MPTP-induced parkinsonism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, actually on re-reading the statement, an idiopathic cause is not specified. We can leave statement as it is. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Parkinson's disease#Classification explains the distinction pretty clearly -- or, at least, as clearly as such an obscure thing can be explained. I personally find these distinctions to be annoying pedantry, but people complain if you don't get them right. Looie496 (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Emily (1993)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) and Auree 02:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Although this hurricane remained mostly offshore, it prompted widespread evacuations with its uncertain track and caused historic flooding in Cape Hatteras on its closest point of approach. I started working on the storm's meteorological history and mostly finished, until User:Hurricanehink took over and conjured an impeccable amount of info on its preparations and impact. After a successful GAN and some extensive cleanup and fine-tuning on my part, Hink and I believe the article is up to standard, ready for its bronze star. Enjoy! Auree 02:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Emily, a seemingly innocuous storm that was, for most people, very forgettable. However, it threatened most of the Eastern United States and had an unusual track (sound familiar?). It was very memorable for a 17 mile part of the Outer Banks, where record floods left 25% of the population homeless. I confirm the co-nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Radar image could be scaled up
  • File:NCbarrierislandsmap.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Fixed these, I believe. Thanks Nikki! Auree 17:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslav submarine Nebojša[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This article covers one of the first Yugoslav submarines, which was built in the late 20's using parts from cancelled British WWI L-class subs. She evaded capture by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. She survived as a training boat during the war, and served on in the communist Yugoslav Navy until 1954 when she was struck. She recently successfully went through Milhist A-Class review, and I will be keen to see where further improvements might be found. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:08, 30 September 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) 00:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, any time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • Link launched, scrapped, diesel engine.
    • Done.
  • L-class submarine that was never built Probably better to say that she was never completed since she was actually laid down in December 1917, much like her sister. Both were cancelled on 1 April 1919. Source is {{colledge}}, p. 192
    • Good point, done.
  • [1] is the preeminent source on British subs of this era and should have more details on the late L-class submarines.
    • Nothing that is new specifically about this sub.
  • Specify that the 4-inch guns are deck guns.
    • Done.
  • where she performed a training role Awkward; howzabout "became or served as a training boat"?
    • This has been fixed as a result of adding some more info.
  • Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard, River Tyne, United Kingdom This reads like an address for a houseboat. Rephrase to say that the yard was in High Walker on the River Tyne and I wouldn't bother giving the country.
    • have made it more like a sentence than an address.
  • Why is the construction paragraph covering her propulsion and armament?
    • Have renamed the sections as Design and construction, Service career and Legacy
  • they were designed to reach a top speed of 15.7 knots (29.1 km/h; 18.1 mph) under diesel power and 10 knots (19 km/h) on her electric motors Specify that the speed using diesels is on the surface and on the electric motors is submerged both in the infobox and in the main body. Also disagreement with pronouns (their vs her).
    • Fixed.
  • Do not force the knot and nautical mile conversions to only output in km. Don't specify any output unit and the template will automatically triple convert to miles and km. Both in the infobox and main body.
    • Done.
  • What caliber machinegun?
  • Was she fitted with hydrophones or sonar (ASDIC)?
    • Haven't found any thing specifying that. I assume just directional hydrophones, as only a few of the Group III L-Class subs in RN service got ASDIC.
  • The Italians had claimed they had sunk all the Yugoslav vessels. This should probably be spliced to the preceding sentence with a "despite" or somesuch.
    • Done.
  • Any idea if she was used as a training boat by the Yugoslavs post-war?
    • Yes, have added a bit sourced from a Serbian news site.
  • Put Thomas in title case.
    • Done.
  • This is awfully sketchy to meet the completeness criteria, especially on the post-war career.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Yugoslav_submarine_Hrabri.jpg: the current licensing is correct, but for completeness it would be good to indicate why it's PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Support Peacemaker67, first and foremost, thank you for submitting this article for FAC. I've engaged in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I have condensed my comments below. There are some minor details that should be addressed, but they are outside the confines of FA criteria. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, WV! Will get right onto those points. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Boletus aereus[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a yummy mushroom. We've scraped the peer-review cupboard bare and hereby present it for review. We'll address issues pronto so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

NB: Is a wikicup nomination for one of the nominators. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Remarkable how the article is so well sourced and well written yet also accessible to the layman and everyday reader with its writing quality. Another high quality contribution to science on Wikipedia. Most educational, and tasty! — Cirt (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth

  • I will shortly review this fully, but for the time being I notice that "Fagus" and "Castanea" need disambiguating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
good catch - both links fixed now 11:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikilink or gloss porcini, pileipellis, trichodermium, hyphal clamps, plectenchymatous mantle, rhizomorphs, mycorrhizal
all linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "the date of Fries's work." - Incorrect use of apostrophe after "s" I believe.
fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Molecular analysis suggests the split between the B. aereus/mamorensis and B. reticulatus/Chinese B. "edulis" lineages to have diverged around 6 to 7 million years ago." - This sentence is ungrammatical.
fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "15–30 cm (6–11 34 in)" - Since 30cm is double 15cm, the imperial equivalent should be in the same ratio.
fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "The tube openings—known as pores" - If you are going to gloss "tube openings", you should do the same for "stipe" and any other unfamiliar terms.
I glossed as they are intimately related to each other, and gives enough context to visualise them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "The thick flesh is white, has a robust and pleasant smell reminiscent of hazelnuts, and a mild sweet taste." - The last part of this sentence could do with an additional "has".
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "... showing a preference to acid soils." - "for"?
switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "A 2007 field study" - Is this study actually about this species?
its about 4 spp. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "It can be locally abundant," - The start of a new paragraph and we want to know what we are talking about.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Does the fungus contain any bioactive compounds?
I can't see anything published..appears to be all on B. edulis.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am satisfied with the alterations made and now support this candidate on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose alone. Very clear, and surprisingly hooky. Will look at sources later today. Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Source review - Random sample; claims backed up with no evidence of close paraphrasing etc

ref 13
ref 19
ref 25
ref 46 Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Stamp_of_Moldova_014.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: might be a dumb question, but with the copyright status as it is, does it matter? If so I can live without this image in the article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added an archive link (and changed the original link to something that was more specific). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Support Casliber and Sasata, I've just completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and assess that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched; and the lede, structure, and consistent citations all follow the style guidelines. With the addition of the archival link, the media is also acceptable. I've left a few comments and suggestions below, but all fall outside the confines of FA criteria. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank-you for your review and support. I agree with your suggestions and have made the requested changes in this edit. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sasata, thank you for your timely response. Upon my re-review, I find that everything looks in order. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support on prose and comprehensiveness - generally well written and very comprehensive. A few quibbles:

  • "The fungus predominantly grows in habitats with broad-leaved trees and shrubs, forming symbiotic ectomycorrhizal associations enveloping the plant's underground roots with sheaths of fungal tissue (hyphae)." - a bit confusing; no plant that I can identify
  • I attempted to fix this myself - please check if the current revision works. Auree 10:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
oops, missed that one - works for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Boletus aereus is classified in Boletus section Boletus," - not a big deal here (I understand the meaning), but this read a bit oddly at first
yeah - big genera often have classifications like this for those near the type species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "More extensive testing of worldwide taxa found that B. aereus and the genetically-close B. mamorensis were sister to a lineage that had split into B. reticulatus and two lineages that had been classified as B. edulis from southern China and Korea/northern China respectively." - a bit long winded
yeah I know - trying to write up clades in words sometimes ends like this. If you can understand it, all good - I can't think of a more succinct way to put it without sounding a bit stilted... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "The cap is hemispherical to convex, slightly velvety and lobed or dented, dark brown, greyish-brown, violet brown, or purple brown, often with copper, golden, or olivaceous patches." - reads a bit run-on esque
  • I know this technically isn't very practical (considering how small the unit is), but I wonder if "10.5–19 by 4–7 μm" should be somehow converted for the sake of consistency.
I don't think anyone uses imperial units for sizes that small. I think the brits and americans would use micrometres... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Likewise, in the nutritional value section, do we need conversions for grams?
Need to check whether nutrition is still written with imperial units at all.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I gave the article a light copy-edit; please check my changes. Auree 01:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
changes look ok - can live with either broadleaved or broad-leaved - umm, not sure about the colon in the third para of the Distribution and habitat section though...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Whoops! Was meant to be a semi-colon -- fixed. Apart from one point I tried to fix myself (see above), the rest of the unstruck comments are minor enough for me to support this candidate. Great work! Auree 10:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

R U Professional[edit]

Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"R U Professional" is an article about a satirical song and a form of parody music using sampling. After being promoted to WP:GA quality, the article had a peer review where I received helpful feedback from Onel5969. Subsequently it went through a copy-edit from the kind folks at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Then John performed two more copy-editing passes, and I'm grateful to John for that assistance.

I appreciate your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:The Mae Shi, User talk:John, User talk:Satkara, User talk:YumeChaser, User talk:Onel5969, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Talk:R U Professional, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by West Virginian[edit]

  • Support. Cirt, thank you for submitting this article for FAC. Following my review, I find that it meets the criteria for FAC. I just had a few minor comments, and made a few minor tweaks to the inline citations and some wiki-links. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for the Image review, and thanks very much for your Support. The kind words are most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Cirt, you are quite welcome! Everything looks in order. Thank you again for your extraordinary work on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

  • Support. Making my position clear. Everything has been admirably addressed; we're good here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful feedback and very useful suggestions, and for your Support. — Cirt (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Maile[edit]

In the time it took me to read the article and check out the references, the two reviews above covered anything I probably would have touched on. I was wondering why there is not an image in the Infobox, but that doesn't affect my comments here. Personally, I think this was quite well-written, and the tone stayed neutral. The article appears to have stability. The sourcing, as far as any I'm familiar with, seem to be reputable. The style of inline citations is consistent throughout. Certainly well researched.

Thanks very much for checking out the references and quality of sourcing, and thanks for your Support. — Cirt (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Tim riley[edit]

Just one comment, probably showing my ignorance of the pop field: is "the The AV Club" meant to have two definite articles? – Tim riley talk 21:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, Tim riley, and thanks for picking that up. Fixed. Although I did enjoy how Stephen Colbert used to say, "The The New York Times... — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • Support – I posted my craps above. -- Frankie talk 20:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your helpful comments, and your Support. — Cirt (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from John[edit]

Where we have "Bale was filming with actress Bryce Dallas Howard when he yelled at director of photography, Shane Hurlbut, for walking into his line of sight.", could we substitute "berated" for "yelled"? I was uneasy about "yelled" when I copyedited this all these months ago. Other than that, I think it looks good. --John (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Changed "yelled" to "berated", as suggested by John, above. Thank you for your comments and your copyediting help, I think the article is much better for them. — Cirt (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on a second read through. --John (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the Support and the copyediting assistance, most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ice (The X-Files)[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the more well-known episodes of The X-Files, and one of my personal favourites. It's been to FAC before, where it was failed based on prose issues; since that time it's had another thorough copy-edit by User:Miniapolis, whose efforts are greatly appreciated. I'm also aware that I wasn't particularly active during the last FAC, which I assure you won't be an issue this time around. Thanks in advance to anyone taking the time to look at this one, and if you haven't seen the series at all before, I would say this is a good place to start. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I see this has been through FAC once before and the writing quality has been improved upon, so good job to Grapple X and to copy editor Miniapolis for working on that. The article is of high quality from an important point in time within the series formative period. The writing quality is high level yet also succinct and concise throughout. I especially like the Conception and writing sect and how the subject is placed within a wider context of influence upon it from popular culture prior to its inception. — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • "an outpost in Icy Cape" Isn't this usually termed the Icy Cape? FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The article on the location uses "the Icy Cape" once, and just "Icy Cape" throughout, but I have no idea what local usage would be. GRAPPLE X 12:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps worth looking into? FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The USGS list it without the definite article (here), even though they do have a list of variant names for it. GRAPPLE X 12:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I think we should follow that, also sounds better. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you've now added the "the" in, in light of this. GRAPPLE X 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I seem to have misraed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "and another is recovered from one of the bodies." Which bodies?
    Those of the scientists already dead at the location, would "one of the scientists' bodies" work better? GRAPPLE X 12:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Changed. GRAPPLE X 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "250,000-year-old item encased in ice" What item?
  • Hawks is only mentioned in an image caption, not the article text.
    Oversight on my part. He's debated as being the real director but without wanting to get into that I've just noted his role as producer. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    Unfortunately the sources in question don't specify this, or I'd have added it. I'm not even sure I could track down the original article as my assumption would be that presuming it to be the correct one would be OR. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although extra footage of the worm scenes was shot so they would remain intact " What would remain intact?
    Yeah I think the copy-edit lost something here. This is a common enough practice with film/TV censors--you film a questionable scene with more footage than you intend, so that when a censor asks for X amount of material to be cut, you still end up with a scene using as much footage as you had actually wanted: you want a minute to survive so you film two minutes and cut one out. I'll try to reword it shortly. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    How does this look? GRAPPLE X 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure better. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wong is not introduced in the article body.
    Fixed. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Scaring the hell of out of the audience" Is this what the actual article says?
    Fixed. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks good, anymore on the "item" comment? FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    I dug out the sources in question again last night and neither confirm the nature of the object (I get the feeling it would have been something mundane and that the age of it was the key factor). GRAPPLE X 09:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - all my comments have been addressed, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Barbara (WVS)[edit]

  • Support FA status - I am considering nominating an article for FA status and this discussion has been a great example of congeniality, responsiveness and collaboration. It appears to me to meet WP:FA?. The tone is encyclopedic and yet engaging at the same time. I am not a fan of articles that describe television plot lines, but this article has changed my mind. Good fortune on the rest of the review. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I was there, way back when, when this was first submitted. It has come a long way, and I see no reason to not promote it. The copy-edit looks good, all the sources check out (I know this from personal experience), and the page is organized nicely (with excellent photos).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Support Grapple X, first and foremost, thank you for submitting this phenomenal article for FAC. I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I assess it to meet all the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I have also completed an image review and found no issues. The details of the image review are included in my comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll not be able to archive the URLs used until later this evening, in the office at the minute and unable to access them; but I have made the suggested links and unlinkings. GRAPPLE X 15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your timely response Grapple X! The archiving was merely a suggestion, but it will give you peace of mind in the future should those links change or vanish. Again, you've done an extraordinary job with this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

2006 UAW-Ford 500[edit]

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, known today as the 500 for sponsorship reasons. This is my fourth attempt to promote this article to FA status, the last three failed mainly due to prose issues and a lack of response. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Support - I maintain my previous stance on this article from the previous three nominations. The quality of the article is much improved since it was copy-edited by the GOCE. There is only two minor points I raise after going through the article:

  • You should ideally add a plainlist template in the ratings section of the infobox per UBLIST.
  • Furthermore, it would be a good idea to archive links to those that do not have it to prevent link rot (except for Racing-Reference which does not have links stored at the Internet Archive because of robots.txt) Z105space (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Z105space: Thanks! I used the template and have been archiving all the links used in the article as I've been going along. Once the links die, I'll replace the links. Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose–I'll take a deeper look into the article later but at a glance I noted a major 1b issue: How do we have an article about a race and not include the finishing times? Note: I realize NASCAR scoring is more complicated than just the finishing times, but I believe that is a basic detail that should be included. Grondemar 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Grondemar: If you mean the margin of victory, there was none, since the race ended under caution (if you follow F1, this is the equivalent of the safety car). If you want the amount of time the race was completed in, I can look into that further and see if I can find a source, but again, NASCAR scoring, as you noted, is more complicated so I'm not sure I can do much with that. Still, thanks for the review! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible at least to include something in the text and table indicating that since the race finished under caution, no finish time nor margin of victory was recorded? I will try to perform a full review of the text this weekend. Grondemar 03:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Probably, I'm busy at the moment as well. I'll see what I can do this weekend. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Grondemar: I tried adding something into the post-race section. Better? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). I see the article has had three (3) previous FAC nominations and it looks like the nominator has taken those to heart and improved upon the writing quality since then. Minor quibbles only here: I'd recommend trimming down the use of quotes but particularly in the sect Post-race comments which is over reliant upon them. Try paraphrasing instead, and/or trimming down total size of quotes used. Also, strongly recommend using archiveurl= and archivedate= fields in cites to archive hyperlinks to Internet Archive, to improve posterity of article in long term. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Will comment where I can. Digging through EBSCO I've found a few print sources that may provide some valuable pre- and post-race coverage:
    • Anderson, Lars (October 16, 2006). "Bump 'n' Done". Sports Illustrated (Time Inc.) 105 (15): 70. 
    • Engle, Greg (October 16, 2006). "Talladega will be less of a grind on a new surface". Sporting News (Sporting News Media) 230 (41): 50. 
    • Galier, Ray (October 9, 2006). "Vickers Causes a Stir on the Way to a Win". The New York Times 156 (53727) (The New York Times Company). p. D9. 
    • Livingstone, Seth (October 10, 2006). "Hendrick keeps testy drivers focused on 'the big picture'". USA Today (Gannett Company). p. 7C. 
    • Livingstone, Seth (October 9, 2006). "Vickers gets first win in fiery finish". USA Today (Gannett Company). p. 11C. 
    • Long, Dustin (October 9, 2006). "Putting 'I' in team: Brian Vickers spins Jimmie Johnson and Dale Earnhardt Jr. to win his first Cup race". The Roanoke Times (McClatchy-Tribune Business News). p. 11C. 

Haven't checked to see how much of this is repeat coverage, though I'm sure Engle 2006 might help to expand the background section. The Grey Lady is also a good source to have, in general. 23W 19:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Runaway Scrape[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This is part of the Texas Revolution series of articles, and covers what happened in between the Battle of the Alamo and the surrender of Mexican president and military general Antonio López de Santa Anna several weeks later at the Battle of San Jacinto. The civilian population fled in terror from the Mexican army, as did the government of the Republic of Texas. Texian commander-in-chief Sam Houston took his troops on the move, looking for a site to train his raw recruits, causing many to accuse him of being a coward on the run. Santa Anna lost Texas because he also believed Houston was afraid of him, and let his guard down.— Maile (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Not much to add here after looking over the two (2) prior A-level WP:MILHIST reviews. Just incredibly well referenced and researched. One can tell a lot of effort went into writing, documenting, and citing this article. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this. — Maile (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dank:, thank you for this Support, and for your editing improvements. — Maile (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Support Maile66, following my review of this article, I find that it easily meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as it is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched; and its lede, structure, and consistent citations all follow Wikipedia style guidelines. I also completed an image review as follows and found that all media is good to go. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@West Virginian: Thanks for the review and the support. — Maile (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66:, you are quite welcome! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap, LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth

This article is about the praying mantis, an interesting insect with predatory habits. The article has been through GAN and has been further improved and polished up since. There are three co-nominees, so we should be able to action your comments rapidly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC) NB: This is a wikicup nomination for one of the nominators. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:MantisLegGBMNH.jpg: do you have a link to verify that copyright statement? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am unable to find such a link. The author is given as "British Museum of Natural History" and the date 1909, so I believe the copyright will have expired even if the British Museum has not died? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The image appears to be extracted from page 19 of "Guide to the exhibited series of insects in the Department of Zoology" by Charles Owen Waterhouse (d. 1917) and the Department of Zoology of the British Museum, published in 1909, doi:10.5962/bhl.title.27147. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. I've documented the Commons page accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Could use an inline cite at end of sect Martial arts. Overall the sect In human culture is good. Could rename that sect to just "Popular culture". Then there are several smaller sects in that sect that could be expanded. As the reader I'm left wanting to know a bit more about the impact on culture without having to click off to other articles just yet. Perhaps a couple or a few sentences with cites in sects Martial arts, As pets, and For pest control. Otherwise, overall pretty good. — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Links added. Glad you like the section; we're a bit leery about "Popular culture" as a title, as it's a bit of a cruft-magnet. Have expanded the sections on pets and pest control. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, much better, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment and support - I believe I reviewed this article for GA status and even at that time I thought it met the standards of an FA-though I did not check the consistency of the referencing style because that is not required for GA status.
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Barbara. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for book publishers
We don't. One removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally, 13-digit ISBNs, when available, are favored over 10-digit ISBNS for book sources, but consistency is needed either way (I checked, all sources used provide both formats)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Additional, but including volume/edition numbers where available would be helpful (e.g. FNs 3, 4, 8)
Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 7: check title capitalization (doesn't match that of the book)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how initials are spaced (e.g. FNs 4, 10, 38 vs FN 23)
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Closer inspection needed; initials before FN 38 are spaced; initials in FN 38 and beyond are mostly unspaced. Auree 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 10: volume/issue? Also check journal name (google has more hits for "Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig")
Replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Something's still off here; I can't find the article in the journal mentioned. I think the publish date is wrong too; should that be 1997? Auree 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 18: title capitalization again. Generally, book titles are capitalized (check throughout)
Fixed throughout. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 21: check publisher
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 22: publisher?
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 23 is a chapter from the same book as that of FNs 18, 20 & 32, but has a different ISBN format and publisher notation (as well as title capitalization)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
FN 23 still has a different publisher notation from the others. Auree 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
They all say "Johns Hopkins University Press." in title case, no italics; if you can still see something wrong could you fix it for me? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 30: "Frontline Magazine" is work (magazine), not publisher (notice how in the current format the volume and issue numbers show up behind the title)
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 31: ISBN? Always include ISBN if one has been assigned (check throughout)
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 34: most sources have "Observations on" rather than "Notes on" in the title. Also, a volume number is available here (69)
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 36: missing periods after initials
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • DOIs are available for FNs 42, 43
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 47: page numbers?
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Stopping here for now. Generally, it is better to be as consistent and complete as possible in providing information for your sources (volume/issue/edition numbers, digital identifiers, etc.) Sometimes this requires some researching beyond the source link provided in the article. Auree 23:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. We think we have dealt with all the points you raised, and I have looked through the rest of the sources and made some improvements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, changes look better. Further improvements can be made in particular to the web sources in the latter part of the references (see below). Auree 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Continuing from FN 48...[edit]

  • Minor, but titles for web page articles are generally capitalized, especially if the source has them as such (check throughout).
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 53: check url
Yes, it's the right book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This is now FN 54. Auree 22:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Replaced ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 55: publisher?
Seems to be right: "State Symbols USA is an organization dedicated to promoting appreciation and conservation of our natural, historic, and cultural treasures". Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This is now FN 56. Auree 22:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Publisher added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 58: check publisher
Stated to be "Off The Mark". Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Sundance Channel" or "The Sundance Channel"?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Not quite; both formats currently appear in the article (choose one). Auree 18:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Found it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FNs 64, 65, 66 need publishers
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 67 needs better formatting. The url actually links to a digitized chapter of a larger work (see
  • What makes a high-quality reliable source?
The South African National Parks are certain to be correct about animal names in Afrikaans. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
My issue is that it's a forum and as such the source content cannot be considered reliable. I found a more reliable source that backs up the same claims here (I can read Afrikaans), which, for the record, is a chapter in an online book "Insek-kaleidoskoop"). P.s.: the Afrikaans word is hottentotsgot rather than hottentotsgod and should be changed as such in the article. Auree 22:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 69: Encyclopedia Britannica needs to be italicized per consistency
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 71: publishing website is italicized, but this is not the case for most other references. Consistency needed
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FNs 73, 74, 75: newspaper names should be italicized, and remove shouting in FN 74
Italics done. FN 74: the single word in upper case is from the original; inserted "(sic)". Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Auree 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth, these look much better. I know reference formatting is tedious work, but once it is done the article will have a much more professional look. There are two points in the initial part of my review that I would still like to see addressed (see comments on FN 10 and initial spacing consistency), but other than that you guys are good to go on sources. Auree 07:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks, Auree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Support Chiswick Chap, LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth, it was an enormous privilege engaging in a review of this article. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and is assuredly neutral and stable; and its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media is also acceptable, as an image review has already been completed by Nikkimaria. Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, all the images are recommended to have alternative captions. All issues raised above have been addressed, and I can find no aspects of the article that would preclude it from Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Alt texts added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely response and incorporation of my comments and suggestions, Chiswick Chap. It was a pleasure to review this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • "Mantodea is an order of insects that contains over 2,400 species and about 430 genera of mantises" It is very uncommon that the title of an article is not the first name used in the intro. I'd suggest switching it around, similar to most other insect articles. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The etymology section looks like it would make more sense as a subsection or paragraph of taxonomy, as it deals with the scientific names.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Words outside the intro should not be bolded.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Because of the similar raptorial forelegs, mantidflies may be confused with mantises." Perhaps mention those are closer to lacewings?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As in the horse-fly article, I'm not sure why half of the article is in a "biology" section, only to the exclusion of human relations. This is a biology article after all, so seems rather redundant. Would make more sense to make a split between anatomy/description and behaviour/ecology.
It's both a biology and a culture article, rightly covering both aspects. The biology section can be subdivided, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "and biting and chewing mouthparts" Not sure what is meant by this. To differentiate it from insects without mandibles) Why not just say it has mandibles then?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Several terms are not explained, for example arolium, cerci, tergites, etc. Doesn't have to be in depth, just where they are on the body, and what they are if possible.
  • Not sure, but is "I Fucking Love Science"[4] a reliable source in itself? Couldn't the articles it refers to be cited instead?
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, it only says "This means that once again we don’t know whether the hummingbirds could have ultimately escaped, leaving the peeved praying mantises hungry", whereas you write they are known to eat hummingbirds.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You note that "mantid" has incorrectly been used to refer to the group as a whole, yet use the term in the article several times for animals outside Mantidae, for examnple "bark mantids in the family Tarachodidae"
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "A later text, the Jingshi Zhenglei Daguan Bencao 經史證類大觀本草" Do we need the Chinese characters here and not for other texts mentioned?
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Extraordinary thin-legged mantis" Is this a common name or just an overly hyperbolic caption?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "A pet mantis in someone's hand" Too informal, "in a hand" or "being held" would be enough.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "They therefore have "negligible value" in biological control." Quoted statements should always been attributed.
Repeated ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There are several cases of terms that are linked at their second, instead of first, occurrence.
  • "Mantid" was once almost a synonym for Mantodea, given that few species outside the Mantidae were known; that has changed with recent discoveries." Needs citation.
  • Only the intro mentions anything about their distribution and habitat.
  • "The eggs overwinter, protected by their hard capsule, and hatch in the spring." Again, there should never be unique information in the intro.
  • There is little to no physical description in the intro other than of their forelimbs.

Support tentatively on prose, style and sources. I read through the article twice and thoroughly checked its sources and found no major issues. The writing is clean and concise, reliably cited and supplemented by beautiful illustrations. I only found three (minor) foibles:

  • "In the 10th century A.D. Byzantine era Adages, Suidas describes an insect resembling a slow-moving green locust with long front legs;[49] translating Zenobius 2.94 with the words seriphos (maybe a mantis) and graus, an old woman, implying a thin, dried-up stick of a body." This reads rather awkwardly; the clause after the semicolon is a sentence fragment.
  • "It ends Isabella Rossellini's short film about the life of a praying mantis, one of her 2008 Green Porno season for the Sundance Channel." Confusing (especially the latter part)
  • "Because the lifespan of a mantis is only about a year, mantis enthusiasts often breed the insects." - this may be my layman ignorance, but what does their lifespan have to do with breeder enthusiasm?

Once these and FunkMonk's comments above have been resolved, the tentative portion of my support no longer applies. Great work, guys! Auree 08:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Boys Don't Cry (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Boys Don't Cry is a 1999 romantic drama film directed by Kimberly Peirce and starring Hilary Swank and Chloë Sevigny. Swank plays the part of real-life trans man and hate crime victim Brandon Teena, who was beaten, raped, and murdered by his male acquaintances in Falls City, Nebraska, in 1993. Being transgender myself, this film holds special significance for me, not to mention that it's beautifully done.

Back in April, I naively nominated this for FAC without a peer review and without even being a significant contributor. It was more than a little bit disastrous, as I somehow failed to catch that several sections were unsourced completely. After some amazing help, I added 45 independent references and nearly 30,000 bytes. I believe that it is ready again. It's been through a successful peer review, and User:J Milburn has been so kind as to give me several rounds of independent comments himself. Ultra special thanks to Josh as well as thanks to User:Ugog Nizdast for peer review comments, User:Baffle gab1978 for a helpful copyedit, and User:Ashton 29 for making the article a GA in the first place a few years ago. I look forward to reading and responding to comments! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Comments by WereSpielChequers Nice work, great prose, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them if not its a wiki...

"on that reduces and, ultimately, nullifies Brandon's gender and sexual excess", was that typo in the source? if so I'd suggest on [sic] ϢereSpielChequers 11:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for fixing that, Support on grounds of well written prose, sorry but things have come up in real life and I'm not going to have time to properly check any other criteria, sorry. BTW I agree that ""Themes and analysis" is unusually long, but consider it merited for this film. ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentI think section "Themes and analysis" is much, much to long. Feels like some culture research paper from college, especially when there's another long section: "Critical reception".--Jarodalien (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jarodalien: I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. Critical reception and themes and analysis are not the same thing. Critical reception is reviews from film critics, while themes are academic analyses of the film. I believe this length adequately represents the range of interpretations of the film. Another FA with a similarly long themes section is American Beauty (1999 film). Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 13:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jarodalien: I also vehemently disagree with you. In fact, I'm slightly angered you would suggest something so nonsensical. Boys Don't Cry is a thematically rich film–its extensively detailed and superbly written Theme section (well done, Johanna!) is completely worthy. In fact, you could talk at length about the themes in this film without even scratching the surface of its subtext. So to say that the Theme section is "too long" is ridiculous. It's well sourced too, so to say it resembles a college paper is, again, ridiculous. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Support from Burklemore1[edit]

Really interesting article that is very well written, it's astounding and a pleasure to read. I believe it is as comprehensive as it can be, going in depth with all aspects of the film or anything involving the film, especially "Themes and analysis". Very detailed for all the good reasons! I'm not a specialised editor in films or in subjects related to the LGBT, but I have one very minor and quick comment, it's more of a suggestion actually. Btw, I know how you feel when it comes to nominating your first FA (saw your comment somewhere here), it can be daunting.

  • In the third paragraph of "Self-identity, transgenderism and the gender binary", the second "heteronormativity" used is linked while the first one is not. I think it should be the other way around. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • done.
  • Support. I see the article's been through a good deal other prior stages of review, including a peer review, GA review, FAC, and then another peer review. It's quite meticulously well sourced, throughout, with good overall structure and wording. I did an image review and all the images check out just fine, both the fair use rationales and those from Wikimedia Commons. Great expansive Themes and analysis sect, nice job. — Cirt (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments: Hi, Johanna. As a first attempt at FAC this looks very impressive. I hope to find time for a more thorough review; for the moment, here are a few comments relating to the lead:

  • A "romantic drama"? I have seen this film, and would hesitate to classify it as romantic, since its central theme is a hate crime. Tragic, heart-rending, deeply saddening – but surely not "romantic"? I recommend you drop this word from the description in the first line.
  • At this point, I'm classifying it as a romantic drama because Peirce's interpretation of the sequence of events and due to the fact that it matches the criteria in the page romance film.
  • You don't need citations in the lead for the statement: "It was widely lauded as one of the best films of the year" – this has multiple citations in the body of the text.
  • done
  • Likewise the citation of "controversial issues" in the lead looks superfluous, as the rating issue is fully discussed in the text.
  • If it's okay, I would prefer to keep it--the cite was added in another round of comments and I think it makes sense, considering there's nothing explicitly stating this in the body. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Why have you wikilinked the second use of the term "rating" rather than the first?
  • Good catch. Done

I'll be back when I can – meantime, good luck with this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thank you! I believe that I have fixed everything. I look forward to hearing more comments! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Johanna, thank you tremendously for submitting this article for FAC. I've completed my thorough and comprehensive (and yes, much delayed) review of this article and I assess that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are some minor issues that must first be addressed before I lend my support. I have also completed an image review and found that while the images are properly licensed, they will require alt citations. The details of the image review are included in my comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@West Virginian: Hi there! Thank you for the thorough and helpful review, especially on the images. You had exposed a bit of a hole in my wiki experience--I wasn't previously really sure what alt text was or why it existed, but now I do! :) Take a look and let me know if there's anything I can do! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Johanna, thank you for addressing my comments in such a timely manner! Again, I appreciate all your extraordinary work on this article and congratulate you on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I am feeling a little bit lazy to check the article. However, I did review the article a few days ago and had some comments which seem to be already resolved. I further found it to be of great quality. The article is well-researched and is a comprehensive illustration of the film. All of the sources are from reliable publishers and formatted properly (please fix some links here). Overall, the article stands out as a great one and thank you for working on it. Good job! -- Frankie talk 17:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Life's Shop Window[edit]

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... the first film actually produced by the company eventually known as Fox. And, depending which sources you believe, the debut of once-famed silent-era director J. Gordon Edwards, part of my grindingly slow effort to bring his works to featured status. With all that in mind, Life's Shop Window is still a very obscure, and very lost, piece of cinema. I've scoured a variety of contemporary and modern sources to put together what is almost certainly the most comprehensive treatment of the film available anywhere.

Some things expected in a modern film's article are necessarily absent. As far as I can tell, the actors who played John and Bella Anderson were never publicly credited. Public box office statistics were still years in the future; except to acknowledge that it was "successful", it's impossible to say how much money the film made. I don't even believe there's a surviving film poster (if there was ever one in the first place). But thanks to a surviving piece of advertising ephemera and a publicity still reproduced in a film magazine, readers can at least get a feel for the film's character. And although it is grainy and poorly-contrasted, a newspaper advertisement allows readers to see what a 1914 film thought a Native American woman looked like.

Eventually, J. Gordon Edwards's films get a lot more exciting, and a lot more fun to talk about at FAC. But we're not there yet, and this is still an important piece of forgotten film history. One that, I hope, I've been able to present to the FA standard. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

Concise, interesting and evidently well researched. I have a few quibbles:

  • "Wilton is accused of adultery after giving birth, although her private marriage was legitimate." I was confused by this sentence in the lead, although the meanong became clearer when I read the plot summary. I think it's the word "adultery" that causes the problem. Lydia was accused of having a child out of wedlock, which is not the same as adultery. Also, it seems that the marriage was secret rather than private. I'd advise some reconsideration of this lead sentence.
  • Rewrote the lead summary of the plot entirely, because it was terrible and I know better. "Private" changed to "secret" as the descriptor of the marriage throughout the text, which is supported by the sourcing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "... the corporate predecessor to Fox Film." I'd extend this to say something like "which later merged to become 20th Century Fox" or some such wording, since the latter name is known worldwide.
  • I can do this if its really deemed important, but I'd rather not, personally. I know everyone has heard of 20th Century Fox, but the post-merger company really didn't have anything to do with this film. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You should provide a source for your present-day values.
  • The comment about the poor musical accompaniment should not be included as a criticism of the film, as in 1915 the music would have been provided independently (some poor bloke playing the piano in the dark, probably)
  • Strongly disagree, actually. Silent film music is a complicated topic well beyond the scope of this one article. While music was often indeed performed live, it was rarely "independent", at least in prestigious venues. In any case, contemporary reviewers did at times consider the accompaniment for or against the overall quality of films. That's especially true with a case like this, where one of the major studios evidently botched the music at its gala premiere showing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That's about it. Well done – I see no problem in supporting when these points are attended to. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: The lead summary is a lot better. I accept what you say about the musical accompaniment, and the point about 20th Century Fox is trivial. Subject only to a successful sources review I'll be happy to see this article promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Didn't know you were interested in film Squeamish, a pleasant surprise. For such an obscure film (not even I've seen it ;-)) this generally looks in good shape. I would prefer it if User:ChrisGualtieri, an excellent writer of silent film articles, could assess how comprehensive it is. Often a lot can be gleaned from for such films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Pinged him when I first listed this, in fact! And, yeah, I try to keep diverse interests around here. Keeps the article research interesting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Quite high quality, only minor quibbles really: File:Life's shop window still.jpg says it's uncategorized. Notes sect, no need for more than one column here when there are so few entries in that sect. Missing: Review analysis from Rotten Tomatoes (just kidding). :P — Cirt (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Fiddled with the Commons categorization templating, so that image no longer shows as uncategorized (it already was in a category, but claimed it wasn't). Columns removed from notes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. These were only minor quibbles and now I feel I can agree with Brianboulton, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Support Squeamish Ossifrage, thank you for submitting this article to FAC, as it is certainly fitting. I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review, and I assess this article to be well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and to be neutral and stable; and its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media is also suitable, as an image review has been completed by Nikkimaria. Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, the images of the herald should have alternative captions. All issues raised above have been addressed as Cirt and Brianboulton stated, and I can find no aspects of the article that would keep it from being passed to Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done, and thank you for all your hard work on this one. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Perijá tapaculo[edit]

Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Perijá tapaculo is a tiny, shy, rare little bird that lives in tiny burrows in remote South American mountain ranges (some of which are difficult to access due to guerrilla warfare), and this means almost nothing can be written about it. Regardless, some enterprising ornithologists have written about it anyway, and their writings, accompanied by some appealing imagery, are summarised in this new FAC submission. The article has reached GA status, and then had valuable suggestions and additions at peer review by Cwmhiraeth and J Milburn. Amongst a large number of other improvements, these additions also mean that, despite its elusiveness, readers can now listen to the tiny bird's song if they wish. This very small and insignificant bird, which may or may not soon be no longer with us, deserves an outstanding article about it as well as deserving to be saved from extinction, and all suggestions for improvements will be very gratefully received. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Hi, I'll add comments as I read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Any known predators or parasites?
No, although its size and cuteness makes it unlikely that it is the apex predator in its range. It could be assumed that its predators are similar to those of the rest of its genus and particularly its most closely related and nearby species, but I am nervous about straying too far into original research, and therefore am unsure whether and what to add. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Adults have neutral grey heads... It is a secretive—singular or plural?
Thank you for spotting this. I've replaced the pronoun at the start of the second sentence. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Males have breasts mixed with pale buff — perhaps males have some buff markings on their breasts?
Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It is a secretive bird that is difficult to observe—tautology?
Yes, I have re-worded this slightly. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • the Perijá tapaculo is secretive and difficult to observe— tautology Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The female call and song differ from most other species in the genus— "from those of"
  • The male call is short and quick— what's the difference between "short" and "quick"
  • Thanks. I've cut this sentence entirely and made a fix to the previous one (the call outlined should have referred to both genders, not just females). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • builds its nests in underground cavities about 12 cm (4.7 in) in...— these look like the dimensions of the nest, not the cavity which is the subject of this sentence
  • The nests are accessed by a short tunnel— you haven't said the nests are closed yet, or does this refer to the cavity?
  • I'm not sure this needs changing; the article mentions the nests being in "underground cavities". Maybe I've missed something. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm still confused. Is the cavity self-excavated? You write as if you are describing a cup nest, but you don't say that. If the nest is enclosed, then the tunnel could be part of the nest, rather than the cavity, like Red-rumped Swallow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: This issue has now been dealt with by the reviewer. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, a major problem. You have just two references, primary sources by the same authors. We normally need secondary sources to meet the reliability criteria. I don't think that this article can pass without a wider range of references. I don't think, for example, that a primary source is adequate for discussing the taxonomy of the family, when there are good sources like Handbook of Birds of the World. You also don't indicate a subspecies name(s) before it reached species status, and, crucially you don't provide a good secondary source that recognises this as a species. At the moment it amounts to "It's a species because we wrote the paper and we say it is". I'm not opposing yet, because it may be fixable with help, and otherwise it's a good read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 2,450 m needs conversion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you may be conflating two senses in which a source can be "primary". The sources cited in this article peer-reviewed journal articles; surely the holy grail of reliability per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I would have thought that they would only really be "primary sources" (in the problematic sense) if we were writing about the journal or the author. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but where other sources exist, they should be used rather than depending on the work of just one research team. I've sent Thine Antique Pen some other stuff to pick over, and I think this should allay my concerns, I'll continue commenting soon. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Looks pretty good now, I'm happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Minor quibble only: I'd recommend archiving all the hyperlinks in sources with archivedate= and archiveurl= fields, with links from Internet Archive. This should hopefully increase posterity, over time. And it sure would be nice if you could create even a short sourced stub about Serranía de Los Motilones. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Cirt. I have archived all possible links with Internet Archive links; I was unable to archive the Mongabay news article due to a restriction on robots crawling the site in its robots.txt page. I created a short stub about the Serranía de Los Motilones range. Many thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

The article looks good; here are a few minor points I noticed.

  • "The Perijá tapaculo is a secretive bird and therefore difficult to observe, and thus its ecology is poorly known." - I think this sentence could be better expressed.
Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is partially protected by ..." - You can't be protected by a bird reserve, only by living in one!
Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The word "morphology" is used in both the second and third sentence. Can you avoid this?
Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The use of the word "identical" in the next sentence is confusing. Perhaps you could use the word "separated" later in the sentence.
Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Its difficult to know how museum specimens could be separated by voice analysis!
Fixed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "The call and song differ from those of most other species in the genus, composed of two short churrs repeating up to 65 times at 0.5 to 3 second intervals." - This sentence needs a verb in its second half.
Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Does this description apply to the call or to the song?
The call, sorry. Fixed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the description of the nest should come earlier in the paragraph about reproduction.
I've moved it up. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for your comments. I've responded to them all. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am satisfied with the improvements made and am now supporting the promotion of this article, which seems to be as comprehensive as is possible for such a poorly known species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a peculiarly New Jersey article. Boroughitis may sound like a fake disease, but it's a real thing: the aftereffects still afflict New Jersey today. It seemed normal to live in one borough growing up, going to high school in another, getting our water from a third, a fourth was down past the end of the street, the supermarket was in a fifth ... and I haven't gotten five miles from my house yet. And all of the boroughs I mentioned were incorporated in 1894. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Support – Taking part in a peer review of an article on local government may not seem a prospect to quicken the pulse, but I much enjoyed reviewing this, and found nothing to quibble at during the PR. Very entertaining goings-on in the 1890s! Beautifully constructed, clear, pleasing prose, good balance and well referenced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 06:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Bergen_County,_NJ_municipalities_labeled.svg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I've dealt with that. Thank you for the review. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review

  • Format error in ref 30 – check the template
  • I'm not quite clear what information is being cited to re 33.

Otherwise, all sources look to be of appropriate quality and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that review. 30 has been fixed, 33 sources the number of municipalities and counties, the merger of the Princetons, and some of the efforts for consolidation, as well as the per capita stat. Regrettably, I found the need to run sources together and then another came along, resulting in something of a cite string, I'm afraid. It would be difficult to untangle.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Support. I was a peer reviewer and my questions and occasional perplexities were answered there. An unsual offbeat topic, typifying the breadth of range in this weird encyclopaedia of ours. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Quite nicely done. Reminds me of a guy who was inflicted with "Boneitis"... But anyways yeah I wonder if there's some sort of longer term plan put forth attempting to address this -- that never gets fully followed through upon. — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. There really isn't any plan to deal with this. Home rule is very important in New Jersey. Every governor since the 1960s that's been in office for any length of time has urged mergers, but they don't happen very often. Three that I'm aware of.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to Oppose this as the article gives undue weight to Bergen County...when this phenomenon is equally and quite dynamically present in the state's other 20 counties (often with quite unique circumstances). There's scant coverage of other instances..., for example, like Franklin Borough in Sussex County where the ruralites separate it from Hardyston as a result of a battle of schools vs. the interests of NJ Zinc Company and backlash from locals who didnt like all the Hungarian, Slavic, and Chilean miners coming into the area. Also in 1693, those two dozen townships were not covering the entire area of the state, only a small portion along Newark Bay, Raritan Bay and the lower Delaware Valley...70% of the colony/state's area was unpopulated by european settlers and unorganized (Karcher is wrong on this...the last parts of northwestern nj were not organized until 1750-1751, West Jersey north of what is now Trenton didn't begin getting organized until 1711). To say this without qualification is unclear and misleading. ALSO, i do take issue the use of Senator Karcher's book (I knew the Senator, btw) in a kindle edition...citations with page numbers like 851 and 1389 don't comport with a book that in print is easily accessible (including online postings like Google Books) and only 238 pages long. Further, there's more primary information on the phenomenon, referencing the laws, in other areas of the state in Snyder's history of NJ's civil boundaries available in its entirery online in pdf...which I use and cite at List of municipalities in Sussex County, New Jersey...and in many other sources (some of which Karcher relies on) that are available quite easily. Some on state websites. Based on undue weight, some historical inaccuracies, and lack of covering other counties sufficiently, I think the article, while good, is incomplete in its coverage. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your views. I do not believe the issues in the other counties were tied to 1894 and 1895, do you have information that they do? I can get pretty close to page numbers using the index, if that will help.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Following up, I downloaded Snyder, I had been thinking of getting him on interlibrary loan so thank you. I've integrated some of his background and so forth, but he really doesn't talk much about boroughitis. Using his lists, I found that boroughs were incorporated in 16 of NJ's 21 counties in 1894-96, but except Bergen (26) no county had more than 3. So I'm not sure it is undue weight. The system worked more or less as it was supposed to elsewhere. The Franklin Borough matter did not happen until 1913; this article is about what happened when the legislature left the door open. I'm not as familiar with Sussex County as I am further east, but I would think Franklin Borough was chartered by special act of the legislature? I'd welcome any sources you have on boroughitis as applied to other counties, but given the relatively small number that acted, I think we fulfill WP:DUE by mentioning Roselle and Mountainside. I didn't see anything happening in Sussex. So I've deleted the incorrect background info, inserted new stuff from Snyder, changed Karcher to page numbers, and would welcome any sources that deal with boroughitis outside Bergen County because I didn't see any.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added a bit on borough splits later in Camden and Essex counties.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting read, very nicely put together. – SchroCat (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments - leaning support: Hi Wehwalt, I like the article and am leaning support, but found a few places where I scratched my head and perhaps you can address these matters. Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. I'm a little fuzzy in the lead with the difference between a borough and a community, i.e. " townships, in which there might be several communities, each with a local school that formed its own district." If the words are used synonymously, or if they mean two different styles of small municipality, can you clarify? (The township article is of some help, but just a minor rephrase of a sentence or two should solve the problem.)
Community is used to mean a settlement which doesn't have corporate existence on is own. They generally formed into boroughs, or possibly some other form of New Jersey local government. In New Jersey, community generally followed (and in my opinion, still does) the schools.
  1. Lead could be clarified to put the impact of railroads and the early development of suburbs as a sociological factor a bit more prominently.
  2. Would like to see a bit of the Voorhees analysis of the problems with Borouhitis placed into the lead, the final paragraph doesn't really summarize the end result and thus I'm left feeling unsure about why a reader would wish to delve into the issue. Perhaps expand a bit to put the juicy stuff up front, at the very least, the "township all but disappeared from Bergen County as a form of government" bit.
  3. Background section, second paragraph, the bit about dirt roads seems artificially sandwiched between the other sentences, suggest reworking for better flow.
  4. Last paragraph of background and first paragraph of Legislation section really should somehow be melded into the Legislation section, the transition is clunky
  5. Still a it fuzzy why Bergen County was the hotbed and would value a brief analysis of other counties that may have been caught up in the craze (Don't agree entirely with Vicar's analysis above, but as someone not from around there, am wondering) ... was it geographic proximity to NYC plus wealth of commuters only or were there other factors?
The railroad was a very big factor. I've added a bit here. Bergen County was fairly unique in having townships with multiple stations/communities. Other places, the legislature chartered a doughnut hole into a borough, but Bergen County's differences held things back for a while.
  1. Passing reference to corruption, but was local-level corruption another factor?
A bit, in places like Jersey City, that are eternally corrupt. But given that the Democrats suffered the biggest losses in history in 1894 in Congress, I think that it was more the economy. The lower house of the legislature was annually elected until 1949 or so.
  1. In Legacy, still unclear why so much resistance to fixing the mess, even over 100 years later. Anything more to add?
I've added a bit, but it's really about home rule and the local schools again.

Hope these questions/comments can help improve the article. To tell the truth, school control, taxes for local improvements, and the rural-urban battlefields that form as a result sounds just like modern Montana politics. Nothing changes... :-P Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the difference is that Montana doesn't allow many fixes without the legislature weighing in. Thanks for your very helpful comments and suggestions. If I haven't responded, I've gone ahead. I hope it is clearer now.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Maniac Mansion[edit]

Nominator(s): User:JimmyBlackwing, GamerPro64 14:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

With JimmyBlackwing doing what he does best with Copyediting and source checking and having me keep an eye on the nomination (discussion), here we have an article that covers one of the most iconic adventure games in gaming. While LucasArts may have stopped making games, their legacy can still be seen with this title. So come check it out, put a hamster in a microwave, and don't be a tunahead. GamerPro64 14:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A little bit of history for those who don't know: this article began as a collaboration between myself, User:Guyinblack25 and User:MuZemike in early 2011. (Sadly, neither of them uses Wikipedia much these days.) After awhile, I dropped out and they kept working on it, until it was unsuccessfully FAC'd in 2012. Prose issues sank it, and I wasn't available for copyediting. Last month, I decided to bring the project back to life with the help of GamerPro. A massive revision ensued. I put quite a bit of work into counteracting any "continental drift" that's happened with the sources over time, but spotchecks might still pick up some things that I missed. With that, I'll leave this nom in Gamer's capable hands. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The lead should probably say "Maniac Mansion is a 1987 video game" rather than "Maniac Mansion is a 1987 graphic adventure game", as very few people have any idea what a "graphic adventure game" is and the article needs to be written for a general audience. Stating that it is a graphic adventure game in the overview section is fine, however, as the body should have more detailed information than the lead. Kaldari (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Well there's a link to graphic adventure game so that might help people know what that is. I changed the part to "Maniac Mansion is a 1987 graphic adventure video game". I think that works best. GamerPro64 13:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake comments
  • In the production section I would maybe look at moving the opening sentence of "Production and SCUMM" to after the second to last sentence of the first paragraph? It seems to open stating a limitation but not giving context for why that limitation matters. I know 64KB isn't much especially in modern times, but where the sentence falls in the paragraph, it seems like it wouldn't be obvious to the non-tech person.
    • Moved it before the mention of the Commodore 64's limitations. GamerPro64 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I know this isn't available for every game but is there any information on a budget?
    • I myself wasn't able to find any information on its budget. Not sure if that was kept track of back then. GamerPro64 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

David [Fox] says, "I don’t remember a lot about, ‘Here's your budget.' Do you remember any of that? When I had to start doing budget stuff for other things, I was like, I have to budget this? Because basically you say, here's the game. It'll probably take me about this long. I'll need this number of people. And they'd say, okay. I'm sure Steve [Arnold, Lucasfilm Games General Manager,] did a budget then."

"Yeah, Steve was very good at hiding all of that nasty stuff from us," says Chip [Morningstar].
      • Unless Arnold talks about it in the future, I doubt there'll be any way to know the budget for sure. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead seems a bit light, maybe mention that those two friends Dave can take offer unique gameplay additions?
    • Expanded the lead to mention the unique abilities the side characters have. GamerPro64 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Other than that I can't see much to complain about at all, looking solid. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't have this favourited so it didn't show up on my watch list. The budget information can't be helped but the changes improve an already fine article. Support Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments From Indrian

Generally speaking, this article is decent, but there are a number of problems, which I will address below.

  • The "Overview" section lacks important information on game play. What kind of "puzzles" are in the game. Are these brain teasers? Word games? Item manipulation? Environment-based? How does the player rescue Sandy? Does he have to neutralize all the members of the family? Gain entrance to a restricted area? How are cutscenes triggered, and how are they important to completing the game? This section really needs to be expanded for comprehensiveness.
  • "Maniac Mansion was conceived in 1985, when Lucasfilm Games employees Ron Gilbert and Gary Winnick were assigned to create an original game" Only GamesTM makes this claim, and its not a direct quote. In both Retro Gamer and the GDC Postmortem Gilbert and Winnick emphasize that the game was born out of voluntary brainstorming sessions and shared interests. They were not assigned to work together by management.
  • There is no reason to trust Retro Gamer or the GDC video over GamesTM here. The sources are compatible: RG and the video most likely just skipped over this detail, as is common. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, the Retro Gamer article in Issue 94 sort of contradicts this (though not explicitly) through direct quotes from Gilbert and Winnick about how they started hanging out due to mutual interests and started toying around with doing a game together. The idea of management assigning them to work together also seems antithetical to company procedure at the time as pieced together from various interviews about how the company operated in those days, when management was pretty hands off and low key and provided lots of individual freedom to put projects together. I really think GamesTM is wrong on this one and the Retro Gamer version should take precedence. Indrian (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It's arguable, but you might be right, particularly given Lucasfilm's management style. The problem is that the RG article was the main source that I wasn't able to access when I revamped the article. All of the RG material was added back in 2011-2012 by the other editors I mentioned above, and I couldn't find an active Wikipedian with access to the issue. (I did double-check whether the RG source had drifted over the years, by looking at the first revisions of the article that included it. Adjustments were made accordingly.) As a result, I can't edit new information from the RG source into the article. Since you seem to have access to RG 94, would you mind quoting or scanning the relevant sections so that I can rewrite the opening of the dev section? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I will be sure to do this in the next day or so. Indrian (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Gilbert had been hired the previous year as a programmer for the game Koronis Rift." Gilbert was hired as a contractor to port the Atari 800 game Koronis Rift to the C64. This sentence implies he was a full-fledged employee and that he was a programmer on the original game.
  • The source used for the sentence does not say this. Do you have an alternative source? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Making of in Issue 94 of Retro Gamer goes into all of this. Indrian (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Per above, could you offer quotes or scans of the relevant section(s)? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "He befriended Winnick, an artist for Labyrinth: The Computer Game" Winnick was one of the Games Groups' earliest employees and its only artist and animator. He worked on many games. Why is Labyrinth being singled out in a way that makes it appear it was the only game he had worked on to that point?
  • Removed mention of Labyrinth in the sentence. GamerPro64 00:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "a trend to which Gilbert accredited the success of several of his games for Lucasfilm" Accredited means "to certify as meeting prescribed standards," "to supply with credentials or authority," or "attribute something to a person." I think the word you are looking for is "credited."
  • Actually the word means "to ascribe or attribute to (usually followed by with)". Credited, which refers to economic exchanges or one's appearance in a work's credits, is often confused with it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough on credited, but I am pretty certain that accredited only applies to someone, not something. Therefore, I am still not convinced it is the correct word in this context. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • doesn't qualify it in this way, and the OED specifically includes an example phrase that does not reference a person: "Staff described the results as outstanding and accredited the success to single sex education." Merriam-Webster's simple definition does seem to limit the word to being a reference to people ("to give (someone) credit for something"), but the full version is much broader: the third definition offers it as a synonym for "attribute". I don't see an issue with its use in the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That's fine then, consider this objection withdrawn. Indrian (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • See below. GamerPro64 03:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "They drew inspiration from what Winnick called "a ridiculous teen horror movie"" Anyone reading this is going to wonder why you don't just name the movie. The answer, of course, is that Winnick could not recall the title in the interview.
  • So mention that he couldn't recall the film or just remove it outright? GamerPro64 03:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would mention that he cannot recall the name of the film. Indrian (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed it into "They drew inspiration from a film whose name Winnick couldn't recall. He described it as 'a ridiculous teen horror movie', in which teenagers inside a building were killed one by one without any thought of leaving." GamerPro64 21:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In both Retro Gamer and the GDC post mortem, Reanimator is noted as an influence, yet it is not mentioned in the article at all.
  • "an adventure game by Sierra Entertainment" There was no Sierra Entertainment in the 1980s, the name of the company was Sierra On-Line.
  • Seems like this one got lost in the shuffle. Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although he was a fan of the genre, this was Gilbert's first experience" How could Gilbert be a fan if he had never experienced the genre? The answer is he had played many text adventures, but had never played a graphical adventure like King's Quest. This needs to be clarified.
  • "this was Gilbert's first experience with a graphical text adventure" King's Quest is not a text adventure by any definition of the term. It is a fully animated graphical adventure that happens to have a text parser.
  • Well the source goes against the standard definition of a "text adventure," so that's a problem. Indrian (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Maniac Mansion‍ '​s story and structure were designed before coding commenced" "Maniac Mansion‍ '​s first six-to-nine months of production were dedicated largely to engine development" So which was it? Did they start with story and structure, or with the coding of the engine? I believe the article is trying to convey that the story and structure were set before any scripting and game programming, but engine programming is coding too, so the wording needs to be tweaked.
  • The word "largely" makes this a non-issue. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it really does not. Again, I think its fair to say that the game was plotted out before coding and scripting of gameplay began, but it sounds like engine coding started very early. This just needs a simple tweak to avoid reading like a contradiction. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't know what change could be made to make it clearer than it already is, unless we want to go beyond the sources. It seems perfectly coherent to me just with the "largely" caveat, since that makes room for the story and structure's being at the beginning of development, without outright saying it. No idea what else to do with it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Forty input commands were planned at first, but the number was gradually reduced to 12" Why?
  • "Maniac Mansion was the first NES release by Lucasfilm Games" Ballblazer received an NES port from Pony Canyon in 1988.
  • That's nice, but it's still wrong. It was released by JVC, not Lucasfilm Games, and it was not the first Lucasfilm Games IP that hit the NES. I don't believe that Ballblazer on NES was actually programmed by Lucasfilm Games, so it's probably okay to say it was the first game the company programmed for the NES. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The source says: "This was going to be LucasArt's first Nintendo cartridge." The meaning is vague enough that I think I can get away with calling it the first NES game developed by LucasArts, so I went with that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that works well. Indrian (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "During Maniac Mansion‍ '​s development for the Commodore 64, Lucasfilm had censored profanity in the script" This is simply not true. Steve Arnold told Gilbert that he could keep the term "shithead" if he had a good artistic reason to use profanity. When Gilbert could not think of one, he voluntarily removed the word from the game. That's not censorship.
  • It was censored, and then Gilbert complained bitterly, and only afterwards did Arnold offer to compromise. This whole episode can aptly by summarized as "censorship", a word that Gilbert himself uses in the video IIRC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but the article should probably add these details. In hindsight, Gilbert was very pleased with this compromise and he was given an opportunity to keep the word, so I think just leaving it at censorship lacks a little nuance. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the episode is notable enough to deserve that much coverage, to be honest. If it wasn't relevant to the Nintendo problems, I wouldn't have left any mention of it at all. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Honestly, I think I misremembered this incident as being a little more benign, which is why I initially thought "censorship" was a little strong. Consider this suggestion withdrawn. Indrian (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • " In retrospect, Crockford commented that such policies made for "bland" products, and he called Nintendo a "jealous god"" Crockford's opinion is personal, partisan, and not conveyed in a scholarly or critical forum and therefore has no place in the article.
  • The "jealous god" line was quoted by GamesTM and most likely other reliable sources. It's notable. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In the context of Nintendo and it's perception among developers it is certainly notable. In the context of Maniac Mansion it is not. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Very well—removed. That "jealous god" line has annoyed me for years, anyway. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Maniac Mansion was one of four games in the NES library—alongside Shadowgate, F-15 Strike Eagle and Déjà Vu—to be translated into Swedish" No other translations are mentioned, so why is this one singled out?
  • Removed it. Wasn't really that important to mention in the article anyhow. GamerPro64 20:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Why does the reception section for an American game consist entirely of British Magazines? Computer Gaming World and Commodore Magazine are both readily available online, and I bet both of them reviewed the game.
  • They did, and their reviews are in the Reception section. Neither magazine used scores at the time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oops, I did indeed overlook this. Please disregard; the reception section is fine. Indrian (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2010, the staff of GamesTM dubbed Maniac Mansion a "seminal" title, which overhauled the gameplay of the graphic adventure genre. Removing the need to guess syntax allowed players to concentrate on the story and puzzles, which created a smoother and more enjoyable experience, according to the magazine" I guess GamesTM has never heard of ICOM Simulations. Maniac Mansion was an early point-and-click adventure, but it certainly was not the first.
  • It isn't our job to second-guess a reliable source's praise. The quoted text already qualifies GamesTM's statement as that magazine's opinion. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I probably should have been clearer on this one. The sentiment is mostly fine, but the implication that Maniac Mansion did this first or alone is troubling. I am looking for clarification rather than removal. Indrian (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, okay. Well, I could probably work something in if this source is considered reliable. I'd have to go back to the drawing board, otherwise. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Included material about Uninvited to make the historical context clear. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Perfect. I think this just puts the game in slightly better context. Indrian (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Christopher Buecheler of GameSpy credited the game with its genre's subsequent critical adoration and commercial viability." This is just plain silly. King's Quest games sold hundreds of thousands of units before Maniac Mansion and continued to dwarf Lucasfilm adventure games in sales even though they did not go to an icon-based interface until King's Quest V in 1990. Leisure Suit Larry trounced Maniac Mansion in sales with a parser too. Maniac Mansion is a great game and a cult classic, but it had nothing to do with making graphical adventure games "commercially viable."
  • You'll have to take that up with Buecheler and GameSpy. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No. In light of the facts, you need to demonstrate that this exceptional claim is true through providing multiple reliable sources. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Added another source that makes a similar remark. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to the additional source, which is fine. I am still bothered by the word "viable," which I realize is the exact word used by GameSpy. Clearly King's Quest, Space Quest, and Leisure Suit Larry were popular despite having a parser, so the graphical adventure genre was already viable. Also clearly sales of point-and-click adventures like King's Quest V, Phantasmagoria, and Lucasarts' own Fate of Atlantis and Full Throttle were even better than most of those games, so the point-and-click interface proved popular and influential. It's okay to talk about how the SCUMM interface helped broaden the appeal of the genre, but that word viable just does not sit well with me. Indrian (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that is much better. Indrian (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "However, authors Connie Veugen and Felipe Quérette argued that, while Maniac Mansion‍ '​s point-and-click interface was influential, it removed the enjoyment of discovering a game's vocabulary" Are these the only critics making this claim? If so, its a fringe view and mentioning it gives undue weight. The comparative sales of graphical adventures versus text adventures post 1984 would imply most game players could care less about "discovering a game's vocabulary."
  • It appears in an article by the most notable game studies journal, so I'd have to say that that the remark's worthwhile for inclusion. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It does not matter if it's published in a reputable journal; if no one else is making this argument, it is a fringe theory and including it is undue weight. If you have more examples of this view, I have no problem with this staying as a representative of this viewpoint. My understanding is that most students of game design do not find "guess the parser" particularly charming. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The game was one of the first to contain product placement—in its case, Pepsi branding" Not even close. Pole Position in 1982 had billboards for companies ranging from Pepsi to Dentyne to Marlboro. Chase the Chuck Wagon in 1983 was essentially a Purina commercial. Tapper in 1984 featured a prominent Budweiser logo.
  • It should be pointed out that the article says "one of the first", which makes this a non-issue. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it's at least five years too late to be one of the first. This is dishonest. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Other games, such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game, Zool and Tapper, followed suit" As stated above, Tapper came out in 1984.
  • This is resolved as a result of the above change. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Maniac Mansion enthusiasts have drawn fan art of its characters, participated in tentacle-themed cosplay and produced a trailer for a fictitious film adaptation of the game." You can say this about just about any popular video game. This is not relevant absent significant coverage of its impact in reliable sources, which is lacking here.
  • You could say it about any popular video game, but you don't on Wikipedia, because the sources rarely discuss it. It was discussed here, so it's a perfect opportunity to include it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Gilbert has said that he would like to see an official remake, similar in its graphics and gameplay to The Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition and Monkey Island 2 Special Edition: LeChuck's Revenge. However, he expressed doubts about its potential quality, in light of George Lucas' enhanced remakes of the original Star Wars trilogy." No point in mentioning a potential remake that is not going to happen, and I am guessing that jab about the Star Wars special editions was just Gilbert being funny.
  • From watching the GDC presentation, I'd have to say that I don't think he was joking. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "TV adaptation and game sequel" This section should come before "Impact and Legacy," as the article should really end with the game's place in history.

Well, that is a lot of material, but the FAC can certainly still be successful with a little hard work. The foundation of the article is strong; it just needs some tweaking and reworking here and there. Indrian (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Still want to leave the nom for GamerPro, but there are a few points above that he might not know about (not having seen the sources), so I included some responses above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I still like a lot of what is going on in this article, which is informative and excellently sourced. Your apparent insistence on including questionable material without regards the exceptional nature of certain claims worries me, however. The Verifiability policy is not an excuse to eschew fact checking or promote fringe opinions. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll let GamerPro handle the rest. If he needs help with the Overview expansion, I'll handle that as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate all your hard work. I made the tactical error of conducting the review pretty late at night and was probably not as articulate on some issues as I could have been. My apologies if that got us off on the wrong foot a little bit. The article is really coming along! Indrian (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Indrian: A few points above still await your replies. Also, I can't fix the dev section issues without access to the RG article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, real life has the annoying habit of laying waste to our plans. Looks like we are nearly there, and I will get you that RG info in the near future. Indrian (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • "which went on to be used in": a little wordy; how about just "which was used in"?
  • "Aside from the green tentacle, the mansion's inhabitants pose a threat": does this mean that the green tentacle does not pose a threat? If so, how about "With the exception of the green tentacle, the mansion's inhabitants are hostile, and will throw the player characters into the dungeon"? I like "hostile" better than "pose a threat" partly because the inhabitants are plural but it would sound odd to say "pose threats".
  • Done. Hostile does sound better. GamerPro64 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead says "Maniac Mansion was Lucasfilm's first foray into video game publishing", but later you mention Koronis Rift as an earlier LucasFilm game. I see further on that it was publishing a game that was new, not creating a game, but that's not clear in the lead.
    • So self-publishing would make the most sense in the lead? GamerPro64 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
      The way you have it in the body is good: "While previous Lucasfilm Games products had been published by outside companies, Maniac Mansion was self-published." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Moved the sentence in to the lead. GamerPro64 00:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I saw the earlier discussion about "accredited" vs. "credited"; I think technically you may be right but as a matter of common usage "credited" sounds much better to me. I really think you should change this.
  • "co-wrote and -designed": a bit ugly; can we have "co-wrote and co-designed" instead?
  • "Lucasfilm employee Chip Morningstar contributed base code for the engine, upon which Gilbert built": a bit clumsy. How about "Lucasfilm employee Chip Morningstar contributed the base code for the engine, which Gilbert then built on"?
  • "Each cartridge was fitted with a battery back-up to save data": I don't follow this. What does the battery have to do with saving data?
    If I recall correctly, batteries were the things powering the cartridges save files. I believe The Legend of Zelda (video game) was well known for being innovative at the time. GamerPro64 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    OK -- can something (perhaps a footnote) be added to clarify this? For a reader like me it's quite unclear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Can't find a source to back this up, unfortunately. GamerPro64 03:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
      Struck; it's apparent from some quick googling that that's the case, so it's not a controversial point. I changed it to "battery-powered" to make it clearer to those of us who never played these games. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "However, Nintendo later noticed it and demanded its removal. After the first batch of cartridges was sold, Jaleco was forced to remove the content from future shipments": might be more concise as "However, Nintendo later noticed it, and after the first batch of cartridges was sold, Jaleco was forced to remove the content from future shipments".
  • "Ports for the Amiga, Atari ST and Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) followed": I assumed when I read this that the ports followed in fairly short order, but per a comment later in the article the Amiga port was published six years later. Perhaps the dates of the ports could be included at this first mention.
    • Done. GamerPro64 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
      So the review was six years later; the port was only two years after the original release. I didn't get that first time through. In that case how about changing "Reviewing Maniac Mansion‍ '​s Amiga version, Simon Byron of The One Amiga praised the game for retaining "charm and humour" six years after its first appearance. However, he believed that its art direction had become "tacky" compared to more recent titles" to "Reviewing Maniac Mansion‍ '​s Amiga version four years after its release, Simon Byron of The One Amiga praised the game for retaining "charm and humour", but suggested that its art direction had become "tacky" compared to more recent titles."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "she believed the game to be highly enjoyable": "believed" is an odd word to use here; it's her opinion, not her belief. Perhaps "felt" would be better.
  • Richard Cobbett is referred to only as "Cobbett" at first mention, and his relevance is not explained; I'd move this from second mention to first.
  • Must have been when I moved the TV section over the Legacy section that it doesn't make sense. Fixed it. GamerPro64 03:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Conversely, Maniac Mansion‍ '​s implementation of the concept was widely imitated in other adventure titles": why "conversely"?
    • I don't think I know what conversely means so I wouldn't know a different word to use here. GamerPro64 03:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
      It gets used in constructions like "A, but conversely B" to indicate that B in some sense works in the opposite direction to A. The article has "Although 1985's Uninvited had featured a point-and-click interface, it was not influential. Conversely, Maniac Mansion‍ '​s implementation of the concept was widely imitated in other adventure titles." If Maniac Mansion had been influential, but not had a point-and-click interface, then you could have said "Although 1985's Uninvited had featured a point-and-click interface, it was not influential. Conversely, Maniac Mansion‍ was influential, but did not include a point-and-click interface"; the two games would have the influence and interface compared, and it would be clear that one was the converse of the other. In the article text as it stands I don't know what two things are supposed to be converses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Removed "Conversely". Think that helps the sentence better. GamerPro64 00:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "unlike anything else out there – a point-and-click adventure": this is a spaced en dash; you use unspaced em dashes elsewhere. I know this is in a quote, but that doesn't matter; it's OK to clean up minor typographical variations in order to get a consistent style.
  • Done, I think. GamerPro64 03:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

-- That's everything I can see on a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support. Everything I noted has been fixed; I think this is FA quality now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Pretty good, very nice Impact and legacy sect, but overall throughout the article a bit too much overreliance on quotes. I'd recommend trimming those down in size and/or also paraphrasing some, still citing to those sources with attribution if given already, but just writing the overall gist of what they're saying and not quoting as much. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about horse-flies, biting and blood-sucking insects that bother both people and animals. The article achieved good article status in August after a thorough review by Shyamal during which it was improved considerably. The review mainly concentrated on content rather than layout, so I have done some further polishing. I look forward to your comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

NB: This is a wikicup nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Burklemore1[edit]

Another insect article I cannot resist commenting on. My points are very minor, just suggestions really that is involved with the references. I may post more comments in the future though, depending if I am busy or not.

  • Page numbers for references 2 and 3? I know the statement is very obvious, but it would help if page numbers are included.
The title of the books both include (Diptera: Tabanidae) so I could cite the cover! I could instead cite ITIS if you prefer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
That works, the cover should be fine. If you want to include ITIS, feel free to.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Add doi:10.1071/ZO9550583 for ref no. 2
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Add doi:10.1071/IS07005 for ref no. 27
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Add PMID 18685822 and Bibcode 2008NW.....95.1093H for ref no. 35
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it should be noted that only females bite.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This page says that fungi other things attack the larvae, though most listed organisms are already mentioned. See here, page 12.
Added to article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I find it odd that there is no external links section for the wikispecies link and dictionary link. It's just within the reference section, and it looks visually strange in my opinion.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Any reason why the common names in the body of the article are bolded? While they are common names for these flies, I thought it was only necessary to bold the names in the lead. I may be in the wrong, but I have never seen this occur in FA articles related to animals. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I think I have dealt with all the issues you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
All issues have been addressed, I've made two minor edits to the article. I cannot see anything that appears to be problematic, so I am now supporting this article. Well done on another excellent insect article. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Theater_of_Insects.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thank you Nikkimaria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Hi, I'll give this a review soon, a few points for now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there no photos of the eggs and larvae? If not on Commons, perhaps on Flickr or in old books.
I did a photo search on this matter and I had no luck. However, I did find this one of a female laying eggs. See here. It could be useful for the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me, it is also on Commons:[5] If pressed for room, I certainly think such an image is more relevant than for example the one of the wasp. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I decided to add it in due to its relevance, though it may make the article look a little bit crammed. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Burklemore1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries! Burklemore1 (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The images under In literature are on the same level, which is discouraged (due to "sandwiching" of text). If no other arrangement can be found, I think the book cover is almost irrelevant to the subject, it doesn't even seem to depict the fly.
Sorted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why an "overview" section title is needed to encompass both description, evolution and taxonomy. Isn't consistent with other articles about similar subjects. Also, it doesn't really mean anything; an overview of some issues to the arbitrary exclusion of others? FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Tabanidae are true flies and members of the insect order Diptera." Why is this under description?
Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Most unfamiliar terms are explained, but some are not, for example setae, flagellum, and ocelli, and others as well.
Done the ones I found. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You mention sizes two different places under description, might be good to have them in succession.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph under Description seems to overlap with the diet section.
Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "These early bloodsuckers existed before warm-blooded mammals had evolved and likely fed on reptiles." Does the source really say this? I'm pretty sure warm blooded mammals are thought to have evolved before the Jurassic, and before the first dinosaurs.
Rewritten to better reflect the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems a bit unclear from the article, but does the term "horsefly" refer to Tabanidae overall or just Tabaninae?
Both really. The article should be called "Tabanidae" but Wikipedia policy seems to give articles common rather than scientific names. Tabaninae could be called "true horseflies" I suppose. I have bolded Tabanidae in the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Johann Wilhelm Meigen was a pioneering naturalist and author of Die Fliegen (Flies); he gave the name Haematopota, blood-drinker,[29] to another genus of horse-flies in 1803.[30]" Seems a bit random to single this one out with so much information, from thousands of species?
Rewritten to emphasize his importance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "while Chrysops larvae have been reported to feed on organic matter, their mouth parts indicate a predatory habit." I'm not sure what is meant by this sentence, as it has already been stated they are carnivorous?
Removed sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - That's all I had to say, nice work! FunkMonk (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your review and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). There's a bit about prevention but I was expecting to see a tad bit more on symptoms impacting humans from the bites and just a teeny bit about how to treat Horse-fly bites or at least attempt to ameliorate them. — Cirt (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I have added a short section on the symptoms and treatment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks quite good, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from TAP[edit]

  • "In some areas of Canada, biting tabanids are known as bull dog flies" – the source or its link to the etymology of "bulldog" do not mention the suggestion of "some areas of Canada" or specify "biting tabanids", only referring to the family
Corrected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Source 9 – perhaps change the link to this fact page instead of the background page?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oxford commas – I would advise being consistent throughout. For example, "antennae, frons and maxillae", "Greenland, Iceland and Hawaii", and "Tabanus, Chrysops and Haematopota" are without commas
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "specimens from the Cretaceous have been found in England and South Africa" – source mentions specimens from the Cretaceous in England, Spain, and a single possible South African specimen
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "morphological" – link?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "tibiae" – link?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "genus Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758 and the deer flies, genus Chrysops Meigen, 1802" – the details of the genera describers make this appear slightly messy. Otherwise, I would advise delinking genus and instead linking it in its first usage ("genus Chrysops")
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "exudates" – possibly link?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "its movement, its warmth, its surface texture" – "its" seems repetitive
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Blue tail fly" – capitalise song title
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think I have dealt with all the points you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the family that ruled England from the 12th to the 15th centuries—a period that changed and shaped a nation from what had become an Anglo-Norman colony. The article failed a FAC back in 2013, largely due to attempting to act as a general history of the period and a history of the Plantagenets (including the Angevin, Yorkist and Lancastrian periods). Since then it has been split with the general history moved to England in the Late Middle Ages and a greater emphasis on the family added here. Since then it has undergone two peer reviews, a copy edit from GOCE and a successful Milhist A class review. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:37, 8 September 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) 15:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • What is the meaning of the red squares in the Hundred Years' War map animation?
red squires are crucial battles - added to key. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Royal_Arms_of_England_(1198-1340).svg: should explicitly indicate that the design is now PD
  • File:The_Children_of_Henry2_England.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:Henry_II_Plantagenet.jpg
  • File:France_1154-en.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
  • @Reigen:—I think this is your image can you answer this one (pls) thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Consult this one: [6] Reigen (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Same with File:Hundred_years_war.gif, which is tagged as lacking source info
  • On a second look I have removed the gif as it appears to have other issues Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Seal_-_Richard_I_of_England.jpg: since this was photographed in France, which does not have freedom of panorama, should explicitly indicate that the work itself is PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologies @Nikkimaria:—I am not sure how to to correctly tag these images. Would you be able to give some advice, please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • For anything published or publicly displayed centuries ago, {{PD-old-100}} or a derivative of {{PD-US}} works - in this case I would suggest {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} for all licensing issues above. That will just leave the two sourcing questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thx for this—More problematic than I thought but I think I have done these Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Comments

This article seems to me of FA quality. A few quibbles about prose before I sign on the dotted line:

  • Typos
    • Montfort becomes Montford at one point, and "manausript" is presumably a typo for "manuscript"
  • General
    • The article cannot make up its mind how to name the conflict that began in 1337. We are offered the choice of "the Hundred Years' War" (with possessive apostrophe) and "the Hundred Years War" (without apostrophe). I don't quibble with "100 years war" in the alt text for the map.
      • A couple of the sources are titled without the apostrophe so I have gone with that—although the Wikipedia pages have the apostophe in their titlesNorfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • "significant English buildings" – what did they signify? A pity to use "significant" as a mere synonym of "important" or "celebrated" or "large".
  • Origin
    • "a power struggle occurred between the counts of Anjou…" – I'm not clear from this how many sides there were in this power struggle. Was it a free-for-all or a struggle between the king on one side and all the rest on the other?
      • Rephrased to hopefully make clear that it was very much a free for all Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • "the unification of the counts of Anjou" – can one unify a count as opposed to his countship?
    • Third para: there's a bit too much "however"ing here. The word is rarely necessary, and the reader's eye is distracted by running into it twice in quick succession.
      • Removed all the howevers....looks much better to me Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Arrival in England
    • "which may have occurred" – "which might have occurred"?
    • "later called The Anarchy" – the relevant WP article neither italicises the phrase nor capitalises the definite article.
    • "the successful termination of the conflict" – successful for whom?
  • Angevin zenith
    • "the marriage of Henry's brother and taxation" – I think that for once an Oxford comma would help the prose.
  • Decline and the loss of Anjou
    • "however his son" – if you're going to have a "however" here you need a comma after it
    • "The official website of The British Monarchy" – no need to capitalise the definite article in mid-sentence (despite the typography of the site in question).
  • Expansion in Britain
    • I'm not sure why we refer to the Treaty of Woodstock in the text but to the Treaty of Montgomery in the (excellent) graphic alongside.
  • House of Lancaster
    • "whom it was claimed was the elder son" – false accusative here: you want "who"
    • "the English economy sunk" – sank?
    • "Hanse League" – link to Hanseatic League?
    • "cloth exports fell" – per cent or percent? We have both in one sentence. According to the MoS per cent is BrEng and percent AmEng.
      • Article tagged as BrEng so per cent Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • "Edward was slain at the battle of Agincourt" – slain? A bit biblical, perhaps?

That's all I can find to grumble about. The article is thorough but not excessively detailed. A huge amount of information is packed into 8,000 words – very impressive. – Tim riley talk 10:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Now happily adding support. I think this is a very fine piece of work, and meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Almost support--minor quibbles
  • Some of the prose is confusing.
    • "They held the English throne from 1154, with the accession of Henry II, until 1485, when Richard III died." The family held the English throne from the accession of Henry II in 1154 until the death of Richard III in 1485.
    • "But Henry I quarreled with Count Geoffrey and Matilda about handing over some possessions and power while he was still alive to ensure the succession." However, Henry I quarreled with Count Geoffrey and Matilda over handing ... Are you saying here that Geoffrey and Matilda wanted Henry to hand over some possessions that would insure the succession, or that Henry was withholding the possessions because he wanted to insure the succession, or am I just totally stupid about this? There are several other sentences that begin with "but" which could also be examined. For example, "But he [Richard] was respected for his military leadership and courtly manners...(although he was respected for his courtly manners and military leadership, Richard was also a ruthless....
      • It was the former, and it wasn't clear—reworded, what do you think?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I have now tweaked all the sentences that formally started with "But ". Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • While returning from the Crusade, Richard was captured by Leopold. He was passed to .... Philip II of France overran large portions of Normandy, while John controlled much of the remainder of Richard's lands. -- While Henry the Lion held Richard for ransom (1192–1194), Philip II overran large portions of Normandy in his absence and his brother John acquired control of the remainder of Richard's English lands....? Or, while returning from the Crusade, Leopold of Austria captured Richard and eventually passed him to Henry the Lion. During Richard's captivity, .....
  • just some ideas. I'd be happy to go through this further with you. HOWEVER, it is an excellent article, and you do realize that this are nit-picks. auntieruth (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, have finished reading, made some tweaks on prose. The prose is still confusing, and some of the sentences are still long and confusing. When @Hchc2009: has had a look, let me know, and I'll re-read. I think you also need to deal with Ealdgyth's questions about sources. I'm not up-to-date on those. auntieruth (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Wow. Cant fault this on prose; its very clear and well written through out. Leaning Support in liew of a source review. We need subject matter experts here; pining Ealdgyth & Johnbod Ceoil (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments I seem to remember suggesting or supporting the split the nom describes some while ago, & I think it has worked very well.
Thank you for your kind words, you did suggest the split and I am very glad you think it has worked well. Your comments leave me a bit more than I expected but I will crack with trying to answer them Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There are stretches with no images that could be filled. Becket's assassination for example is easily illustrated.
  • Lead: "England was transformed from a colony, often governed from abroad and considered less significant than other European monarchies, into a sophisticated, politically engaged and independent kingdom". I don't like or believe this unreferenced sentence for several reasons, especially the first part. England was never a colony, either strictly or loosely, and was not "often governed from abroad". Unlike the Angevins, Cnut and the Norman kings spent most of their time in England, and regarded it as their most important possession. What "other monarchies" was England "considered less significant" than, in say 1200? Unlike France and the Empire it was a unitary state actually controlled by the monarch, which the French kings hugely envied. All other European monarchies (without going as far as the Bulgarians etc) were pretty tiny. "Politically engaged" is I suppose one way to describe the last years of Plantagenet England, but probably not the best.
  • Good point, as the sentence wasn't redeemable I have removed, don't think anything important was lost? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Angevin zenith" I'd include the titles in the list of "issue", at least for those who reached adulthood, as you later do with similar lists. Same again for the children of Edward I later.
  • "His cruelty was demonstrated by his massacre of 2,600 prisoners in Acre" - historians of the Crusades tend to be more sympathetic to the Massacre at Ayyadieh . Saladin dragged his feet on the normal negotiations for the ransom of prisoners to use up the remainder of Richard's campaigning season, and to allow his reinforcements to arrive. The Siege of Acre (1189–91) ended on July 12 and the massacre was not until August 22. By the conventions of the day Richard's actions were not inappropriate (in best Official Enquiry language). "Ruthlessness" would be better than "cruelty".
  • Re Bouvines "The battle greatly contributed to the formation of the absolute monarchy in France." Hmm. Absolute monarchy in France begins, conventionally enough, "Absolute monarchy in France slowly emerged in the 16th century and became firmly established during the 17th century." This is what people mean when they use the term. The article doesn't mention Bouvines btw. The French monarchy in 1214 still only really controlled a small part of France, with huge limitations on its power elsewhere. The source dates from 1836 I see; I doubt modern historians make so much of it as Smedley, though it did end the Dukes of Normandy and would have done so for the Counts of Anjou if the kings had not foolishly re-granted the fief.
  • Not really about the Plantagenets, is it? So I have removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "( Anjou), Brittany, Maine and Touraine,..." not all linked before I think
  • "and built a magnificent, still-extant shrine for the Confessor" yukky phrasing.
  • "...the pope offered Henry's brother Richard the Kingdom of Sicily, but the cost of making the claim good was prohibitive. Matthew Paris wrote that Richard stated: "You might as well say, 'I make you a present of the moon—step up to the sky and take it down'." Henry pur chased the kingdom for his son Edmund, which angered many powerful barons. He was bankrupted by his military expenses, ..." Somewhat puzzling without context, though the Valois Angevins managed it, for a while. You might mention that the Emperor was fairly firmly in control of Sicily & had no intention of handing it over. It sounds as if the "military expenses" were to do with Sicily, but they weren't, were they?
  • "instead his son married John of Gaunt's daughter Catherine of Lancaster, creating the title Prince of Asturias for themselves." grammar
  • "The prince fell ill and returned to England, where he soon died." - He was virtually bed-ridden for the last 10 years of his life, after Spain, from a mysterious affliction, which should really be mentioned.
  • " During the minority of Henry VI the war caused political division among the Plantagenets, Bedford, Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester, and Cardinal Beaufort. " reads mysteriously, given that the only mention of Bedford so far supressed his title. They were all H6's uncles, weren't they? Why not just say so?
  • "...and later murder of Henry VI extinguished the House of Lancaster." unreferenced, & it's far from certain he was murdered, isn't it?
  • Well I have added probable and sourced to ODNBNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • " In 1506 Archduke Philip returned Edmund and he was imprisoned in the Tower." no link? Who was he anyway?
  • "Richard III had asserted that her father Clarence's attainder barred his children from any claim to the throne and that her marriage arranged by Henry VII to Sir Richard Pole was not auspicious." Eh? The marriage was probably in 1487, after Richard's death anyway. The quality seems to be deteriorating in these later sections - many links missing, and fewer refs.
  • Ok, Far too many missing links now, which I won't go on adding myself.
  • More later Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Johnbod:— I have attempted to pick up from where you appear to have left off and added links where they appear to be missing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments Oppose Some minor bits for now, and I'll have a look through the earlier sections tomorrow in more detail.

  • "The king was no longer solely the most powerful man in the nation" - who else other than the king was the most powerful man in the nation after Magna Carta?
  • "a pitiful state later known as the Great Slump" - I couldn't see the Great Slump label picked up again in the main section, which felt odd if it was important enough for the lead
  • I've redrafted the lead to the more general social, political and economic problems and moved the Great Slump reference into the body.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Crime was rampant, and was often perpetrated by destitute soldiers returning from France." - I couldn't find the crime or destitute soldiers referenced in the main text (but apologies if I've missed it!)
  • "These children included nine sons (Richard, Oliver, John, Geoffrey, Henry, Osbert Gifford, Eudes, Bartholomew and [probably] Philip) and three daughters (Joan, Maud and probably Isabel)." - I found the [probably] a rather odd inject in square brackets, particularly as Isabel doesn't get them...
  • I don't think the capitalisation of "king" is consistent with WP:JOBTITLE.
  • There were many of these, but I think they are now all changed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There's inconsistency in the way that century is presented (e.g. "12th century" vice "twelfth century")
  • ""Plantegenest" (or "Plante Genest") had been a 12th-century nickname for Geoffrey V, perhaps because his emblem may have been the common broom, named planta genista in medieval Latin." - Plant, who's cited here, gives several other explanations other than just the emblem version.
  • "but that the term "espace Plantagenet" was acceptable." - should "espace Plantagenet" be in italics, since it's French? The meaning should be pretty obvious to most people, I guess, but a translation would also be good for absolute non-French readers! :)
  • "While Henry held Richard for ransom valued at 100,000 marks (1192–1194), Philip II overran large portions of Normandy in his absence" - the bracketed years didn't read smoothly to me; my eye expected it to be an equivalent sum of money...
  • "This brutal act drove Thomas and his adherents from power." it may have seemed brutal to some (but not, for example, to the nobles involved...) but we need to attribute that, otherwise it feels like judgemental editorial language.
  • "To obtain financial support, Edward summoned a precedent-setting assembly known as the Model Parliament, which included barons, clergy, knights, and burgesses." - I don't think it was known at the time as the Model Parliament, was it? Isn't that a much later label, and not often used nowadays in parliamentary studies?
  • "Among those arrested was the King's cousin Henry Courtenay, 1st Marquess of Exeter, his wife and 11-year-old son. (His wife was released two years later, but their son spent 15 years in the Tower until Queen Mary I released him). " - the bracketed sentence felt like poor drafting.
  • "Margaret was attainted; the strategic position of her estates on the south coast (a perceived invasion threat in which Reginald was involved) and her embittered relationship with Henry VIII precluded any chance of pardon, but the decision to execute her seems a spontaneous, rather than a premeditated, act." - this felt like a very long sentence to me.
  • "The poor state of the economy (as his government levied a number of poll taxes to finance military campaigns) resulted in the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, followed by brutal reprisals against the rebels." - again, I don't think the bracketed section is brilliant prose.
  • "While depopulation stemming from the Black Death led to increased wages, static food costs and a resulting improvement in the standard of living for the peasantry, the English economy sank to a pitiful state under Henry." is the link/contrast here really relevant? The depopulation from 1348 onwards did lead to increased wages for the peasantry, but there had been several economic ups and downs before we get to Henry in the 1420s, surely?
  • " Her execution was botched at the hands of "a wretched and blundering youth ... who literally hacked her head and shoulders to pieces in the most pitiful manner"." I couldn't tell from this who had written the quote.
  • In some of the quotes, the article wikilinks names etc. I think this runs contrary to the MOS, but I can't remember where I read it...
I think the MOS says that's fine, but you should do it with some consistency if you do it. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Found it... "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Linking. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "who accompanied Duke William of Normandy at the Conquest of England in 1066." - is the capitalisation of "Conquest" right?
I'd say "Norman Conquest" but "conquest of England" Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Copper-alloy boar mount found on the Thames foreshore near the Tower of London, London in October 2012..." This bit under the image needs a reference, as the last section of it goes beyond simple description of the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It's from the Museum of London on the image file, which I don't think needs a ref. Annoyingly, they don't specify that it is a livery badge, which might be added. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd normally expect it to be referenced directly in the article itself, e.g. to, where the information comes from. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Under the Plantagenets England was transformed although this was only partly due to the conscious intentions of the Plantagenets." - this read awkwardly.
  • "Winston Churchill stated in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples: "When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John, than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns." - This is a very typical, Whiggish Churchillian quote: but it doesn't reflect current scholarship.
  • Now I quite like this quote as a way of demonstrating that these kings weren't necessarily blessed with a reformist plan but take you point and have removed it. I think you objected to it before! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Plantagenets were also responsible for the construction of important English buildings, such as... Windsor Castle ". I think Windsor Castle was constructed by William I.
  • I have removed from lead as not really reflected in the body.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • ""Angevin" can also refer to their descendants and the period of history in which they reigned." - accept for John's descendants; I don't think anyone calls Henry III an Angevin usually?
  • True, so I have removed this clause. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "unified the houses of Anjou, Normandy and Wessex." - While true, it's not an observation I've seen made in many other contexts. Is it a typical point?
  • If this is true, although untypical, is this an issue? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Henry I had the marriage annulled to avoid strengthening William's rival claim to his lands." - well, at least Normandy.
  • "Henry I refused to relinquish any power to Geoffrey and Matilda that would be necessary for them to ensure the succession prompting a quarrel." - the more typical explanation for this is that Henry was worried they would use the Normandy castles to seize Normandy for themselves, while he was still alive.
  • " He later lost his support, enabling Geoffrey to continue with the conquest of Normandy." - "lost his support" seems a little too simple a statement here.
  • "According to William of Newburgh, who wrote in the 1190s, Count Geoffrey decided that Henry would receive England and Anjou for as long as he needed the resources for the conflict against Stephen. Count Geoffrey instructed that his body should not be buried until Henry swore an oath that the young Geoffrey would receive Anjou when England and Normandy were secured" - different historians take different views about the reliability of this chronicler's account.
  • I have left this in as it is cited to Gillingham, let me know if this is a significant issueNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Try Warren, Henry II, pp.45-46 for a critique of the Newburgh account. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Louis VII of France divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine on 18 March 1152," - wasn't it annulled?
  • "This disheartened Stephen, whose wife had recently died, and he surrendered. " I don't think Stephen surrendered to anyone.
  • "This angered Henry's eighteen-year-old son, Henry the Young King, who had not received any lands from his father." - more to the point, the castles given away technically belonged to Henry the Young King...
  • "The younger Henry rebelled before dying of dysentery." - it would have been unlikely to have been the other way around... ;)
  • " Arthur, Richard's nephew and nominated heir, obtained Anjou, Brittany, Maine and Touraine, while John ruled over England and Normandy." - the wording here isn't quite right; the "nominated heir" bit was nowhere near as clear, and "obtained" suggested he was given it, rather than being supported by some of the local nobility in what was effectively a civil war. The subsequent narrative then skips over the 1200 Treaty of Le Goulet, where Philip abandoned Arthur and recognised John's rights, and goes straight to the 1202 conflict. This section also misses the major debate over the role of economics in the struggle between Richard/John and Philip on the continent.
  • @Hchc2009:—could you give me a steer on the economic point? It is a major debate that I have missed in my ignorance! :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Try Barrett's "The Revenues of King John and Philip Augustus Revisited" in King John: New Interpretations, which you'll probably find visible on Google books. He summarises the argument pretty well. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reworked the sentence and added a couple of sentences on the debate, thx. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • " French barons supported Philip." - which French barons...? I couldn't work out who this was supposed to refer to.
  • "After re-establishing his authority in England, John planned to recapture Normandy and Anjou. The strategy was..." - there were several different strategies between 1202 and 1214.
  • Expanded to make clear this was his final, 1214 strategyNorfolkbigfish (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "John failed to abide by the terms of the Magna Carta, leading to the First Barons' War" - historians are pretty much convinced that neither side abided by the terms of the peace agreement.
  • NB: I'm opposing for now, as I think the text needs a fair bit of work. Jones gets a mention below by Ealdyth; he's a popular historian, and can be useful as a citation for some sorts of statements (in a positive way, he sometimes "states the obvious" that hardcore medievalists take for granted, so never write down in their books!) but I don't think he needs to be used extensively in this sort of article, where we should be able to rely on more specialist historians for the period. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Hchc2009:— quite a number more than I was hoping for. I will grind through these next week and see where it leaves us. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ta. Might also be worth having a look at the collapsed "Reigns of the Plantagenet monarchs of England" and "Timeline" section. The latter seems to be a duplicate of the information in the first. The "Reigns..." contains some rather judgemental language, though, and a rather odd selection of images... ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • We have "origin" then we digress to "terminology" then we go back to "angevin kings" - wouldn't it make more sense to do "terminology" "origins" and then "angevin kings"?
  • Arrival in England:
    • Need a citation on the quote "the heir to the kingdom".
    • "Henry I refused to relinquish any power to Geoffrey and Matilda that would be necessary for them to ensure the succession prompting a quarrel." With my background, I eventually figured out what you meant with this sentence, but it is very confusing. Suggest "In order to secure an orderly succession, Geoffrey and Matilda sought more power from Henry I, but the king refused and the two sides quarreled."
    • "Three events allowed for the Angevins' successful..." wordy - you can remove the "for"
  • Angevin zenith:
  • "even his favourite son, John, had rebelled" - but Geoffrey (archbishop of York), Henry's illegitimate son stayed loyal. He also played a big part in defeating the 1173-74 revolt.
  • I'm unable to find a single review of Jones' work - which you're using to support "Contemporary opinions of Richard were mixed. Although he was respected for his military leadership and courtly manners, he had rejected and humiliated the sister of the king of France, deposed the king of Cyprus and later sold the island, refused to give spoils from the Third Crusade to nobles such as Leopold V, Duke of Austria, and was rumoured to have arranged the assassination of Conrad of Montferrat. His cruelty was demonstrated by his massacre of 2,600 prisoners in Acre." The problem I have with this is in a couple parts. One - you say "mixed" but the emphasis is on "bad" stuff - it greatly outnumbers the "good". I would also be curious as to who the various opinions that go into Jones' statement are. The biographers of Richard, as well as other historians are pretty clear that contemporary opinion, while finding fault with Richard, usually considered him praiseworthy. Gillingham's article in the ODNB on Richard says "Inevitably historians attached to the courts of Philip Augustus and his allies took a hostile view, but not even Philip's panegyrist conceals his underlying admiration for Richard. According to Guillaume le Breton, had Richard been more God-fearing, and had he not fought against his lord, Philip of France, England would never have had a better king. Some English historians such as Coggeshall and William of Newburgh mix praise with criticism. Newburgh disapproves of Longchamp and thinks Richard overgenerous to John. A German contemporary, Walther von der Vogelweide, believes that it was precisely Richard's generosity that made his subjects willing to raise a king's ransom on his behalf. Richard's reputation, above all as a crusader, meant that the tone of contemporaries and near contemporaries, whether writing in the West or the Middle East, was overwhelmingly favourable. According to Baha ad-Din, Richard was a man of wisdom, experience, courage, and energy. Ibn al-Athir judges him the most remarkable ruler of his time for courage, shrewdness, energy, and patience. In France St Louis's biographer Joinville portrays Richard as a model for St Louis to follow. In England he became a standard by which later kings were judged. Even in Scotland, thanks to the quitclaim of Canterbury, he won a high place in historical tradition; according to John Fordun, he was ‘that noble king so friendly to the Scots’ (Chronica gentis Scottorum, 2.271)."
  • I've got a copy of Jones in front of me now (the revised 2013 edition) and there is nothing on page 128 (or in any of the coverage of Richard) that says anything about contemporary opinions of Richard. So where did this opinion come from? I checked the index and there is no entry on Richard's contemporary opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Richard was captured by Leopold while returning from crusade and passed to Henry the Lion." - you mean "his custody passed", right?
  • There is no discussion of William earl of Salisbury? Or Geoffrey, Archbishop of York? Or the other of Henry's illegitimate offspring? They would be considered Plantagenets also (Weir lists them in her various sections).
  • Decline:
  • "It was rumoured that Arthur was murdered by John himself," while that is one rumor - there are others that John ordered him drowned, but did not do the deed himself. Turner's biography of John says (p. 91) that Arthur either died at John's hand or at his orders.
  • "The battle greatly contributed to the formation of the absolute monarchy in France." is cited to a 1836 work. I do not think it's safe to say such a bald statement of causation of absolute monarchy based on an almost two hundred year old work. Especially as the article linked to ...Absolute monarchy in France ... itself says that absolute monarchy slowly emerged in the 16th century and was firmly established in the 17th.
  • "his son, King Henry III, maintained the claim to the empire until 1259." ... no, Henry maintained his claim to the continental lands. Given that earlier in the article you are equivical about there being such a thing as the Angevin Empire. I note this is sourced to Jones also...
  • Sourcing to ONDB added and wording revised. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "As a result of John's actions, French barons supported Philip." something is missing in this sentence - do you mean that all of the French barons or some of them or many of them? And yes, English historiography uses "barons" as a synonym for "leading nobles" but it's very jarring to see "barons" used in a French context as there is no rank of "baron" or such a thing as the "barony" in France. "Lords" or "Nobles" is what you use in to refer to the French equivalent of barons.
    • I usually see just plain "Magna Carta" not "the Magna Carta"... for example Huscroft Ruling England p. 150 "put his seal to Magna Carta" or Turner King John p. 104 "concerning Wales in Magna Carta"
  • It was grammatically correct as it was, but I have corrected on the grounds that it might be unusual. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The official website of the British Monarchy presents John's death as the end of the Angevin dynasty and the beginning of the Plantagenet dynasty." but other sources don't - including ones you use such as Weir. Cover both sides or drop the statement.
  • Both sides covered in the terminology section, this is just to indicate one particular view without repetition of the argument Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Baronial conflict:
    • Oh, now we mention illegitmate offspring? Why now and not for Henry II and Richard?
  • "The Marshal Protectorate issued an amended Magna Carta as a basis for future government." - i've never seen that period of Henry III's minority called the "Marshal Protectorate" - I checked the source 1215 p. 271 and there is nothing on that page about the information in that sentence. This is also not the greatest source to be using - it's very much a popular history (even if Gillingham helped). It's possible that the page numbers differ a bit (I have the 2005 Touchstone edition) but I checked pages around and nothing there. Nor is there an entry for "Marshal Protectorate" in the index.
  • Why "Bartholomew and [probably] Philip" but "and probably Isabel" in the same sentence?
  • the paragraph on Henry relies a lot on Jones again. ANd it's very disjointed .. we hear that Henry identified with Edward the Confessor because of the struggle with the nobility, but we've not yet heard that Henry had difficulties with the nobility - that comes later in the paragraph, after the bit about naming his son Edward and building a shrine to Edward.
  • Looking at the revised edition of Jones (2013) I found the section on Henry III and Edward the Confessor on pages 200-201. In the article, this set of sentences is sourced to Jones pp. 234-235: "Despite the Treaty of Lambeth, hostilities continued and Henry was forced to compromise with the newly crowned Louis VIII of France and Henry's stepfather, Hugh X of Lusignan. They both overran much of Henry's remaining continental lands, further eroding the Angevins' power on the continent. Henry perceived many similarities between himself and England's patron saint, Edward the Confessor, including his struggle with the nobility." But... the revised edition pp. 200-201 (which does discuss Henry's devotion to Edward) does NOT say anything about the Treaty of Lambeth, Hugh X of Lusignan. Nor does it back up "...including his struggle with the nobility." Jones draws a parallel with Edward's struggles with his ministers and having come to the throne in a time of civil disorder. The phrasing of Jones, however, says nothing to draw a parallel with Henry's troubles with his nobility. Jones is discussing the early part of Henry's reign - when his troubles were mainly with his ministers. I don't think you can say "struggle with the nobility" here. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "adding the earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury to the kingdom through his marriage" uh. No. Edmund's son Thomas did NOT add those earldoms to the kingdom - they were already IN the kingdom. Yes, eventually, they passed to the royal estate ... WAY down the road. Again - this is sourced to Jones - does Jones REALLY say that Thomas' marriage added the earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury to the kingdom? If he does, wow. You need to NOT be using him as a source, as that's so wrong it's breathtaking.
  • A slip in from ce, corrected and sourced to ONDB since you object to Jones. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I object to Jones, having now had a chance to see it. There are no footnotes. There are not even attempts to say where he's getting his information. It's not just a popular history (ala Weir) but it's almost a novelization at times. As an example - p. 112 of the revised edition (2013) starts the chapter with "Geoffrey archbishop of York stared up, like every other visitor to Dover, at the great castle being built above the harbor. It was September 1191 and work had progressed since the late King Louis VII had toured the building site with Henry II. Now Geoffrey could look up at its imposing square keep and think of his father..." That reads like a bad soap opera. Or later in the same paragraph where Jones baldly states that Geoffrey was the son of Ykenai, which I know from my own work on Geoffrey's article is not a settled fact for historians. But Jones says its a fact. This is the problem with using popular histories instead of actual historians. You end up stating things that are not accepted by actual historians. I would not consider it nearly as reliable as other sources and given the problems I've run into with it, I'd suggest someone with access to a copy of the 2012 HarperCollins edition audit every citation to it. You'd be better off using Desmond Seward's The Demon's Brood which DOES have endnotes so you can at least track down where he got his information. Other good sources would be Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, Prestwich's Plantagenet England (which is used slightly, but should see a lot more use - but why are you using TWO different editions? Use one, the most recent one.), the Yale University bios of the various kings, Clanchy's England and its Rulers, and others. There are too many good academic works out there to be relying on a book with no footnotes/endnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk
  • "He was bankrupted by his military expenses" - who was? The last person referred to in the previous sentence is Edmund Crouchback.
  • " in which Henry acknowledged the loss of the Duchy of Normandy, Maine, Anjou and Poitou, although he retained the Channel Islands." uh. Gascony was kept. It remained in English hands for quite a bit longer - until the 100 years war was ending up, in fact. And this is sourced to a UN document? Can't we find something ... more academic and rigourous? is this the document in question? If so, it does not support the full text that's subscribed to it - "The pope offered Henry's brother Richard the Kingdom of Sicily, but the cost of making the claim good was prohibitive. Matthew Paris wrote that Richard stated: "You might as well say, 'I make you a present of the moon—step up to the sky and take it down'." Henry purchased the kingdom for his son Edmund, which angered many powerful barons. He was bankrupted by his military expenses, and barons led by Henry's brother-in-law Simon de Montfort forced him to agree to the Provisions of Oxford, under which his debts were paid in exchange for substantial reforms. He was also forced by Louis IX of France to agree to the Treaty of Paris, in which Henry acknowledged the loss of the Duchy of Normandy, Maine, Anjou and Poitou, although he retained the Channel Islands. The treaty stated that Henry would retain "islands (if any) which [he] should hold ... as peer of France and Duke of Aquitaine"." I'm pretty sure that the UN judgement only has any bearing on the last bits and thus the whole earlier section of that statement is unsourced.
  • Constitutional change:
    • We gave marriages for John and Henry III's children, but not now? or only partially? Consistency.
    • "Among her eleven children were earls of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton, and countesses of Ormond and Devon" - should be "Among her eleven children were the earls of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton, and the countesses of Ormond and Devon"
  • I think this is grammatically correct as it stands Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not. I read it as saying that among her 11 children were several that were earls of Hereford, several that were earls of Essex, several that were earls of Northampton, several that were countesses of Ormond and several that were countesses of Devon. In fact, two of her sons were Earl of Hereford AND Essex in succession and a third son was created earl of Northampton. One daughter married the earl of Ormond, and another married the earl of Devon - but none of this is clear from the article text - which lumps the five children who held titles into some sort of mass that's hard to distinguish. 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk
    • "who was executed by order of Mortimer and Queen Isabella" -but we don't know who Queen Isabella IS yet. Confusing.
    • "His military campaigns left him in debt, and to enable him to raise more taxes through the frequently summoned Parliaments, he tried to gain support for his policies among the lesser landowners and merchants". Several problems here. The preceding sentence is "Because of his legal reforms, Edward is sometimes called "The English Justinian", but whether he was a reformer or an autocrat responding to events is a matter of debate." which doesn't really mesh with the bit about military campaigns and leaves the whole debate undebated. The military campaign sentence is also confusing - switching tenses and leaving subjects dangling. What were his attempts to gain support with the lesser landowners and merchants and why are they connected to his attempts to raise money? Totally lacking in context.
  • Expansion:
  • " Llywelyn ap Gruffudd ruled North Wales as a subordinate of the English king. Llywelyn maintained that he was "entirely separate from" England and Edward considered him to be "a rebel and disturber of the peace"." ... okay. First you state baldly that Llewelyn was a subordinate of the English king, then the next sentence it comes out that well, Llewelyn didn't think he was subordinate... which is it? If Llewelyn objected, it's pretty clear there was some dispute and the first sentence is not quite true. And why use "a subordinate" here... there are better terms. Again, you're relying on Jones when you should probably be using the various biographies of Llewelyn and Edward available.
  • Okay, that's enough. There are some serious issues with the article. Still has some issues with trying too much to be a political history of the dynasty without really covering the actual members of the house. There are members of the house left off or covered in only slight bits. Yes, it's improved, but not nearly to FA status. There are some factual errors here that need fixing. The prose has issues. There are places where I spot checked sourcing and came up with issues. It's taken me two and a half hours to do this much of the review, and I've still got over two thirds of the article to go. It's not FA ready and probably needs some serious serious work to get there.
  • I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose and strongly suggest engaging Hchc2009 to help with many of these issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


  • Arrival in England:
  • "Louis VII of France divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine on 18 March 1152, and she married Henry (who would become Henry II) on 18 May 1152. Henry consequently acquired the Duchy of Aquitaine, greatly increasing his resources and power." Weir pp. 60-61 does not say a thing about "greatly increasing his resources and power". There is also some lost nuance here - as Weir points out that Henry only became Duke of Aquitaine in right of his wife, which probably needs to be made plainer as this fact has a bit of importance later.
  • Angevin zenith:
  • "Of Henry's siblings, William died as a child and Geoffrey died unmarried and childless,..." William was born 1136 and died 1164 - at age 28. This isn't a child. Nor does Weir (p. 60) say William was a child. And you list 8 children - but Weir gives 9 (8 sure, one possible). Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.) gives only 8, however. (Note that Weir is the only place I see the existence of Philip, son of Henry II and Eleanor, even mentioned.)
  • Decline and loss of Anjou:
  • "John's defeat weakened his authority in England, and his barons forced him to agree to the Magna Carta, which limited royal power. John failed to abide by the terms of the Magna Carta, leading to the First Barons' War, in which rebellious barons invited Prince Louis, the husband of Blanche, Henry II's granddaughter, to invade England. Louis did so and John died in October 1216, before the conflict was conclusively ended." is all sourced to Weir p. 74. The only thing that Weir p. 74 actually sources here though is "John died in October 1216"... the rest is not supported by Weir p. 74. Weir is merely a genealogical account - she does not give much chronological data ... so we have a pretty big issue of unsourced material here.
  • Baronial conflict:
  • "Eleanor – wife of William Marshal's son (also named William), and later the English rebel Simon de Montfort" is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 306. But this only says that Eleanor married William Marshal, son of William Marshal. No mention of her marrying Simon de Montfort.
    • Small issue - the correct citation for current citation 44 "Richardson 2004 p. 9" is more like "Richardson 2004 pp. 9-13" as all the illegit offspring given are actually ennumerated on pages 11-13. A nitpick - Philip is given as "possibly" John's but Isabel is just listed as "alleged". Note also that Charles Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis Royal Bastards of Medieval England p. 179 gives as sure bastards of John "Joan, Oliver, Geoffrey, Richard de Dover, Osbert Giffard, John, Henry". Possible bastards are "Richard and Eudo (or Ivo)". Doubtful offspring are given as "Isabel la Blanche". Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed) gives only Joan and Richard de Warenne, lord of Chilham, but they don't list all bastards.
  • "Joan was the best known of these, since she married Prince Llewelyn the Great of Wales." is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 328. But p. 328 discusses Joan, Henry III's younger FULL sister, who married Alexander II of Scotland, not Joan, Henry III's older half sister, who married Llewelyn the Great. Source does not support the statement given for it.
  • "Margaret of England (1240–1275). Her three children predeceased her husband, Alexander III of Scotland; consequently, the crown of Scotland became vacant when their only grandchild, Margaret, Maid of Norway, drowned in 1290" is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 203 - but that page does not support the statement at all. All it supports is that Margaret (who is usually known as "The Maid of Norway" not plain "Maid of Norway") died in 1290 while on board a ship to Scotland. Nothing about drowning, being the only grandchild of Margaret of England and Alexander III, etc.
  • "Edmund Crouchback (1245–1296), who inherited the titles and estates of Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester and the earldom of Leicester after Henry defeated Montfort in the Second Barons' War. Henry later granted Edmund the earldoms of Lancaster and Ferrers. From 1276, through his wife, Edmund was Count of Champagne and Brie." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 75. But this source does not say anything about Edmund inheriting the titles and estates of Simon de Montfort after Montfort's defeat. Weir says Edmund was created Earl of Leicester on 26 October 1265 and Earl of Lancaster on 30 June 1267. Being created as an earl is not the same as inheriting it. Henry III granted Edmund the lands and honours of Montfort. Weir also notes that it was Edmund's second marriage that gained him Champagne and Brie.
  • Is Prestwich 2007 the paperback edition of Plantagenet England? I ask because the current citation 60 goes to Prestwich 2007 p. 101 - but this does not appear to fully support the information given there (it appears to be the start of the section discussing the events leading up to Evesham, which if this is a different edition, makes sense that the numbering of pages would be off).
  • Conflict with the House of Valois:
  • The entire third paragraph staring "Fighting in the Hundred Years War spilled from the French and Plantagenet..." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 102, but the only thing in that paragraph that p. 102 supports is the part "and John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, the Black Prince's brother, married Peter's daughter Constance". The rest is not supported by that page of Weir (not even the bit about John of Castile's son marrying Catherine of Lancaster because Weir only says that Katherine, daughter of John of Gaunt and Constance of Castile, married Henry III of Castile. Weir doesn't say who Katherine's father in law was.
  • House of Lancaster:
  • "Henry married his Plantagenet cousin Mary de Bohun, who was paternally descended from Edward I and maternally from Edmund Crouchback. They had seven children:" is sourced to Weir 2008 pp. 124-130. The children numbers are correct, as is Henry's marriage to Mary de Bohun, but Weir just says that Mary was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun by Joan, daughter of Richard FitzAlan, a descendant of Henry III.
  • House of York:
  • "By the mid-1470s, the victorious House of York looked safely established, with seven living male princes. Edward and Elizabeth Woodville themselves had ten children, seven of whom survived him" is sourced to Weir 2008 pp. 139-145, but this does not support the first sentence.
  • "Richard seized the throne, and the Princes in the Tower were never seen again. Richard's son predeceased him and Richard was killed in 1485 after an invasion of foreign mercenaries led by Henry Tudor, who claimed the throne through his mother Margaret Beaufort. He assumed the throne as Henry VII, founding the Tudor dynasty and bringing the Plantagenet line of kings to an end." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 145 but the only thing that page supports is "Richard was killed in 1485" and "Richard's son predeceased him"
  • Tudor:
  • "When Henry Tudor seized the throne there were eighteen Plantagenet descendants who might today be thought to have a stronger hereditary claim, and by 1510 this number had been increased further by the birth of sixteen Yorkist children." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 75 - but there is NOTHING on that page relating to Yorkists or Tudors.
  • Error slipped in via copyediting, should have been page 148. Now corrected Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Warwick was implicated by two further failed invasions supported by Margaret using Perkin Warbeck pretending to be Edward IV's son Richard of Shrewsbury, and Warbeck's later planned escape for them both; Warwick was executed in 1499. Edward's execution may simply have been a precondition for the marriage of Arthur, Prince of Wales to Katherine of Aragon in 1501." is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 1, but nothing on Carpenter 2004 p. 1 supports this at all. All Carpenter 2004 p. 1 talks about is the background and development of the term Britain as a geographical term for historians prior to and around the Norman Conquest.
  • Haha, this one I can answer easily, there are two Carpenter 2004 works cited, this should have linked to the ONDB. Now fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that just because there are all these problems with sourcing, I'm not of the opinion that they are deliberate. It's difficult when someone starts working on an already developed article - it's very easy to mix sourcing up or just assume that any citations already present are correct. The way to avoid those issues is to check every single citation yourself - but that's a LOT of work. I do think ALL the citations in this article need checking - I've checked those for works I have, but I don't have the editions of Jones used, nor do I have some of the other works used. Until that's done, though, I'm going to have to stay opposed to this article's promotion - there are just too many sourcing issues for me to be comfortable with it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this @Ealdgyth:—I am working my way down (from top to bottom) HCHC2009's comments at the moment and will try and get to yours in a bit. As you can probably guess there were more than I was expecting. Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Another WWI-related article with a major centenary coming up, this being the anniversary of the ship's sinking (which was the worst loss of life for the German Navy in the Baltic). I'd like to have the article through FAC in time to run the article on the centenary. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


  • No DABs, external links good.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • Infobox issues, some of which also crop up in the main body: link boiler, indicated horsepower, knot, nmi, torpedo tubes, belt, turret, deck
    • Tell the reader what kind of engine a triple-expansion engine is.
    • Abbreviate indicated horsepower
  • Link training ship, squadron, Baltic, German Army, magazines, main battery
  • Need a hyphen between coal and fired and twin and gun.
  • More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Think I've got everything so far. Thanks, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • What do you men by construction number? Is that like yard number?
    • Linked.
  • young sailor Prince Adalbert of Prussia Not sure what you mean by young sailor, but do tell the reader that Adalbert was Willy's son.
    • Clarified.
  • Gunnery school or gunnery training ship?
    • Fixed.
  • German ranks need English equivalents
    • Think I've gotten them all.
  • Add |lastauthoramp=1 to your multi-author works to match the format of your notes. Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Should use bold markup rather than semicolons for dividing the Notes section. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Done, thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). References 1, 4, and 5 seem to have some template problems. Invalid |last-author-amp=1, not sure how to fix that. — Cirt (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Since I've been encouraging Parsec to use the ampersands, I went ahead and fixed them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, looks better now, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR, and with the above tweaks, I believe it meets FA requirements. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Trout Creek Mountains[edit]

Nominator(s): Jsayre64 (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about perhaps the most rural area in Oregon and a section of the vast American Basin and Range Province. These mountains are little known to outsiders and rarely visited. So I find it fascinating to learn and write about this landscape (though I wasn't the one who initially wrote the article). The GA reviewer in January wrote, "Please take this to FA," and a peer reviewer provided helpful suggestions on the talk page in August, helping work toward that goal. Now with more improvements since the middle of August, I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Finetooth[edit]

  • I reviewed this article in early August and posted my thoughts on the article's talk page: Talk:Trout Creek Mountains#Peer review. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a few more suggestions.


  • It might be better to recast the first sentence to eliminate link bump: Great Basin mountain range. One way to do this would be to unlink "mountain range", which is already familiar to most readers. I would also unlink "United States"; it's too well-known to need a link.
  • "the mountains are open to recreation but see few visitors" – Maybe "are rarely visited" since mountains can't see.
  • "Wildlife includes bushes, grasses, birds and mammals." – Too general. Specific examples from the main text would make this more interesting. Big sagebrush, desert grasses, mule deer, pronghorn, sage grouse, a few cottonwoods and alders?
  • I'd mention the mercury mines in the lede; they were of significant historical importance.
  • "However, the effects of grazing allotments on riparian zones and the fish led to environmental concerns in the 1980s." – "Concerns" seems too mild. Perhaps "led to land-use conflict in the 1980s"?
  • "to help resolve disagreements between livestock owners and environmentalists" – Since the list of parties is long, "among" would be more accurate than "between", and perhaps "environmentalists" should be expanded to "environmental organizations, government agencies, and other interested parties."
  • "riparian zones have begun to recover from more than a century of cattle grazing." – I'd lop off "from more than a century of cattle grazing" and just end with the word "recover".


  • "Disaster Peak anchors the southern end of the mountains in a smaller range called The Granites." – Would "sub-range" be more clear than "smaller range"?
  • "on the east along the Harney–Malheur" – Remove the duplicate link to Harney County?
  • "The Kings River begins in The Granites and flows south toward the interior of Nevada, while McDermitt Creek flows generally east toward McDermitt." – Add that Kings River is a tributary of the Quinn River, which ends in the Black Rock Desert. Add a bit more specific detail from the GNIS description of McDermitt Creek: "Heads in Oregon, flows southeast into Nevada, where it disappears into the valley floor, 0.7 mi west of the Quinn River and 2.5 mi southwest of McDermitt."

Land-management compromise

  • I think the bulleted list would be better as straight prose.
  • That's all I've got. Finetooth (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done, except I think the list of parties in the Trout Creek Mountain Working Group is easier to read in bulleted format. The MOS:EMBED guideline isn't very specific, but I feel that it's more practical to list 13 items with bullet points instead of in prose. I'd be glad to discuss this and hear others' opinions. By the way, regarding your other comments, it's simply amazing what one pair of eyes can see and another doesn't find. Jsayre64 (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
OK. If others find the bulleted list problematic, it will be easy to change. I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other. As for eyes, ever it was thus. I have never seen anything at PR or FAC that sailed through with no suggestions for improvement. Meanwhile, I have three more suggestions.
  • I would break up the third long paragraph of the lede after the word jackrabbits.
  • Citation 23 links to an abstract rather than a complete article. The citation should probably include a "subscription required" parameter; that is |subscription=yes.
  • You might consider adding pre-emptive archiveurls to head off link rot. You can search for existing clones of articles in the Internet Archive or use the "Save Page Now" function at that site to create an archived copy if none exists. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. All links that can be archived have now been archived. Thanks for your helpful comments. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you happen to know when to use "land-use" or "land-management" as opposed to "land use" or "land management"? Jsayre64 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I'd say hyphenate when it's an adjective, as in "land-use conflict" and not otherwise, as in "unusual land use". Finetooth (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Support on prose, comprehensiveness, style, research, layout, length, etc., and media as soon as Nikkimaria's concerns are addressed. I should note, as above, that I peer-reviewed the article and that I also made a few minor additions and corrections to it along the way. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Antilocapra_americana.jpg: couple of problems here. First, I don't see this image on the given site - do you have a more direct link? Second, the site's copyright page currently claims CC BY-SA 3.0 on all images, not PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose, presentation, sourcing, and useful illustrations. It's informative and a highly interesting read. A couple thoughts: first, I do like the Trout Creek Mountain Working Group member organizations displayed as a bulleted list, and second, I'm wondering if the Oregon Desert Trail should be mentioned somewhere in the article. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad you reminded me of the Oregon Desert Trail. I think it makes sense to link to that article in a "see also" section, so I've done that and linked to High Desert (Oregon) as well. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Quite well done and educational. Beautiful use of photos. Excellent climate graphic to help inform the reader. Only minor quibble with the short final paragraph in sect Human uses. That paragraph just reads a bit odd to me, I don't know, maybe it's the use of "Today" that feels a bit colloquial. Perhaps "Currently" or "At present" or "As of 2015" or whatever the source says, something like that. — Cirt (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I changed the adverb to "currently," and I'm guessing you thought the wording was a little choppy, so I tried to make the sentences flow better. Thanks for looking over the article. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Reads a bit better now, thanks. — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): IJReid discuss 00:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC) & LittleJerry talk 00:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Apatosaurus, a sauropod commonly associated with but separate from Brontosaurus. The article was expanded by myself and LittleJerry, and was nominated for FA earlier. However, in the time during the review, a major study was published revolutionizing the systematics, and the article now follows that more Apatosaurus tends to be one of the best known sauropods because of its previous synonymization with Brontosaurus, and this article comprehensively covers what it known and proposed for Apatosaurus. IJReid discuss 00:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Infographic could stand to be larger
Expanded. LittleJerry (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Field_Museum_Apatosaurus_mount,_1909.jpg: when/where was this first published?
Removed. Seems to high quality to be from 1909. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The source is the Field museums own Flickr page[7], so shouldn't be a problem. But we do have a newer photo of the mount:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
They say it's PD, but they don't say why - I'm not sure the given tag is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Its because the photograph was taken in 1908, and thus was taken before 1923, so that photograph is now in the Public Domain with no restrictions. IJReid discuss 13:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No, the current tag applies to images published before 1923, not just created. Was this image published then? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, even if it is not, the image is still PD, by selecting the "no known restrictions" license link, it reads "Participating institutions may have various reasons for determining that "no known copyright restrictions" exist, such as: The copyright is in the public domain because it has expired; The copyright was injected into the public domain for other reasons, such as failure to adhere to required formalities or conditions; The institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control; or The institution has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions." Therefore the image remains PD. Also, it is no longer on the page so it does not affect the outcome of the FAC. IJReid discuss 23:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Dinosaur_National_Monument_quarry_map.png: has this permission been recorded via OTRS? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The owner of the blog got permission, see under the permission field, and in the source link. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Carpenter has reponded on Commons:[9] Seems it would have to be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Any further comments Nikkimaria? IJReid discuss 03:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack

General comments

  • You are citing a lot from Gilmore 1936, which is a very old source, but are not critical enough. Some examples:
  • The cervical vertebrae were stouter than those of other diplodocids, and were found to be most similar to Camarasaurus by Charles Whitney Gilmore. - Here you state the vertebrae are more similar to Camarasaurus than to other currently known diplodocids. The age of the cited study is not even indicated. In this context, Gilmore 1936 should not be used as a source, as only few sauropods were known at the time; it is highly unlikely that the statement still holds.
Well, I kept this information, and elaborated upon it using the info in the peer preprint you link below. IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "the humerus resembles that of Camarasaurus" – same as above. It's probably not true anymore.
The fact that the humerus resembles the humerus in Camarasaurus actually cannot change, as it is like saying that the feet of troodontids are similar to ornithomimids because they are both actometatarsalian. IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The femora of A. louisae are the stoutest of any member of Sauropoda." - Again, the statement is to old. You cannot expect that such a statement can possibly be true after 100 years of research. Is the femur really more robust than for example those of derived titanosaurs like Saltasaurus?
I changed this. IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Some information is missing.
  • Why is Apatosaurus considered different from other diplodocids, especially Brontosaurus? I would name and explain at least some autapomorphies.
I have now listed the autapomorphies that show Brontosaurus is valid. IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Why are the two species condidered to be distinct?
I have added the information from Tschopp et al. on why they chose 13 characters for generic separation and 6 characters for specific separation. IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
This information has been added under description (info on vertebrae anatomy) and paleobiology (info on the neck combat proposal). IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The article sometimes seems to be a bit overloaded with details that are not relevant. The importance of these details remains unclear to the reader. Some examples:
  • "The bones are articulated and their fusion indicates the bones are mature." – This is inside the "Description" section. In this section, only information on the anatomy of Apatosaurus are expected. Why is this information on a single specimen important in this context? Could be removed without a problem. You do not give age estimates of other specimens discussed in the article.
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "In an individual of A. louisae, the astragalus was not found fused to the tibia." - It is not clear why the reader should know this, at least without any further information. Is the astragalus fused to the tibia in other sauropods?
Removed. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Within Apatosaurinae, the scapula of Apatosaurus louisae is intermediate in morphology between those of A. ajax and Brontosaurus excelsus." – there is little the reader can learn from this, without any discussion.
I think I've fixed this. IJReid discuss 23:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The stoutest metatarsal is in digit 1; the third metatarsal is the second stoutest.[3]" – Don't understand me wrong, I love detail in dinosaur articles. But you always should try to provide context. Is this an autapomorphy of Apatosaurus, or is it the general condition in Diplodocidae?
Removed. IJReid discuss 23:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Roughened surface textures (rugosities) are present on both ends of the femur" - Again, context is needed: What does this tell us, and is it unique in Apatosaurus?
Removed. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Please check the text for duplicate links (e.g., there are two links for Mike Taylor)
All uplinks are removed. IJReid discuss 20:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The conclusions of Cobley et al. were disputed by Mike Taylor …" Mike Taylor was previously introduced as "Mike P. Taylor" in the text. You should decide wether or not to use middle initials, currently its a mess. Please check all names.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • please check for redirekts (e.g., Brontosaurus yahnahpin should point directly to Brontosaurus, not to the redirect)
Well, it is useful to have the species in the redirect, and it does not overly affect how the article is read. IJReid discuss 20:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The article makes a lot of use of the world "say". E.g., "Some studies say", "Wedel said", and so on. The word appears 14 times in the article! I would prefer using other words (e.g., "argued", "declared", "suggested", "came to the conclusion", "implied", "reasoned", "found" – there are a lot of possibilities. It has not to be "say".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There are multiple issues with tense. You are describing the fossils and referring to published works both in past tense and present tense, this should be uniform. (e.g. "This was first noted" but "Some studies say"; "The neck vertebrae were" but "The phalangeal formula is".
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at reference formatting:
I believe that all the reference changes have been completed. IJReid discuss 20:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, first names are written out, and sometimes not (e.g., ref 1 vs ref 2).
  • Just cite the year, not the month (e.g. ref 3).
  • ref 7 misses a lot of information
  • ref 8 needs a comma or something before "Programme and Abstracts"
  • title mode in journal articles (e.g. ref 31).
  • I'm not sure if ref 26 is a published citeable source at al. At least, the reference is totally misleading; there is no journal "dinoaurs". Best remove it completely.
  • missing page ranges (e.g. ref 29)
  • missing ISBN (e.g. ref 36)
  • in ref 37, the position of the editors is awkward
  • ref 53: add "first edition"
  • ref 54: not sure why we need "Retrieved 2008-09-05" for a journal article. Suchs dates are not given in other journal article citations.
  • scientific names must be in italics. e.g. ref 60.
  • missing title in ref 63
  • consider removing "Albuquerque, New Mexico: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science." in ref 69, 72, 73 and 74, as places are not given in other references


  • "Like all sauropods, Apatosaurus had a single claw on each forelimb and three on each hindlimb." - This is not true, this applies only for Diplodocidae except for Barosaurus, which shows only two claws on the pes. Other sauropods can have four claws.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "it may have grown 520 kilograms (1,150 pounds) per year until it reached 70 years of age" - why citing this estimate which contradicts most other studies? The consensus is that sauropods grew much faster, as stated later in the article.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

More specific comments:

  • "He classified this group within Sauropoda." - … which he had errected in the same study. I would provide this context.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Most authors still use Sauropoda as the group name." - Is there any author who does not?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "All Apatosaurus specimens are from the Morrison Formation. In 1877, this formation became the center of the Bone Wars, a fossil-collecting rivalry between early paleontologists Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope. Because of their rivalry, Marsh and Cope hurried to publish and describe the taxa." – what has this to do with Apatosaurus? I would expect to find some information on which important Apatosaurus fossils were discovered during this time.
I have partially redone that paragraph. IJReid discuss 20:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The length of time taken for Riggs's 1903 reclassification of Brontosaurus as Apatosaurus to be brought to public notice, as well as Osborn's insistence that the Brontosaurus name be retained despite Riggs's paper, meant the entangled Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus became one of best-known dinosaurs." - Do I understand this right, that Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus is one of the most famous dinosaurs only because of the naming issue?
I've reworded this now. IJReid discuss 20:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The AMNH specimen, sometimes assigned to A. ajax" - was this specimen mentioned before? It's out of context. I would at least expect information on the date of discovery.
Mentioned previously now. IJReid discuss 20:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Field Columbian Museum – never heard of this museum. Which city? Link it.
Linked. IJReid discuss 20:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Now this specimen is considered to either be a basal diplodocine or a derived apatosaurine." – You spend a whole paragraph describing the history of discovery of this specimen, and than stating that it is not Apatosaurus at all? It makes the whole section unbalanced, as other specimens are not discussed in that much detail.
Rewrote. The specimen is significant as it is what proved to Riggs that the apatosaurus holotype was a juvenile, and thus the distinguishing features are not valid. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The skull was found a short distance from a skeleton (specimen CM 3018) identified as the new species Apatosaurus louisae, named after Andrew Carnegie's wife Louise." Louise is linked, but Andrew Carnegie is mentioned for the first time and not linked.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1931 at the Yale Peabody Museum, a skeleton was mounted with a skull different from the others. While at the time most museums were using Camarasaurus casts, the Peabody Museum sculpted a completely different skull." There is a lot of redundancy in the two sentences.
Rewrote. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The conclusion was based on a comparison of 477 morphological characteristics across 81 different dinosaurs." Its not clear what "different dinosaurs" mean, could be different species, genera, or individuals. The latter is the case I think.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "However, some are sceptical of the large number of sauropod taxa in the Morrison, instead grouping taxa like Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus together." You are citing a single blog post, the opinion of Donald Prothero. You should at least cite a second to be able to state "some are spectical". The link leads not to the whole blog post, but precisely to a comment made at the end of this blog post. This is no better than a forum comment and is not a reliable source.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2005, Paul Upchurch and colleagues published a study that analyzed the species and specimen relationships of Apatosaurus.[19] Their analysis was revised and expanded with many additional diplodocid specimens in 2015, though this larger study found that only two species could be referred to Apatosaurus.[1]" The formulation "though this larger study found that only two species could be referred to Apatosaurus" implies that the earlier study by Upchurch et al. found more species to be valid. But this information is not given.
Added info on findings of Unchurch. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The species remained largely unknown; it was overshadowed by A. excelsus and A. louisae." Not my favorite sentence, and I don't really understand it; are you refering to the famousness in popular culture?
Reworded. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Apatosaurus louisae was named by Holland in 1916 in honor of Mrs. Louise Carnegie, wife of Andrew Carnegie who funded field research to find complete dinosaur skeletons in the American West." Ah, here is the information on Andrew Carnegie. This should be moved to the first mention of Carnegie in the article.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "A. louisae is one of the most distinct species, yet it was recovered as the most primitive species in the Upchurch phylogeny" – The word "yet" implies that it is unusual that the most primitive species is the most distinct. You should explain this.
changed to "and". IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Marsh said it was only provisionally assigned to the genus when he reassigned it to his new genus Morosaurus in 1878.[42] It is now the oldest species of Camarasaurus after being reassigned to that genus.[43]" – I see some problems with the formulations here, please rephrase it to make it more clear (that you are not talking about geologic age, and that Morosaurus is now known as Camarasaurus).
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In the paragraph on Apatosaurus minimus, why are the new findings in Tschopps study not incorporated and cited?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've now added the info per the discussion of Tschopp et al., A minimus was found to be a camarasaurid. IJReid discuss 20:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was based on postcrania from Portugal. In 1990, this was referred to Camarasaurus …" It should be either "it was" or "these were", but not "this was"?
"this material was" now. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Bakker made A. yahnahpin the type species of a new genus, Eobrontosaurus in 1998,[38] and reclassified it as Brontosaurus yahnahpin in 2015.[1]" Bakker in 2015 reclassified it inside Brontosaurus? Please check this, I thought it was Tschopp et al. who did this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "large proportion of pits, and fine, subparallel scratches in Apatosaurus" – I guess you are talking about teeth here? Please clarify.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "graze below the level of the body" - perhaps better "graze below the level of the feet"?
I don't see why that would be better. LittleJerry (talk)
Nevermind, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not happy with the sections "Feeding" and "Posture". There is a structural problem: "Feeding" contains a lot of information on neck posture, which should be in the section "Posture" instead. "Posture" contains important information on feeding, which should be within the section "Feeding".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2008, footprints of a juvenile Apatosaurus were reported from Quarry Five in Morrison, Colorado. Discovered in 2006 by Matthew Mossbrucker, these footprints show that juveniles could run on their hind legs in a manner similar to that of the modern basilisk lizard.[56]" - I'm not happy with this statement. The reference is a web link which is not working, so I cannot check the source. For this statement we really need a reliable source. Interpretation of fossil footprints is very tricky. If this speculation has not been published in scientific literature, I would suggest removing it due to lacking notability.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The whole paragraph "juveniles" does not really contain much precise information, and is much to vague. You are talking of "Slight proportional differences", but what age are you reffering to? Consider writing a section on ontogeny, detailing changes appearing throughout life history. In such a section, you could also place the sentence "One of the first identified growth factors of Apatosaurus was the number of sacral vertebrae, which increased to five by the time of the creatures' maturity.", which currently is out of place.
I think I've fixed this. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You mention "Saurophaganax" in the image caption but not in the text.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This are my notes from my first read. I'm sorry for the long list, but I fear that the article still needs a bit of work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

All your above comments have been resolved Jens Lallensack. Do you have any further suggestions? IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Second look by Jens Lallensack I think the article has improved a lot already. I still have questions regarding some of my points mentioned above, and found some new ones. Especially, I think that the section "discovery and species" still has major problems. General comments

  • The "discovery and species" section seems a bit unbalanced to me. There is an extensive discussion of the skull problem, and some specimens are introduced in some detail. But other important specimens, for example the holotype of A. louisae, are only mentioned shortly (while discussing the skull problem), while others are not mentioned at all. For example, the article contains two images of "Einstein" (BYU 17096), with one image caption stating it is the "most complete specimen known to date". This specimen is not mentioned at all in the "discovery and species" section, and the important information "most complete specimen" only appears in the image caption (without a source).
The specimen is mentioned in the description, now a brief mention in the discovery section as well. IJReid discuss 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The article recently underwent a split from the article Brontosaurus therefore following Tschopp at al. (2015). Thats fine, but then we need to be consequent. The section "discovery and species" mostly discusses specimens that are not Apatosaurus according to Tschopp et al. The discovery of the real Apatosaurus specimens, on the other hand (CM 3018 and YPM 1861) are barlely discussed, and also the holotype YPM 1860 could be discussed in more detail. What is known from the holotype, where is it now, and is it on exhibit? There currently is much more information on FMNH P25112 in the article, which according to Tschopp is Brontosaurus, than on the Apatosaurus holotype.
More info on ajax holotype, and less on FMNH, but unfortunately, there is not much information on the discovery of ajax, or even on the holotype. IJReid discuss 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I have uploaded an additional source for you, see also the references cited there: [10]. Its very helpful, also for interesting additions in other parts of the article. Please ask me if you need anything more, I will see what I can do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I've looked at it, But I don't know how to incorporate it, as it is kinda defunct what with Tschopp et al reclassifying many specimens mentioned. IJReid discuss 19:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
For a start, you could add the bits on the Apatosaurus holotype and the A. louisae skeletons, that would already be a big improvement I think. I would incorporate the source by myself, but probably will not have time within the FAC window. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've now added more info on the ajax holotype, and some on the louisae. IJReid discuss 14:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In the "discovery ans species" section, you give specimen numbers for some specimens but not for all. Consider to add the missing specimen numbers as those will make clear what you are talking about exactly.
Specimen numbers added. IJReid discuss 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

more specific points

  • A sentence now reads "The bones are articulated and their fusion indicates the bones are mature, so they do not only superficially appear closer to diplodocoids." – To be honest, I do not understand the second part of the sentence. Closer to diplodocoids than what?
than macronarians. IJReid discuss 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Please help me, I still have no idea what this is supposed to mean. They are closer to Diplodocoids because they are mature?? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Removed, did not really add any descriptive info to the article. IJReid discuss 23:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I find the paragraph starting with "In the 1903 edition of Geological Series of the Field Columbian Museum" still a bit confusing. The skeleton in question is introduced as "a well preserved skeleton of Apatosaurus", but later-on it is stated that it was not Apatosaurus at all. Is there a possibility to reduce confusion by rewording?
Reworded. IJReid discuss 16:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "labeled the Apatosaurus mount of the American Museum of Natural History Brontosaurus." – Here again I find stringency is missing. The section "Discovery and species" starts with describing the first finds of Apatosaurus. Now, we read "the Apatosaurus mount of the AMNH". If you formulate it like this, I would think that this specimen was already mentioned previously. But where? If this specimen was not mentioned previously, it should at least be introduced shortly.
Reworded. IJReid discuss 16:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "sauropod feet that were discovered at the same quarry" – again, this was not discussed previously, so I have no idea which quarry this would be.
Add discovery info. IJReid discuss 16:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "After studying this skeleton, Riggs made a proposal. He proposed […]" – This is a prose issue, consider to remove "made a proposal."
Reworded. IJReid discuss 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • specimen "BYU 17096" is not mentioned in Tschopp et al. Could it be the same as BYU 1252-18531?
I believe not. The BYU 1252-18531 material apparently does not include a skull, which is certainly present in BYU 17096. It is very well possible that the specimen was simply not evaluated, as with other apatosaurus specimens. IJReid discuss 16:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. I answered directly below the few ones that still are pending. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Support by WereSpielChequers. I've read and reread this several times made a few tweaks and discussed a few inconsistencies.

"Apatosaurus would have attained a mass of 25 t (25 long tons; 28 short tons) in 15 years. This would imply sauropods had a growth rate of 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) per year." I make 15 times 5 as 75 tons. Is it possible that this is a peak growth year, in which case instead how about "Apatosaurus would have grown to 25 t (25 long tons; 28 short tons) in 15 years, with growth peaking at 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) in a single year." ϢereSpielChequers 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think LittleJerry would be best to resolve this, as he wrote the paleobiology for the most part. IJReid discuss 19:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The article mentions the theory that the tail generated 200db sounds, but not the theory or possibly former theory that the whip was used as a weapon. Also would it be appropriate to mention the theory that this may have been a way for males to communicate? Sciencenews ϢereSpielChequers 20:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Added weapon theory, but the communication theory should first be in published literature before addition. IJReid discuss 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The lede says "To lighten its bones, Apatosaurus had air sacs that made the bones internally spongelike and full of holes" But the article later describes the limb bones as "robust", I'm assuming that the load bearing lower bones were robust and the upper ones light, but if that were the case the word "some" would be helpful in the lede. ϢereSpielChequers 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Changed to "To lighten its vertebrae...". IJReid discuss 20:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "only a potentially unnamed genus" Either something is named or unnamed. Could this be "only an unnamed proposed additional genus"? ϢereSpielChequers 05:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I've now changed this. IJReid discuss 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Any further comments WereSpielChequers? IJReid discuss 23:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
No I'm done, thanks to both of you for your work on this ϢereSpielChequers 06:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Since two reviews are already ongoing, I'll wait a bit before doing an in-depth review, but here are a few comments. I did a talk page peer review of this article before the genus split, but much has happened since, so a fresh look is in order. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "something truly different to any dinosaur" Too hyperbolic.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "However, the study of Tschopp et al. in 2015 found that the genera were in fact distinct, and the specimen was either the most basal diplodocine, or a specimen of Brontosaurus closer to B. parvus and B. yahnapin than B. excelsus." Why is this text in the beginning of the section? Doesn't make chronological sense to have it away from the main text about the 2015 paper at the bottom.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The text about bipedal juveniles was removed due to insufficient sourcing, but I have read this elsewhere (and we even have a photo9 of the exact tracks), so instead of removing info, another source should be found.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The intro seems a bit scrawny for an article this length.
I merged two small paragraphs. Is that better? FunkMonk. LittleJerry (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Since neck vertebrae are such a distinct feature of sauropods, perhaps a photo of an isolated vertebra could be found, perhaps on the SPOW blog, and added left above the description paragraph staring with "Like those of other sauropods, the neck vertebrae are deeply bifurcated"?
Added, an alternate image is File:Apatosaurus ajax YPM1860 lateral.jpeg. IJReid discuss 19:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Very nice! Perhaps they should even be combined to a single (horizontal) image, like the taxobox one at Xenoposeidon? FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "This specimen, CMC VP 7180, was found to differ in both skull and neck features from A. louisae, and the specimen was found to have a majority of features related to those of A. ajax." Make clear what these features are, since no other cranial material appears to be known of this species.
Specified neck features. IJReid discuss 19:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • ". Its forelimbs are slightly shorter than its hindlimbs." Why present tense?
Past tense. IJReid discuss 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "As in other diplodocids, the last portion of the tail possessed a whip-like structure." But the whip like structure is the last portion of the tail, so it reads a bit oddly. How does the source describe it?
Reworded. IJReid discuss 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The caudal vertebra number was said to vary, even within species." This wording makes it seem like hearsay or something.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "and are found to be most similar to Camarasaurus by Charles Whitney Gilmore." Gilmore is long dead.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Apatosaurus, like its close relative Supersaurus, has tall spines," Specify neural spines.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "which may also include Suuwassea, Supersaurus, and Eobrontosaurus" The latter is now Brontosaurus.
Removed. IJReid discuss 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking it should rather be changed to Brontosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking the history section should maybe come before classification, because then much of the confusing stuff is already explained when the reader gets there. Did the same at Ankylosaurus.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "He named the new species Brontosaurus excelsus,[24] meaning "noble thunder lizard", from the Greek brontē/βροντή meaning "thunder" and sauros/σαῦρος meaning "lizard",[22] and from the Latin excelsus, meaning "noble" or "high".[25]" Is this really relevant here after the split?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "those of the Como Bluffs" Is there more than one Como Bluff?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Almost all modern paleontologists agreed with Riggs that the two species should be classified together in a single genus." Which two species? And wouldn't it be more than two?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "They found that A. louisae was the most basal species" and "A. louisae is one of the most distinct species, and it was recovered as the most primitive species in the Upchurch phylogeny." repeated information.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "in the November 1997 issue of Discover reported research into the mechanics of Apatosaurus tails by Nathan Myhrvold, a computer scientist from Microsoft" Why so much detail here?
Removed. IJReid discuss 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There are weird tense shifts within sentences, some of which I have fixed, but it could be checked throughout.
  • "While the subfamily Apatosaurinae was named a while ago" Saying a whikle ago is very informal, and I'm not sure the info is significant enough for the intro here, the article is not about apatosaurinae.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Could briefly mention the story of the skull in the intro, as it is one of the most well known facts about the animal.
Added paragraph. IJReid discuss 14:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd say that's a bit too much, almost as much detail as in the article. Could be neater to summarise it further, and leave it in the paragraph that already mentions the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've thinned it out a bit now. IJReid discuss 14:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems a bit odd that description of the animal starts in the first paragraph of the intro, only to stop and continue in the third paragraph.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is only one naming authority mentioned in the intro, and not for the other species?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The intro used the term "spongelike", but this is not used in the article body.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - alright, the article looks good to me now. You've had quite some obstacles (perhaps more to come with further taxonomic revisions), commendable that you kept it on! I guess you can request a source review now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
We just have to wait for Jens Lallensack to finish. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). No need for inline cite in lede intro sect unless controversial info likely to be contested. My only other quibble is also with the lede sect, you mention an "Osborn" but don't provide context for the reader, and since the WP:LEAD should be a standalone functional summary, we are left not knowing who is "Osborn". In fact, I see he's not wikilinked until his third appearance in the article text. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Cirt. I have fixed this. IJReid discuss 02:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks to nominators for being so quick and responsive to FAC comments. :) Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

    1. 5 Bates - source supports statement in article.
    2. 13 Upchurch - source supports statements in article.
    3. 21 Marsh - source supports statement in article.
    4. 28 McIntosh - source supports the lengthy statement in article.
    5. 38 Marsh - I can't find the information cited in the source though it may be there. The print is very small.
    6. 45 Gallina - I can't find the information cited in the source, but perhaps you could guide me to it.
    7. 54 Taylor - source supports statement in article.
    8. 61 Curry - source supports statement in article.
  • In reviewing a sample of sources I found no evidence of close-paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I have checked marsh, and the info is on page 503 to 504, which is now specified in the reference. IJReid discuss 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Dang sorry. I was working on the wrong marsh paper. IJReid discuss 15:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I have checked marsh 1878, and it states the info in the article in a note on the bottom of page 414 (page between 413 and 415 labelled 514). IJReid discuss 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Anything else Cwmhiraeth? All the current problems have been fixed. IJReid discuss 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No, that's fine. The article is of a high standard but the subject is so technical that I did not feel qualified to judge whether it should become a FA which is why I chose to do a source review instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Tyrone Garland[edit]

Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a professional basketball player who last played with the Mississauga Power in Canada. He made history at John Bartram High School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, coming close to Wilt Chamberlain on the Philadelphia Public League all-time scoring list. He also made one of the biggest plays of the 2013 NCAA Tournament in college after initial struggles. This article is detailed in its coverage of this player and cites nearly every reliable source that I could find on the Internet about the subject. It was promoted to GA-class on June 21 of this year. This is the second time this article is being nominated for FA...the first time it didn't receive enough support. TempleM (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jaguar[edit]

After reading it for a third time, I'm going to go ahead and support this nomination. It is well written, very comprehensive and well referenced, all in all meeting the FA criteria. I haven't had time to spotcheck the article's sources (I don't feel qualified to give a full source check, but I'm sure it will come along later in the review), but after I reviewed the GAN, I've realised that this article has kept its level of professionalism. Well done. I did find a few things I thought I should mention though, so I'll note them below. JAGUAR  19:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Be careful about the tight squeeze of text in the Junior sub-section. Usually it's discouraged on FA-levels
I have resized the image. If you feel like it is unnecessary, I am fine with removing it, though. TempleM (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The move ended Garland's stint with Mississauga" - I didn't know what this means, is "stint" informal?
"Stint" means the time a person spent doing something, in this case playing for the Power. I do not believe it is informal. TempleM (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "As a freshman at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" - link freshman?
Done. TempleM (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "In late December, it was released that he was heading back to Philadelphia" - December of 2011?
Fixed. TempleM (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I see no glaring problems with the article. It is well-written, comprehensive, blah blah blah. I did do some minor copyedititing, so I think the prose is a bit better (though it was already pretty solid to begin with). My onlly minor quibble is that I don't know if AAU should be an individual section since it isn't with any other basketball articles, but this might not even be a problem. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Editorofthewiki: Since you mentioned it, do you have any ideas on where to put the AAU section information if it is removed? TempleM (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting you remove it, I was suggesting you incorporate it in the high school section. But like I said, it's no big deal. The article is splendid. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cirt[edit]

  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). There's a cite in the lede that doesn't need to be there, as long as same material is cited later on in body text of article. There's a bit too much use of quotes in places in the article where they could be trimmed and/or paraphrased, instead. Those are the only major issues I could see. — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: The cited information in the lead is not included anywhere else (as it doesn't belong), so I think the citation could remain there. I paraphrased one quote in the "early life" section, but I am not sure about the others. TempleM (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I've never really seen that before where cited info in the lede doesn't appear later on. Per WP:LEAD, it should. Suggest finding a way to work that cited info into the body text. After that, I'd probably be ready to switch. — Cirt (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: I removed the citation from the lead, because his "shooting guard qualities" are mentioned elsewhere in the article (first section of "Collegiate career"). This info is cited. TempleM (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks for being responsive to my comments, above. — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

  • "... he decided to transfer to La Salle..." would be better as "...he transferred to La Salle...", since the transferring, rather than the decision to transfer, is what's important here.
Early life and high school
  • "He grew up on South Yewdall Street, which was situated near 54th Street and Greenway Avenue." would be more informative as "He grew up on South Yewdall Street, near 54th Street and Greenway Avenue in Southwest Philadelphia's Kingsessing neighborhood."
  • "Donnel Feaster, an alum" "alum" is kind of informal. I'd say "alumnus".
  • "Amauro Austin, a statistician for the Philadelphia Daily News, directed the program while he was there." The final "he" refers to Garland, right? If so, you should change it to Garland, because right now the antecedent is Austin.
Collegiate career
  • " He made the decision to attend the school at a press conference..." More likely he announced the decision at a press conference, right?
  • "Garland had also considered joining programs like..." Using "like" suggests that there was a larger list of schools that are typified by the ones you list. I think what you mean to say is "Garland had also considered joining programs, including..."
  • "Garland weighed approximately 170 lbs (77 kg) entering college, and was not as highly-rated as some of the team's 2010 recruits, like Jarell Eddie, because of his shooting guard qualities." This is a little confusing. Whose shooting guard qualities are we talking about here. And what, exactly, were those qualities?
  • Also, in the sentence above, "highly rated" does not require a hyphen.
  • "...seeing one minute of playing time on the court throughout the game ..." could lose "throughout the game" without changing the meaning of the sentence.
  • "He was allowed to play 24 minutes throughout the game..." could be "He played 24 minutes in the game..."
  • "In late December of 2011, it was announced that he was heading back to Philadelphia to compete for La Salle." Again, this makes the announcement the focus of the sentence, not the transfer. Perhaps "In late December 2011, Garland returned to Philadelphia to compete for La Salle."
  • "...because he was ineligible due to NCAA regulations." Maybe add "regarding player transfers" to the end of that sentence, for people who might be unfamiliar with NCAA regs on such things (and to make it clear that he wasn't academically ineligible.)
Professional career
  • "In late June 2015, it was announced that the Mississauga Power had folded due to the creation of..." works better as "In late June 2015, the Mississauga Power folded after the creation of..."
  • "The move ended Garland's stint with Mississauga." Is he a free agent now?
  • That's all I have. I look forward to your responses. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Coemgenus: I have addressed the points that you brought up. I am not sure whether Garland is officially considered a "free agent," as I cannot find any sources that directly state that, so it is best to leave that alone. TempleM (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. The article looks great, and I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • "for whom he started competed"?
  • James Brown is named as head coach twice within a couple of sentences.
  • "Letter winner" won't mean anything to a non-U.S. reader; I'd link it at least, or explain it inline if not.
  • "which is sometimes regarded as one of his best performances" -- I don't see this in the source.
  • "Strongly due to" is ugly; maybe "Largely due to".
  • I'm a little doubtful that we need so much detail on his uneventful first couple of games in college; do other sports FAs go into this level of detail?
  • "Greenberg was inquired about" needs to be rephrased.
  • 'he that "you can't play 13 guys".'?
  • "in the past year" -- rephrase to make the year definite; I assume this is the academic, not calendar year?
  • You have two sentences at different places in the "Sophomore" section that say essentially the same thing: "Following his exams, he returned to his hometown of Philadelphia" and "In late December 2011, he returned to Philadelphia to compete for La Salle."

I'll try to finish this review tomorrow. I think the article needs a careful read through; it's not so much that it needs a copyedit, but some of the clumsinesses I point out above really should have been caught. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I have addressed the issues you pointed out. Please look over the article again and let me know if there are still any errors. TempleM (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, regarding the "Freshman" section, I included information about his first few games (even though he hardly played in them) to make it clear to the reader that he had a very small role in that season. Nevertheless, I removed one unnecessary sentence concerning an insignificant game/performance. TempleM (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I struck most of the points; I'll reread for the other point. I'll try to review the rest of the article today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Continuing the review:

  • "recommended that Garland attend his alma mater due to his basketball skill set": I'd cut "due to his basketball skill set". The only thing in the source that supports this is the quote from Brown, which you give in the next sentence.
  • "According to coach Giannini, he told the guard post-game": unneccessarily complicated. I'd just make this "After the game, Giannini told Garland"; I know this is as reported by Giannini, but it's not controversial and the details can be left in the source.
  • I think footnote [a] could be moved into the main text; it's useful information. I'd also suggest a final statement to the effect of "As of late 2015, Garland is not signed to any team" or "is actively looking for a new opportunity" or something to that effect, assuming you can source it.

-- Overall I think the article is FA quality, and I plan to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I have addressed the three issues you brought up. Let me know if I still need to make fixes. TempleM (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. All my concerns are addressed. Note to the coords: I found a couple of minor variations from what the source said -- nothing serious but a source spot check is probably a good idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Note - Yes, I agree that a spot check of the sources for accuracy and the absence of any close paraphrasing is needed on this occasion. Graham Beards (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In Our Time (short story collection)[edit]

Nominator(s): Victoria (tk) 20:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway's first collection of short stories is In Our Time, which has a tortured publication history. Hemingway was in his early to mid-twenties when he wrote the pieces that make up the collection, some of which are considered among his best. This article is a concise account of the themes and style in the collection, to be developed and expanded in each separate article about the stories, i.e. "Indian Camp" and "Big Two-Hearted River", whereas the events surrounding its publication are described in greater detail. I'm hoping to have this run as TFA in October or November as a reminder of WWI literature. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 20:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC) .

Comments from Belle
  • " ... he slowly wrote six new paragraphs ... It was a work that grew, with sections published in 1923, 1924 and 1925 ... The prose pieces ranged from 75 to 187 words and were about war and bullfighting ... In June of 1923, Hemingway took Hadley, with Robert McAlmon and Bill Bird, to Spain where he found a new passion at the bullfights, during the summer he wrote five more vignettes" This leaves me totally bamboozled as to what is in the "Little Review".
  • There were six vignettes/prose paragraphs in the Little Review and he wrote another twelve for the 1924 edition of in our time. I've tried to clarify, but it might take another pass. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The most confusing thing there now is the prose pieces "were about war and bullfighting" and then "he found a new passion at the bullfights"; he was reinvigorated by the spectacle of the bullfights I guess, but the current phrasing makes it appear that he was discovering bullfighting for the first time when he'd already been writing about it. Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That's correct. He'd been writing about it but had never been to a bullfight. I've reinstated a bit I previously trimmed explaining where the material came from for those first six vignettes. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The style section covers the iceberg theory twice with his description of it in A Moveable Feast but only mentions it by name the second time; perhaps you could combine these two.
  • The first is about imagism and prose style, the second about leaving out information on a more meta level - have tried to clarify. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That's clearer now. Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The sense of discordance is intensified because the action is about anonymous men and soldiers, only referred to with pronouns, and unspecified woundings; and reticences are rife" I edited it to that as I couldn't understand it, but I have no clue if that's the right sense. Reword it?
  • Trimmed some, will take another pass. This goes the idea of writing silences and empty spaces, as in the empty space in the Goya print, but if reticences doesn't make sense then it's best to leave it out. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem was that "unspecified woundings" was floating around; I didn't know if they were part of the "action" or were "rife". Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It's fine to do without "rife reticences" - we get that he omitted stuff and I tried to pack in too much there. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Nick features in eight of the stories, as an alter ego, a conduit for Hemingway to express his own experiences, from the first story" I can't understand that.
  • Sorry. I've tweaked and tried to clarify. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "wrote some of his best short stories, telling Scott Fitzgerald of the new material that "Indian Camp" and "Big Two-Hearted River" were superior" (originally) v "wrote some of his best short stories, telling Scott Fitzgerald that, of the new material, "Indian Camp" and "Big Two-Hearted River" were superior" (what I changed it to); if the sense of my change isn't right then I'd leave out "of the new material" from the original as it just muddies the waters.
  • Yes, thanks. It's fine as written. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Hemingway scholar Jim Berloon disagrees with Tetlow" He seems to not really disagree with her; there is a problem in the later sections knowing which collection each critic is looking at.
  • I don't understand Berloon's point; he says that the collection is intricately structured; the vignettes were "probably" thematically linked (hedge hedge) and then that the 1925 edition has lost the structure; that means that the 1924 edition should be exactly what he is after and he should be able to tell if the vignettes are thematically linked by looking at that or the "Little Review"; no idea what he's trying to say. Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It's incomprehensible because I didn't paraphrase well. I've tried again, but, yeah, it's literary criticism. I'll give it another pass if it's still hard to follow. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Never really got into Hemingway; I can't get excited about this; it seems a solid job apart from those niggles; I'll support it if you fix them up. Thanks Belle for your effusive praise of my hard work says Victoria. Belle (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Belle, thanks for these points. This is a difficult article because it's mostly about modernist literary theory, and there's a reason so few of us are still writing about lit., let alone at the FA level. I've managed to address a few and hope to get to the others tomorrow. Off the top of my head I want to say that the structure section addresses all iterations of the collection, i.e. 1924 in our time and 1925 In Our Time but I'll have to pull all those sources and re-read to be certain. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Re this edit; it leaves you with "14...two", "18...six" etc. which is a nasty experience for the reader; not really nasty; not beaten up behind the bike sheds or anything; more like a small fly going in your mouth while you are cycling. WP:MOSNUM doesn't mandate numbers above nine being in numerals unless they are of the twenty-eight--million-three-hundred-and-two-thousand-six-hundred-and-thirty-eight-and-a-half variety (more than two words in the compound actually; I'm just making the point with my dainty lil sledge hammer). Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That's interesting. It's standard for the American style manuals I'm familiar with, so could be an issue of doing it differently in different parts of the world. I'm not really fussed - was trying to avoid "chapters seven to eleven" and "chapters eleven to seventeen" (difficult to chunk), and make the numbering consistent. It's really a preference issue, so feel free to change the numbers or I will if you'd like me to. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I did change it back; my way or the highway, MOS people :P Everything seems fine now, so I support (I'd like to say that, unlike Ceoil, I'm NOT a friend or collaborator because I'm trying my best to cultivate a poisonous, unfriendly and unwelcoming atmosphere on Wikipedia, so when they hand out the money I get a bigger share; joke; love you really.)Belle (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. Thanks for the insightful comments, the copyedits, and for the support. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
"unfriendly and unwelcoming" - Belle, you may might not be Vic's friend (you say), but would make a seemingly fine admin, haha. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocking you the moment I get the power ;) Belle (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Re the "friend" comment: as it happens Ceoil seems to have been reading my mind, because recently I've been thinking about (the old days) at FAC when the norm was to disclose collaborations, etc., and that we should go back to that again. Your review, Belle, was really helpful; not being familiar with the topic, you poked holes where they were needed, so again, thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Sources?
  • Hlinak is out of order in Sources
  • Missing full bibliographic details from Baker 1972, Benson 1975
  • No citations to Baker 1980, Baker 1981, Benson 1989
  • Be consistent in how you format editors
  • Hlinak: italicization is reversed
  • Why abbreviate Oxford UP but not Cambridge University Press? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks Nikkimaria - I think I got all of these. As always, I live in envy of your eagle eyes. Thanks for taking the time. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Hemingway admitted that the book's publication history was complex; his biographer Michael Reynolds describes it as the most confusing of Hemingway's canon, to the point that "any analysis will be flawed - confusing in terms of publication history or content? Otherwise leaning support; although I am a collebrator and friend of Victoria. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Both. I've clarified by porting in Reynold's full quote, which conveys it better than I can. Thanks for the help on the lead, the copyedits, and the leaning support. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Have spent another two hours reading, on top of watching this dev. Support - Comprehensive, highest standards of sourcing,and given the particular writer - economically written. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry if there were edit conflicts - I was dead tired last night and made the mistake of leaving the edit window open as I was trying to fix everything, top-to-bottom, and hadn't realized others were working there. Thanks for the copyedits - very helpful! I think I got the last of the inlines, but poke me if I haven't. Yeah, trying to make it economically written was a goal that only took about four years! Victoria (tk) 16:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Note to coordinators - This hasn't attracted any comments in three weeks, so it's fine with me if it's archived. Thanks Belle and Ceoil for reading and posting comments, and thanks Nikkimaria for the SR. I appreciate the time you all put into it, and to the delegates as well for the paperwork, so to speak. Victoria (tk) 01:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: I'm going to put it on the Urgents list and leave it a bit, if you don't mind, since so much has been done on it. If there no more action next time one of us goes through the list, we can archive it. --Laser brain (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Laser brain, okay, I'll keep at it. The reason I posted that is that I've gone fairly inactive, and this is the only thing keeping me around. So I thought if it doesn't get attention, or supports, then that's fine. Victoria (tk) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Don't generally need cites in the lede unless for controversial contested info, just have cites back up same info later in body of article. Great job on overall structure and layout of the article. I fear there is too much use of quotes, and those should be trimmed down and/or paraphrased. Structure, Themes, Style, Reception and legacy -- these sects are all quite good and high quality, just rely a bit too much on direct quotes when paraphrasing or trimming would help. — Cirt (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Cirt, thanks for taking the time to read through and to comment. I removed one of the cites from the lead, (the second is a direct quote and is required). I've trimmed a a few quotes but generally I don't think this piece can stand unless written as it is (I've been working on it for about four years). It is an unconventional WP article, about an unconventional piece of literature. The article is about 14 short stories and 18 or so vignettes (depending on the edition), it details the historic collaboration between Ezra Pound and Ernest Hemingway, which is documented in their extant letter. And it includes literary analyses of the stories/vignettes, as well as the earliest reviews that Hemingway received. I think it would lose flavor to take out Hemingway's and Pound's voices in the background section. The quotes about "form" in the structure section are included in all the critical analyses I've read, and it makes more sense to use the author's own voice there. The quotes in the themes section about the war are written better than anything I can produce in a paraphrase, and again I think the flavor of the horror that was WWI would be lost if those were taken out. Hemingway is famous for his style, and the iceberg theory quote (which is quite famous), as well as others, are commonly used when writing about him, even here on WP. Finally, the review section includes historic material (took some researching to find), that is educational and nice to include, as well as the words from his modern biographers. If you choose not to support, I understand why not. Thanks again. Victoria (tk) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I've re-read it through, again, and your specific argumentation makes sense. Thank you for being so polite and responsive to my comments, most appreciated. Good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You're most welcome! Hope the rest of the FAC goes well, — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments from Lingzhi
    • Sorry, just noticed this nom. My bad. I just wanna chime in here because I saw some mention above of archiving it. Well, if that's the best thing, then do what you hafta do. But I think I'll have time tomorrow or the next day (probably not today) to start looking at it. Later.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Hi Lingzhi, I think I have to stick with it - quite a bit of work has gone into it, and I suppose I shouldn't bail out at the last moment. I'd be pleased to have you take a look whenever you have time. Thanks for posting. Victoria (tk) 01:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Benson, Jackson (1989) in ref section but uncited. And the chronological order of the refs seems inconsistent.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Good catch; removed Benson 1989. I do them alphabetically instead of chronologically, but Nikki queried this earlier, so will take a closer look to see where I've gone off Victoria (tk) 14:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
        • The convention is alphabetical by author then chronological for cites to same author. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Ok, will change. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Bill Bird, unless I missed something, seems to kinda magically appear with no explanation of who he is or why he's involved.
      • You're right he did; I've fixed that now and introduced him earlier. Victoria (tk) 14:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Victoriaearle: Hey, I'm kinda copy editing and rewording a bit as I go. Please do not be intimidated by the fact that this is a FAC review and I am a FAC reviewer. Sometimes my edits may not be optimal.
      • Not to worry - I've seen your reviews in the past. You're quite good at what you do. The ping didn't work for some reason. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm also skimming very quickly, though I will read in depth as time goes on. Did I miss the mention of initial sales figures? I actually didn't see sales for The Sun Also Rises in its FA article either (congrats on that FA BTW), but as I said, skim, skim, skim.
      • Looked through what I have at hand, but not finding it. Might be in one of the essays compiled in the Reynolds book, but that book is long gone back to inter-library loan. I can order it again and check. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Adding: I spent quite a long time today trying to find this information in the sources I have at hand on the bookshelves or where I'd expect it to be on g-books, and am coming up empty. It might be in Tetlow, but I can't see all the pages on g-books. It could be in Reynolds, but that's snippet only on g-books - to get hard copies I'd have to order either of those via interlibrary loan. That's not a problem, but it takes time. Can we leave it, that I'll order the books that I think are most likely to contain that information and add it to the article if I find it? In the meantime, I can keep looking, and might find it on the web. Certainly we know that all the books of the initial print run did sell eventually, and the issue is clouded by the fact that within months of the book's publication Hemingway broke his contract with Boni & Liveright, so it is possible they never recorded the sales. They were quite livid with him. Victoria (tk) 01:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Adding: I have found info that when EH broke the contract he told B & L they could have "20,000 in sales" - have added that. He was finished with them four months after the release of IOT. Victoria (tk) 21:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Well of course we can only add what we can find. Some day or other soon-ish I'll devote another hour or more to looking for this and for a good cite about the reason Up was censored, but for just now, everything is probably the best we can make it. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Semicolons go between independent clauses (or between items in a list which itself contains commas, but that is irrelevant here); commas go before direct quotes.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • So I tell my students; they never listen, though. Thanks for fixing; I missed it. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Do we need a cite for the "overshadowed, ignored & forgotten" assertion? [I actually added the word "overshadowed", but it was implicit in the extant text].  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • That is cited to Benson, compiled in the Reynolds book I mentioned above and now gone, but I believe the overshadowed was in the text I'd written so should be ok. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Syphilis or gonorrhea? This article said syphilis. I don't actually have a copy of IOT, but I changed it to gonorrhea (and added that it was from "A very Short Story") based on review texts etc. Please revert me if I am wrong.
    • Also that sentence about "filthy" needs its own individual cite to a specific book and specific page because it includes a direct quote (even tho the quote is only 1 or 2 words long).
        • That's a good catch. In the story it's gonorrhea. Added the ref to the sentence. Victoria (tk) 12:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • was there a story called "Up in Michigan" that was censored/removed? And another put in its place, maybe "Indian Camp", or...?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • When he submitted to Boni & Liveright they expressed concern over "Up in Michigan", the second story - a very early story he wrote, the only one to survive loss of the suitcase incident, one that Gertrude Stein thought not very good and is now generally considered juvenalia. In response to them, he pulled "Up in Michigan" and wrote "The Battler", which became the fifth Nick story. I can spin that out in the article later today - had wanted to avoid the "Up in Michigan" issue because it's somewhat peripheral, but probably should go in. Victoria (tk) 12:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Adding to above: I've added in a little bit about this, but ideally it would be fully developed in the Up in Michigan article. I don't have that story at hand and I wonder if what I've added begs the question of why it would cause censorship problems? I'm not finding anything anywhere to suggest why - simply the Boni & Liveright were worried. Victoria (tk) 21:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I found a source that said there was a brief sexual scene, but not sure how reliable the source is.
    • "features Nick as a child" should/can we add "witnessing both a birth by Caesarean section and the immediate aftermath of a suicide"? It fits with earlier mention of juxtaposition of life versus death
      • Yes, excellent point. Done. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • "and sheds a rare light on Hemingway's childhood" Again I do not have IOT gosh darn it, but does this fit in with earlier mention of weak being exploited by strong? Didn't H's mom bully his dad or something? Not sure if that's right, but if you add it, you need to find a cite to back it up.
      • Would prefer to leave this as is here and then spin out fully in the article on that story. Lots of little bits to trawl through and pull together and I think the mention here of hostility is enough, but I've restored a small snippet more that I'd previously snipped out. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • "Whether the collection has a unified structure"... apparently D. H. Lawrence called it a "fragmentary novel"
      • Another good point. Found it; added it. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • (more later, this will take days, sorry) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
      • No prob. Yesterday I was sidetracked mid-edit with real life (and thanks for fixing the mess I left). I'm not in a rush. Thanks again for the good comments. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm happy to help, of course
    • I perceive some tension between assertions that early critics went bananas with slobbery love for this book, and later assertions that everyone collectively said "Whatever". What happened? Did it somehow start out well but then fall off everyone's radar? Or were those laudatory critics just a pitiful few feckless ivory tower types? Is this article's characterization of either the early praise or the later tepid response overstated? [I suppose it could be the "overshadowed by Sun Also Rises" reason, but that just seems odd, because the way this article currently reads, the opinions actually seem to have changed]. BTW, the early praise section mentions "Fitzgerald", and our article on The End of Something says this was F. Scott Fitzgerald. If that is true, then please spell out the name, and if it hasn't been mentioned earlier, please wikilink. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The overshadowed sentence, as first written, was meant to speak to studies from literary critics. I.e how much attention have scholars given it over the years? Because it was, to an extent overshadowed by SAR, then bundled together with other stories, losing its structural integrity, for a long time only the separate stories were written about. As a stand-alone work it received less attention for a time. But Tetlow's 1978 work is a full length book, and Cohen's 2012 work is a full length book. That statement was taken from an essay written in the 1980s, so yes, at that point it was getting less attention from scholars. I can delete it because I see how it's confusing; I can wait for the book to arrive and when I have source in hand rewrite; or I can do both: delete now, rewrite later. Fitzgerald is linked higher up.Victoria (tk) 12:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
        • So … I had to think about what to do here. Obviously, the way I wrote was misleading. I tried deleting, but it's a point I think is worth making, so I've rolled back to the original version and rewritten. I'm trying to differentiate between attention it garnered from scholars vs. critical reviews it received. I'll be happier when I have the source at hand to check it's correct, but from what I remember I'm fairly certain it is. I have re-ordered the source via inter-libaray loan; not sure when it will arrive. Hopefully it's more clear now? Victoria (tk) 16:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2000 role-playing game set in White Wolf Publishing's World of Darkness. It was developed by Nihilistic Software and released by Activision for Microsoft Windows and Mac OS. The game is based on White Wolf's role-playing game Vampire: The Masquerade; it follows the adventures of Christof Romuald, a 12th-century French crusader who is killed and revived as a Vampire. The game depicts Christof's centuries-long journey from the Dark Ages of 12th-century Prague and Vienna to modern-day London and New York City in search of his humanity and his kidnapped love, the nun Anezka.

The article is as comprehensive and detailed as can be about this game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Oh goody, never got to play this but did play Jyhad quite a bit...taking a look now. WIll jot queries below and copyedit as I go (please revert if I accidentally guff the meaning) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • The first sentence is misleading - need to add something that lets me know it is a computer-based RPG. I would swap the sentences around so it is something like this, but need to remove one "rpg" from first sentence. I have reverted it and you can play with it.
  • Sentences in the lead are a little on the short side, which makes the prose a little abrupt-sounding.
  • Do we have to say "playable character" all the time? Can't we just say "character" or "protagonist" or something....
  • I'd link mesmerize, melee weapon, gothic, and linear adventure (if possible)
  • and the monstrous Nosferatu are condemned to live in shadows to avoid humanity --> "and the monstrous Nosferatu are condemned to remain hidden in the shadows" (?)
  • The setting and plot sections overlap a bit too much for my liking - my solution would be to remove everything from "As a member of the Brujah under Ecaterina..." onwards and incorporate that into the following section.
  • ...while a duo called[Youth Engine provided - a glitch?

The prose flows better in the body of the article than the lead, which is a good thing. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to respond, unexpected things came up.
  • The first sentence is misleading - need to add something that lets me know it is a computer-based RPG. I would swap the sentences around so it is something like this, but need to remove one "rpg" from first sentence. I have reverted it and you can play with it.
  • Sentences in the lead are a little on the short side, which makes the prose a little abrupt-sounding.
  • I've tried to rewrite this and expanded it a little by adding some of the gameplay functionality in there.
  • Do we have to say "playable character" all the time? Can't we just say "character" or "protagonist" or something....
  • I've tried to change it up a bit by alternating to different versions.
  • I'd link mesmerize, melee weapon, gothic, and linear adventure (if possible)
    • Done for all.
  • and the monstrous Nosferatu are condemned to live in shadows to avoid humanity --> "and the monstrous Nosferatu are condemned to remain hidden in the shadows" (?)
  • Done.
  • The setting and plot sections overlap a bit too much for my liking - my solution would be to remove everything from "As a member of the Brujah under Ecaterina..." onwards and incorporate that into the following section.
  • I see what you're saying, but I find that the separate setting/characters section allows you to go into more detail without bloating the plot which I like to keep 700 words or less and to the point. Like I could cover the Vukodlak backstory in the plot section but it would really start to get long. IDeally I'd also like to have the voice actors in there but apart from Curtis Armstrong as Pink (Booger from Revenge of the Nerds no less), I can't find evidence for any other actor.
  • ...while a duo called[Youth Engine provided - a glitch?
  • Yeah it was a markup error, fixed.
Thanks for taking the time to review this Cas, please feel free to give me any other feedback. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, looking alot better - I see where you're coming from about the prose. It is a tricky one and I don't think there are any correct answers per se. I'll take another look. PS: Let me do the striking of my comments - happy if you slot in answers underneath mine. What I do is use colours - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suillus luteus/archive1..and no templates :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, more:

Experience points are awarded for the completion of objectives and the defeat of enemies; these points are used to unlock or upgrade existing disciplines and improve each characters' statistics, such as strength or agility. - could be folded a bit, as in, "Awarded for the completion of objectives and the defeat of enemies, experience points are used to unlock or upgrade existing disciplines and improve each characters' statistics, such as strength or agility." or "Completing objectives and defeating enemies results in experience points, which are used to unlock or upgrade existing disciplines and improve each characters' statistics, such as strength or agility." - in these the subjects are linked more closely (not a deal-breaker but worth thinking about)
Changed to the second one, but shifted "results in" to "is rewarded with" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
From the outset, the team wanted to make a large, ambitious RPG - err, people or plans are ambitious, not the end result. I'd remove it...or just use the adjective "grand" here or something
Changed it to grand. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
In the Reception section you've flogged the adjective "mixed" a bit, why not use some synonyms...."muted"..."equivocal"..."cool".....(possibly) "ambivalent" etc.
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I think I tentatively support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending more critical eyes than mine having a lookover. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your time Casliber. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: this is just an aside, but would it be possible to include one or more decorative/illustrative images? Are any public domain photos of the team members available—or perhaps of the Gothic architecture that inspired the game's look? At the moment, there's a whole lot of text and not much visual interest, which gives the article a very intimidating first impression. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have tried and tried again just now to find free images but there just don't seem to be any. Plenty of NFC but just no free stuff. I've added one image about Gothic art at least. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The two new images are a big improvement! Nice work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I managed to get a source and image for CUrtis Armstrong too so there's another image there JimmyBlackwing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Article looks great now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cyclonebiskit[edit]

  • All my concerns have been addressed and after some additional minor copy edits, I'm happy to support. I do have some qualms about how the "Reception" section is written, with the prose becoming a monotonous repetition of "X said Y. Z said A. B said C. etc..." but I don't really see a way around this without fluffing the section unnecessarily. Additionally, my prior statement about needing a(nother) copy edit stemmed from similar writing to this. There's nothing technically wrong with the article, which is why I'm supporting it, but it could be written in a more engaging manner in places. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you Cyclone, and I will try to take a look at the prose in the next few days to review your additional comments. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Image review
  • All images check out
  • I've left the image review separate for the convenience of the FAC delegates. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cirt[edit]

  • Support. The article is really of quite a high level of quality and the writing certainly is, as well. The sourcing appears to be meticulous, throughout, and supports the factual statements in the article's body text. Good fleshed out Reception section. I'd like to see the game's sequel, Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, brought to WP:FA, as well. :) Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by SnowFire[edit]

Mostly looks good. The development section in particular is amazingly detailed, great work! A few comments / questions, though:

  • Design: "They came up with a basic solution that would be solved later into development". I think you should be more explicit that "They came up with a basic solution and planned on improving pathfinding later into development" or the like, since the later sentences make clear it wasn't really solved.
  • Release: You jump right into the Collector's Edition, but while obvious, it might be worth somehow indicating there was a vanilla edition that didn't have the cool gizmos, right?
  • Reception: This is something that other Wikipedia articles like to do, in fairness, but I don't think "sound" / "audio" is actually a thing. There's no guarantee that voice acting, background music, and sound effects have any relation to one another in quality, barring some kind of general encoding problem. It's fine to discuss those three topics, but I wouldn't pretend that there's something called "sound" which got mixed reviews.
  • Reception: "counter to the greater focus on political intrigue and social interaction prevalent in the first game in the series, Vampire – the Masquerade." This seems misleading, as it implies there was another computer game earlier in the series. "prevalent in the original table-top role-playing game" perhaps?
  • Reception: I'm quite shocked that the multiplayer was apparently reviewed so well, with all 3 reviews being largely positive. If that's truly the case, I suppose it's fine, but I seem to recall that this was something that was *severely* overhyped in previews, and landed with a dull thud. Basically the MP had been suggested as something that would allow people to play a more story-heavy game online, closer to the tabletop roots, and the tools just plain weren't there for that. It's a game where you do Diablo-esque hacking through hordes of enemies and that's it. This is in addition to the MP bugs already mentioned. I'm pretty sure the game never acquired a notable multiplayer following (unlike, say, Diablo II of the era) but I suppose the *lack* of something can be hard to source. Additionally critical reception for multiplayer is classically a weird area, since critic reviews are published at time of *release* and often can't comment on whether there was a long-term MP following. Anyway, I'm not sure it's possible, but I'd definitely hope for more sources on the multiplayer aspect's irrelevance. (Or maybe I'm just crazy and all the sources really do disagree with me.) SnowFire (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • --> changes so far
    • Modified the design sentence
    • Modified the release sentence
    • Modified sentence about the combat being prevalent in the tabletop game (a victim of copyediting)
    • I removed the sentence lead-in about Redemption‍ '​s sound so now it's just a general paragraph related to audio.
    • I can't say I ever played the multiplayer part and I wouldn't have had the same access to the net then as I do now so I'm just going off the three reviews that covered it, but I'm gonna go back over them. As you say it's harder with MP as those reviews will cover immediate reactions but not something like Diablo-esque longevity. Though I think Diablo probably had a more interesting base-game to bring more people in. Reading the development section, the part that perhaps landed with a thud is that they promised to let you co-op the Singleplayer campaign? The sources from that time that I've read at least don't seem to promise anything multiplayer wise besides that, that was not in hte final game.
    • BTW, thanks for taking the time to review this.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Looking at a few more reviews, the multiplayer seems to be the part that's genuinely singled out as good (IF the vampire community gets behind it). Here's ZDNet and Gamespot only really talking about the limitations of the interface itself to craft the scenarios. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It's weird to me how the MP was well-reviewed, but if that's what the sources say, so be it. (Probably too obscure now to find fansites or the like which would be the main source of a contrary opinion, I'd imagine.) Looks good otherwise. SnowFire (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks SnowFire. I've tried looking around a little more but can'#t really find anything bad said about it, like at GameOver, it looks like it was just somehing that never really clicked with people. I did add a little negativity to the review section regarding the interface criticism however.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

FAC Coord's Note - Did I miss a source review? Graham Beards (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have made a request at the FAC Talk Page for one. Graham Beards (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a rare synthetic chemical element. That alone may seem scary for some readers, yet the best of my efforts have been applied to make this article as readable as it could be. After the first FAC, it was not promoted on the basis of poor prose quality; the article has been improved and updated since then, but the second FAC hasn't even scored enough attention to stand a chance. Now's a third time; hopefully, it'll bring me luck! --R8R (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: I gave it a look through and corrected a few grammatical things: otherwise, I don't see any problems. (Disclaimer: I did a substantial amount of work on this with R8R in 2012, but all of the more recent work was done by them.) Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • ...although: Comment The alt text for the Zagrebaev chart doesn't match its actual contents. Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
      A good catch. I've written an actual alt text for the pic.--R8R (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no claimed proposed name yet? Helholzium? Nergaal (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    I can see this article was written by some Becky Ferreira, who I don't know, but she doesn't work for GSI or anything close to that, as I can see she is a columnist writing about pretty much everything. The word "helmhotzium" only appears once, in the following para: "It remains to be seem whether the IUPAPC will finally allow ununseptium into the official element club. But if it does get the green light, I can take a pretty good stab at what its real name will be. Given that the majority of the other transactinides are named after the relevant research centers, let's assume this superheavy newcomer will be called helmholtzium. You heard it here first." This doesn't make me want to add that to the article, especially labeled as a "proposed name."--R8R (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    Leaving aside how the GSI announced it confirmed the discovery in Dubna, rather than claimed it did discover it first -- why would an element be named after those who confirmed its discovery rather than the actual discoverers?--R8R (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean necessary that source, but were any of the researchers quoted to propose some name? Something like for 118. Nergaal (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I looked and didn't find any suggestions for E117: R8R told me before that they think it's bad karma to discuss naming in advance now (^_-)-☆. For E115 they dared to suggest moscovium (, and we should add that (but that's a long-standing suggestion from 2012: see this, using the Russian name московий). No news for E113 from the Russians, but many suggestions from Japan. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much so. I read it once in a Russian-language source, quoted by a senior Dubna official. (However, I think "the bad karma" also meant how there might be premature arguments over how to name the elements.) --R8R (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
So did any go on record to say that they won't disclose any proposal because of bad luck? And a side-thing, I thought proposals for elements can be reused for others (i.e. Mk was suggested for 116 but rejected so I thought it can't be used for any other). Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't find it now. I think, though, it is an issue worked around for now. Like they were not confirmed the element will be recognized, so they hare hadn't caught by that point. (Even now.)--R8R (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I am under impression "moscovium" has been discussed as a name for 116, but not actually suggested to the JWP. (Not to mention how we have rutherfordium as a name for the element 104, even though Berkley originally wanted it to be the name for the element 106.)--R8R (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Wait, didn't Berkeley propose Rf for E104, and then IUPAC 1996 shifted it to E106 to avoid naming an element after Seaborg? Double sharp (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the svg diagram again: can you at least it rotate it 180 degrees? so higher values are on the right side? Nergaal (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, why not. OK now?--R8R (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems better, but I think the atom labels should remain on left? Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I won't fight to death for it, but I think the labels are better off now. If we do the change, then the legend (85At and 117Uus) will still be aligned to the right from their vertical lines, while the electron level labels will be aligned to the left from theirs, and this difference may bring some make the pic a little messy. This is the problem about making the pic oriented to the right.--R8R (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The isotopes numbers in the infobox are lacking a ref. Nergaal (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The refs are on the isotopes page, like they usually are for the element infoboxes. But I've copied them over. Double sharp (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time for another read. Much appreciated.--R8R (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Refs:
The last two dois don't seem to work. Also, for the book at least be consistent and give the full first names.
ref 2 add the doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3598-5 and page #
This may take a little time; skipping for now (but will be back for it soon)
I meant just add the pages for the used chapter, not all the single pages. Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
ref 6 the publisher seems to be GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH
This is equivalent to what we have now, except we have the thing we use is in English with their suggested spelling, and your thing is in German. (I am not all that great at inter-language things: does it mean we have to use the German version?) I tried to work this issue around, but I'm not all that good with citing sources, so just tell me how to fix this if I haven't done it right.
Whatever is now is ok. But I don't think you should have it as both author and publisher. Use just as publisher. Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
8 is missing accessdate
16 is missing link or doi
20 author
29 doi
33 doi 10.1088/0954-3899/30/10/014
a few other refs in the 40s might have dois that should be added
of all the forties, only no. 48 may look problematic, but it appears it doesn't have a doi.

Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to fix these, except where I left a note.--R8R (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
42 seems a book series. format it so it is clear
per this 47 seems a bit off
Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
54 probably needs a page range?
note c perhaps should mention/link metastable isotope?
Isn't that a little different? I mean, yes, both are excited states, but the metastable isotopes are called "metastable" because they last a while instead of promptly decaying like these ones. (Also, the metastable isotopes tend to emit gamma rays instead of having enough energy to expel neutrons out of the nucleus.) Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I would rather not. It's not the regular metastability we're talking about when an isomer decays into a lower-energy one, so it could create some confusion, which I would rather want to avoid.--R8R (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think JWP and IUPAC acronyms could be mover after the intro for the sake of ease or reading.

Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Except for the penultimate comment, where I left a mote, i think everything's been dome by now.--R8R (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support feel free to rc my comments. Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one shortly. Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • So will I. --John (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm going though, trying to improve the prose as I go, but I haven't looked at the FA standards. YBG (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Sandbh[edit]

I read and edited as I went. So far it has been a much more interesting story than I was expecting. Only the Chemical section to go, then notes, the infobox and references. I have four minor questions seeking clarification of some statements and phrases which I'll post tomorrow. Sandbh (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Finished the main body of the article. Will now look at notes etc. Only one question so far:


  • "The berkelium was subsequently cooled in 90 days"
What does this mean? Cooled for 90 days? Cooled after 90 days? Why 90 days? Sandbh (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The idea is, berkelium underwent a 90-days-long cooling. I leave the choice of the exact wording to you. I haven't seen a paper giving this more than a brief mention like we do, but the answer coming to my mind would be, they couldn't just cool it once, because it's radioactive and it heats itself, especially given there were radioactive by-products, which were especially intense at heating (but also decaying away faster than Bk), and it took them some time to decay away.--R8R (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from John[edit]

I took a look at this last night and this morning started hacking at the prose, which needs some work. Some comments have therefore already been addressed.

  • oon-oon-SEP-tee-əm; I know we have discussed this before. Remind me, what does having the respell alongside the IPA pronunciation guide add?
    Okay, as long as we're not going for another debate on this. It's okay to have these either in or out per WP:MOS/Pronunciation, and they are actually easier to read than the IPA keys, so I'd want them in (if I have both IPA and these respells in front of me, I'll use the latter for reference).
    What is the source for the "oon-oon" pronunciation? I know chemists who say "un-un" and I am sure I saw one source supporting "yoon-oon". If the pronunciation is important, it should come with strong sourcing. At present it has none. I still think that listing two separate systems for the pronunciation is overkill, and as you say it is optional whether to have it at all. If it is to be there it ought to be strongly sourced. --John (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    That's how the original 1979 IUPAC recommendations, which first established such naming, expect it to be pronounced. Quoting the recommendations, "The root 'un' is pronounced with a long 'u', to rhyme with 'moon'. In the element names each root is to be pronounced separately." I'll add that to the article.--R8R (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you, that's genuinely interesting. I still think it has undue prominence on the article but at least it is sourced now. --John (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I trimmed down "Although widely used in the chemical community on all levels, from chemistry classrooms to advanced textbooks, the recommendations are mostly ignored among scientists in the field, who call it "element 117", with the symbol (117) or 117." This text seems to have been added to a lot of these superheavy articles. Most readers will not find the detailed history of the use of the nomenclature all that interesting, and it seems to be contradicted later on. (more to come) --John (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    Why not, it's not a move I would argue against. Thanks for taking part, much appreciated; waiting for your comments.--R8R (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    I appreciate the work that is being done to clean up the prose but I find it hard to aim at a moving target, so I will leave this review for a week or so until the work is stabilised. Ping me if I forget. --John (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oviri (Gauguin)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Modernist, C1cada

This article is about a rather frightening 1894 sculpture by Paul Gauguin, who described the Tahitian goddess of death and mourning on which it is based as "monstrous and majestic...drunk with pride, rage and sorrow". Gauguin was optimistic about its commercial potential, but it languised unsold for years; today first rank casts sell for around €80k at Christies. It was finally placed on his grave in 1973, which is both curious and moving. I wouldnt want it anywhwere near my headstone.

Myself and Modernist laboured on the article for years until white-knighted by C1cada. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Driveby comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Normally we don't have inline cites in the lead unless it's for something controversial, which isn't the case with any of the info in this lead. It would be much more readable if they were dropped.
  • Would vengeful mother be worth a redlink?
  • Réunion des musées nationaux almost certianly should be redlinked: it has a French, Dutch, and German page already.
  • "Recent exhibitions" is problematic—how "recent" is "recent"? What determines the cutoff? Who will maintain the list as "recent" exhibitions become un-"recent"? A number of them are unsourced.
  • All are now sourced; the section will essentially remain as current as possible...Modernist (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The French article for terre-cuite links to the English article for Terracotta. Are they different things? If not, is there any reason to prefer the French term?
  • Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Cheers Curly, working through these. Ceoil (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Update; think I have most sorted; trimming the cites in the lead, adding a few links (need an article on "vengeful mother"). Modernist has cited the recent exhibitions sect. Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Per WP:IMGSIZE, should generally use image scaling rather than fixed pixel size
  • File:Agostini_-_Tahiti,_plate_page_0080.png needs a US PD tag
  • File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Oviri_-_Watercolor_monotype_F_30.jpg: if I'm reading the history correctly this was first exhibited in 1945 - how does the current tag apply? Was it published prior to that? Same with File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Oviri_-_Watercolor_monotype_F_31.jpg
  • File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Soyez_amoureuses_vous_serez_heureses_MFAB_57.582.jpg: need to account for the copyright on the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
All have been sorted, except the last one, which I am mulling over. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Soyez_amoureuses_vous_serez_heureses_MFAB_57.582.jpg has been removed. Ceoil (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
This version is fine: File:Paul Gaugin, Soyez amoureuses vous serez heureuses, relief.jpg Coldcreation (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Coldcreation, and for all the edits. Myself and Modernist have decided against including Soyez amoureuses vous serez heureuses, tempting as it was. We had issuers of text squash, and other things. Ceoil (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Support from Coemgenus
  • Excellent article, I enjoyed reading it. All of the prose is good, I could find only one change to suggest: is there something you can link "vahine" to? Either that, or use an explanatory footnote. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). I agree about removing, I see there's still some cites in the lede. The Reception sect is a bit small but Interpretation is nice. Perhaps the Reception sect could be expanded upon a bit more with additional info from secondary sources? — Cirt (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    Cheers Cirt - down now to two cites in the lead, which are better off explained early. Looking at expanding the 'Reception' bit; always interesting and waspy in that period. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, I keep forgetting to get back to this, but I will soon. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    ok. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • "a savage woman with long blond or grey hair": "blonde", surely, not "blond"? This is in the lead and also in the body.
  • The first sentence of the "Description" section has a trailing quote; is this just editing debris, or is this partially a quote?
  • "the only of his songs": presumably should be either "the only one of his songs" or "the only song of his".
  • The paragraph beginning "Nancy Mowll Mathews" is uncited.
  • "Richard Brettell depicts the Oviri figure in at least one drawing": Brettell is a modern critic, as far as I can see, so I'm not sure what the intended meaning is here.
  • If either the 1894 woodcut or the 1894 drawing in the gallery are among the works that Brettel discusses then I think this should be made definite in the captions.
  • Can you give the locations of the three castings Gauguin himself made? The only location that seems to be given in the article is that one is in the Musée d'Orsay. Similarly, if the locations of any more of the bronzes made from Monfreid's plaster copy are known, that would be worth mentioning.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for the ce's and helpful comments. I've taken care of the first few easier ones; working on the last two, also pinging Modernist who knows more about this period and the sources than I. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Fixes look good; I see there's now a broken image link near the top of the article, so you might look at that. I'll check in again when you've responded on the last two points (and if there are no sources to answer those questions, that's fine; I just think we should give that information if it's available). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Cheers Mike; img fixed and I agree; will ping you when we are done, one way or the other. Ceoil (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
re the other two casts - private collections sothebys,christies - now mentioned in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That looks good, but it should be in the body too -- am I not seeing it or did you not add it yet? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Mike, mentioned now in the body; but not entirely happy with what we have found/pieced together. See discussion here with User:Coldcreation, one of our more knowledgeable editors on such matters. We just don't know, and can't be sure; it's a secretive and frankly money driven business. Ceoil (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I suspected it might be like that. I've supported below; I'm sure you'll add any definite information that can be found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. This article really is about the Orsay version (the context within which Oviri was created, and how it was received), so the whereabouts of other versions is secondary. That said, I will try to track down the locations of divers casts (whether bronze, plaster, or stoneware). Until then, I will remove the mention of private collections, as this has yet to be determined. Coldcreation (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • In refs but not cited: Branciforte, Castets, Goldwater, Kunstler, Malingue (1943), [not sure what to make of oft-mentioned but never-cited Morice and Vollard], Pielkovo, Sugana, Szech, Wadley.
  • Why does Gedo give the year of publication as a page number? Coincidence?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Gauguin was deeply unhappy..." This paragraph seems a bit incoherent.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Who is Yeon Shim Chung?
  • "his familiar Inca profile" familiar to whom, and who says it is Inca?
  • "monstrous and majestic, drunk with pride, rage and sorrow" if you're suggesting this also is Gauguin's self-perception and was thus projected into his work, please make the connection explicit
  • when Degas quoted La Fontaine's fable The Wolf and the Dog: "You see, Gauguin is the wolf." OK. According to Degas, is Gauguin the wolf in the story, or in the Oviri, or both... and... if you're gonna toss out a mention a story by La Fontaine, you should give at least a one-sentence summary of the story itself and how it is connected to Gauguin
  • what Vaugirard studio?
  • "She smothers a wolf with her feet while tightly clutching" Later text says it's unclear if she's smothering or embracing.. perhaps the uncertainty whether the civilized is embracing or killing the wild is a point worthy of mention in the lede.... maybe
  • "ever keen to increase his public exposure" please add "According to Danielsson" to make it explicit that Danielsson adds this editorial info, not WP
  • "invoking ideas of sacrifice, infanticide and the archetype of the vengeful mother." None of these 3 ideas are mentioned in later text, none cited.. and while we're on this topic, you know, I think the whole interpretation section hits pretty hard on the idea that Oviri is a symbol of Gauguin himself as an androgynous wild man, yet that isn't mentioned in the lede... so the interpretations in the lede are unsupported, but those supported by the text are unmentioned.
  • Please translate Tueuse in both mentions ["The Murderess", referring to Oviri]
  • I have a request not strictly related to the current article and thus not formally a part of this FAC review, but as a polite appeal to your better nature, you'd be doing a service to us all if you'd create at least a stub for Ernest Chaplet.
  • The description section doesn't mention the vagina in the back of Oviri's head

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

Generally seems a tad unpolished, but the key stuff is there.

  • Noa Noa, explain & move link to first mention. Italicise.
  • "including Assyrian and Majapahit mummies" - Not Assyrian mummies. Lk to an art article. Mention that this one is the one, & in the gallery, & expand caption.
  • Foxes in Japan - lk to Kitsune
  • Belinda Thomson's catalague for the Tate/NGA exhibition seems to say there was only one (coloured) woodcut (the one you show), plus the 2 monotypes.
  • More later Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

St Denys' Church, Sleaford[edit]

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

St Denys' in Sleaford is an Anglican church in the English county of Lincolnshire, dating to the 12th century. Its tracery was praised by Pevsner, but the church, like the town, has not attracted much attention. Hopefully, this article will help correct that. The article recently passed GA and I believe it is comprehensive, reliably sourced throughout and neutral; the structure seems to follow many of the other Anglican church articles. This will be my first FAC, so I am not holding out for too much, but any constructive comments, queries and suggestions are welcome. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Note from nominator: I will not be at my desk between 8–16 September and I may not respond to comments swiftly or at all before I am back; I will be around as normal from the 16th.Noswall59 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this.

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This seems to my layman's eye to be comprehensive and balanced. The prose could do with a little attention:

  • Lead
    • "A church and priest has existed" – two nouns but a singular verb
    • "alter tombs" – "altar tombs", surely?
  • Description
    • "It is dedicated to St Denys…" – this sentence is eighty words long and could do with being chopped in two or even three. (split into two - hopefully an easier read now!)
    • The second paragraph is liable to suffer from WP:DATED, which can be mitigated if you add "As at 2105" or words to that effect.
  • Background and origins
    • "A large horde of coin moulds" – wrong sort of hoard
    • "Late Iron Age" – if the middle Iron Age, a few lines above, has an uncapitalised "middle", do we want a capitalised "Late" here?
    • Second para: you wait till the second batch of carucates, sokemen and villeins to add blue links. Better to link them at first mention.
  • Expansion
    • Not quite sure why "Despite" in the first sentence – it doesn't seem to have any connection with the fact that the town and church were altered.
    • "likely c. 1180" – unexpected Americanism: one would expect "probably" in a BrEng article (here and below)
    • "the post-Conquest Bishops, who were its patron" – could they all be one patron?
    • "according to the local historian Edward Trollope" – you've already introduced him; we don't need the job description and given name repeated here.
  • Early modern and later
    • Trollope again – the job description, given name and another blue link.
    • "non-conformist" – I'd be inclined to lose the hyphen, to match our WP article on the subject, to which you should add a blue link, I'd say.
    • "2,000 persons" – do we need "persons" here? They'd hardly be anything other than persons.
    • "two major "restorations" to St Denys" – I sympathise with the implied horror at well-meant Victorian mucking up of old churches, but I think your quotation marks are too tendentious for Wikipedia and should be deleted.
  • Architecture, fittings and grounds
    • Some grammarians, particularly American ones, no longer consider it illiterate to use "due to" as though it had passed, like "owing to", into a mere compound preposition. But "because of" is plainer and better than either, and is usually the best bet. Here, though, I'd just write "after".
    • "restored by Sir Ninian Comper in 1918" – he wasn't knighted till 1950 and the Manual of Style bids us take care not to give people titles prematurely. - well-spotted
    • "The screen, altar rails in St Hugh's Chapel are the work of C. H. Fowler and, while E. Stanley Watkins completed the reredos in 1906." – this sentence needs a bit of work, possibly an "and" after "screen" and "and, while" could be replaced with a semicolon.
  • Memorials
    • First sentence: change of tense from present to past, and the comma splice before "however" needs attention. (Personally, I'd lose the "however" and add a semicolon instead.) - tweaked, is it okay?
    • "The English novelist" – is it important to mention that she was English?
    • "to local solicitor Henry Snow" – unexpected and unwelcome false title here. The addition of "a" before "local" and a comma after "solicitor" would remedy it.
  • Sources
    • I'm a bit dubious that Hoare's book necessarily qualifies as a WP:RS, but I know how limited the available material often is on local history/geography, and I think it reasonable not to press the point. Happily you don't rely overmuch on the book. Trollope is very heavily relied on, but there are enough citations to other published sources to make this acceptable, I'd say.

I'm not an expert on church architecture, and as I'd value the input of editors who know more about the subject than I do, I'll do a little (legitimate) canvassing. For my own part, I'm inclined to support the promotion of the article, and will revisit the matter once you have addressed my points, above. – Tim riley talk 14:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much, @Tim riley: Hopefully, I've addressed all of the issues you've raised above (as of this edit). I agree that Hoare's book is less than perfect, which is why I've mostly used it for minor 20th century developments; sadly, he is the only author who discusses the dedication. Let me know if I've missed anything. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).
Good – the prose strikes me as up to standard now, and as I have said earlier the content seems to me both comprehensive and adequately sourced and cited. I see no reason to withhold my support. I hope (reasonably confidently) that more expert reviewers than I will take a similarly favourable view. Tim riley talk 18:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks Tim, that's much appreciated. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Support Excellent article. My only complaint would be maybe the lede is a tad short and might benefit from a bit more architectural detail.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: thank you very much. I will see what I can do about expanding the lead. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

Comments I do not consider myself to be a reviewer but would like to make comments on the comprehensiveness of the article:

  • It has been pointed out to me in the past that an active church is not just a building, but is also a community of people, and I think information abut this should be included in a FA. The church as a website here, which gives info including the present personnel in the church and its current activities, and there is also the CoE website here.
I have taken a look at the websites you suggest. I believe I have already covered the services the church offers. Aside from its summer fete, I can't see much more about its activities that's worth including. What did you have in mind? I've also looked at the list of people. I can add the churchwardens and organist if it's necessary, but I do worry that it's information which is liable to go out of date and probably isn't needed and it's not included in existing FAs like St Nicholas, Blakeney and St Helen's Church, Ashby-de-la-Zouch.
  • It would be helpful to have a map in the infobox.
I have added one.
  • There is no information about the present state of the organs (main and chapel). This can be found here and doing a search for Sleaford.
Thanks for pointing this out. Is it a reliable source? If so, I will add it as a reference.
It is the official website of the British Institute of Organ Studies, and having used used it in most of my church articles, have found nothing to suggest it is unreliable. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Although the info on the bells has not changed since the Trollop reference (1872), there is current info here.
As above, is this a reliable source?
Similarly for Dove's Guide for Church Bell Ringers. Its authenticity is described on its home page here. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not happy about the "Previous denomination" being given as "Roman Catholic". This presumably refers to the pre-Reformation state, when the whole western Christian church was Catholic. I suggest this field be left empty to prevent confusion.
I was unsure about this myself and I agree with you. It's gone now.
  • Not essential, but have you considered having an "Appraisal" section to confirm why the architecture of the church is important. Such a section could define what Grade I listing means, and also include comments from Pevsner and others about its special and/or unique features.
All of Pevsner's comments worth including have been incorporated into the architecture section. The English Heritage listing is short and doesn't say much about national significance apart from the tracery, which I've already talked about in the architecture section. As a result, I am really not sure it needs an appraisal section.
A nice article but I should prefer it to be more comprehensive at FA level. Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Peter I. Vardy: thanks for you comments, I have some queries about a few of them, which I've outlined above; I've tweaked a couple of things as per your suggestion. I am not really sure that there is any more activities/services information worth adding, likewise about personnel. I am also not sure it needs an appraisal section because that material is already in the architecture section. If you could confirm that the two links you suggested are reliable sources, I'd be happy to add them to the article. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC).
@Peter I. Vardy: thank you for clarifying the reliability of the sources above. I have now added them and information on the organs - would you be okay to take a look and see whether it's all right now? (Thank you too for providing the sources - I shall use them for future articles!) All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks fine. The following can be linked: Samuel Green (organ builder), Forster and Andrews, Harrison & Harrison. (I am now away for a few days.)--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
They're all linked now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

Tentative Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

first the north aisle was rebuilt by the local builders Kirk and Parry in 1853; second, the tower and spire were largely rebuilt in 1884... - I think the "first" and "second" are unneeded here and not helpful for flow
A Perpendicular clerestory adorns the aisles with three-light window... - any reason why "perpendicular" is capitalised here?
I made these changes. Hope they're ok.
@Casliber: Your alterations are fine - thank you. I have removing the problematic "first ... second" phrasing as per this diff; as for your other comment, I am referring to Perpendicular Gothic, a type of Gothic architecture, which appears to be capitalised throughout its article. Let me know if there are any other comments or suggestions. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC).
Okay, in which case I would link "Perpendicular" to the appropriate section/article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: it is already linked, in the first paragraph of the "Architecture, fittings and grounds" section. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC).
@Noswall59: aaaah my bad indeed. In which case strike that and consider me moving into Support territory on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt[edit]

  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Minor quibble really: I think it's best practice to have in-line citations for the info in the image captions, to make it easier for future editors and readers to find out more about that info in a quick fashion. — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cirt: Thanks for taking a look. The MOS seems silent on the issue. Which of the images do you have in mind? All of the dates etc. included in captions are cited in the article and most of them don't contain that sort of information anyway. I am happy to add references to any where you feel it's needed though. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The rood screen, restored by Sir Ninian Comper in 1918
  • East window of the chancel with stained glass by Ward & Hughs, 1853/4
  • Yvonne Double memorial window, by Glenn Carter, 2006

These 3 should have cites. The rest are all fine per your argumentation. :) Let me know once those are fixed, then happy to have another look. — Cirt (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: okay, thank you for clarifying. I've cited two of them and removed dates and maker from a third (I think it was copied from the geograph info, which was not correct). Let me know if there are any other concerns you have. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC).
  • Support. Looks a bit better, thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for your comments and support. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC).

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • "the present vicar, Rev. Philip Anthony Johnson, was appointed in 2013": since this article will, I hope, be around after the vicar retires, this would be better with an "as of" construction: perhaps "the Rev. Philip Anthony Johnson, who was appointed in 2013, is the vicar as of 2015". Or perhaps roll this in with the "as of" construction you have in the following paragraph?
  • Done
  • "an unknown Syrian saint": I don't quite follow. In what sense is he unknown?
  • His name and details of his life are not known beyond his works. I've changed to anonymous - is that better?
  • In a couple of places you say "Holy Communion is conducted from", rather than "at", a time. Is that the usual wording? "At" would sound more natural to my non-churchgoing ears.
  • Changed both instances to "at"
  • I think the plural of "sokeman" should be "sokemen", per this.
  • Well spotted.
  • In the background section, I don't follow the final part of the argument -- if they conclude the reference in Domesday is to the church in Old Sleaford, how can it also refer to New Sleaford?
    I am not sure where the confusion is here. There were two manors in Sleaford: one held by the Bishop and one by an Abbot. The Bishop's manor included a Church, which was assumed to be the church at Old Sleaford (because it was supposed that St Denys' didn't exist at that time). However Mahany and Roffe showed that the church in old Sleaford was actually included in Quarrington's entry; therefore, the record of the Bishop's manor at Sleaford which included a church must have been alluding to St Denys' Church. Does this make sense? I have tried to convey that in the article anyway... —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    OK, I think I get it now. You say "there were two manors in Sleaford", but in the article you say "Two manors called Eslaforde were recorded in Domesday"; I didn't realize that Eslaforde was an early name for Sleaford, and I therefore didn't understand that the argument was that the churches referred to as being in these two manors had to be the churches in Sleaford. Can you make that a bit clearer? If I'm slow on the uptake about that, others will be too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    That's a fair point. I have put Sleaford in brackets after Eslaforde - does that help? —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC).
    Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It wasn't until I finished that paragraph that I realized that the reassessment referred to in the earlier paragraph was, in fact, laid out for me in the second. I wouldn't suggest anything as clumsy as "as follows", but I'd like to see the reader made aware that the argument is first mentioned and then given. It might be enough just to move the mention of the reassessment to the start of the second paragraph.
  • I believe I have tweaked it to make it less confusing; I have moved the last clause of the first paragraph to the beginning of the next.
  • Is there any reason to link to the Google Books version of a source if there's no text available? I'm not sure it's harmful, though perhaps a source reviewer might comment if this is usual. Nikkimaria, is there any reason not to do this?
    Per WP:PAGELINKS GBooks links should usually only be added when preview is available, although I wouldn't say it's harmful here - just redundant (ISBN already links to GBooks and many other sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • My bad, I assumed it would be okay. I have removed the links where the books are not available for preview on Google Books.
  • "A prebendary of Sleaford is recorded in the late 13th century and was probably founded by the post-Conquest Bishops, who were its patrons." A couple of things. I'm not an expert in church terminology, but isn't the prebendary the holder of the benefice, and the prebend is the benefice itself? So it would have been the prebend that was founded, not the prebendary? Second, does the last part mean that the Bishops who were its patrons founded it, or that it was founded by a group of people whom you're referring to as "the post-Conquest Bishops"? I think you mean the former, since the latter implies that all post-Conquest Bishops founded it; in that case you need to drop the comma after "Bishops".
  • I have tried to make this clear, let me know if it's still problematic. The prebend was probably founded by one of the post-Conquest Bishops and the Bishops were always its patrons.
  • "Located on the north aisle, the chaplain was instructed to pray there": needs to be reworded; this makes it sound like the chaplain was located on the north aisle.
  • Clarified
  • Why do we need Edward Evans death date?
  • We don't - removed.
  • "during its 1870 elections": I think "its" refers to the Board of Guardians, but there are so many nouns in between that I think I'd make it explicit -- at least "during the Board's 1870 elections".
  • Done
  • What or where is Westgate?
    A street - how should I make this clear in the text?
    I don't think you need the street, do you? Couldn't you just say "in Sleaford and Quarrington"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    Done. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC).
  • I don't think you need "But" in "But the Anglican congregation ...".
  • "an estimated 700 to 800 people in 1851 (St Denys' had a sitting of 743 people)": what does "sitting" mean? That's how many people could be seated? Or that was a typical number of attendees at a service?
  • It's the space available [11]. I have tweaked the wording
  • "memory of the local solicitor Henry Snow": perhaps just "memory of a local solicitor, Henry Snow", unless he deserves special mention in some way.
  • "and an extensive restoration work": do you need "an"? It doesn't sound natural to me.

-- I should be able to finish this review tomorrow. Generally this is looking pretty good to me; just a few quibbles so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Hello and thank you ever so much for your comments so far. I have striken the comments which I believe have been corrected as per this edit. I could do with clarification about the query re Westgate. Could please you let me know whether the passages on the saint, Domesday and the prebend are up to scratch now as well? All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC).
I see from your nomination that you're new to FAC, so welcome! This is a solid article and I look forward to seeing more of your nominations. A couple of very minor formatting points for the FAC (as opposed to the article). It's usual to let the reviewer do the striking, rather than striking the comments yourself as you reply -- that's because the reviewer may not always agree that the point has been dealt with, so it's best to let them decide when something can be struck. Not an issue here, since I agreed with you in every case, but something to be aware of. Also, it's usual (though not universal) to sign each of your interspersed replies to points, so that if the conversation extends beyond a single reply it's clear who said what. Again not an issue here. Finally (and this is something even experienced Wikipedians get wrong all the time) the indents following a "*" or ":" should always match the one above, otherwise you can get odd-looking results, such as bullets floating to the left. For example, if you're responding to a bulleted entry beginning with "*", and you want a simple indent below it, use "*:", not ":*".
Everything you've struck looks OK to me; I made a couple more little tweaks. I've replied to your question above, and it looks like you missed one point, which is still unstruck above. I expect to support once those minor points are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Hello and thank you for the comments and advice - I will bear it all in mind from now on. I have removed the Westgate reference, but I am not sure how to address the remaining query you have. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC).

Continuing the review:

  • "a 15th-century window was moved to churchyard": presumably "the churchyard"? Is the churchyard a part of the church building? "Yard" in the US means what "garden" means in the UK, so this sounds a bit as though the window was just dumped outside. Can you be more specific?
    It does indeed refer to the church's grounds, and the window was removed from the building and left standing in the corner of the churchyard, as can be seen here [12]. I have tweaked the wording and linked churchyard. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    That is amazing. I would never have guessed you meant that. Perhaps make it "placed outside in the churchyard", which I know is redundant but makes it quite clear. If a picture is available that would be good too. I'll go ahead and strike this point since there's nothing wrong here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    I know, it's hard to believe they did that... There is a photo at Geograph, which I will transfer over and add to the gallery. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).
  • "the building's listing": many readers won't know what you mean by "listing", so I'd explain this inline.
    I have used the list's full name, which is probably more meaningful, and I've linked to listed building. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "19 cwt, 3 quarters and 6 lbs": an odd way to give the weight. No doubt this is in the source, but I'd just give it in whatever units a modern English person would use, with an approximate conversion to metric. You can keep the original, but it needs to be in modern units too. The quarter in particular is not a measurement most people have ever heard of; and the hundredweight is a different weight in the U.S. and Canada to the U.K. measure. I'd also suggest giving approximate metric and imperial measurements for the acres/roods/poles, and linking rood and pole. See MOS:UNITS and MOS:CONVERSIONS for details.
    Okay, I have converted these. The roods and poles aren't supported by the convert template, so I've had to do them manually, while I found a nifty little template called long ton designed for working with bell weights. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    The bell weights look good. Any reason why you went with hectares for one of the land conversions but square metres for the other? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    I've converted them to hectares. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).
  • I didn't know what a dole cupboard was until I looked it up. Is there an article that can be linked to for this? Perhaps something on ecclesiastical furniture or church architectural terms?
    I'm struggling to find an article with a definition... —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    I won't oppose over this if there's no link. You might redlink it; up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    I have redlinked and may create a stub at some point. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).
  • The photo of the tomb of Sir Edward Carre mentions its mutilation by Puritans; you don't mention this in the article. Do your sources mention it?
    I've not seen any other mention of this and have checked Trollope, who describes it in detail but doesn't talk about any mutilations as far as I can see. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    Page 131 of the Google Books edition of Trollope says the memorial is "said to have been mutilated during the Civil War"; I think that's good enough to cite. Incidentally, were you aware of this? Might be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    Okay, well discovered. I have quoted Trollope in the article and cited the page. I am aware of the 1825 book; it's good, but Trollope seems to cover the noteworthy points and it is in that early Victorian antiquarian phase which makes me doubtful of its reliability. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).
    In the church itself there is a plaque next to the tomb saying this is what happened to it. If you like I can try to find out their source? --Errant (chat!) 13:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    @ErrantX: I have included the information in the article now, so I am sure it is fine, but if there is anything else you can find, that would fantastic. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC).
  • You refer to Eleanor Peart's memorial as the "the 'heavy' slab"; what does that mean, and why the quotes?
    It's how Pevsner describes it. I think it's his polite way of saying that the design is perhaps too bold and not as fine as it could have been. I can remove it if you'd like? —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I think we need to be clear what he means, or we can't use the description. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    I have removed the "heavy" part. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).

-- That's everything I can find. All the points are minor, and I expect to support once these issues are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I believe I have addressed all of these issues by these edits [13], although I haven't found an article offering a definition of dole cupboard, nor have I found mention of Puritans desecrating Carre's tomb; I also have a query about the last comment. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC).
@Mike Christie: okay, I feel I have addressed all of these concerns now, but do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks ever so much for the review, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for carrying out this review. All the best, --Noswall59 (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC).

Comments by Hchc2009[edit]

Not quite a support yet

  • "1 acre of woodland, 320 acres of meadow and 330 acres of marsh" - felt like it needed a metric equivalent.
    Done. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
  • There are quite a few instances where century is used as an adjective without a hyphen (compare "13th-century sources" and "a 14th century slab")
    I believe I have caught them all. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
  • What is a cantarist?
    I have replaced with "chantry priest" (chantry was linked earlier in the paragraph). —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
  • "There is a strong local tradition" - I wasn't sure what a "strong" local tradition was. Widely held? Possibly correct? etc.
    Changed to "widely held". —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
  • "As of 2015, regular church services are held on Sundays and Wednesdays..." - this is cited to the church's own site, so I don't think it is a reliable source in terms of backing up the claim that services are actually regularly held, or just regularly scheduled. (In reality they might often be cancelled, for example.)
    Changed to scheduled. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
  • "1809–1851 and 1851–82" - this seemed inconsistent in style
    It is and I have switched to the latter style, as per the MOS. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
  • "establishment of National Schools in Sleaford " - is the capitalisation correct here?
    I believe "school" should be lower-case, but National is derived from the National Society for Promoting Religious Education and I believe should be capitalised. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
  • I can't work out why some names have death dates after them, and not others. e.g. why "Sir Edward Carre, 1st Baronet (d. 1618)" or "Elizabeth Cooper (d. 1792)", but not "the Bishop of Lincoln, John Bokingham" (who died in 1339, btw)
    I have added the Bishop's death date. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
  • My concern was more general - why are some being given dates and not others? (e.g. " Bishop Alexander of Lincoln", "Samuel Green of London" etc.) I'd expect there either to be an implicit rule that the article is following (i.e. "dates are given if...") or to be consistent (i.e. everyone gets dates, or no-one gets dates). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hchc2009: Ah, I see. Well, I note that Pevsner records the death dates when he talks about tombstones and that makes sense, especially because many of the interesting monuments' subjects don't have articles. It would probably also be useful for architectural/art historians to place. As a result, I've made it so that death dates are only included for individuals with memorials. Does this make sense? —Noswall59 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
  • Is "Pawley, Simon (1996), The Book of Sleaford, Baron Birch for Quotes Ltd" a high-quality reliable source? This is an open question, as I'm not familiar with the publishing house and can't find it on-line.
    Pawley has a doctorate from the School of Historical Studies at the University of Leicester and compiled his thesis on "Lincolnshire coastal villages and the sea c.1300 - c.1600 : economy and society" [14]. According to this document by Bishop Grosseteste University and published by the County Council, Pawley "is a former Chairman of the Lincolnshire Family History Society, Conference Committee and a former Vice-Chairman of that society, former Chairman and Treasurer of Friends of Lincolnshire Archaeology and sometimes acts as a historical consultant to North Kesteven District Council." I have taken him to be a pretty reliable source, although I cannot vouch for the publisher. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
  • Cheers - sounds fine to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The bibliography is inconsistent in style: some items have publisher and location, others just publisher.
    They now all have locations; I have also switched to ISBN-13 throughout. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
  • "The architectural historian Sir Nikolaus Pevsner states" -Pevsner died around 30 years ago, so I'd have put this in the past tense myself.
    Switched to the past tense and caught two others relating to Trollope. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).

Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: I believe I have addressed all of your concerns through this edit [15], but do let me know if there is anything more to be done. Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • " illegible when he recorded it." when?
  • Sometime before he published his book in 1872... I've added "in or before 1872". —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).
  • commemorated in St Denys' by a brass. Are we missing a noun, or is this common usage?
  • No, there is no missing noun. According to the OED: brass, a noun, is "Used elliptically for various things made of brass: esp. A sepulchral tablet of brass (or latten), bearing a figure or inscription, laid down on the floor or set up against the wall of a church." In other words, a monumental plaque made of brass can be called simply a "brass". If this is an issue, I can change it. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).
    • If it's relatively common in british English usage, then it is not an issue. :-)
  • I didn't know "peal" was a group term for bells. Is it? That doesn't seem to jibe with peal. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Peal can mean both the act of ringing the bells and, to quote the OED "A set of bells tuned to one another". —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).
  • I have a request not strictly related to the current article and thus not formally a part of this FAC review, but as a polite appeal to your better nature, you'd be doing a service to us all if you'd create at least a stub for three-light window, which appears often in WP articles, but wait, what's a six-light window? Should there be some sort of umbrella term? Are "strainer arches, sometimes described as scissor arches" the same as the "Scissor truss" described at the bottom of our article on Timber roof truss?
  • Firstly, I am not sure articles on six-light, five-light, four-light etc. windows are really necessary. The word "light" in this context refers to "A window or other opening in a wall for the admission of light; specifically one of the perpendicular divisions of a mullioned window" (OED). So, it is basically the number of main divisions in these windows; I guess a definition may belong in window or mullioned window. Secondly, the strainer arch looks like this: [16]. It is made of stone, so probably shouldn't be linked to Timber roof truss, although structurally it is similar to the scissor truss shown in that article; instead, it really ought to have its own article or section of an article, so I've redlinked. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).
  • "Roger the chaplain" admittedly this is a minor point, but Roger is not previously named, so...
  • There is no further information on him, the source simply says that the house belonged to "Roger the chaplain"; I have added "one" in front of his name, which implies that this is all we know about him. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: thank you very much for the comments above, all of which I believe I have addressed in some form, but please see my replies. Let me know if there are any further changes you have in mind. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).

  • Cite error: Invalid [1]

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.


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)

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: [17]. 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
  • Update electiricty figures
  • Update transport


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


  • Check national holidays - Done.


  • Check beers - Done.


  • Check and update


  • 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)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]


Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal

Review section[edit]

This article passed FAC over 7 years ago, with support arguments extending no further than "great job, almost every sentence is referenced" and the principal contributor, Bubba hotep has retired. While that's not in itself a reason to send an article to FAR, it's usually indicative that, unless somebody else with a good knowledge of the band is on hand to caretake things, the article will naturally deteriorate by well meaning but sub-FA quality edits. And that's where we are now. Unfortunately I'm just not enough of an expert on the band and have no good sources to improve it back up to FA level, so the only real option is to send it here and hope somebody else comes foward. Like Rush (band), I'm not holding my breath though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, comparing today's FA standards to then's, they seem like different universes. I'll read the article these days and correct what I can. I believe Lewismaster would be interested in helping as well.--Retrohead (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The article is messy, largely unreferenced, too lenghty for Joe Petagno's art, too short on musical style and influences and I think too bloody detailed on dating every tour and TV appearance. Moreover, many references are off-line and should be accurately verified. It's a long work which should be made for many FA articles (Metallica's article is in a similar shape, for example.) I can do something in my spare time, but I don't have all the books for such a work. Lewismaster (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
As Ozzy is a well known fan of Motörhead, maybe Drmies can help? I've started trimming out some recentism (2010 onwards is particularly bad) but it's like Sisyphus pushing his rock up a hill, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. It was on the front page not too long ago, I thought--but "not too long ago" for me could have been in the 1990s. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: it was on the main page in 2009 apparently... not too long ago, then, compared with the age of the universe anyway :)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review—spotchecks not done.

  • Italicization of the names of online publications is inconsistent. Either they all should be italicized or none of them.
  • Italicization of the names of magazine is inconsistent. Either they all should be italicized or none of them.
  • According to Checklinks, there are quite a few problematic links, some of which are dead, while others yield connection errors.
I managed to fix three links, but I can't find the links from Motorhead's website, and can't figure out why and how the author combined all those links in ref 30, all of which are dead.
  • Representation of the names of online publications is largely inconsistent. One example includes the capitalization of "m" in "Allmusic"/"AllMusic" and another is whether we cite the Motorhead website as "" or "Motorhead official website".
  • Wikilinking of works and publishers is inconsistent. Either link only in first occurrence, never, or always.
  • FN 4 includes a quotation from the source, while other AllMusic references do not. We need consistency.
  • FN 6 is surely "Ace Records" and not just "Ace".
  • White Line Fever should be in the bibliography, not in further reading, since it is referenced.
  • Names of films and albums need to be italicized in the reference titles always.
  • FN 14 is missing information (eg. work or publisher, date of publication) and a period/full stop, and the archive link does not work.
  • FN 15: this needs to be moved to the bibliography with specific citations with page numbers in the footnotes. And is FN 17 citing this book?
  • Some refs are missing information: FN 16 is missing a retrieval date, for example, and FN 81 is missing the work or publisher.
  • Regardless of whether it is a reliable source, is certainly not a high quality reliable source. I have similar reservations about Rock on the Net, Playlouder, Internet Movie Database,, Lincolnshire Bombers' news forum, Spinner,, Classic rock revisited, Ear Candy Magazine, and Ultimate Guitar Archive.
Wikipedian Penguin, I agree that Blabbermouth is not the best option for FAs, but it is a website whose information is cited by Billboard, Loudwire, Rolling Stone, and others. So far, I haven't noticed a false information on Blabbermouth.
  • FN 68, 74: avoid SHOUTING in references.
  • FN 80 needs to be more specific, with authors, titles, publishers, page numbers, etc.
  • FN 84 uses the ISO date format, inconsistent with the other footnotes.
  • Why is all of the Peter Buckley reference in italics?
  • Evidently, there is no single citation format used for the entire article. This is an important aspect of maintaining FA standards.
  • "Motörhead are typically classified as heavy metal, and their fusion of punk rock into the genre helped to pioneer speed metal and thrash metal."—this is (supposedly) already sourced in the body of the article, so it does not need to be sourced in the lead.
  • Several pieces of information in the biography are uncited, like this one, "On 19 October, having played 10 gigs, they became the supporting act to Blue Öyster Cult at the Hammersmith Odeon," and this, "In 1996, the band began touring the States in early January and played thirty venues up to 15 February; a seven-date tour of Europe in June and July was followed by two engagements in South America during August." The article needs to be thoroughly checked for similar unsourced statements before it can have any hope of passing FAR. Making a comprehensive list would be exhausting.
Partially done.

I don't want to jump the gun, but there may be more to do than can be done within the timeframe of this FAR. Still, let's see what others, including those involved with this article, think. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll be doing the source corrections in the following two weeks. I'll strike the notes I'm done with, if that's ok.--Retrohead (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking this on, Retrohead. I would prefer striking them on my own to verify the edits, so if you could reply to my comments instead, that would be terrific. Would you prefer if we moved this to the FAR's talk page to keep the main FAR page tidy? The Wikipedian Penguin 15:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm ok with whatever suits you.--Retrohead (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Retrohead and Wikipedian Penguin: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrohead has done some points, but the refs are still far from meeting FA standards. I'll wait for his input. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I give up. There's a great amount of work that needs to be done (not just the references) which requires more knowledge on the topic. I can't say I fully understand the author's modus operandi on the refs. I believe it is better to start writing the article from scratch rather than trying to fix it. It will save me more time and nerves.--Retrohead (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I began to rewrite the Music style section, which is missing much info and full of copyvios. It will take some time to be completed, so I support Retrohead's idea. Lewismaster (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we're going to have to go to a delist vote. Lewismaster If you are sure there are copyvios in the current article, they should be addressed ASAP either by removing them or copyediting so they are no longer close paraphrasing, and that should be done ASAP. Elsewhere, it seems the article sees regular traffic from well meaning but misguided IPs who end up making it worse. :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, besides being decidedly incomplete, more than half of the the section is made of lengthy citations from different sources taken on the web. Some citations are not indicated as such ('Motörhead, Lemmy states, have more in common aesthetically with The Damned than Black Sabbath, and nothing whatsoever in common with Judas Priest') and some others are not referenced ('The NME stated that their brief solos were just long enough "... to open another bottle of beer"). I'm not completely sure if this is just bad writing or an infringement of Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Maybe you could take a look at it. Lewismaster (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
So are we doing FARC? I agree that this article needs an overhaul that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section included copyright and sourcing. DrKiernan (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World[edit]

Notified: Clyde Miller, WikiProject Video games

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of it not being up to snuff in terms of standards for Featured Article. Throughout its page it uses references considered unreliable for video game articles (i.e Armchair Empire). Also the prose should be reworked, with sentences like "Empires‍ '​ multiplayer component, powered by GameSpy, is freely available to any player who has an updated version of the game. Though as of 2007, this game is no longer supported by GameSpy for online play." as its both poor and outdated. Overall not something I should have the bronze star on it in its current state. GamerPro64 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Time has not been kind to this article. Yep, at the very least the whole thing needs a through scrub and the lede is way too short for FA status. – czar 22:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The lead does not summarize most of the content and the Reception section could probably be reworked. Anarchyte 04:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC No-one working on it. DrKiernan (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - This isn't going anywhere. GamerPro64 02:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Standing concerns over reliability of sourcing and comprehensiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist - Per my comments. GamerPro64 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist and re-assess as B-class. The prose needs improvement, not all of the sources are appropriate per WP:VG/RS, and the lead disappoints. Could be a GA candidate given some editing, expansion, and (re)sourcing. Esquivalience t 22:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd like to take a shot at saving this one. I remember supporting it when it passed back in the day, and the lead editor was a Wikifriend of mine. It should be fairly easy to polish up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I think that's worth holding off delisting this for the time being. Jimmy knows how to get stuff done. GamerPro64 03:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks. It's going to be a bigger job than I initially thought, but I'm going to work on it steadily until it's done. Thanks for everyone's patience in advance. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Hey, if you get stuck into it, we can cut considerable slack for time...we're happy to leave it open for as long as it takes if y'er still plugging away at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Much appreciated. It might take me a couple weeks, but I'll whip this thing into shape. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
            • It's starting to come together. There's plenty of work ahead, but I can finally see the end of the tunnel. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
              • Everything's done except the lead and Reception, which are half finished. Progress will be slow this week because of limited Internet access where I'm at, unfortunately. I'm in the home stretch, in any case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:57, 29 September 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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Battle of Midway[edit]

User:Jparshall inactive. Notified: WikiProject Military history

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is currently in three cleanup categories: Wikipedia articles needing page number citations (tagged September 2010, June 2013, July 2013, October 2014, June 2015), articles with unsourced statements (tagged March 2015), and articles with dead external links (tagged July 2015). DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and see what needs to be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've made a start on fixing up the references. I hope to complete this tomorrow. Can you read through the article and look for any gaps and errors? One that is sticking out for me is that there is a section on Japanese casualties, but not on the American ones. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, the references are repaired, but there is a pile of uncited material. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixed one broken cite, but there's a fair amount of work to be done. Nothing too onerous, but it will take me a week or two to add the missing cites, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. Thanks for the changes and work so far, but the article is still tagged for citation needed, clarification and pages needed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Moved here now - I note the [citation needed] tags still present, so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist. Unsourced statements from July and August 2015; tagged as needing clarification and page numbers. DrKiernan (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    Doesn't look too serious. I will do another pass over the references on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep We have corrected all the bits needing citations, clarifications and page numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - article now looks to be up to scratch as far as I can see following the recent work that has been done to it. Some minor points:
    • The notes next to the references don't really seem to be in-line with current practice and some seem to be a little judgmental / opinionated re sources. I'd suggest removing them.
    • There are some minor inconsistencies in the references and further reading section IRT presentation of the Naval Institute Press (sometimes also presented as "United States Naval Institute Press", "U.S. Naval Institute Press" or "US Naval Institute Press" etc.) I fix it myself but I'm unsure which is the preferred style here.
    • I did a minor copy-edit, added some bibliographic details / formatted some refs, made a few other changes [18].Anotherclown (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
      • While it is the United States Naval Institute, the publishing arm is Naval Institute Press. Set all the references to this.
      • I have removed some of the footnotes, and merged some into the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Query I have started creating Category:Aircraft carrier units and formations after noticing that USN and IJN carrier divisions were redirecting to each other (eg. Carrier Division 5). Currently the Japanese carrier divisions are at ordinals, eg Fifth Carrier Division, rather than the numerical-at-end-of-designation USN style. I think that it's possible that IJN carrier divisions started off their wiki-existence in USN style. So my query is is ordinals correct (5th Carrier Division, *not* Carrier Division 5) for the IJN? In that case, the article links need to be updated. Meanwhile the USN World War II divisions will eventually end up as Carrier Division Five (United States) etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wiggles[edit]

Notified: User:ANTONIOROCKS, User:AngusWOOF, User:Mitch Ames

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because this is a 2008 promotion from the Unreviewed Featured Articles list. It was actually my very first FAC, and my inexperience as an editor was apparent. Shortly before it appeared on URFA list, I decided that it needed a major overhaul. To that end, I checked every source for dead links and for utilization, I improved the prose, and updated it (which was needed after two iterations of the group since the article passed to FA). I think that it can easily pass an FAR, but it needs to be checked and like all articles, could always use further feedback. I'm not notifying any projects about this FAR, since none was really involved with its improvement or upkeep through the years. This article has been TFA, but way back in 2008, shortly after it was passed. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at the lead for the moment, I'm confused by the tenses used. The group is still active, but the lead says that the early members "continued" to have input. If they still continue to have input, then "continue" should be used. If they no longer have input, then an end date ought to be specified. I have changed some of the past tenses used in the lead to reflect that the group is still active. Are these changes appropriate? For example, do they still perform to a million people a year on average? If not, then the statement needs to be changed back to the past tense and qualified by "at their peak" or a date range or similar. Also, the lead says they had a large dance troupe "in their later years" but if the group is still going, what is meant by later years—recent years or years up to the departure of Page, Cook and Fatt? Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Figureskatingfan: could you please respond to my comments on the lead? Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I just started a new job, so things have been a little busy with me. I used the word "continued" because I wanted to keep the tenses consistent. I think that for grammar's sake, it shouldn't be changed, although I could say "continued into 2015". If I do that, though, we'd have to keep updating it every year, which is tenuous. I'm fine with your tense changes; yes, the million people is an average (some years more, most years less), so I'm fine with your changes. I moved the word "later" to earlier in the sentence, and then simply removed "in their later years". I could also replace "later" with "eventually" if you like. Thanks for the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Moving it here so points can be looked at in detail. Looks like there has been some work on it (a good thing!). Main issue raised by DrKiernan is prose, though one would have to wonder about weighting and whether the current members warrant a bit more of a mention in the lead...or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't that much to mention, since the new members joined so recently. I did, though, add their names as replacements for the original members in the lead's first paragraph. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks for keeping the article up-to-date. DrKiernan (talk) 16:25, 26 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. DrKiernan (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)[edit]

Gadget850 is retiring; Notified: WikiProject Scouting

Review section[edit]

Per talk page notification: uncited text, and prose/style issues, including repetitive headings, short sections and too short lead. DrKiernan (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC. No-one working on it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section focused on referencing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per opening statement. DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - Per DrKiernan's comments. GamerPro64 18:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to take the opportunity to edit this article to meet the FA requirements.
  Bfpage |leave a message  15:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bfpage: I am happy to hear that, we have plenty of leeway to leave these as open for considerable time to get them cleaned go for thy life....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bfpage: please let us know when you feel satisfied this page meets criteria or at least when we should all look at it again. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The article was proposed to be deleted in July. My first response was less than a month ago. I have done some confirmation of the references and done some refining of the prose. I have contacted other editors who have contributed to the article in the past and notified them that the article is under review. It is fairly long and will take more time. The reasons cited for delisting the article are mentioned above and are based upon the comments of Nikkimaria. My concern is that POV issues may arise and that those who 'don't like' the topic may begin to add to the list of issues. The Boy Scouts in general are are controversial group of topics, though the editing history on this article appears to be stable. I would like to leave a message on the talk page of the Project Scouting letting interested project members know that the article is undergoing review. Is that appropriate?
  Bfpage |leave a message  09:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I left a message at the WikiProject in July, but it does no harm to leave another. DrKiernan (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
According to the editing history there at least two of us who have made 52 edits since the review was initiated. In addition, the guidelines describing the FAR process strongly encourages those nominating the FA article for review to aid in its improvement. This has not happened yet.
  Bfpage |leave a message  09:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Umm, I don't follow. This is the FA review process.....realistically this will be kept open as long as there is active work going on to improve it, which in the past has spanned months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The nomination appears to be stalled: the issues I identified in the opening statement remain. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 25 September 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. DrKiernan (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:, @DrKiernan:, 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. DrKiernan (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)

  1. ^ tag; name ":7" defined multiple times with different content
    • Do we want to put "speculative" before "reassessment, and put some sort of hedge word before the date 1086 in the lede? ~~~~

    Comments from West Virginian[edit]