Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)
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. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

Toolbox
  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.

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Æthelflæd[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Æthelflæd, daughter of Alfred the Great, Lady of the Mercians and the foremost female military leader in Anglo-Saxon England. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice work, close to a support. Some initial thoughts:

  • "By 878 most of England was under Danish Viking rule, East Anglia and Northumbria having been conquered and Mercia partitioned between the English and the Vikings, but in that year Alfred won a crucial victory at the Battle of Edington."- a long sentence; any way of breaking after "the English and the Vikings."?
  • I think it could do with more detail to clarify. How about "By 878 most of England was under Danish Viking rule: East Anglia and Northumbria had been conquered, Mercia was partitioned between the English and the Vikings, and Wessex was on the verge of defeat. However, in that year Alfred won a crucial victory at the Battle of Edington, and Wessex was never seriously threatened thereafter." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Æthelred played a major role in fighting off renewed Viking attacks in the 890s, together with Alfred's son, the future King Edward the Elder. " - is Edward therefore her brother? If so, might be simpler to describe him that way.
  • "His health probably declined early in the next decade," - I found "his" a bit awkward here, as we'd had two men mentioned in quick succession before.
  • Changed to "Æthelred's health". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • " and the Mercian rulers were buried there." - which Mercian rulers? I may have missed something here.
  • I was using a symonym for Æthelfæd and Æthelred, but it is a bit confusing as I mention Æthelred's death in the next sentence. Best delete? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Shortly afterwards the York Vikings offered her their loyalty, " - would "Vikings in York" sound more natural? not sure...
  • York Vikings is the usually term and sounds better to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Æthelflæd was succeeded by her daughter Ælfwynn but in December Edward took personal control of Mercia and carried Ælfwynn off to Wessex." - I'd have gone for a comma after AElfwynn
  • "According to Pauline Stafford, "Like a latter-day Elizabeth I..." the MOS would permit the lower case "like" which would help the flow
  • Some of the cited works give location and publisher (e.g. London, UK: Cambridge University Press) others just publisher (e.g. Oxford University Press, Yale University Press.) - the style should be consistent
  • Done. I could only find one location I missed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The Miller, Sean (2004). "Edward [called Edward the Elder] (870s?–924), king of the Anglo-Saxons". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. reference is wrongly cited; the version linked to is the

online edition, September 2011. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Steller's sea cow[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Steller's sea cow, a large sirenian that went extinct in modern times. I believe this article's up to FA criteria   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Will read through this soon, but at first glance, I see somewhat serious problems, but since you usually work fast and effectively, I think they can be worked out. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • First, it is a bit messy to combine all info about physical features, biology, and ecology, into one large section, it would be better to keep them in separate section, as in virtually all other articles, to keep focus. Now the section jumps wildly between unrelated subjects.
split   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You are combining a section that should be abut distribution facts with unconfirmed "sightings" long after the confirmed extinction date. Info about such "sightings" (and anything else not based on facts) should be moved to the extinction section, as they have nothing to do with the confirmed historical range of the animal.
done, but I kept the part about Turner in the range section, and anything talking about its range up into the 1800s.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The article seems quite short, but I guess not much is known about this animal. Have you looked through Google scholar and similar for further sources?
I'll get to expanding later.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The notable fact that it had no finger bones is not mentioned, which also makes me uncertain about the comprehensiveness of the rest of the text. Perhaps there should be more purely descriptive info about the skeleton, all we have left of the animal.
  • It appears the only known drawing from life was made by a Friedrich H. Plenisner[1], yet this article credits Steller himself. The drawing shown in this article also appears to be of uncertain origin. If your sources discuss the circumstances of these illustrations, it is very important info to add.
You mean add it to the caption or to the article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
To the article, but the caption would of course have to be modified accordingly. There are two issues that need to be handled: there were drawings made originally by Plenisner, which seem to be lost, and the drawing that is now in the infobox may be one of those. No other drawings of actual specimens seem to exist, and none were drawn by Steller himself. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The caption does say "thought to be". Also, his full name is Friedrich Plenisner, right?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Any reason why the media appearances are not listed chronologically?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The old illustrations should have dates in their captions to show their historical context.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think a clear close up of the skull, such as this[2], should be shown.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The taxonomy section could describe the circumstances around the discovery in more detail, and explain the meaning of the scientific names. There also seem to be many unexplained synonyms. On what basis were they named?
The circumstances? They got shipwrecked. this link has a lot of info but I'm not sure exactly what is relevant. Should I talk about their first sea cow hunt?
  • Why does the intro begin with "the"? Glancing at the sources, few if any say "the Steller's sea cow", but you use it throughout the article. We should follow the majority of the sources.
Some people use it, some people don't. Since it starts with the name of a person, it could go either way, and I think it's alright. Do you still want me to continue?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, we should always do what the majority of sources do, so it comes down to that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the article body should mention the full name, not just "the sea cow".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The first sentence reads "The Steller's sea cow grew to at least 8 to 9 m (26 to 30 ft) in length as an adult" I think that this wording doesn't work grammatically and is awkward prose. Something can't grow to 'at least' a range of sizes. 'at least 9 m' or 'sea cow grew 8 to 9 m in length' could work, or some other wording, but the current wording is not good I think. InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
changed to "...grew to be 8 to 9 m..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 

Kona Lanes[edit]

Nominator(s): —ATS 🖖 talk 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the late, great Kona Lanes. Already a Good article, I believe its day in the sun is due. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Coinage Act of 1965[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... the act that took the metal silver out of most US coins struck for circulation. The coin shortages of the 1960s are mostly forgotten today, but at the time, they affected commerce and everyday life. This act for the most part ended them (I'm old enough to remember the 1974 cent shortage). The price, of course, was the silver coins, which vanished from circulation around 1967. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Seems odd to me to have the presumably slang "dime" take precedence over the official name in para 1
Dime is the actual name of the coin. The act refers to "a dime or ten-cent piece".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Para 2 of lead has three "increasing/increased" in first two sentences
  • $.45 .7734 troy ounces etc. Why no leading zeroes?
In my experience, more usual not to have them.==Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • were being processed and cleaned —"being" looks redundant
  • representing the bulk of what the Fed shipped— the subject of this is "Coins", but so detached that probably better in new sentence.
  • Inconsistent numbers, eg 26 million, 45,000,000
  • "exportation" is this a word?
It's in the law, but I've changed it to "export".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I assume that the reason that the clad coins worked in vending machines is because they had the same weight as well as size, but that's unstated, can you clarify?
They don't actually, they have the same electrical properties as the silver coins. I'll make this clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I've caught everything (if I haven't replied, I've gone ahead). Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Nemegtomaia[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the first ever nomination of an article about an oviraptorid dinosaur, a bird-like group first thought to have been egg-thieves, but since redeemed as the parents of said eggs. This particular genus has fortunately had papers published in CC licensed journals, which means plenty of free images. All articles discussing this dinosaur have been summarised here, and for some circumstantial info I have also cited a blog-post interview with one of the scientists who described the nest. I thought it was ok to use, since the blog is owned by a published palaeontologist (Victoria M. Arbour), and it has uncontroversial info not found in any of the journal articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarawak[edit]

Nominator(s): Cerevisae (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Sarawak, a territory on the island of Borneo. It is a state inside a country named Malaysia. It has one of the regions with the highest biodiversity in the world with the rich cultural heritage. It also has a unique history where indigeneous people accepted white people as their king (or White Rajah. Gunung Mulu National Park is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Rainforest World Music Festival is listed as "Top 25 Best International Festivals" by the magazine Songlines. This article has undergone GA and FA reviews, and peer review. I hope that it can achieve FA article status in this FA review. Any comments are welcomed for this article. Thanks! Cerevisae (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Drive by comments As an Australian military history nerd, the following statements jumped out at me:

  • "Allied forces later carried out Operation Semut to sabotage Japanese operations in Southeast Asia" - Semut was a fairly limited scale operation aimed at scouting in Borneo and starting a guerrilla war there, and didn't extend to other areas of South East Asia. See [3] - Done Cerevisae (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Intelligence gathered from the operation helped Allied forces (headed by Australia) to reconquer Borneo in May 1945 through Operation Oboe Six" - the Australian forces only liberated the island of Tarakan off the east coast of Borneo, Labuan, some bits of British North Borneo and Balikpapan by the time of the Japanese surrender: the rest of the island was in Japanese hands. Operation Oboe Six was the campaign in north Borneo, with the landings elsewhere in Borneo having different code names. Please see the Borneo campaign (1945) article for background and references. - Done Cerevisae (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "This led to the surrender of the Japanese to the Australian forces on 10 September 1945 at Labuan" - The Japanese forces surrendered as part of the general surrender of Japan, not due to the campaign during mid 1945. The Australians actually planned to leave the remaining Japanese in Sarawak well alone from about June 1945 as they'd captured the territory they were after (the oilfields and Brunei Bay) and the Japanese posed little threat. - Done Cerevisae (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Sarawak security was also the responsibility of Australia and New Zealand", with an implication that this started sometime around 1888 - this simply isn't correct. The source appears to be referring to the Five Power Defence Arrangements which was a relatively loose arrangement which came into effect well after the Second World War and applied to all of Malaya and involved several countries with the UK being the most important. Australian forces only served in Sarawak for a short period during the confrontation with Indonesia, and the Australian Government was fairly reluctant to get involved there. - Done. Removed the sentence. Cerevisae (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised that no mention is made in the history section of Japan's brutal occupation policies in this region during the Second World War Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC) - Not Done. I cannot find any notable Japanese atrocities in Sarawak, unlike the Sandakan Death March in North Borneo and Pontianak incidents in neighbouring Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Would greatly appreciate it if you are able to find one.Cerevisae (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I included a little bit of information on this topic at Battle of Labuan#Background. From memory, the book Rising Sun Over Borneo : The Japanese Occupation of Sarawak, 1941–1945 provided much more detail on this topic, and the bibliographic details for it are in that article. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I have included a more detailed explanation of the Japanese occupation in the article "History of Sarawak". Generally, it is the harsh labour and ill treatment of the Japanese towards captured Allied soldiers and civilians in the internment camp. Cerevisae (talk)

Comment - I found examples of close-paraphrasing. In the article we have:

"Strongly export-oriented, the Sarawakian economy is susceptible to global commodity prices." - Done. Paraphrased. Cerevisae (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This is close to:

"Nor Zahidi said the Sarawak economy is strongly export-oriented and therefore susceptible to volatile global commodity prices."

This is from this source [4], which is not cited in the article.

And, in the article:

"The Kuching Water Board (KWB) and the Sibu Water Board (SWB) are responsible for management of the water supply in their respective areas. The state-owned LAKU Management Sdn Bhd manages the water supply for Miri, Bintulu, and Limbang" - Done. Paraphrased. Cerevisae (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

is close to:

"Kuching Water Board (KWB) and Sibu Water Board (SWB) are the two Statutory Authorities that responsible for the management and provision of water supply services to Kuching and Sibu respectively, while State-owned LAKU Management Sdn. Bhd. manage the water supplies water to Miri, Bintulu and Limbang."

Which is from here [5]. Graham Beards (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

August Meyszner[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about August Meyszner, a former gendarmerie officer and right-wing politician in Austria who travelled to Nazi Germany and joined the SS soon after Hitler's rise to power. After a series of police postings he was appointed by Heinrich Himmler as the head of the SS security and police organs in German-occupied Serbia, a position he held for two years. He was responsible for carrying out of numerous reprisal killings of civilians, the sending of tens of thousands of forced labourers to Germany and other occupied territories, and oversaw the killing of 8,000 Jewish women and children using a gas van. Sidelined in early 1944, he was captured by the Allies at the end of the war and extradited back to Yugoslavia, where he was tried and executed for war crimes. He has been described as one of Himmler's most brutal lieutenants. The article went through Milhist A-Class review in September 2015 and has been tweaked recently in preparation for this nomination. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 17 January 2017 (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) 01:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, as always! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - figure legends that contain a finite verb should end with a period. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day Graham thanks. I think I got them all. Would you mind checking? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - for an engaging, good read and subject to a satisfactory image review. But can we do something about a few fused participles? They are becoming common these days in spoken English (especially the BBC), and I might be flogging a dead donkey but they look ugly to me in prose:

  • with a Military Commander in Serbia being responsible for the military administration
  • with Kuntze's chief of staff describing Meyszner
  • with the men sending long letters of complaint to each other

How about using a simple past tense? "and a Military Commander in Serbia was responsible..." "and Kuntze's chief of staff described" "and the men sent long letters".

Alternatively, sometimes just dumping the "with" works well.

No big deal. Graham Beards (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've had a crack at it, hopefully it is an improvement! Thanks for the review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with the changes. By the way, you are a far better writer than I am; it's always easier to criticise than to create. Graham Beards (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You're very kind, Graham. I am always keen to have input from editors who have a better grasp of grammar than I... Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • What do the colours represent in the map?
  • File:Der_Panther_Pfrimer_Putsch.jpg: not sure the tag is accurate - the photo certainly has an identified individual author
    • I'm pretty sure it is in Austria, as far as the newspaper is concerned. The photograph (I can't make out the photographer's name) would be PD-Austria because it is a lichtbild (simple photograph, not taken in a studio or involving lighting and poses) and was published in 1931, so copyright on it expired in 1981, and therefore before the URAA date. Should I add a PD-Austria tag to cover the photograph? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Draza_Mihailovic,1943.jpg: that tag requires that the image was published before 1973 - was it?
    • Good question, it appears (from the alt text) this was substituted at some stage, have re-instated a PD one of him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:ParteiabzeichenGold_small.png: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This article tells the story of the early US science fiction and fantasy magazines, up to 1950. I originally planned to include non-US magazines, but the article is very long as it stands, and I think it would be unacceptably long without restricting the scope. Many of the magazines discussed have either been through FAC and are FAs, or are GAs if too short; I hope to plug the few remaining holes this year. A note to whoever does the source review: the sources for the list are given at the top of the list without page numbers, since those three sources are used for almost every line, and there would have to be scores of cited page ranges. It seemed easier to give the books as a reference -- any reader who wanted to verify anything in the list would find it easy to do so with those three books in hand. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Absolute impeccable prose and quality. However, may I draw attention to the sentence "In 1919, Street & Smith launched The Thrill Book, a magazine that was intended to publish "different" stories: "different" meant stories that were unusual or unclassifiable in some way, which in most cases meant that they included either fantasy or science fiction elements."; I feel like this could be combined into one shorter sentence to get the same point across. Good luck! Regards, Carbrera (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC).
I changed it to "In 1919, Street & Smith launched The Thrill Book, a magazine that was intended to publish stories that were unusual or unclassifiable in some way, which in most cases meant that they included either fantasy or science fiction elements" -- I don't think it's necessary to tell the reader that they used "different" to describe these stories; the point is just that they were sometimes sf or fantasy. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Astounding_Stories_of_Super_Science_(1930-01).djvu needs a US PD tag, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    Done; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Virgin and Child Enthroned (van der Weyden)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Ayesha23

c. 1433 Marian portrait attributed to Rogier van der Weyden, showing Mary enthroned in a niche, which is presumably fixed to a Gothic church wall. The panel was once half of a diptych, later broken up. Those with an interest in medieval Christian iconography (including hardened atheists like me) will find much to enjoy in this rich and emotional panel painting. It is of interest to specialists as a prime example of the transition between two major art historical periods. Ceoil (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hand et al not cited.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Have included them now. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda[edit]

I love the artist, and like the article already, with only minor concerns. One general: I grew up on Wikipedia with no left images right below a header, because the reader's eye "wants" to continue reading below the header, not jump to the right, - consider.

Lead

  • "The panel is filled with Christian iconography, including representations of prophets, the Annunciation, Christ's infancy and resurrection, and Mary's coronation in heaven." - Only two of these terms are linked, but I have been told to link even terms such as stanza. We have a mixed readership who may not know what Christian iconography is, what Christians think are prophets, and who Christ is, perhaps also Mary. I'd prefer infancy of Jesus, using the given name for a baby ;) - Who says Mary's Coronation is in Heaven? - I'm not sure about capitalization, but think Annunciation and Coronation, or annunciation and coronation. There must be an article about the infancy, even if we know little ;)
  • I'd like more lead, but will look at the rest before perhaps saying what more.
  • Second round: I'd like Thyssen explained in lead and body.

Description

  • "The smallest extant work", - how small is it? Dimensions anywhere? I found them now (searching for the word), but miss them in the body, and think they are much easier to find here.
  • perhaps link Gothic sculpture?
  • consider to speak about the niche before about shadows cast on it (and before details such as the hair behind the ear)
  • Shirley Blum is mentioned here first, saying just "Blum", - better introduce her a bit?
  • "Claus Sluter's c 1395–1403 Well of Moses" - I am not happy with the order, how about: Claus Sluter's Well of Moses (c. 1395–1403)? - same for other occurrences of more than just one year
  • Champmol is unexplained and unlinked, linked only in the caption.
  • To my knowledge, those who said "we have a law, and according to that law he must die" (Book of John), were no prophets and no judges, but those arguing with Pilate. Source? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Dyptich

  • "his Madonna Standing" doesn't refer to St. George ;)
  • in the link, please spell out Descent from the Cross, - I know what you mean but only because I love it.

Dating and attribution

  • I'd like to read some of this in the lead: the dating and attribution, and also about the "sculptural" aspect.
  • Can you get the image more to the context of that painting, and perhaps end the article on that outlook, rather than another dating?

Saw the Descent last November, again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Lucky you! Working through these points. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I see you're working on it, if any of these are obsolete, I apologise.

  • "it appears to be bulk-less and as if she has only one leg. " Is bulk-less an accepted term? insubstantial? lack substance? lack bulk?
  • "both with foreshortening and the depiction of a body under clothing" I might add an "in" before "the"
  • "There are symmetrical difference between the left and right hand sides of the painting. " Should "difference" be plural?
  • "While they may appear incompatible with the architectural setting" maybe "incongruous" for "incompatible", if the source will support.
  • "the breath of the buttress contradicts the spatial dept" there seem multiple spelling errors.
  • "Champmol" this is never linked or described in prose, but is in an image caption. Not certain that's enough.
  • "Lorne Campbell attributes the work to van der Weyden's workshop,[15] while John Ward attributes Campin" sounds like there should be a "it to" after the second "attributes". I might suggest using a synonym for one of the attributes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have most of these, valid points. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Virgin_and_Child_Enthroned_(van_der_Weyden)_Detail2.jpg: the first tag doesn't make sense here
  • File:Dijon_mosesbrunnen3.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Arrah[edit]

Nominator(s): Exemplo347 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Siege of Arrah, an event that occurred during the Indian Mutiny. It was an eight day long siege during which 68 men, a mix of civilians and soldiers, successfully defended a two-storey, 50 by 50 ft (15 by 15 m) building against a force, under the command of Kunwar Singh, of between 2,000 and 3,000 mutinying professional soldiers combined with an estimated 8,000 irregular combatants. This article has been copy-edited by the GOCE, and it has passed a GA review and an A-Class review from the Military History Wikiproject. I make no apologies for pushing this through because it's been a pleasure to develop this article - it made an excellent procrastination project while I was meant to be doing something else (and editing this article has led to me purchasing a very fine, 110-year-old copy of one of the books that is used as a source!). I'll be available to respond to this review over the coming weeks, and as my previous engagement with this shows (in the previous reviews) I usually respond within 24 hours. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "(now 58 (Eyre's) Battery ...": MOS recommends against nested parentheses.
  • 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) 23:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this article. I know that nested parentheses are usually not OK but in this specific case, 58 (Eyre's) Battery is that unit's proper name so that's why I went with it. It probably seems like I'm being awkward but what can I say - I'm a geek! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
You could perhaps replace the outer set of parentheses with dashes? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I've followed your suggestion and replaced the parentheses. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • A couple of footnotes use "pp." but should use "p."
Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FN51 should use endash
Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether newspaper citations end in a period
Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • GBooks links don't need accessdates and should be trimmed to ID/page
Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Best is missing location. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Fixed Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Nikkimaria: - I believe I have addressed your concerns. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun[edit]

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun was a South Carolina statesman who held a number of high political offices in the United States during the early 19th century, including that of Vice President. He began his career as a modernizer who supported various programs that would increase the power of the Federal government. However, as the sectional divide between the North and South increased, he changed course. He became a strong opponent of protective tariffs, which were harmful to the Southern economy, and a major proponent of nullification and slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from a brief glance of the article:

  • Why don't you use a photograph to illustrate him in the main infobox?
For a while, the lead image was the 1849 Mathew Brady photograph. That was replaced by consensus here. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Is your link correct, it doesn't seem to point to a specific discussion.—indopug (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
4th bullet down. Sorry, I should have said that at the beginning. Display name 99 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • References need to be formatted better—university names have been italicised (they shouldn't be), for example.
Thanks. I've taken care of the part about university names. If there are any other issues, please bring them up specifically. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Also refs 73–85 have been formatted differently than the others, and also feature lengthy quotations from the sourced material (why?).
Here is an excellent question. The part of the Secretary of State section concerning the Texas annexation and election of 1844, which is what includes the lengthy quotations, was written mostly by an editor by the name of 36hourblock. That editor has a citation style that always seems to involve the use of lengthy quotes from the sources. You'll see it in every article that he or she edits. I have never liked the style.
There previously were many more quotes in this article. Before renominating this article I went through the Secretary of State section and removed numerous quotations which I found to be particularly confusing, excessive, or unrelated. Others I managed to work into the main text. I chose to keep the remaining quotes in the article largely due to the fact that I was recently involved in a major dispute with 36hourblock in which that person, after falsely accusing me of being a sock puppet, alleged that I had engaged in harassment and troll-like behavior by altering his or her edits. I did not want a repeat.
Yet, if you say specifically that you concur with my opinion that the quotations are unnecessary, and a distraction in that they are inconsistent with the citation style in the rest of the article, I will remove them. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: Indopug, I have decided to remove all the remaining quotes, revising the citations to make them the same format as the rest of those in the article. I also removed all references to "Presidential Profiles, 2016", as it is still unclear to me what that even is. Display name 99 (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Legacy looks like it needs an overhaul:
  • Historical reputation is far too scattershot and recentist, relying a lot on newspaper articles of the past few months instead of scholarly works. There needs to be more about how historians of the past 165 years have perceived him. Perhaps Thaddeus_Stevens#Historical_and_popular_view can be a model in this regard?
I will try to expand this section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Indopug, thus far I have expanded the section by adding a paragraph about how Calhoun is viewed and portrayed by one of his biograpers, John Niven. It is now the second paragraph of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Indopug, I have added a two-sentence paragraph describing Calhoun as being viewed favorably by historians of the Lost Cause movement. So in the section we now have the traditional Southern perspective, the modern leftist perspective, and a more moderate, nuanced, and balanced perspective, represented by Niven. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Indopug, I have also added a quote from Bartlett about the importance of Calhoun's philosophy regarding the protection of minority rights and of choosing good and virtuous civic leaders. Will this be enough? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Film and television is stubby and probably unnecessary. I'd remove it or at the least merge its content with one of the other Legacy subsections.—indopug (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It's accepted practice to include film and other forms of popular media in which biography subjects have been featured. I don't think this content could fit into either of the other sections. Therefore I think it best to leave it where it is. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
indopug, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • As the US does not have freedom of panorama except for buildings, images of 3D works should include tags for the original works in addition to the photo
The Fort Hill historical marker is for a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and which is on the Clemson University campus. Calhoun was buried underneath his gravestone immediately after his death. I'm not sure what kind of copyright issues we would have here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Likely that and the statue are out of copyright, but we should include a tag on the image description page saying so and why. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I've dealt with the gravestone, but I'm not sure what to do about the marker. I suppose there's a good chance that was created after 1923. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Any way to verify that, or to check for other possible reasons it might be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I can email the NPS to try to find a date. But what happens if the marker wasn't erected before 1923? We have plenty of photographs on our encyclopedia of things created after 1923. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
There may be another reason that it would be PD - that is the case for some things that we have photographs for, while others are in a country with different freedom of panorama rules. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, the marker for Fort Hill is on the campus of Clemson University. It's also a historical site that is generally recognized as something preserved for the public, and not for private use. Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so is there a USGov tag that would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I tried a Department of the Interior tag. However, the tag said that the work was created by someone from the U.S. Government as part of an official duty. That is not the case. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:John_C_Calhoun_by_Mathew_Brady,_1849.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:John_Caldwell_Calhoun_ca._1843.jpg
The former was published as a lithograph in 1850. As for the second, I don't know for certain of the publican date. It was acquired by the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution in 1978. The identity of the photographer is unknown, and so I imagine it would be difficult to pinpoint an exact publication date. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
For the former, please add details to the description page. For the latter, the current tag requires pre-1923 publication, not just creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I have dealt with the former. On the Commons page, File:John_Caldwell_Calhoun_ca._1843.jpg, there is already a "Licensing" section, which includes a template stating that the photograph was published before 1923 and is thus in the public domain. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
But if we can't verify that the photo was published before 1923, then we don't know whether that tag is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I doubt we will be able to verify it. We don't even know the author or the exact year that the image was taken. Do I need to remove it? Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there another reason it might be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Having been created around 1843, it's likely that it was published before 1923. Even if it wasn't, we don't know who took the picture, so to whom would we credit it? Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we don't know that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:G.P.A._Healy's_portrait_of_John_C._Calhoun,_Charleston_City_Hall_IMG_4589.JPG: photographers of 2D works don't generate a new copyright. What is the status of the original work?
The original work was created by Healy in 1851. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Please update image description page with the appropriate info and tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The page already reads: "Charleston City Chambe; George P.A. Healy's painting of Calhoun, 1851, no copyright". I'm not sure what "tag" you're asking for (I don't work often in Commons or with imaging) but that seems like all the information you could need. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If it was displayed in 1851, {{PD-1923}} would work. But in this case, we should also remove the incorrect information - the photographer does not get any copyright on this work, so that tag shouldn't be there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Jcctypo01.jpg should include details of the original work
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd also suggest doing some MOS work - for example, seeing some overlinking/WP:SEAOFBLUE issues.

I don't see how this is an issue. I'm fairly certain that nothing is linked more than twice in the body of the article. Also, what else is there? Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, on at least a couple of occasions you've linked the same thing twice in the same section. For another example, you've got [[Abbeville, South Carolina|Abbeville]], [[South Carolina]], [[United States|U.S.]] - that's several MOSLINK issues in a single line. Your citation formatting in particular is all over the place and needs serious cleanup - you're mixing up works and publishers often. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I have discovered and removed two duplicate links. Please excuse me, but I can't find any sections with the same thing linked twice. If you're including the infobox, it's ok to have something linked in the infobox and also linked in the body of the article. The MOS article specifically allows for that. Also, to me the citation style does not seem terribly inconsistent. All printed books or journals are cited using the Harvard reference format, and are cited in full at the article's bottom. Internet articles are cited using the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nullification is linked twice in the lead, Randolph twice in War of 1812. MOSLINK also covers other types of linking issues, such as linking multiple items in such a way that they appear to be a single link. As to citations, some of your Harvard refs are not linking correctly, and you are varying significantly in what information is entered in what parameter for the cite templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Those instances of duplicate links have been remedied. I have added the Harvard referencing style to two sources to which it had somehow not been applied previously. I have also increased the consistency in the citation style. Thank you once again for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thank you for the review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support I supported last time, have read the discussion at the old FAC and the article again. I think it deserves promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Siberian accentor[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The Siberian accentor is a drab little bird from the Russian Arctic, and this article is short by necessity because it's so little researched. The unprecedented westward irruption of October 2016 was the catalyst to write this page, especially after I'd joined its admirers in Yorkshire. Thanks to Nikkimaria for advising on the licensing of the NOAA map and vetting the associated reference

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

This article is well prepared and I can find very little to quibble with. Please check that you are happy with the small edits that I've made to the article.

Taxonomy

  • "is most closely related to the black-throated, brown, Kozlov's, Radde’s and Arabian accentors." I think it would be safer to write: "is most similar in appearance to ..."
  • I think you should mention the phylogenetic study by Drovetski et al published in 2013. It is an open access article. Very surprisingly (to me) they find that the Siberian accentor is sister to the Japanese accentor (Prunella rubida). This species looks very different as it lacks the pale supercilium, dark crown and eye patch - (click on "Go to the plate of this family" here). The authors state that this relationship is strongly supported by their data (p. 1523) and that these two species are among the four that can be found in lowlands. The full reference is:
Drovetski, SV; Semenov, G; Drovetskaya, SS; Fadeev, IV; Red'kin, YA; Voelker, G (2013). "Geographic mode of speciation in a mountain specialist avian family endemic to the Palearctic". Ecology and Evolution. 3 (6): 1518–1528. doi:10.1002/ece3.539Freely accessible. 
  • I can't find any modern study that looks at the relationship of Prunellidae to other passerine families.

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Aa77zz thanks for the review and copy edit, it's astonishing what you miss through over-familiarity with the text! I've removed second part of the comment about relationships with other families and added your reference, which, as you say, has quite unexpected conclusions. I've not mentioned the lowland bit, since it's not a relationship indicator, and is open to interpretation. Only the Dunnock is truly a lowland species. Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley[edit]

Looks pretty good so far! I have a few nitpicks:

  • I think that it would be better to change the "4–6" to "four to six" in "The nest is an open cup in dense shrub or a tree into which the female lays 4–6 glossy deep blue-green eggs that hatch in about ten days."
  • In "It is therefore evaluated as a species of least concern by the IUCN," IUCN needs to be put in its unabbreviated form, with IUCN in parentheses.
  • In "The autumn of 2016 saw an unprecedented influx of this species into western Europe, reaching as far as the United Kingdom," the "autumn of the 2016" needs to be changed to something that doesn't include the season, per MOS:SEASON.
  • You should probably unlink accentor in the lead, but keep it linked in the taxonomy section.
  • Supercilium is overlinked.
  • I am pretty sure that you have some inconsistencies in your usage of oxford commas.
  • Fixed a couple, feel free to fix any I've missed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the behaviour section, it might be better to either put the second paragraph in the status section or make a predators and parasites section.
  • Yes, i was uncertain what do do with this, since not really enough for a separate section, moved to status for now

This is just a quick review, I will probably do a more through one soon. Good luck! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz Many thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Extra comments:

  • You missed a period in the taxonomy section, specifically in the description of the nominate subspecies.
  • Spaces have a place in headings. Particularly the subheading in the movements section.
  • You should probably changed "2–6" in the sentence "The breeding season of the Siberian accentor is from June to August. Little is known about territorial or breeding behaviour, but birds of the nominate subspecies tend to occur in small groups of 2–6 closely spaced nests," to "two to six".
  • For consistency, you should probably change "10" in the sentence "The clutch of four to six eggs is incubated by the female for about 10 days to hatching and the downy brown-black chicks are then fed by both parents. They are able to breed in the following year," to "ten". This comment and the previous one are both about the breeding section, just so you can easily find them.
  • Second paragraph of status, probably need to change "7·4" to "7.4".
  • Jumping back to the taxonomy section, you need to change the weird apostrophe in "but within that genus the Siberian accentor is most similar in appearance to the black-throated, brown, Kozlov's, Radde’s and Arabian accentors." (in Radde’s specifically).

I also fixed 2 oxford comma mistakes, so check those to make sure they are correct. That is the thorough review, it looks pretty good. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, all done. Well spotted with the apostrophe, I don't know how it's possible to do it like that. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Reading through it a third time, I forgot to catch one thing, which I am unsure of. The usage of "winter" in the sentence "It is rare in winter in Japan," is dubious. Perhaps "It is rarely seen to winter in Japan," instead? Other wise, I am ready to support. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, I'm not sure I get this. Although you were right to comment on seasons earlier, there is nothing wrong with using seasonal terms if attached to a place, eg "winter in Japan" can't possibly be read as referring to the southern hemisphere winter, and your suggestion just moves the seasonal aspect to a verb instead. Changed to "It is only rarely recorded in Japan in winter" (adding "local" or "northern hemisphere") seems redundant). Apologies if I've completely missed the point of your comment. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, sorry about that! You didn't miss the point, anyways. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Interesting article. Just a few things:

  • "In winter, some seeds may be consumed and the accentors may then sometimes feed near human habitation." the word "then" leads to some ambiguity. I might say "In winter, the accentors may also consume seeds or feed near human habitation."
  • You refer to the incursion being in October and November in the lede, but only October in the body.
  • "sometimes cold environment" "sometimes cold seems kind for Siberia.
  • yes, but they aren't there in the winter, so that's probably appropriate for May when they return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Seeds are be consumed in winter," some slight problem here
  • "Estimates for the small European part of the range vary from 100–500 breeding pairs, with up to 10,000 breeding pairs in Russia" This is confusing. Is European Russia meant? Or the whole of Russia?
  • The source isn't totally unambiguous, but I think it means the whole of Russia. In practice, these figures are very approximate anyway, so it doesn't make much odds Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I might move the tick image down to the final section, were there is room for it and where you talk about it.
  • The text started higher on the page, forgot to move image when I moved text, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it usual in these articles to mention lifespan or the amount of time it takes for the young to reach maturity?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Songbirds are invariably mature after the first year, so it's easy to omit to actually say that, done. Average lifespan, like so much regarding this species, appears to be unknown. Scientists appear strangely reluctant to investigate species breeding in the mosquito- and horse-fly-infested forests of Siberia :( Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Wehwalt, many thanks for review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Query by WereSpielChequers[edit]

A breeding range of 2.2 million square km and a breeding density of 5pairs per square KM would imply a population in the region of 10 million pairs rather than 10,000. Since the bird is of least concern I would be surprised if there were as few as 10,000 pairs. ϢereSpielChequers 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ϣere, good point. Looking again, the IUCN's ref for this was a table in the back of Mark Brazil's Birds of East Asia (see my reflist), but that only gives a rough estimate for the part of eastern Russia covered by that book. Brazil says his table is based on "published sources" but gives no further info. Population estimates for these Siberian species are always going to be a bit "think of a number, any number" but IUCN have misused Brazil's data, which is in itself dubious. I've removed the estimate, other than the not-unreasonable figure for the small European range. "Large" seems adequate for the total Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. No other questions. Prose is fine. ϢereSpielChequers 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • The licensing and sources of the images look good. But I see the Gould art is in very low res, while it can be found in high res here:[6] Seems you dramatically shrunk it when you cropped it? You could also give its date in the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for review. Not sure how I did that, but large version uploaded now, date added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

, amen

Coord note[edit]

Have we had a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Earwig's copyvio tool clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref formatting consistent. author names, dates, titles in sentence case etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 15,16,17,18 and 19 all used once - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 14 used once - my take on the source is that the Canadian occurrences are also in September (so autumn) as much as winter...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Cas, thanks for review. I've added autumn (and removed an extraneous full stop from the ref) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
cool. all good then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

House of Music[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a 1996 studio album by the R&B band Tony! Toni! Toné!. It was their fourth and last album, a platinum seller, and widespread critical success, deemed by some critics as their best work, an influence on 1990s neo soul, and a masterpiece of 1990s R&B music. The previous nomination for featured status received support votes from Dank and TheAmazingPeanuts but not the requisite commentary to establish a consensus for promotion, thus its closure two weeks ago. Dan56 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for the first FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Support as my last vote on this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Magnolia677[edit]

The entire track listing section is unsourced. Is there a way to verify this large section of the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:, I've made a note that it was taken from the liner notes. Dan56 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Great. I also moved the image right. Thanks for your hard work on this article! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - One cosmetic issue. MOS:LINKSTYLE states that items within quotations should not generally be linked. I noticed this a few places in the article, but none of the linked topics seem crucial to reader's understanding. Your call. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Garagepunk66[edit]

I just started looking at the article and I see a lot that looks really good. I'll need to comb through it. I noticed you have a statement mentioning the cover artwork. I was wondering if there is enough information out there on the topic to be able to delve into that subject a little more (if that is possible)? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66:, at this article by Albumism, there's a one sentence describing the band's attire in the cover photo, but I'm not sure it's a reliable/notable source. Otherwise, there's nothing that can be said about the cover except the photographer credit from the liner notes. Dan56 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That's fine--I was just checking to make sure. In light of the lack of published information about the artwork, the statement you have is fine. I think that should suffice. I also think the source is fine for this situation and can be considered reliable in this context, because it is reiterating what is in the liner notes and what we see with our own eyes in the artwork. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I've added a sentence about the band's attire in the photo based on the article @Garagepunk66:. Dan56 (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting point. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808[edit]

Support: I just read the article top to bottom, looking to see if I could find anything. If there was one thing I could say, and this was the only thing that made me look twice while reading, it would be that the length of the first paragraph in the lead could fool someone, as it is actually only three sentences. You could replace the semicolon in the third sentence with a period, but it is fine regardless if you do or don't. The article is very well written and it is well referenced. Great job! If you have some time, would you mind taking a look at my my FAC. --JDC808 21:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by TarkusAB[edit]

Support: The only comment I have is that it seems the band both reunited before the album and broke up after. I think some more detail about the band coming off hiatus (if it can be found) would fit nice into a Background section, and the consequential breakup could be added on somewhere. But otherwise, I think the article is well-written, goes into a fair amount of depth, and is well-sourced. This is coming from someone who isn't too familiar with WP:ALBUM's guidelines. TarkusAB 12:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The breakup is discussed in the third paragraph of the "Release and reception" section; Sons of Soul elaborates on their hiatus before this album, so I kept it short here to avoid a content fork. Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Louis Leblanc[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

An ice hockey player who recently retired after a somewhat disappointing career. It's been a GA for a while, and now that he's retired there shouldn't be much effort to keep it at a high standard. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Zenobia[edit]

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a very interesting woman, Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra. Often, her story is distorted by romanticism and myths, which ignore the fact that she was a historic monarch whose actions were not really based on romantic motives. I re-wrote the article with the aim of giving a clear picture of the historic queen, and gave the romantic accounts their share, but also noted them for what they are: romance. The article was privately peer-reviewed (as in I asked an editor directly to review it) by one of Wikipedia's most productive editors Al Ameer son and was copy-edited by the copy-editing guild. Looking forward for other editors notes and advice.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto[edit]

Thanks for your review and sorry for the late reply, I was busy and didnt have the time to edit Wikipedia.

That's quite alright; real life (allegedly!) comes first, after all. Based on your replies I've done a little bit of copy-editing: feel free to revert anything you think I have made worse or where I have changed the meaning of the text.
Again thanks for waiting. I have exams actually and thats why my time is so limited now. Nothing to be reverted, thanks for taking the effort :).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead:

  • "Palmyrene: (Btzby), spelled Bat-Zabbai" – What does this mean? In what way was her name "spelled" Bat-Zabbai?
Semitic languages do not include vowels when written. So, in Palmyrene alphabet, the vowels in her name are missing and if you will read it as it is, it will be read Btzby, however, the right pronunciation with vowels is B(a)t-Z(a)b(a)(i)
I changed "spelled" to "pronounced": I think this is what you mean?
  • "who exiled her to Rome (where she spent the remainder of her life)." why is "where she spent the remainder of her life" in parentheses?
The article was copy edited by a guild member and it was their choice. I removed the parentheses

Name and appearance:

  • "The queen was born c. 240–241": as she wasn't queen when she was born, I would write "Zenobia was born"
Done
  • The section says, apart from the quote from AH at the top, very little about Zenobia's appearance: this is a surprise given the name of the section
Yes, we know little of her appearance but for a reader looking for info about her outlook, it would be helpful for him to know where to read and find the answer which justify the heading
  • "Historian Victor Duruy believed that the queen used the Greek name as a translation of her native name in deference to her Greek subjects.[11] No contemporary statues of Zenobia have been found in Palmyra or elsewhere, only inscriptions on statue bases; most known representations of Zenobia are on her coins.": this paragraph covers two ideas; it would probably be better to concatenate the first part (about her use of the name Zenobia) with the preceding paragraph, and expand the second part into a more substantial coverage of representations her (or cut it and make the section one about Zenobia's name)
I wrote more about the representation on coins
  • Not really sure what the paragraph on sources is doing at the end of this section
  • "other sources are available" doesn't really tell us anything. discuss what the key sources are, or tell us something about them, but don't just assert that they exist
Removed the sentence. As for the paragraph, it is important to give an idea about how careful one must be when dealing with the life of Zenobia counting on those written sources. It gives the readers an understanding that not everything they read from AH should be taken with certainty.

Early life and family:

  • "The Augustan History contains details of Zenobia's early life, although their credibility is doubtful; according to Augustan, the queen's hobby as a child was hunting." Presumably the connection here is that Zenobia having hunting as a childhood hobby is not credible; if so, you should make this more explicit as it is not obviously incredible to me. Macedonian nobles and Spartans, to take two examples from the ancient world, both learnt to hunt as children.
The paragraph on sources was meant to do the job of not having to explain that the info taken from AH is unreliable. Throughout the article, info from the AH are included and their source indicated (which is inevitable since most scholars still indicate the AH) It would make the paragraphs redundant to mention that an AH info might be unreliable every time such an info would be written. On a side note, the situation of women in the east cant be compared to Greece as females were more marginalized
As it is at the moment, the semi-colon suggests that there is a link between the two parts of this sentence: that AH's story that Z's hobby as a child was hunting is a reason to doubt its credibility. This doesn't seem to me to be at all what the relevant source is saying, which is that AH is unreliable, and then, as a seperate thought, that it tells us that she enjoyed hunting. Therefore, I think that this semi-colon should be a period instead. (If you intend this sentence to be read as I am reading it, then I would instead quibble with your use of the source, which doesn't as I read it say that.)
But Stoneman made the connection: he say that we are given plentiful info by the AH but that little of them should be believed. Then Stoneman say that we are told (by the AH) that Zenobia loved haunting. Before giving any info from AH, Stoneman was careful to tell his readers in advanced that they shouldnt believe what they are reading from AH. I see that he connected the two thoughts really. In any case, I removed the semi-colon.
  • What is "an education appropriate for a noble Palmyrene girl"? Were girls – noble or otherwise – in ancient Palmyra educated?
According to Stoneman, we know nothing about that education but Palmyra showed a high level of literacy and Zenobia is known to have mustered many languages which cant be achieved without education. Stoneman reference here.
Well that's disappointing but unsurprising.
  • How can one be "fluent... (to a lesser extent)"? Is fluency not a binary property?
reworded
That's fine, but see below.
  • "and nafsha is Aramaic for "soul"." I don't understand the relevance of this. Explain?
Deleted. The scholar (Potter) do not mention why its relevant, its only and extra info
  • "Based on Zenobia's Palmyrene name (Bat Zabbai), her father may have been Zabbai or he may have been an ancestral head of Zenobia's family (rather than her actual father).": this is a rather clunky sentence; I would rewrite it something like: "On the basis of Zenobia's Palmyrene name, Bat Zabbai, her father name have been called Zabbai; alternatively, Zabbai may have been the name of a more distant ancestor."
reworded
  • "led scholars such as Harald Ingholt to speculate that Antiochus might be a distant ancestor" – should be "might have been", I think
reworded
  • I'm not sure I quite understand the point being made about Ammianus in what is at the time of writing note 1
The info of the AH is similar to Ammianus'. It could be that the supposed Cleopatra descent entered the mind of the AH writer when he read the comparison Ammianus made between the two queens. This would prove that this connection is fabricated
Ammianus doesn't equate Zenobia and Cleopatra, though: he says that the Egyptians praise Cleopatra and the Palmyrenes praise Zenobia. I can see what is being got at, here, but this is I think too compressed for the average reader (though irritatingly the source you cite doesn't make the argument any more explicit! Dammit!)
No, he doesnt equate, but he mention the two as equals. This might have inspired the AH writer to fabricate the claim since Zenobia occupied Egypt. I think this is the simplest way to elaborate on what Teixidor meant when he discussed this idea
  • Note 2 says that Zenobia claimed descent from Cleopatra; the sentences that follow say that she didn't. Which is true? (If the latter is true, should we still believe the inference that Callinicus is talking about Zenobia?)
I wrote "alleged" in the note. This concerns modern scholars and what they know about Zenobia's claims made in ancient sources. It doesnt mean that she actually made such claim. It is widely accepted by scholars that Callinicus is talking about Zenobia, and we cant give our own opinions.
Better now you've added "alleged", thanks :)

Queen of Palmyra:

  • Is Boccaccio a reliable source when it comes to Palmyran history? I am unconvinced that he is. If not, why are we singling his account out?
Boccaccio is definitely not reliable. But, an FA article must be comprehensible and gives the readers an answer to any question they might have. If a reader was convinced that Zenobia rode with her husband, this Wiki article should be able to tell the reader where that notion of riding came from
But you write "according to later accounts, including one by Boccaccio". Why single out Boccaccio, instead of any other later account? (And WP:WIAFA requires that an FA "neglects no major facts or details"; I would argue that precisely which millenium-late account contains a particular story is not a "major" fact or detail!)
Well, I hated the fact that Boccaccio thought he can write whatever he wants and present it as a legitimate history. However, the details of Boccaccio are the most widespread and I read a lot of misinformation circulating the internet that were taken from his account. Thats why its important in this article to mention the source of those info and make it clear how unreliable that source is.
  • "If the accounts of her accompanying her husband are true, Zenobia would have boosted the morale of the soldiers": I don't really understand how this follows.
It gives an idea about how she gained her obvious close relation to the soldiers
I think you need to explain or expand upon this, then: as it is, it just confuses me. Why is it that Zenobia's accompanying her husband would necessarily have boosted the soldiers' morale? It certainly wouldn't have boosted the morale of early-modern British seamen to have their captain's wife accompanying them! (yes, I know that 2nd-century Palmyrene and 16th century English society were very different: that's not the point.)
I cant explain since those are the words of Patricia Southern and she doesnt give much explanation She only say that the soldiers would have been dazzled by the young wife of their king. I will write in the article that this morality boost is according to Patricia Southern, and the readers can indulge themselves in imagining why. As someone who comes from the middle east and is familiar with it, a woman in the battlefield will always make the soldiers more eager to win cause they want to prove that they are capable of protecting their honor (in this case, women are considered part of the honor). But this is my original research :)
  • Vaballathus is described in quick succession as "ten-year-old" and then "adolescent" on his accession: I wouldn't consider a ten-year-old an adolescent
Changed

Descendants and Title:

  • Having been told much further up the article that Herodianus was Odaenathus' son "not Zenobia's offspring", we now have a long discussion of whether or not he actually was!
Yes, and it is inevitable kind of. Odaenathus had two sons named Hairan; one with his first wife and another with Zenobia. The problem arise on the identity of Herudianus: was he the first Hairan or the Second. It is generally accepted that the crowned son was Hairan I, but since some scholars (mainly Potter) suggest that he might be Hairan II, then this should be written since Potter is an authority when it comes to Palmyra's royal family. We are dealing with uncertainties here and the NPOV thing to do is to represent all opinions and give the reader the chance to build his own opinions
Possibly you should explain this more in the article, then (and not relegate much of it to a fairly obscurely-written note). Even having read your explanation here, I am struggling to understand the account which is given in the article. (Additionally, a footnote at the point where the article states that Hairan was not Zenobia's son explaining that there may have been two Hairans could be a good idea.)
The two Hairans are confusing. I created a new article for Hairan II where I assembled all the mess and explained further. As for the article of Zenobia, I removed the note, and in the "Consort" section, I removed that Herodianus was not her son. In the role in the assassination section, I explained that the Augustan says that Odaenathus crowned his eldest son (whom the Augustan names Herodes), who was not Zenobia's. Finally, I explained about the theories concerning the relation between Hairan II and Herodianus in the descendant section

Evaluation and legacy/Myth, romanticism and popular culture:

  • I'm not quite clear on why these are two different sections: they seem to have fairly overlapping scopes
The legacy section deals with the effect of the historic queen's actions on the national feelings in the region while the Romance section deals with outright fabrications and dramas written on her. They might seem similar though, but the difference are enough to separate them
  • I'm not sure how much the random list of "selected cultural depictions" adds. If they are worth discussing, I'd like to see them actually discussed; as it is they just seem like an invitation to listcruft
It isnt quite random as it is very comprehensive and lists the most important works. If they will be discussed then we need a new article about cultural depiction of the queen like it is the case with Cleopatra. Discussing them in the article will turn it away from its scope.

General:

  • I know false titles are a matter of preference: I don't like them. More than that, though, I don't see the point of describing every writer on Zenobia as "historian Foo Bar". They're writing about ancient Palmyra: of course they are historians! I count 14 different examples of this usage for modern authors.
I used to share your opinion and never mentioned a profession of a scholar. However, when I nominated Palmyra for FA, an editor was confused about those people. You and I are interested in ancient history and it is obvious to us that a certain guy mentioned in an article is a historian, but not all readers will know that especially if the historian doesnt have a Wiki article
Fine. So long as you know what you are doing.
  • Frequently the article uses semi-colons to divide what seem to me like they should really be separate sentences
Those were the choices of the copy-editor. Its a matter of personal judgment really.
I changed some of what seemed like the more egregious ones.
  • Almost all of your sources are recent; why are two (Duruy and Mommsen) so conspicuously out-of-date? There's an 89-year gap from Mommsen being first published in 1882 and Millar in 1971, the next-oldest source.Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Being older doesn't discredit a source specially if it is discussing an idea that newer sources make no mention of. This is the case of Duruy who is the only one to give a possible explanation for the motives behind the use of the name Zenobia. As for Mommsen, it is used as a reference for Gallienus being Valerian's son, which is a common knowledge and new sources are not gonna discredit it. After all, Mommsen is still considered one of the greatest historians and his works are still used by modern scholars.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Re. Duruy: if his idea hasn't been discussed since he proposed it in 1855(!) is it really WP:DUE to be discussing it in the article?
Re. Mommsen: there's nothing technically wrong with using him as a source for this – it's not exactly a fact which is likely to be challenged in new sources! But as it's such common knowledge, I would either a) have cited it to one of the other works you are using to establish other things: one must surely have mentioned it at some point(?!); b) cited it to a recent standard resource (the OCD?) or c) not bothered citing it at all: it's not exactly "likely to be challenged". Again, there's nothing actually wrong with citing Mommsen; it's just incongruous when you have cited with two exceptions literature written within the past 50 years to have a source from the 1880s...
Duruy is a respected historian hence his opinion do have some weight. The information is attributed to him and it is good that the article would offer some answer to any reader who might ask himself: Why did she named herself Zenobia. As for Mommsen, I removed it and added a newer source
More comments
  • Now that I look at Stoneman p.113, it says that Z was fluent in Palmyrene, spoke good Greek, spoke Egyptian, and did not speak Latin. Yet this article has her fluent in all three of Greek, Egyptian and Palmyrene, and speaking Latin though not fluently. Ball, cited for that claim, does in fact back it up: but is that the scholarly consensus? The two sources I have just read literally at random disagree. (And neither cite the source that "reported" what they claim, so I can't go back to check that...)Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Its from the Augustan. I added a source with direct quote from the Augustan next to Ball's source

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • Since Syria does not have freedom of panorama except for buildings, we should explicitly account for the licensing of the pictured 3D works from that region
Even when they depict statues many centuries old that are no doubt in the public domain? FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't that leave us without photos of any ancient buildings in Italy, such as this featured picture?[7] Certainly there must have been some wider discussion about how to handle this? FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It would not, as copyright can still expire. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Odaenathus_Kingdom.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Palmyrene_Empire.png
  • File:OldSyrian500front.png: the uploader is not the copyright holder. What is the copyright status of this work?
  • File:Hosmer.jpg: the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture
Same as above, if the author died more than a hundred years ago, as is the case here, there is no copyright, so FOP is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The US only cares about author's date of death in a few cases, and those don't seem likely to apply here. If these works are out of copyright, it should be relatively quick to add an appropriate tag - but we should still do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Herbert_Schmalz-Zenobia.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria. I will work on the issues as soon as possible but will probably require your help.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this is so so annoying to be honest. You see a column 2000 years old pictured, and the one who took the picture released it into the public domain, yet we are faced with this.. I removed all the pictures that you think have issues.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you can put them back, I will help you add PD tags. The structures are certainly too old to be copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Might take a while before I can make a full review, but it will certainly come. In the meantime, maybe more approximate dates can be given in the captions of various sculptures and buildings (and the painting)? Also, describing a banknote as "old" seems unnecessarily vague. No date? Artist names stated in captions could also be linked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks FunkMonk. Done.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ninety-five Theses[edit]

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This short work started the Protestant Reformation. It will turn 500 years old on October 31st, on which date I hope the article can be featured on the main page. The article was just promoted to GA by Coemgenus. JFH (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Why is Palmer in your sources list?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Leftover, now removed. --JFH (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at GA, as the nominator mentions. I found very little to complain about there. The only thing I'd recommend as for FA that I didn't care about at GA involves citations. Everything is well-cited, but sometimes an entire paragraph sourced to the same source is marked only by a cite at the end. That's all good, but in FAs I like to cite every sentence, even if it appears duplicative. That way, if someone adds a sentence to the paragraph later, we can distinguish what information goes with which citation. It would be unnecessary on paper, but in a dynamic encyclopedia, it makes sense. But this isn't required by the rules, I don't think, so if the nominator and the other reviewers disagree, I won't let it stand in the way of my support of this excellent article. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Iry-Hor[edit]

This is a well-written, spotless article on a topic of profound importance given the consequences it had and continues to have on world history. I did a random spot-checking of the sources and found no problem. I wonder however if the lede could better reflect the content of the article: the piece of the lede referring to the content of the theses is a single sentence "They advance Luther's positions against what he saw as abusive practices by preachers selling plenary indulgences, which were certificates believed to reduce the temporal punishment for sins committed by the purchasers themselves or their loved ones in purgatory" while the section discussing the content is a good quarter if not a third of the article. Given that people coming to read the article are likely to be at least as interested in the theses themselves as in the historical circumstances surrounding them, I think it would be good to add another sentence to the lede incorporating Luther's positions in more details, in particular vis-a-vis the pope, given that this is what led to the opposition of the church. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I've expanded the lead. --JFH (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I gladly Support then! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Looking good, some questions below:

  • Why was Tetzel barred from entering Saxony?
  • In theses 41–47 Luther begins to criticize indulgences.. why not just, "In theses 41–47 Luther criticizes indulgences..."
  • Luther begins to criticize the doctrine of the treasury of merit on which the doctrine of indulgences is based in theses 56–66 - ditto
  • there are a lot of disputations in the first para of Luther's intent

Otherwise looks good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've addressed these. --JFH (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Display name 99[edit]

Overall the article looks very good. I have a couple concerns.

  • In the "Content" section, you say:
"In theses 14–16, Luther challenged common beliefs about purgatory"
He does so in many statements after that, seemingly up through thesis number 29. Thus, you may want to say "In theses 14-29, Luther challenged common beliefs about Purgatory." Then go into more specific detail about what he said in 14-16.
  • Luther is famous for his assertion, condemned as heretical by the Church, that salvation is attainable "by faith alone". I don't see any specific mention of this in the article. Is there any statement in the 95 Theses that was understood by some to imply that argument? Display name 99 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I've clarified that at least for Luther the Theses don't imply that doctrine. I don't believe any of my sources argue that they imply that, only that they set Luther up to be open to disagreement with the Pope.
Thanks for your comments!--JFH (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. The article is comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced. I believe it meets the criteria. Display name 99 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Excellent piece of work, clearly and concisely written. I made a couple of minor edits for page number formatting. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Coord note -- Was there a source review for formatting/reliability? You can make a request at the top of WT:FAC if not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Red wattlebird[edit]

Nominator(s): Aa77zz (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a critter I commonly find in my garden. Aa77zz and I have buffed it quite a bit and it got a good going-over at GAN so I reckon it is at or nearly at FA standard. I promise to address issues promptly. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

All looks good, just a couple of nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • sedentary (present year-round) — I don't like the parenthesis, perhaps year-round resident or permanent resident?
  • A mainly sedentary residentsedentary seems superfluous
  • up to 1900 m above sea level —imperial conversion
  • Your conversions to inches are inconsistent, some with fractions, others, such as the eggs, with decimals
  • often parasitized —make clear or link to brood parasite
all done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from MeegsC[edit]

Lead
  • Is the "bright yellow patch towards the tail" on the dorsal or ventral side? It's not clear from the sentence.
Ventral - fixed. Aa77zz (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground. This reads a bit awkwardly. Do you mean that it spends most of the time in trees, but forages on the ground? Because that's how it reads.
Aah, I tried to rectify like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

*No information on breeding or status and threats in the lead? I'd expect to see at least a few sentences about each!

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

more coming soon!

ummm, @MeegsC:...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry - I'm in Guyana at the moment, with only intermittent veeeeeeeery sloooooooooow connectivity. Will check ASAP. MeegsC (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • I can't remember which script throws these out, and I am not certain how to fix this particular error, but I see four of these: "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list" in your refs.
Not sure what the problem is here - but I've switch all author= to last=, first=. Does this fix it? Aa77zz (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
All except for the one I just fixed. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the logic behind placing Jobling, James A. (2010) and Beruldsen, Gordon (2003) in the References section, but all other books in the Cited texts section?
Good point, I'm looking into this. Aa77zz (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the three books into Sources. I'm in two minds about this. For books which are only cited once there are advantages in keeping the full reference in the text. Aa77zz (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Did you get a copy edit? This sentence is a bit clumsy; moreover, it seems to forget the frequency of Hawking (birds): "A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
See above, I changed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley[edit]

First, in the lead, "distinctive pinkish-red wattles either side of the neck" reads a bit odd. Second (I know I'm just adding on to the dogpiling on at this point), the sentence, "A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground." reads weirdly. Also, before that, why did you link to just Western Australia and not all the other places? In the taxonomy section, why did you say, "The red wattlebird was first described as the wattled bee-eater by the Irish surgeon and naturalist John White in his Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales, which was published in 1790."? The original common name is in italics, which doesn't make much sense to me. For the description section and on, you seem to have inconsistency in the usage of to and the em dash and whether to use fractions or decimals. The final nitpick I have is the fact that you should probably make parasites a separate section, "Predators and Parasites". It may not be long enough to make into a separate section though, it would be great if somebody else could give their take on that. Good luck! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Other Australian states now linked. Aa77zz (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "distinctive pinkish-red wattles either side of the neck" seems fine to me. Cas - are you happy with this? Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It is fine grammatically but readers may find it odd. It could just be changed to "distinctive pinkish-red wattles on either side of the neck". It reads a lot better for me at least... RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I realized I was scanning it and putting the 'on' in it mentally when it wasn't there. Added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • wattled bee-eater - italics removed but see MOS:ITAL "Words as words". Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for linking me to that, I will read it. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It is tricky as italics delineate the scientific names from common names, yet if we use words-as-words then we italicize the common names when they are set out as such. There's no real right answer on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding parasites, I am in two minds as we have some brood parasites mentioned in the breeding section, but it strikes me as a bit odd to group cuckoos with birdlice and protozoa. But you're the second person to raise it so will do in a sec done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, all imperial units are in fractions and decimal units in decimals Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Just realized something else—oxford commas are inconsistent. Otherwise, it looks good. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
just adding now I think I got 'em all...(I should say I don't really like Oxford commas but they are very useful if one needs to add a ref after one..) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - Looks good. My nitpicks were all addressed. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Source review sources are appropriate and consistently formatted. I checked refs 12, 19, 31 and 56, and subscription ref 23. Content is supported by sources, no close paraphrasing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks Jim Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Did two of the reviews stall? I'll start a review later today, if they don't continue. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • "The taxonomic descriptions in White's book are believed to have been written by the English naturalist George Shaw." Which I guess is the reason why this article credits Shaw, but I see the IUCN has White as the author. So seems there is some disagreement on how to handle this? What do most sources do? Also, why isn't Latham credited with the name if he coined it? FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm responsible for this section:
  • Salomonsen 1967 (ie Peters) has (White 1790) see here at the bottom of page
  • HBW alive has (Shaw 1790) see here
  • IOC has (Shaw 1790) see here
  • Zoonomen has (Shaw 1790) here with the note "Usually attributed to White, but see Nelson EC. 1998. Archives of Nat. Hist. 25(2): 149-211. making the case that White is not the author of any of the taxa in this work." I've cited Nelson but (this is embarrassing) I cannot access the actual article to confirm the comment on the Zoonomen website (Zoonomen is by Alan P. Peterson).
  • My understanding was that for an author to be credited with describing a species he/she has to provide a description and a binomial name but for the red wattlebird this doesn't appear to be the case. (This is perhaps OR on my part) Unlike other birds in White's book, a specific name is not provided for the red wattlebird only "Wattled Bee-eater or Merops, Female" . See page 240 in White.
  • Latham certainly used the binomial name Merops carunculatus - see here at top of page and doesn't credit White.
  • Salomonsen 1967 claims the White's book was published "before August" and Latham's (December). see here and the next page
How should I handle this? - Aa77zz (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
More
I find it very surprising that White/Shaw are listed as the authority but the specific epithet is due to Latham. I've searched White's book but cannot find the specific name. Our article on John Latham explains that Latham wasn't given credit for the birds he described in his A General Synopsis of Birds as he didn't provide binomial names. In Latham's description of the red wattlebird in his Index ornithologicus he cites "Phill Bot Bay t. p. 164" which is The voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay published in 1789 - see Phillip's description and picture of the Wattled Bee-Eater here. Phillip doesn't provide a binomial name. Aa77zz (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, seems there are some secondary sources that discuss the issue? So at least the situation could be explained? I think some readers would be puzzled when they read the seemingly contradictory sequence of taxonomic events. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The consensus among published sources is that the author is Shaw - Australian government and IOC (above) are two most important authorities in this I think. I am placing a line in the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I also can't access the Nelson article that explains this. Will see if I can get via interlibrary loan or something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Onomatopoeic could be explained.
I added "(sounding like the calls they make)" - strikes me as a tad wordy but is more accessible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No cladogram? Any suggestion for when the species split?
A large molecular phylogenetic study has just been published - see Marki et al 2017. For the wattlebirds (Anthochaera) the relationships are well resolved and agree with earlier publications. I've drawn a cladogram that I've inserted into the wattlebird article, I can add it here. The spiny-cheeked honeyeater (Acanthagenys rufogularis) in its own genus is a sister group to the wattlebirds but beyond that the relationships are murky. Marki et al. wrote: "We recovered a number of strongly supported clades within the Meliphagidae, however their interrelationships remain largely unsolved." Looking at the scale at the bottom of Fig 4, it appears that there was a sudden radiation about 10 million years ago. - Aa77zz (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think just saying "coverts" is too jargony, saying covert feathers the first time at least would be better.
I unabbreviated two of three Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Like you explain nape, lores could be explained too.
Added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The wattle is kind of hard to see on the photos used, compared to say, this one[8]. Maybe there is a photo somewhere that could be added where this namesake feature is more visible?
Agree on the wattles...but the bird is in a funny posture in the picture. Will try and digest all the photos and come up with something have added the image. There are others but they have more obvious focus or exposure issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nyuserre Ini[edit]

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Nyuserre Ini, pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt during the 25th century BCE. The most prolific builder of his dynasty, with three new pyramids under his belt, he also completed a further three pyramids, built the largest sun temple of the Old Kingdom period and undertook restoration works in Giza and Elephantine. Starting his reign in difficult and still debated circumstances following the death of his brother and the ephemeral rule of an uncle, Nyuserre ruled over a prosperous Egypt for three decades. After his death, he became the object of a spontaneous popular cult, where he played the role of an intercessor between the believers and the gods. This article recently reached GA status following a review by Jaguar. It is part of a series of FA articles on the Fifth Dynasty (including Shepseskare, Menkauhor Kaiu, Djedkare Isesi, Unas and one GA Sahure), and represents 8 months of research and editing work, with more than 500 inline citations drawn from over 120 sources. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot

Sorry I've been so slow in working on the review. I'll spot-check sources and make a few more copyedits in the next few days, but I thought I should submit these comments now.

  • The article uses "Old Kingdom period" and its equivalents throughout. The normal usage is to simply say "Old Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom", and "New Kingdom", reserving the word "period" for all the other phases of ancient Egyptian history. I wouldn't object to using "period" once, to make it clear to readers unfamiliar with Egyptian history that "Old Kingdom" refers to a time period, but in the rest of the article it should be cut.
Fixed, I am removed the word period throughout except for the first instance of "Old Kingdom". Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The article also uses the phrase "pharaoh Nyuserre" several times. Egyptological literature rarely uses "pharaoh" as a title appended to a name like this. Although I've used it in Wikipedia writing myself, I'm not entirely sure I should. Anyway, if it's going to be used that way, "Pharaoh" should be capitalized.
Fixed, I am removed all "pharaohs" appearing before the name of a king, I prefer to stick to the sources. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Directions (north, east, etc.) should be in lowercase, unless it's part of a proper name, as in "South Abusir". I've corrected the capitalized directions I've found, but I may have missed some.
Done, I have corrected a few ones and have been over all others to make sure there aren't any mistakes anymore. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Abusir south" sounds rather strange in English. "South Abusir" seems to be the usual term for the area in English; Lehner 2008 and Verner 1994, for example, both use it.
Corrected! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "He may have succeeded his brother directly, as indicated by much later historical sources, or as advocated by Miroslav Verner, Shepseskare reigned between the two, albeit only for a few weeks or months at the most."
I have rewritten this sentence to clarify it. It is now split into two sentences. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I dislike having a "main article" link at the top of a section when the link is red, but I assume you'll be creating the Pyramid of Nyuserre Ini article soon.
I want to but I don't know when I will have the time to do so. Thus I am removed the link and will put it back once the article exists. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be useful to include Ludwig Borchardt's reconstruction of the sun temple: File:Temple-solaire-abousir.jpg. It's not outdated as far as I know (recent illustrations of the sun temple are virtually copies of it), and the temple is hard to picture without a reconstruction.
Yup, added! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "At the western end of the rectangular court was a giant obelisk symbolizing the resting place of Ra." I'm not sure what "resting place" is meant to mean here—maybe related to the interpretation of the temple as a funerary temple for Ra. In any case, this claim isn't supported by either of the references later in the paragraph. The usual interpretation of obelisks in general is as a symbol of a ray of light, though I don't know exactly how Egyptologists interpret the sun temple obelisk, which isn't exactly the classic obelisk shape.
I have removed "symbolizing the resting place of Ra", I think the sentence was here when I started editing and I kept it without questioning it. I will read some more on this, but for the moment it is clearly better to remove the assertion. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The citations are all in a single column right now, which stretches the article vertically. I assume you'll want to add columns to the reflist template; 20em and 30em are the values you use in your other articles on Fifth Dynasty kings.
Fixed, this had been changed by a bot for an unknown reason. Back to normal now. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
A._Parrot Thanks very much for your comments and time! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. – Masterfully written and fully referenced. My few concerns have already been highlighted by A. Parrot and resolved, namely the "period" thing and the redlinks. Khruner (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - well written and well researched article. -- Udimu (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones)[edit]

Nominator(s): Calibrador (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I am a major contributor to the article, and have significantly expanded it to cover every aspect involved with creating the episode. Calibrador (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808[edit]

Lead
  • I already made this copy-edit, but as a rule of thumb, spell out all numbers unless they take three of more words to write. There are exceptions.
Writing
  • At the end of the second paragraph, there's a rather long quote. Block quote it or try to cut it down and paraphrase it.
  • There's another rather long quote in the middle of the fourth paragraph.

Basically, and this applies to all sections, any long quotes, try to cut those down and paraphrase unless you feel that the full quote is particularly noteworthy to have, or that you are not able to accurately convey the same message.

Also, if there are quotation marks inside of a quote, use a single apostrophe at the beginning and end of the inner quote (that is for future reference, as I took care of these in my copy-edits).

Once the quote issues noted above are addressed, let me know. Also, if you have some time, I have an article also at FAC, God of War: Ascension. --JDC808 01:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

    • @JDC808: Thanks for the assistance in copyediting. I will take a look at the long quotes you mentioned and cut them down as best as I can. Calibrador (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @JDC808: Could you indicate by the reviewer's name which quotes you were referring to? Calibrador (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Calibrador:

Writing
  • Benioff's quote at the end of paragraph 2.
  • Wright's quote in paragraph 4.
  • Weiss's quote in paragraph 5, though this one isn't that bad.
  • Both of Benioff's quotes int the last paragraph.
Casting
  • Chapman's quote in paragraph 1.
  • Both of Dormer's quote in paragraph 2; the second one isn't too bad.
  • Pryce's quotes in the next paragraph can be trimmed/paraphrased.
Filming
  • All quotes in paragraph 3.
  • Sapochnik's quotes in the next two paragraphs.
Costuming
  • Clapton's quotes throughout this section.
Musical score
  • Any long quotes by Djawadi in this section.
Critical reception
  • Fowler's quotes in paragraph 2.
  • Calia's first quote in paragraph 2. His second quote doesn't really add anything to the reception IMO.
  • Egner's quote in paragraph 3.
  • Hibberd's quote in paragraph 3 can probably be trimmed/paraphrased.

--JDC808 01:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I will take a look at what quotes I think are important to stay, and copyedit the ones that I believe could be copyedited and convey the same thing. Is there criteria specifically against having long quotes? In the actor instances, I thought it best to have the actual quote that relays their personal feelings about leaving the show or working on the show. Calibrador (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
There's not a rule against having long quotes, however, it's not good to have a bunch of quotes (see MOS:QUOTE). In some of the instance noted above, the majority of the paragraph is quote(s). --JDC808 03:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by HJ Mitchell[edit]

What you have here is good and I can see myself supporting but at the moment it completely fails criterion 1b, specifically "places the subject in context". A reader who hasn't watched Game of Thrones would have no idea who these people are or what any of the events in the plot section refer to. At the very least you need an introductory paragraph that leads the reader into the detailed plot that follows. As it is, it's like starting Star Wars at "I am your father". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how to go about avoiding this. As this is the 60th hour of the television show, there would be a lot to have to provide back story on to make the uninitiated aware of who each of the characters are, what the settings are, etc. Especially with as many characters there are in the show. I've already attempted to cut the plot as short as possible, only including the necessary information, to at least try to conform with WP:Plot, but I would think the Wikilinks to the main articles, that do place the subjects into context, would be the main resource for the uninitiated to understand the basics about the article that's being presented. Only thing I could think of that would alleviate the problem would be to have a big list of the cast and characters and explain what they are all about, and I don't think that would be beneficial for the article as a whole. Calibrador (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
My two cents on that situation: Although we're supposed to present these articles in a way that someone unfamiliar could understand, I would find it a bit that someone who has never seen the show would be reading an article about its last aired episode (the 60th episode to put it in perspective). If anything, maybe a small summary at the start of the Plot section (or maybe small summaries for each subsection) that summarizes what happened prior to this episode (at least summarizing the events of season 6 that lead to the events of this episode). As for characters, in addition to linking their names, I would link List of Game of Thrones characters at the start of the plot with Template:See also. --JDC808 03:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

CMLL World Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship, promoted by the oldest professional wrestling promotion in the world. It was an FAC in April 2016 but unfortunately died on the vine due to lack of input from reviewers. I have created a lot of Good or Featured content on Wikipedia and I am always willing to listed to suggestions and made adjustments to help improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia.  MPJ-DK  15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808[edit]

Resolved

I've done copy-editing throughout the article. There was a bit more than what I expected for an FAC and I feel that this should have been taken through a copy-editing process before nomination.

  • I noticed your work and I am grateful for it as well, there was more than I was aware of for sure and I apologize. Question - is it normal to spell out all "15th" etc.? I followed the convention of anything under 10 is spelled out but left the rest as numbers.  MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It depends on what style guide you go by. If you prefer the numbers above 10 to be written as numbers, you can change those back if you want. --JDC808 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Nah I'm good with the change, I was just wondering if it was one of the things to put on my personal "checklist" to always spell them out.  MPJ-DK  02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyways, I'm mainly familiar with WWE's championship articles, so I have a question as WWE only recognizes title changes, does CMLL also recognize title defenses in their titles' histories?

  • Well with CMLL it's inconsistent - TV announcers will often mention that it's the "fourth defense" etc. but it's hardly ever referred to in writing. Since championship matches are much rarer in CMLL it is totally possible to provide a list of defenses, I am just not sure when to included them and when not to, I went with "not" in this case.  MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I was mainly asking because in some spots of the article, defenses were noted (e.g., Último Guerrero is officially credited with 20 successful title defenses by CMLL,..."). --JDC808 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
      • So for Guerrero they specifically mentioned 20 and that it was a record, a comment I stumbled and figured it would make an interestig addition to the reigns section. Since I had a "most defenses" I researched the "least" defenses too and noted the oddities to kinda cover all bases. I think it makes for good info in the article, but I probably would not want to put it in list form.  MPJ-DK  02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

For the tournaments, does their happen to be specific dates (and specific shows) for when each round occurred? --JDC808 02:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I will look around, the second tournament definitely needs dates as the matches were spread out over several shows and I can find show names etc. MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I added some information on the 1992 tournament, that one had the least amount of detail that has now been added. I think the other two have all the information I know of.  MPJ-DK  03:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all your input so far JDC808, and the help with the copyediting, definitly helping make this a stronger article.  MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Meant to come back to this earlier today (technically yesterday in my time zone). I'm gonna look over the article more tomorrow (or rather later today). Also, if you have some free time, I also have an FAC up. It's of the 2013 video game God of War: Ascension. --JDC808 05:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

One comment before I'm off for the night. I happened to look at the article history and noticed this edit you made. I had added "respectively" because the way it was worded sounded like that was the order. I'll have a follow up on this when I return later. --JDC808 05:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Gonna breakdown the article section by section:

Lead

Possible way to rewrite the first paragraph:

  1. The CMLL World Heavyweight Championship (Spanish: Campeonato Mundial de Peso Completo del CMLL) is a professional wrestling world heavyweight championship that was established in 1991. Promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL), the promotion introduced the championship to signal their independence from the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA). As part of the move away from the NWA, CMLL established a number of other championships also designated as "world championships" for a variety of divisions, such as the [link one or two of the others here]. The World Heavyweight Championship was the first CMLL title to be created, and the inaugural champion was Konnan el Bárbaro, who won the title by defeating Cien Caras in the finals of a tournament on June 9, 1991. The current champion is Máximo Sexy, who is in his [#] reign. He is the fifteenth person to hold the championship and the eighteenth overall champion.
  • The italicized part could be omitted as the body of the article covers who Konnan defeated. I'll leave that decision to you.
    • True it's a detail better saved for the detailed section, I will remove.  MPJ-DK  00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The last sentence is not entirely necessary for the lead (as it is covered in Reigns). Again, I'll leave that decision to you.
    • Well technially everything in the lead should be covered in main body ;-) so in this case I disagree.  MPJ-DK  00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I guess I should have said let the Reigns section go into this detail (similar to the above point). To me, it kinda seemed trivial for the lead. But it's fine if you wanna keep it. --JDC808 00:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph is fine, aside from me linking "Mexican wrestling". --JDC808 23:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Did a little copy-editing on the lead, as seen here with the edit summary.

Something else I meant to ask sooner on, is there a picture of the actual championship? I think that would be better for the infobox picture, and the picture of the current champion can go in the Reigns section. --JDC808 02:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I have not found one with a proper licese unfortunately.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Take this, download it, and then upload it to Wikipedia with the proper rationale. It's from cmll.com. --JDC808 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Added, I used the same basic rational as several WWE championship belt images. Hopefully it does not get deleted. Thank you for the generic image, that's a great find.  MPJ-DK  01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
History

Did CMLL leave the NWA in 1991 or in the late-1980s? In the lead, I was under the impression that they left the NWA in 1991 with the creation of this championship. However, in the History section, it says that the EMLL left the NWA in the late-1980s and became CMLL.

  • Left in late 1980s, renamed to CMLL in 1991 where they introduced the championship.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay....so they left the NWA in the late-1980s. Did they still have a working relationship with them until 1991, or did they just not have a championship for a few years until they introduced this title? --JDC808 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Alright so this gets a little convoluted here. They left the NWA, but still used the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship, NWA World Middleweight Championship and the NWA World Welterweight Championship as well as a slew of "Mexican National" championships, so they had PLENTY of championships. In 1991 they rebranded to make it obvious they were not with the NWA any more - fans were confused since they promoted three NWA championships etc. So they created a number of "CMLL World" titles and downplayed the NWA ones (but still promoted them). Of course they actually still promote three NWA labelled championships today, almost 30 years after leaving - CMLL, they're that weird relative that you love despite of them being weird (or maybe because they are).  MPJ-DK  15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay, that helps in clarifying this. I made these two edits, 1 and 2, for clarification. This article doesn't need to get into the detail of CMLL still promoting three of NWA's titles. --JDC808 21:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"On April 2, 2009, Último Guerrero successfully defended the title against Rey Mendoza Jr. on an independent wrestling promotion show in Gomez Palacio, marking the first time the CMLL World title was defended on a non-CMLL promoted show."

  • Was this the first time that a CMLL World Championship was defended on a non-CMLL show, or the first time that the Heavyweight Championship was defended on a non-CMLL show? If it is the former, that sentence should be reworded as "marking the first time that a CMLL World title....."; if it was the latter, then change "CMLL World title" to "Heavyweight Championship" or "Heavyweight title". I ask this because there are other CMLL World titles, and I don't know if any of those had been defended on a non-CMLL show before the Heavyweight.
  • I am not sure if others were defended prior, the source spoke only of the cmll heavy. I left it at that to not goo into OR territory.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • In that case, reword it to Heavyweight, because that would still be correct. --JDC808 00:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Rules

State what Garza's weight division was when he won the championship. It can be stated as "The Heavyweight Championship was no exception as several champions were under the weight limit, for example, Héctor Garza, who is classified as a [weight division and link it]." --JDC808 02:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I will get that added.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I added in that he would be in the "Junior Light Heavyweight" at his weight and threw in a source for Garza's billed weight as well to make sure it's got all bases covered.  MPJ-DK  02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
1991 tournament

This is the follow up from earlier that I had mentioned. To avoid ambiguity, for the first two battle royals, I would suggest only mentioning those who were eliminated. Before doing that, however, how were there multiple winners for the battle royals? For example, the first one. Was it an 8-man battle royal and the match ended when only four wrestlers were left in the ring? --JDC808 03:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It ended with four people still in the ring. And I will look at the wording to tighten it up.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, this could be reworded to something like:

"The first round of the tournament saw two eight-man battle royals, with each ending when four wrestlers were left in the ring. This was used to cut the field in half with the remaining wrestlers from each match advancing to the next round. The first battle royal featured Konnan, Rayo de Jalisco Jr., Black Magic, and Mascara Ano 2000 advancing, while Brazo de Plata, Vampiro Canadiense, Universo 2000, and El Egipcio were eliminated. The second battle royal saw Nitron, Pierroth Jr., Pirata Morgan, and Cien Caras progress to the next round, with Fabulous Blondie, Gran Markus Jr., Máscara Sagrada, and El Egipcio being eliminated. The second round saw another pair of battle royals, this time with four men in each and ending when two wrestlers were left in the ring. This narrowed down the tournament to the final four wrestlers, who faced off in traditional semifinals matches."

  • "finals" can be omitted as it is shown in the bracket, and this paragraph shows how they got to the semifinals in the bracket.
  • Also, just noticed something, how was El Egipcio in both battle royals? --JDC808 00:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah if you recall I called CMLL "weird" earlier? Yeah this is one of those cases, from all sources I have seen on the tournament they had Egipico in both blocks - Not sure why they did that other than some sort of massivly disorganized planning snafu.  MPJ-DK  15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Did not even read my own note that's in the article - Apparently he was a last minute replacement for someone who did not show up.  MPJ-DK  15:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I am also at fault for not looking at the note lol I had copy-pasted the paragraph and did reworking here so I didn't look at the note as I was concerned with how the paragraph was worded. The wording above (with that note) should suffice. --JDC808 21:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe I have addressed the last couple of concerns you raised JDC808. Once again thank you for your contributions, it's a stronger article now.  MPJ-DK  02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support: This has been the most extensive FAC review I've done (not saying that's a bad thing; usually an extensive review is done by the time I get to an FAC). I read over the article again and I feel comfortable in giving my support for this FAC. --JDC808 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: I did not do a source review. I will let someone else take care of that. I did glance over the ref list and the sources appear to be okay (I do like that there are a good number of print sources). Check the format on the sources and make sure that they all match (for example, ref 28 is "Cagematch.net" where the others from that site are "CageMatch"). --JDC808 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Acne vulgaris[edit]

Nominator(s): TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the very common chronic skin condition acne vulgaris and underwent significant refinement during the last FAC. I strongly believe the article should be featured as a significant amount of effort has been poured into this article (by multiple editors) to ensure that its discussion of acne vulgaris is comprehensive, accurate, and accessible to a general readership. This is a very important topic since the condition is nearly ubiquitous (one of the most common skin conditions worldwide). This article aims to provide all readers (general and professional) with an informative summary of the underpinnings of this condition and to address any questions those affected by the condition might have (e.g., safety and efficacy of various treatment modalities). I believe this article to be an example of Wikipedia's highest quality work but am certainly open to constructive feedback to further refine it to reach FA, if applicable. Thank you to those reviewing the article for your consideration. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by CFCF[edit]

Reserving a spot for a coming review (may not occur in its entirety before the 10th of January). Prior to the full review I may perform some minor c/e and adjustments. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Terrific, and thank you responding so quickly CFCF. I do have a question for you. What is it about the procedures part in the lead do you feel needs clarification? So far other readers have felt this section was clear so I'm curious to hear your thoughts about that part. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh right: well procedures is a little vague — considering quite an industry exists offering all-manner of "facials". It would be better to explain this as "medical procedures" or some qualification that explains that much of what is on offer does not work. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I will start by going through the prose for issues with readability and clarity, diving into specific sources later. For what it's worth this likely fulfills all the criteria for FA already. However it is an important topic and when it reaches the main page the article should be a good as possible. Some early points:

  • Images are important as there is significant variation in presentation:
    1. We should try to find images that show acne on different skin types. Acne looks very different on dark skin
    2. We should try to find quality images of acne of varying severity.

These are not necessarily requirements for FA, but if we can we should include them. I will take a look if I can find anything. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with everything you said CFCF. We do have photos that exhibit some variance in acne severity and on different skin colors. We don't have any high-quality images of acne vulgaris on someone with very dark skin and my last review of the Wikimedia Commons images was unrevealing. If you know of a good image, I agree it would be worthwhile to include. I have no objection to rewording procedures as "medical procedures". I think the efficacy is well-addressed in the body and we don't go into significant detail about the relative efficacy of medications, lifestyle changes, or the medical procedures in the lead. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been looking and will continue looking for images. Unfortunately there aren't that many in the medical literature that are free. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected but thanks for looking. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I intend to keep my comments coming rolling and I hope they do not overwhelm you.

  • This article currently redirects from "acne", yet makes no mention of other types of acne such as
    • acne rosacea
      • I'm not sure what you mean. When I search acne rosacea this redirects to the rosacea page. This is briefly covered in the differential diagnosis section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • acne inversa (hidradenitis suppurativa, Wikipedia's use of that name is debatable, should potentially be moved to acne inversa)
There is some debate whether these should be classified as acne or not, but they are widely referred to as such and I think about a sentence differentiating them from acne vulgaris is due in the classifications section. I am able to provide you with a high quality source that describes both the classification as such as well as the controversy surrounding the classification.
      • That's a fair point. I have seen the literature refer to hidradenitis suppurativa as acne inversa. Which source did you have in mind for the classification/controversy? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No mention of "background erythema" — a strong factor differentiating acne vulgaris from acne rosacea
    • That specific phrase wasn't used but rosacea is discussed in the differential diagnosis section as above. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Blackhead is explained as an open pore, but is also referred to as an "open comedone", this should be in classification
    • I'm unclear on the suggested edit here. The discussion of blackheads' definition is within the classification section already. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Mention of juveline acne needed
    • I'm assuming you meant juvenile acne here (which doesn't even have a Wikipedia page to link to). Hasn't been featured in any acne review I've seen so far. If you have good sources demonstrating this deserves mention, I'll take a look. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Mention of papullopustules needed (simple as we mention both papules and pustules in the classification
    • I haven't seen this mentioned in any review I've seen so far. Do you have an illustrative source that mentions a papulopustule as a characteristic acne lesion? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We could potentially mention secondary infection with other microbes such as s. aureus
    • That's reasonable. Where in the article did you have in mind? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We should carry information on classification of scarring, mentioning: hypertrophic (common), keloid (rare)
    • This information is in the article in the scarring section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To fulfill this I can offer help finding images and accessing sources, mail me if you need help with sources. I have sources for all the statements above.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by My Core Competency is Competency[edit]

Comment - Wow... You have done such a great job improving this article! Here are a few initial thoughts: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is used to treat active acne, not just scars (I am most familiar with red light therapy; check Pubmed for a reference). Microneedling and subcision are two other common treatments for acne scars ([9], [10]). Cryotherapy with dry ice was once a very common treatment for acne (see [11]; you can probably find a better reference), maybe you can add it as a historical note (I think some docs still do this). Hydroquinone should definitely be mentioned for treatment of PIH. For meds where both oral and topical forms are avaliable, it should be made clear which form is being referred to in the article (for example, is "dapsone" being used to refer to oral dapsone or topical dapsone gel; the same applies to clindamycin as another example). I would like to see Whey protein specifically added as a cause (that's a big trigger in people taking protein supplements to enhance weight lifting). I know this is an article on acne "vulgaris", but it would be nice to see the various subtypes of acne briefly mentioned, including other conditions that are closely related (such as SAPHO and PAPA syndromes) (see: [12]). A bit more coverage of drug-induced causes would be a plus too, for example, acne from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors (cetuximab, panitumumab) and small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (eg, gefitinib, erlotinib, lapatinib (see [13]). Perhaps olumacostat glasareti should also be mentioned as a possible future treatment (see: [14]). Cosmetic adhesive pads could also be mentioned as a treatment (see here [15]). Also, some comments on the role of cosmetics/make-up might be beneficial (both with respect to concealing acne, as well as acting as a possible cause of acne (comedogenic vs non-comedogenic products)). Perhaps the US iPledge program should also be mentioned with regard to oral isotretinoin (see [16]). Though acne lesions are rarely biopsied to confirm the diagnosis, there are distinctive features visible in a skin biopsy specimen when examined by a pathologist under the microscope; it might be nice to have a description (and photo if possible) of that dermatopathology in the article (you may need a better reference, but see [17]). Would a "Notable cases" section be a good idea, as is seen with other FA's like here [18] and here [19], a "Etymology and pronunciation" section like here [20], and/or an "Other animals" section (apparently cats can get acne, see here [21]; though you'll need better sourcing for your article)? And a question I have is this, is it a problem that some of the references are quite heavily cited, such as this one: [22] (I don't know if there are any pertinent wikipedia policies regarding this)? There are many other fun references that could be used for this possible feature article (I think this is a great one, for example: [≤http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/479093]). Another thing you might try is to find author email addresses in the reference articles you have used and email those authors inviting them to comment here (that might give you some really useful feedback). Additionally, I wonder if the article name should instead be reversed to simply acne with a redirect from acne vulgaris (perhaps someone else at the Medicine project can chime in on that); then all the various subtypes could be merged into and redirected towards this article (most of which are stub type articles). Maybe a "Further reading" section could be added at the end of the article (obviously not required, but I find it to be a nice addition (see [23])). But overall, fantastic work! ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Core, that was a rather large block of text you left so I'll try to work through it in order.
  • I'll look into the photodynamic therapy part to see if I can find high-quality evidence to support the assertion that it's used for both acne & acne scars and report back with what I find.
So, just to clarify, the article does not say photodynamic therapy is used solely for acne scars. I think the article makes it pretty clear that it's used for acne vulgaris itself too since it discusses its mechanisms involve reducing bacterial (e.g., P. acnes) load and reduces sebum production. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The microneedling search you linked there is mainly from one journal (which is not MEDLINE-indexed) and was not mentioned in a slew of high-quality review articles so I would question how common this really is as a treatment for acne and/or acne scars. I'll have to look into the subcision part more.
I've added a few lines about the microneedling treatment in the procedures section for the sake of being comprehensive. It appears to have received limited study for acne vulgaris and scarring so far but it has been reviewed in JAAD so I agree that it's worth mentioning. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll look more into cryotherapy but very few (1-2) cover this topic for acne vulgaris so if it was once common (per that 1968 paper), it doesn't appear to be anymore.
I performed another search for cryotherapy and acne vulgaris and there's very little mention. Cutis has an article that discusses it but it's a low impact journal so it's questionable whether it really merits inclusion in the article since it doesn't appear to be a prominent treatment. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll take another look at the PIH section re: hydroquinone.
A brief section discussing hydroquinone has been added to the treatment section since it is a frequently used treatment for acne-associated PIH. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The mention of other acne subtypes would add unnecessary length to the article (which is already quite long, IMO) and there are dedicated Wikipedia pages to drug-induced acne (although those need a considerable amount of work). I believe those pages would be the more appropriate places to include discussion of the medications you mentioned (e.g., EGFR inhibitors).
  • I'll take another look at the dapsone bit to see if that requires clarification.
I've clarified that topical dapsone was meant in one sentence where it was ambiguous. The formulation of clindamycin under discussion is clear in each instance it is mentioned in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you have a high-quality source you can cite regarding the whey protein claim? Most review articles state diet has not been conclusively linked to acne vulgaris incidence or severity as the current article states.
per [24]...[25]review-[26]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see whey specifically mentioned there. Also, @My Core Competency is Competency:, in [27] you said you thought the article could do with a good copyedit. Where do you think it could use this specifically? If you can identify problematic areas, I'm happy to address them. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The source you linked for the cosmetic adhesive pads is not a high-quality one (not a MEDLINE-indexed journal).
  • If you have good sources to suggest for inclusion regarding the makeup to conceal acne, that might be a useful addition to the society/culture section so I'd be interested to hear your suggestions about that.
  • I think specific mention of the US IPledge program might be a bit too U.S.-centric for the article but that's just my two cents. If the consensus is that this is okay for inclusion, it might be worthwhile mentioning in the retinoid or society/culture sections.
  • A brief addition of the histopathology is not a bad idea but it will be hard to incorporate that into simple language for a general readership. I'll look into that more.
  • I'm unsure about a notable cases section. It might be a reasonable addition to the society/culture section if we can find good examples.
  • I personally don't think the etymology section is particularly important since that's discussed in the history section.
  • It's okay to cite a review heavily if it's an influential and important review. I think there is definitely adequate diversity in the reviews included in the article considering there are over 100 references. Additionally, many of the claims referenced to that article are also supported by other reviews as well so I think we're fine there.
  • The JAMA article you cite is an old primary source so I wouldn't recommend its inclusion.
  • The further reading suggestion is a nice one if you have any specific sources you would like to present for review.
  • I would vote to keep the article as acne vulgaris since it's established in the very beginning of the article that it's referring to what is colloquially called acne. I think naming the article itself "acne" is too vague since there are so many subtypes. @Doc James:, @Opabinia regalis:, @Seppi333:, @CFCF:, any thoughts about these suggestions? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tyler, my initial comment was from just an initial skimming of the article. I can give you more feedback once those initial issues are fully addressed (and I do think you have overlooked a few of my initial comments (probably by accident)). With regard to copy editing, again it is not my strength, but I can say that subjectively (to me), this article does not flow/read like one of Wikipedia's best articles. Here are just two examples/honest questions I have:

"Boxcar scars are round or ovoid indented scars with sharp borders and vary in size from 1.5–4 mm across." Is the right type of dash used here and should there be a space between the "4" and "mm" ? (I don't know) Is a comma needed after "ovoid"?
"Frequently used combinations include the following: antibiotic + benzoyl peroxide, antibiotic + topical retinoid, or topical retinoid + benzoyl peroxide." Should plus signs be used here? Or should there be words instead?

I think you should have multiple copy editors look this article over again.

Whey protein is mentioned in the full text of that article (search reference 18 for "Whey"). And with regard to references, the ones I provided above were just to get you started. I realize better sources need to be found for some of the facts/issues I mentioned (but they are out there and you can find them). On a related note, think about what your audience would want to know about; take a young woman for example. She is going to want to know about cosmetics (do they cause acne, can she use them). There needs to be some coverage of cosmetics, including cosmetic adhesive pads, etc.

My feeling is that opinion on the length of a FA is irrelevant and subjective (it takes the length it takes to make an excellent article). My preference would be that you change the article name to "acne" and redirect from "acne vulgaris" as well and merge in all the obscure subtypes of acne into this article (like pomade acne - that is never going to be more than a ~1 sentence stub anyway). Once all those are merged in (see here for a good list [28]) then you can have a really interesting "etymology section" talking about all the obscure names, including what "vulgaris" means (common). Plus, people are going to search for "acne" not "acne vulgaris".

While this may be controversial, and I don't have strong feelings about it, Brad Pitt might be one option for a "notable cases" section (Google him and acne scarring - he is "known" for his bad skin).

Here are some ISBN's for further reading: 0723435715, 032331967X, 0323244750, 0071669043.

--My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Which specific comments do you think I have overlooked Core? I'm pretty sure I addressed just about everything you mentioned earlier and have incorporated many of your suggestions into the article. The ones I didn't were generally ones I disagreed with or did not see good sources to support the idea. No comma is needed after the word ovoid and I'm pretty sure that type of dash was felt to be okay by Grammarfascist (and many others who have read through so far so I'd be surprised if someone changed that) and none of the aforementioned seemed to have any issue with the + sign (but if someone vociferously advocated for the word "and" there, I wouldn't be opposed since it's so minor a change). I'm not really sure why the article doesn't read to you like one of Wikipedia's best. I think article length is important (within reason) for the sake of readability. We must keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia for a general readership and if it's endlessly long then few will read it. I'm going to agree with Opabinia and say the article should remain acne vulgaris. I think the other acne articles simply need to be developed. If we add in all the other forms of acne, that's going to lengthen the article even further. The article does come up if the term "acne" is searched so we should be okay there, but I'd be interested to hear what other members of the community have to say about these matters. I'll take a look into the whey/acne link but from what I've seen the consensus amongst secondary sources is there is no convincing link at this time. Lastly, why do cosmetics need to be discussed in this article? As above, what reference(s) do you suggest for this? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
So, looking into the question of a link between whey and acne, I find it interesting that the most recent JAAD guidelines from 2016 say that observational evidence (often very limited by retrospective design and self-reporting to say the least and no RCT evidence) has suggested a link between dairy and acne severity but found that milk (especially skim) was associated yet cheese and yogurt were not. It strikes me as peculiar that other dairy products such as yogurt would not show the same correlation if this were truly attributable to whey protein. Granted, this is totally my own analysis on the matter and inadmissible as WP:OR, but I felt it was worth mentioning all the same. Taken together, since whey protein is mentioned in a JAAD 2014 review already included in the article, I think it's reasonable to allow brief mention but whey protein's link does not seem to have much evidence behind it at this time. I have added a brief statement covering the topic. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Things you have yet to address at all: adding brief mention of other conditions that are closely related (such as SAPHO and PAPA syndromes) (this is a separate issue from adding in the subtypes of acne), adding mention of olumacostat glasareti as a possible future treatment, adding an "other animals" section, and emailing article authors for feedback. With regard to copy editing, if you can get User:Tony1 to look at this article and he thinks it's ready for FA status, then I would be satisfied on this point (I did post on his talk page here [29]). I have also already answered "why do cosmetics need to be discussed in this article" and references are out there (search through here [30] and see more specifically here [31], [32], [33], [34]). With regard to other initial content issues that remain unresolved, I suggest you solicit many more opinions from other less biased third party users regarding: mention of the US IPledge program, addition of notable cases, addition of an etymology section, addition of cryotherapy, changing the article name to "acne" and merging in all the various subtypes (including adding drug-induced causes of acne), addition of dermpath findings, the presence of heavily cited sources (is that a problem?), addition of a "Further reading" section. I would love more users (10+ ?) debating these issues, not just you and I and two other users (this is healthy for the FA process). For the time being, I oppose this nomination.--My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, there is essentially zero chance of 10+ users weighing in on topics like "should olumacostat glasaretil be covered". (But here's one more: there's no need to add unproven, still-in-development possible treatments to an already long article about a disease with many existing treatments.) Also, Wikipedians are perfectly capable of making judgments about whether an article meets the FA criteria; while there have been other projects aimed at soliciting external review, contacting outside authors has never been an expectation at FA. As for the cosmetics thing, see also my comments in the first FAC about body image and media representations - I could believe there's an article waiting to be written at acne in popular culture, but I'm not sure it needs to be in this article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for more users participating in this FA review, even if they don't chime in on all the questions raised. Regarding asking outside authors to review this article,I suggested that idea thinking it might be helpful, not an expectation (though I have brought it up again as Tyler did not respond to the idea); I don't feel strongly about this issue. Cosmetics, on the other hand, I do. This is a general article about acne with no mention of cosmetics, no matter how brief - it is a major omission. I don't think a whole section is necessarily needed, but some type of coverage is. And concerning olumacostat glasaretil and "there's no need to add unproven, still-in-development possible treatments", have you read the "research" section in this article? By your reasoning essentially that entire section should be deleted (which I would not agree with). --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think it's slightly premature to oppose the nomination based on the above issues since I'm actively addressing them. I have tried getting other editors over here (pinged above for opinions though I think 10+ is a little ambitious) but I'll ping them again. @Doc James:, @Seppi333:, @CFCF:, @Ozzie10aaaa: any thoughts about Core's suggestions and concerns? More opinions are always welcome and strongly encouraged. Core, I'll try to address your concerns that have not been sufficiently addressed. I left a comment for Tony yesterday so we'll see if he answers soon and has any additional ideas for copyediting but I did make some tweaks yesterday that should improve the article's readability. Regarding your suggestions/concerns above, I'll address them in order.
  • I had previously grouped the concern you had about SAPHO and PAPA syndromes into the same issue as not mentioning the various acne subtypes. I'll look into this issue more to see if mention is warranted and report back soon.
So, looking into the matter further, the most recent reviews I found discussing SAPHO syndrome specify that acne conglobata and acne fulminans occur in up to 25% of patients with this rare syndrome and these seem to be regarded as dermatologic entities distinct from acne vulgaris (unless I'm missing something) but other reviews do mention variable severity of the acne so perhaps acne conglobata and fulminans are simply severe forms of the acne vulgaris spectrum. Is that correct Core or would you view that as a misrepresentation of the definition of acne conglobata and fulminans? If these are just severe variants of acne vulgaris, then I agree it's worth mentioning and have a good review article from Clinics in Dermatology I can use to add this information and a few other syndromes. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I did briefly look at the olumacostat glasareti trial you linked earlier. I have to look into it more to see if it merits brief mention in the research section.
I think this is still too preliminary to warrant mention after further review of the cited trial. The results are encouraging but it's a single phase IIa trial of relatively short duration. The other treatments mentioned in the research section are largely reviewed in a secondary source so I think we can wait for a secondary source to emerge covering olumacostat glasareti (very interesting novel MOA though!). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't feel strongly about the other animals section but certainly don't think its absence should preclude an FA nomination from going through. I'd be curious to hear what other editors think about this idea.
  • I don't see where you explained the need for discussion about cosmetics. In your original suggestion, you mention cosmetic adhesive pads should be mentioned and link to a non-MEDLINE indexed journal (which I did address above since it's not a high-quality source though I'm sure you're right that high-quality sources do exist). Additionally, you suggested mentioning the use of makeup as a cause of acne but I believe this belongs in the acne cosmetica article. With respect to the use of makeup to conceal/minimize the appearance of acne, I believe that may have a place in the society & culture section though I would need a good source (thanks for linking the PubMed search-I'll explore that).
  • I think it's reasonable to have other opinions on the IPledge question. I still think it's a bit too U.S. centric but if consensus says otherwise I'm happy to mention it.
  • I'm looking into dermpath findings so stay tuned (This was addressed above as a good suggestion in my earlier comments and it hasn't been forgotten).
  • I maintain that with >100 sources there is adequate diversity despite some reviews being heavily cited (as above, this is addressed by the fact that most of the statements supported by some of these heavily cited reviews are verified in others).
  • I don't feel strongly about the notable cases section but I think it's optional and shouldn't preclude upgrade to FA.
  • I still don't think cryotherapy is worthy of mention and would be WP:UNDUE. It's very sparsely mentioned in recent high-quality literature (from the search I did anyway but if you come across high-quality sources really discussing it, please let me know)
  • I think the mention of the drug-induced acne belongs in the acne medicamentosa article since that seems to have enough of a distinction to not call that true acne vulgaris but a more specific form of acne. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Tyler - I can see you are working hard on this article, and you’re doing a good job! I took some time to reflect about this FAC the last hour, and I really don’t want to dig in any further on these issues. Whatever you all decide is fine with me. If you do end up adding a notable cases section, you could reference celebs who have admitted to having acne and endorsed Proactiv in commercials (see specifically [35]). I will not stand in your way any further and look forward to seeing what the ultimate acne FA looks like! --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@My Core Competency is Competency:, that's entirely up to you. I'm certainly not trying to dissuade you from participating. In fact, I encourage you to stay and wait to see what other editors think since we value your input. As you can see, I am incorporating many of your suggestions and I do think they are helpful. I'm not suggesting that you're obstructing anything but I do disagree with some suggestions you've made (that's certainly allowed and okay-this is why we have discussion). Since you're a dermatologist, can you weigh in on the question I posed about the acne conglobata/acne fulminans and SAPHO/PAPA syndromes? If you could provide some insight about that, it would certainly help clarify whether their mention is appropriate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I must say I do not agree with MCCiC about mentioning SAPHO and PAPA, these are just one of a multitude of disorders that display acne as part of their presentation. I mean if we don't stop there we're going to have to list them all by name. Certain mention of disorders which present themselves with acne may be due, including acne medicamentosa, but hardly more than a sentence, making it undue to mention SAPHO and PAPA by name.

We should remember that this is a Wikipedia FA, not a full Cochrane review, frankly these requirements strike me as far from what FA entails. None of our FA's are anywhere near perfect, and if we expect perfection we will simply get nothing. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Opabinia[edit]

I reviewed this article in some detail in the previous FAC round and just re-read it. While I still think there's probably room to expand the "society and culture" section, I haven't found as much material as I would've expected and think this subtopic may actually be better off covered elsewhere, somewhere like body image. In response to the above, I think the article's current name is preferable. I'm out of nitpicks and I support this nomination. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Seppi333[edit]

Continuing from where I left off during the last nomination...

I'm going to take on a review of the article's MOS compliance (criterion 2) now. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


  • Criterion 2b (MOS:LAYOUT): since this is a medical article, the section ordering is indicated by MOS:MED. From looking at the TOC and a cursory inspection of the sections (mainly to identify any single sentence paragraphs and see how section hatnotes were used), I can see that the layout conforms to MOS:MED#Diseases or disorders or syndromes. There's no issues with the formatting in the EL section, the image layout is fine (per my image review during the last nomination), and the correct infobox for a disease ({{Infobox medical condition}}) is used in the article.
    In a nutshell, I see no issues with the current layout. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


  • Criterion 2c (MOS:CITE): pending review - reviewing citation formatting and consistency is rather tedious, so I'll probably end up doing this last. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


  • Criterion 2 overall (general WP:MOS compliance): I've gone through the article to find and fix formatting issues relevant to MOS:NUM/MOS:DATE (partially done via script), MOS:NBSP/MOS:DASH (partially done via script), MOS:TEXT, and MOS:ABBR. The revisions made by me and the nominator during my image review in the last FAC fully addressed my concerns relevant to MOS:IMAGE and MOS:ALT/MOS:CAPTION. I'm not going to go through every aspect of the MOS since this isn't actually necessary for FA promotion; however, based upon a fairly thorough examination of the article's source and the article itself, I don't see any further issues with any of these components of the MOS. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Seppi, that sounds great. Once you've finished reviewing the last few criteria about the lead and citation formatting/consistency, please be sure to let me know if anything needs fixing and I'll attend to it immediately. Once that criterion is satisfied, please let me know if there are other issues you see with the article (if you care to comment on them) and elaborate if you support or oppose the FA nomination. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Seppi333:, any updates on your assessment of MOS compliance? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll follow up soon. Sorry for the delay. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid[edit]

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert ) and Boghog (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a medical food ingredient and dietary supplement that is a natural product in humans and has medical and athletic performance-enhancing applications for preventing/reversing muscle wasting and improving body composition.

This is the second pharmacology article that I've worked on for FA status. My first pharmacology FA was amphetamine, so this article's layout and formatting mirror that article. Like amphetamine, this article includes citations in the lead. I will not remove these because many of these statements are medical claims; however, I'm amenable to moving the citations into a note at the end of each paragraph as was done in the lead of amphetamine if reviewers of this nomination prefer this approach.

The labels in the section headers and their organization in the article follows MOS:PHARM and MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. The sources used to cite medical claims in this article are required to satisfy WP:MEDRS; most, if not all, of the WP:PAYWALLED medical reviews that are currently cited in the article are and will be temprorarily available in this link for viewing/downloading to allow reviewers to conduct WP:V checks for the duration of this nomination and any subsequent FAC nominations. The file names (without the .pdf extension) of the papers listed in this link reflect the reference names (i.e., <ref name="...">) defined in the source code of the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Doc James[edit]

The discussion in this tab was imported from the HMB talk page

The review you are using comes to three sentences of conclusions

"HMB contributed to preservation of muscle mass in older adults." which says it help keep mm mass, does not comment on those with sarcopenea.

"HMB supplementation may be useful in the prevention of muscle atrophy induced by bed rest or other factors." A decrease of uncertainty

"Further studies are needed to determine the precise effects of HMB on muscle strength and physical function in older adults." Means it is unclear if HMB affects str or function. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

IMO before we should be uneqivacally recommending this stuff in WP's voice I would like to see (1) government sources supporting benefit (2) specific reviews supporting benefit (which we have some of) and (3) general reviews supporting benefit. I do not see us as having either 1 or 3. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
2017 general review on sarcopinea says "A recent meta-analysis revealed some benefit of using a combined approach of dietary supplements and exercise, but the findings were inconsistent among various populations." PMID:27886695
Based on this 2015 review [36] "The main message is that enhanced benefits of exercise training, when combined with dietary supplementation, have been shown in some trials – indicating potential for future interventions, but that existing evidence is inconsistent." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: I've used more or less the exact wording from the meta-analysis' actual conclusion, as opposed to the abstract, in the lead in this edit. The body of the article already stated the part of the sentence that I added to the lead. This link will take you to the full text of the meta-analysis if you want to read the full conclusion.
  • "Further studies are needed to determine the precise effects of HMB on muscle strength and physical function in older adults." Means it is unclear if HMB affects str or function. Yes, I agree that what you stated is what that sentence means. The article didn't contradict this assertion before and it still doesn't now. The body of the article repeated that same assertion using different language at the time that you wrote this comment. I added the statement to the lead since you mentioned it.
  • IMO before we should be uneqivacally recommending this stuff in WP's voice I would like to see (1) government sources supporting benefit (2) specific reviews supporting benefit (which we have some of) and (3) general reviews supporting benefit. - we are not and have not been recommending anything. The article makes statements about efficacy in older adults based upon a meta-analysis. In the body of the article only, it states that the authors of two reviews have recommended it. If there are reviews that do not recommend it, we can state that too.
    Re (1): why can't we just state that no governmental health agencies have endorsed the use of HMB?
    Re (3): what is a "general review"?
  • Based on this 2015 review [37] "The main message is that enhanced benefits of exercise training, when combined with dietary supplementation, have been shown in some trials – indicating potential for future interventions, but that existing evidence is inconsistent." - this is consistent with what the meta-analysis states about the combination of exercise+HMB: "While effects on muscle mass were consistent, outcomes for muscle strength and physical performance varied in different reports. Perhaps resistance exercise in combination with HMB treatment is a potent stimulus for muscle improvement. Further studies are needed to investigate the combination of HMB and exercise for improving muscle strength and physical performance." Both reviews appear to support the assertion that "the effects of HMB combined with exercise on muscle strength and performance require further research in older adults", so would you like to see this statement added?
  • 2017 general review on sarcopinea says "A recent meta-analysis revealed some benefit of using a combined approach of dietary supplements and exercise, but the findings were inconsistent among various populations." PMID:27886695 - this review cites this review which did not conduct a meta-analysis (quote from methodology: The studies were not graded for quality; no attempt at a meta-analysis was made.) but cited this meta-analysis when stating "A meta-analysis of findings from randomized controlled trials has shown that protein supplementation during an exercise training program increases gains in muscle mass and strength, in younger (<50 years) and older (≥50 years) adults16 – much less is known about the combined effects of exercise training and supplementation with other dietary components that have been linked to sarcopenia." That meta-analysis doesn't mention HMB anywhere. Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Just reade a few changes (diff) that i think reflect the refs and put the body and lead in harmony... calibration is very tricky here. are there outstanding issues? Jytdog (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm ok with the changes you made relative to medical foods. Since the efficacy for sarcopenia has been such a major point of conflict, I think we should use language which is as close to the source as possible without creating a copyvio from paraphrasing too closely. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: Can you respond to my questions from above? Also, please let me know if you think Jytdog's and my changes to the first three sentences in the lead resolve the issues you had with the efficacy and the medical food statements. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog's use of "may" is much better than "can" based on my reading of the evidence. We have the concern that this stuff has not actually been studied in people with sarcopenia, we have the issue of the small number of peoples in the trials, and than we have the issue of other sources using more tentative language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Have moved the marketing claims to the 4th paragraph.[38] Likely just needs one reference rather than 4 as all supported by PR Newswire Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the link to sarcopenia in the lead sentence since you feel that this is an issue. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
That was not my issue and this does not address my concerns[39] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You said We have the concern that this stuff has not actually been studied in people with sarcopenia. I've removed sarcopenia from the lead and simply indicated it's people with age-related muscle loss, which is supported by the title of the meta-analysis and the demographics included in the meta-analysis. The modified sentence is almost identical to the sentence in the conclusion of the meta-analysis, with superficial wording differences. Why is that sentence still an issue? It's clearly not an overstatement of efficacy per the meta-anaylsis. Edit: the article says "HMB can inhibit the loss of lean body mass in individuals experiencing age-related muscle loss"; the meta-analysis says "Overall, this meta-analysis indicates that HMB can prevent lean body mass loss in older adults." What the meta-analysis says is stronger than what the article says because prevent means "completely avoid", whereas inhibit just means "reduce". I'm not okay with downplaying the efficacy anymore than that.Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Entire conclusion from the meta-analysis

From [40]:

5. Conclusion
Overall, this meta-analysis indicates that HMB can prevent lean body mass loss in older adults. But the effects of HMB on muscle strength and physical function appears to vary in different populations. Additional well-designed clinical studies are necessary to confirm the effectiveness of HMB in the prevention of loss of muscle strength and physical function.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Doc James: What is your concern with that sentence, specifically, if the population samples included in the RCTs from that meta-analysis (link here) wasn't the issue? Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Seppi, above you wrote: " I've removed sarcopenia from the lead and simply indicated it's people with age-related muscle loss". That is not any change in meaning, right? Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: sarcopenia and age-related muscle loss aren't entirely synonymous. Sarcopenia is a medical diagnosis that involves the loss of lean body mass, whereas the loss of muscle mass associated with age is simply a phenomenon that typically starts to occur in the late 30s or mid-40s and accelerates with each additional decade. Before that point, the human body is on average in an anabolic state, and muscle growth tends to occur annually even without exercise. After that age range, the body is on average in a catabolic state, and muscle mass tends to decline on an annual basis. The meta-analysis included studies in which the samples contained primarily healthy older adults who did not have a diagnosis of sarcopenia. Some of the participants may have been sarcopenic, but to my knowledge none were diagnosed as such.
The fact that the participants in most of the studies were not diagnosed with sarcopenia is one of the issues that Doc James correctly pointed out earlier. We shouldn't say that the meta-analysis applies to adults diagnosed with sarcopenia. Its conclusion really only applies to older adults in general, almost all of whom experience annual losses in muscle mass if they don't perform resistance exercise on a regular basis. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: I'm pinging you to let you know that I've renominated this article and moved our discussion from the HMB talk page here. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by SlimVirgin[edit]

  • Comment. Seppi333, I'm not in a position to support or oppose this, but I wondered whether you'd consider moving the history to the top. It's interesting, it's short and it provides a gentle introduction. SarahSV (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @SlimVirgin: Sorry for the late reply. In order to satisfy FA criterion 2b (appropriate structure), the article conforms to the section layout specified in MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices/MOS:PHARM (these guidelines have identical provisions for medications and other drugs/biologically active substances - the latter is just more detailed). Unfortunately, these guidelines specify that the history section be placed more towards the end of the article. With that said, I'm not actually opposed to the idea of repositioning "History" as one of the first sections, but I'd prefer not to deviate from the MOS since I know for certain that some medical editors will take issue with me doing that. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

A new year, a new nomination! This article is about the first season of HBO's True Detective, the anthology crime drama created by Nic Pizzolatto and starring Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their seventeen year pursuit of a serial killer, during which they must recount the histories of several unsolved cases related to said perpetrator. In 2015 this article became a GA, but has unfortunately failed each FA candidacy. But fortunately, unlike its other four nominations, the article received great attention in its most recent nomination and improved even further in quality. I've been working on this article on and off for well over a year, and at this point, I am more than confident that it satisfy the FA criteria. Will the sixth time be the charm? I sure as hell hope so! Cheers. DAP 💅 14:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • @DAP388: I believe that this article has benefited greatly from the past peer reviews and FACs. I will have to echo some of Mike Christie's points from the previous FAC. I do not have an issue with the use of Metacritic's terminology "universal acclaim" as I personally do not have find it to be misleading. I do agree with Mike Christie's point (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that the "Reviews" subsection comes across a little like a list of reviews and quotes. There is a lot of the same sentence structure: X says Y. Maybe varying up the sentence structures to make transitions and tie everything together into a compact narrative on the show's reception (I am always terrible at this part and you have done a much better job already than I could have ever done). You could look at Mike Christie's resource on copyediting reception sections here for a better idea of what I mean. I honestly think that this is the only thing standing in the way of this article reaching the level of an FA as everything else is very well done. Once, this specific subsection is revised, then I would gladly support this FAC. Good luck getting this promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

King Kalākaua's world tour[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR, — Maile (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The world tour was an effort by Hawaii's last king to save the dwindling Hawaiian race by supplementing the population with imported labor from similar cultures. One nation at a time, he brought Hawaii to the world's attention. Kalākaua was successful in jump-starting new immigration. He was a consummate tourist and an impressionable royal who returned home and tried to recreate the splendor of European monarchies in Hawaii. Kalākaua had no security guards to protect him, yet his safety was never in jeopardy, even though he chose public transport on ships and railways to circumnavigate the globe. It was just Kalākaua, a couple of friends, his cook, and here and there an extra person or two. One can only wonder how many days they all slept to recover from 281 days of non-stop globe trotting. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment still working on it, but see comments below.

  • " from nations that shared a common culture with Hawaii." I would move this phrase up in the sentence, it is too far from what it relates to. An example would be good. My first reaction was "such as"?
  • "While in Asia, he tried unsuccessfully to prevent the United States takeover of the kingdom " This sounds like Hawaii was taken over then and there. I might say "While in Asia, he tried to forstall American ambitions in Hawaii ..."
  • "Queen Victoria and the ambiance of the British crown" maybe "Queen Victoria and the splendor of British royal life ..."
  • The lede's ending seems not really an ending, it feels like leaving off in the middle.
  • "According to the personal writings of Queen Dowager Emma, a political opponent of his,[FN 1] Kalākaua allegedly" I would change "allegedly" for "supposedly"
  • "acknowledging an immigration system troubled by corruption, " more directly, "acknowledging corruption in the immigration system" (probably you should insert an "and" after this phrase whatever you do.
  • [Picture of Armstrong] The reader encounters this well-decorated individual sans link with the picture well before they meet him in prose. Suggest a closer coincidence, or at least a link.
  • You might want to explain the population drop.
  • "Dovetailing" Suggest at least a wiktionary link, or, better, a synonym that doesn't require one.
  • " the islands " exactly what you mean by this is unclear.
  • "Hawaiians" as you have not yet contrasted Native Hawaiians with any other group, the reader may not understand that Native Hawaiians are meant here, rather than random inhabitants.
  • Don't use contractions except in quotes.
  • "Inasmuch" delete, not really needed.
  • "world consulates" delete world
  • "stating the end goals expected.[17]" this seems unclear. Possibly, "stating the goals for the tour".
  • "otherwise been alerted" I would strike "otherwise"
  • "Believing their protocol was bound " maybe "Believing a formal reception was required"
  • "sightseeing trip" since they remained in Kobe, maybe "sightseeing tour"?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Fixed everything above so far. I found two contractions, which I fixed. If you see more, let me know - my eyes are a little buggy looking at this article day and night for weeks, and I probably missed tiny things like that. — Maile (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I saw two. More coming, once I get through the remainder of the article :)--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's more.
  • New matter (Lede). You speak of personal days, twice. That's a bit of an odd phrasing to begin with, and probably not worth using twice.
Um hmm. When you see that terminology as an explanation for "not official business", you know you're dealing with someone who's spent a lot of time in a corporate environment.— Maile (talk)
  • "foreign government diplomats" cut government as implied
  • "facilitate such an emigration conjointly with the Hawaiian government." feels clunky, maybe "co-sponsor such an emigration with the Hawaiian government"
  • "interact with the city's influential persons. " maybe "meet the city's influential people"
  • "Transcription of a proposed treaty" maybe "draft" for "proposed". And "A copy" for "Transcription"
  • "bestowed with" This seems an odd phrasing.
Changed to "given". — Maile (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "that presentation of medals" were what were given medals? They seem like orders to me. Possibly an overfine distinction.
Changed it to "an exchange of decorations" in quotes, directly from Kalakaua's correspondence. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Uh huh. I guess it's the royal equivalent of swapping baseball cards. "What do the simple folk do ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "for future governmental immigration discourse." Likely better, "for future talks on immigration". Emigration? That's the word you used regarding Japan.
Changed the phasing, but "immigration" is correct in this case. With Japan, it was "an emigrating labor force in Japan", which is referring to the outward flow of people from a country. "immigration" refers to the inward flow of people to a country. In the source, Kalakaua says, "..the success of any future movement our government may take to in desiring to procure immigrants from Japan, China, Siam and Johore." — Maile (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • *"military volley of shots" the term is "gun salute", I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. Second batch is done. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • More
  • "a lengthy list of awards" possibly "decorations" for "awards" if it fits.
  • "as a brother. As kindred souls," repetitive.
  • "the Malaysian states" Malaysia implies the modern nation:, with its states in Borneo. I would say "the Malay states"
  • "governments of both Great Britain and East India." East India?
I just linked East India, and should have done so before. That's a specific area of India that was under British rule in the 19th century. It had its own government. In the sources it refers to "East India" and "East Indian coolies". — Maile (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Where did the discussions take place? I can see Calcutta, but they don't seem to have gotten there yet. There wasn't a big government center east of Calcutta in British India of that era, so where did they talk?
I've reworded it a little bit. The source itself is actually Armstrong's post-trip report to the Hawaiian government. They didn't have talks in India, because it had to be done in London. And other than his somewhat racist opinion of the Indian people, I believe his "study" on contract labor from India most likely came from his contacts in London. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Wehwalt I just now rewrote the section in India. There's still only two paragraphs, but you might want to re-review it when you get back to this nomination. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "King Umberto I and Queen Margherita of Savoy." this makes it sound like Umberto was king of Savoy
  • "Civil Lord of the Admiralty and Lady Thomas Brassey" I am not an expert on the peerage but I don't think being Civil Lord made his wife a Lady (so to speak) I would say "Civil Lord of the Admiralty Thomas Brassey and his wife".
I don't know peerage, either, so I just changed it. But since @KAVEBEAR: is the one who wrote that, he can tell us if she really did hold the title of Lady. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like he met with people pretty far down the food chain in Vienna, compared with other nations. Any reason?
I added a little and sourced it. The royal family was away for the summer. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "and an unanswered invitation for the king attend the Bastille Day celebration as a guest of President Grévy while he was in London; the French foreign minister had visited the king in the absence of the president who was not in the capital at that time." This is very confusing.
@KAVEBEAR: Can you assist on clarification of the unanswered invitation? — Maile (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Armstrong remained behind to execute the treaty."" Execute the treaty would probably be to formally sign an already-negotiated treaty, which would probably be the king's job. It's likely "negotiate" better carries what was going on (or since you've used that word recently, "work out" or similar, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
Changed it to "initiate", Armstrong's word, is probably accurate since others were sent back later to finalize everything. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "for Portugal to send 300 emigrant families to the Hawaiian Islands in the near future" I would strike the word "emigrant" as implied.
  • I've also edited hands on a bit, feel free to revert or change anything you don't like.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with the edits you did. I've taken care of most of the above. Just waiting to hear from KAVEBEAR on that which he had direct input. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Third batch done. KAVEBEAR took care of his part. We're ready for the next batch. — Maile (talk)
  • "Real Museo de Pinturas y Esculturas" I doubt many know that name. They do know "the Prado", though.
  • "the next three days", that is, August 28, 29, 30, he sightseed But you've said the king relaxed in his suite on Aug 30.
Changed it to two days. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "spend a day as private tourists on Coney Island" I would say "spend a day at Coney Island". While Coney Island was actually an island then, so "on" would be arguably proper, using the more current phrase shows the contrast between the official mourning for Garfield and what they actually did, which was go enjoy themselves.
  • "The Sun newspaper" link?
  • "the suite boarded at the Arlington Hotel." The "suite" seems a bit of a pun on hotel that could probably be dispensed with.
That was just a typo. Fixed it. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would at least pipe the sermon in Honolulu to Parable of the talents or minas.
  • "as a cover story to indulge in his own selfish desires to see the rest of the world" maybe "as a cover story to gratify his selfish desire to see the world".
  • "All the awards and medals he was giving out on the trip were costing the kingdom additional money." maybe "The many awards and decorations he bestowed during the trip cost the kingdom additional money."
  • You spoke of "the palace" in the account of the king's homecoming, and I assumed the Iolani was meant. However, it seems it wasn't finished yet. Could this be clarified?
Footnote added. He was living at Iolani Palace before it was completed. Liliuokalani mentioned in her book that in January of 1881 she was summoned by Kalākaua to Iolani Palace for the discussion on her being named temporary Regent in his absence. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The reference in the lede to the king being feted by Masonic lodges around the world doesn't seem to live up to its billing in the article.
Removed. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I find the ending of the article a little abrupt. Can the king's lavish spending be tied in with the ending of the monarchy? If so, I'd make that the end of the article and find a way to fold in the one paragraph on Armstrong a bit earlier.
I'll get back to you on that. I don't see that it's tied in with the end of the monarchy, because that was about the US self-interest in wanting to annex the kingdom. I can't even say it is a link to the 1887 Bayonet Constitution, which was a thread I looked into. That constitution was more about the annexation politics and his chosen cabinet. I agree the ending is abrupt, but it doesn't go as far as the overthrow of the kingdom. Thoughts on this, @KAVEBEAR:? — Maile (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I think his opponents often use this trip with other expensive projects which follow as examples of the extravagance and corruption of the monarchy. I don't recall any good, unbiased source that can summarize this point nicely, but it is what Liliuokalani was defending in her 1898 autobiography. Also [41] History of Later Years of the Hawaiian Monarchy (a very biased source)] in its first chapter list out all the extravagances of Kalakaua's reign with their cost. This ultimately led to the Bayonet Constitution and the PR damage to the monarchy especially among the annexationist sectors of society continued into the reign of his sister. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This is going to take some thinking to do a summary of that to wrap this up. I think you have it in the idea that the above expenses were part of what was used against him for the Bayonet Constitution. In and of themselves, they were not the sole reason for that event. I think Walter Murray Gibson and his schemes were more of a direct reason for that happening, but he came to power after the tour ended. So, I'll think on this. If you want to add anything in the article about this, go ahead. I'm thinking on how to write this. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR and Wehwalt: I added a paragraph at the bottom of the Kalakaua section. Please have a look. I don't want the end to be overly large, because the Bayonet Constitution was not a direct aftermath of the world tour, just an offshoot resulting from Kalakaua's attempts to mimic the lifestyles of the European monarchies. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Fn 3, listing the territories of East India, I see West Bengal. I do not think the Presidency of Bengal was divided in 1881.
Removed West Bengal. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, is there any indication that the king arranged for Hawaii's major issue of coins (1883) while he was in the US? No change to the article is sought.
@KAVEBEAR: Do you have any information on this? Wehwalt does a lot of articles on coinage, and took Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar to FA. — Maile (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: You might be interested in this. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Andrade, Ernest, ed. (1975). "Hawaiian Coinage Controversy - Or, What Price a Handsome Profile". The Hawaiian Journal of History. Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society. 11. hdl:10524/415 – via eVols at University of Hawai'i at Manoa. 
  • I've skimmed it. It's really interesting. Thanks--01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems it's good to be the king. That's all I've got for now. I'll give it a re-read when you're done. Very interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: I added this to the second sentence in the lead, "... but in Hawaii there were critics who believed the labor negotiations were just his excuse to see the world" as a balance to the expressed purpose of the trip. I also added a mention there about the rumors sparked by the tour. — Maile (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • P. S., Wehwalt, I don't take for granted that you or anyone else knows that the monarchy did not end with Kalakaua. Just in case I gave you that impression by saying Kalakaua was the last king of Hawaii. He was. The next, and final, monarch was his sister Queen Liliuokalani. — Maile (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I know the basics of that, though it is absorbing to learn the details!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
A few more comments:
  • "Japanese newspapers gave him favorable coverage on how they viewed his accomplishments in Hawaii" awkward
Removed it as not necessary.
  • The timeline in China seems a little confusing. They arrived on March 25 and left on April 2. You say they went to Tientsin. That's a good two or three days from Shanghai by sea. It sounds to me like the most likely course of events is that they went to Tientsin after leaving Shanghai on April 2, proposing to go on by land to Beijing but while there learned of the dowager Empress's death and left for Hong Kong (the travel time is more or less what it should be). But the reader shouldn't have to guess.
Well, in a past FAC, I had a reviewer complain that too many dates made them lose track of what they were reading. However, one of us here is confused on this issue. So, let me tell you what the source says:
March 25 - "His majesty and suite arrived off the bar of the Shanghai roadstead"
March 27 - " ... the royal party embarked on the Pautah"
March 29 - " ... arrived at the bar of the Bund" (I have no idea what the Bund is)
March 30 - " ... all the foreign representatives in the city waited on His Majesty on board the Pautah"
March 31 - " ... His Majesty and suite called upon the Viceroy Li Hang"
April 1 - " ... the Viceroy waited upon His Majesty on board the Pautah"
The next paragraph does not specify a date but begins, "At Tientsin the royal party met with old acquaintances ... "
Subheading below that is "RETURN TO SHANGHAI"
April 2 - " ... His Majesty and suite re-embarked on the Pautah, and streaming back over the Yellow Sea returning to Shanghai on the 6th April"
April 9 - " ... His Majesty and suite left Shanghai and arrived in Hongkong on 12th April"
I just changed "returned to Shanghai on April 2" to April 6, if that was the point of confusion. The way I'm reading the sources, they left for Shanghai on April 2, and arrived there April 6. Was that the change you needed, or am I missing something? — Maile (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The Bund is an area of Shanghai, on the (very wide) river. So I think you are mistaken they were still in Shanghai.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You are not consistent whether the abbreviation of the word "number" (thus, No or No.) bears a period.
I only found one incident in the body of a missing period, and fixed it. If you are referring to the "no" for the London Gazette, that's their doing in how it's displayed - it's not something input on the citation template. — Maile (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The lede says he played billiards in Singapore. Johor is not part of Singapore, so the body does not bear this out. I will also note that the billiards reference in the lede is to stress the ordinariness of the king's travels, but few get to play billiards in a sultan's palace with the sultan.
Removed it as not necessary. However, looking as it as I did when I wrote it, while realizing your point that not everybody plays billiards in a sultan's palace ... even if they had been in a corner pub, a king and a sultan playing billiards shows on some level they had something in common with ordinary people. — Maile (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You are not consistent with the spelling of "Abu Bakar"
Typo. Fixed. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • " In the end," odd phrase to use for a five-day wonder.
Removed the phrase. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The account of Germany is a bit muddled. You mention them arriving in Cologne, then visiting Potsdam. I would be surprised if they visited Potsdam from Cologne; they presumably relocated to Berlin from where they visited Potsdam.
I think you misread the article. "They arrived at Cologne on July 29, visiting the Cologne Cathedral before continuing to Berlin." That's the only place Cologne is mentioned. Then after he's been in Berlin a couple of days meeting with people, "On a visit to Potsdam with Prince Charles of Prussia, Kalākaua was awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of the Red Eagle." It's in correct order. I added "Berlin" in front of "accommodations" in the next sentence. I figure if you read that like they were still in Cologne, so could others. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Onlookers were gathered at the Vienna train station" implies Vienna had only one train station (picky, I know)
Added "Northwest station", with only Northwest capitalized, per the source. — Maile (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Your use of the serial comma is inconsistent. Contrast "the king toured the College of the Imperial Guard, Imperial Engineering College, and the Oji Paper Company." with "visiting the Royal Army, Museo del Prado and Buen Retiro Park."
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The latest batch is done. You might re-check to see if I took care of the China date the way you meant. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Why a link for the Sphinx and none for the Pyramids? And if you are going to mention Giza, I'd do it in connection with the Pyramids as seems more usual.
I've done it both directions, linking the Giza pyramid complex in the lead, and in the Egypt section linking both the pyramids and the Great Sphinx, with a link to the Giza Plateau at the end of the sentence. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Returning to the capital, on October 3, they boarded a railroad train westward stopping at Cincinnati," the commas lead to ambiguity as to whether returning or boarding happened on October 3.
  • "Speeches were made in both English and Hawaiian" I would link Hawaiian as a language, it is the first time you've mentioned it
  • I like the ending better.
OK, that's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Assuming this is really the end of your review (or not ...), I want to thank you for making me go back through all the nitpicking stuff, because it gave me better instincts on what to look for in everything else I do. And as far as the article in general, of all the Wikipedia articles I've worked on, this one was absolutely the most fun. Kalākaua was a fascinating personality.— Maile (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, glad to. Yes, those are always the most fun articles. Support very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Kalakaua_in_Berlin_(ca._1881).jpg: when/where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
  • I've asked on the Humanity Desk.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR: If for any reason it turns out we can't use the Berlin photo, I think File:Kalakaua, painting by William Cogswell, Iolani Palace.jpg looks really good. — Maile (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: This should be the last problematic files minus the map below. E. Linde was ran by Sophus Williams (1835–1900).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, looks like this now needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Maile66: Base on File:Cover of Hawaii Ponoi2.jpg, the lead image may be as old as 1874 so I suggest we replace it with the painting instead.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR: We can do that, but I've been thinking on this. What if we just use a caption that says it's King Kalakaua, without using the date or saying it's Berlin? Or, we could go with the painting. What do you think? — Maile (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR and Nikkimaria: The image has been moved by KAVEBEAR to File:Kalakaua, reprinted by E. Linde (ca. 1881).jpg. The description is better, and it has a PD tag. I've removed "Berlin" from the caption in the article. Is it OK to use this one now? — Maile (talk)
It's fine with me.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
To use the 1923 tag we need to know that it was published, not just created, before 1923. When/where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: It probably is not, and something we probably will not find out, so I removed it. You're confusing me with your previous request that they "will need a US PD tag". Are you saying we can't use the image even if it is just PD-old or PD-100.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
All images not being claimed as non-free must be PD/free in the US. If you take a look at the wording of PD-old, it indicates that when using that tag you must also include a tag for why the image is PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I really appreciate your thoroughness but I'm not sure then because I have no idea how to date the publication dates or their publication place of these images (if it is to be distinct from the creation of the work). For all we know none of them could have been published before the advent of the Internet. What do you recommend?-KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If we can be certain that the work was not published prior to 2002, then life+70 works per here. Does the image holder have any further details on its history? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm uncertain who the image holder is, so presumably it is an unpublished image with the original creator having died 70+ years ago. What tag is appropriate in this case.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
PD-US-unpublished, if the criteria listed there are met. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria and KAVEBEAR: I think we can date the image to being published in 1874. File:Cover of Hawaii Ponoi2.jpg The fine print the image on this says "The photograph is respectfully dedicated to His Majesty by Bradley & Rulofon" That would be William Rulofson (1826-1878) and his partner H. W. Bradley (1813-1891). The fine print at the bottom says, "Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by M. Gray, in the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington." — Maile (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
True but there are some other images which may need to be tagged with PD-US-unpublished including the portrait of Li Hongzhang and the photograph of the arch, which I went ahead and did. Because they are archival images that have only been digitized or placed online in the last few years. I'm confident they have not been published.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Kalakaua_journey_round_the_world.jpg: source link is dead, and we should include a source for the data presented
  • No idea. This is an old file someone else uploaded. @ThT: maybe he knows better..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @KAVEBEAR: Please be a second set of eyes on this, in the fact that I think it misses the return trip to Paris. What do you think about a different base map, maybe one that is not in color? The current one looks good if you click on it and bring up the full size, but it looks so modern for the subject matter. Can we get Graphics Lab to make one on an old-fashioned patina-colored map? Like maps looked in the 19th century? — Maile (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    @KAVEBEAR: I just updated source information and description of File:Kalakaua journey round the world.jpg. The map is intended to show the visited countries in the general sequence only. --ThT (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Li_Hung_Chang_in_1896.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • No idea since Russell & Sons is a photograph company/studio probably with one or more photographer. But this one is in the public domain since it comes from a book published in 1903.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In the US, yes. But it was published in the UK and is hosted on Commons, so we have to care about its status in the UK too. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria and KAVEBEAR: I replaced that image with File:Hubert Vos's painting of Li Hongzhang.jpg — Maile (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
That one will need a US PD tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Maharaja_of_Johore_(PP-73-3-020).jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Kalakaua_at_Normalhurst_(PP-96-13-006).jpg, File:Kalakaua,_Judd_and_MacFarlane_(PP-75-6-020).jpg,
  • File:Kalakaua,_Judd_and_MacFarlane_(PP-75-6-020).jpg, File:Kauikeaouli_Gate_decorated_in_honor_of_Kalakaua_return_home_in_1881.jpg, File:Coronation_of_Kalakaua.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR: Would you please address the image issues? Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I generally have no idea where most of the images are published. Most exist in the Hawaii State Archives with no author identification. From my past correspondence with them, they don't have the staff capacity to keep their records straight and from what I know they are images lying around with minimal identifications. We may have to just replace them with PD images from books and newspaper articles unless we know the creator's death date. commons:Category:King Kalākaua's world tour--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and remove all the non-traceable images from HSA. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The coronation one has been replaced with a PD engraving from the Library of Congress. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
That one will need a US PD tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria and KAVEBEAR: somebody please bring me up to date. Are we OK on everything except the map? — Maile (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I tag the images as you recommended. Is there any image now that won't do?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The Japanese tag on File:Meiji_tenno1.jpg is for photos, while this is a sketch. For File:Hubert_Vos's_painting_of_Li_Hongzhang.jpg, public display counts as publication - given that, are you certain of the tag? Where was File:Victoria-sm.jpg first published? File:Kalakaua's_Coronation_from_Illustrated_London_News,_1883.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I honesty don't know when these images (or how long the portrait has been public displayed for) were published. I mean that is impossible to answer unless they are taken straight from books or published sources which the images are used. But File:Kalakaua's_Coronation_from_Illustrated_London_News,_1883.jpg was published in the UK, so would a US PD tag be appropriate? File:Victoria-sm.jpg was probably created in the UK (where it was published is not known to me), File:Meiji_tenno1.jpg also not sure. To be honest, you are asking questions I have no answers to.----KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Change the Li Hung Chang painting to File:Li-hung-chang, Governor General of Pei-chih-li Wellcome L0040968.jpg, I am assuming this is properly licensed (being licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license). Switch the problematic images to photographs from Armstrong PD 1904 book instead. Just need your opinion on the Illustrated London News images and the tagging for that. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: The Tag you suggest brings up this message at Commons: "Note: This tag exists for compatibility with Wikipedia; please replace this template with both {{PD-1923}} and the appropriate tag for the other country, such as {{PD-old-100}}". It's tagged with both. Have we now tagged all images correctly? Any other issues? — Maile (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
All images now appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! — Maile (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Archie vs. Predator[edit]

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the four-issue comic book miniseries Archie vs Predator. The format follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics. I am open to any and all suggestions and always willing to work on any issues there may be. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba
  • I am not sure the bolded text for “meets” in the “Development” subsection is really necessary as the difference in the titles is made clear in the context of the sentence.
addressed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Shouldn’t the first reference be at the end of the sentence for the first sentence of the “Development” subsection? The placement seems somewhat awkward.
I originally put it there because the ref sourced that half of the sentence, and the second half was sourced by the ref at the end of the second sentence following. I've moved it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The “Publication” subsection is composed of rather short paragraphs. It would greatly benefit this section and the article as a whole to somehow combine all of these smaller paragraphs into a single and make it a cohesive narrative.
Done Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would combine the first and second paragraphs and the third and fourth paragraphs of the “Plot” section as the paragraphs as it currently stands are rather short and choppy.
Done Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of red links. That is not a problem as I understand the importance of red links, but make sure that all of the red links are subjects that may lead to articles in the future.
I removed links for the individuals/websites that are least likely to have articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would recommend revising the second paragraph of the “Reception” section with this resource in mind here. You want the reception sections to read like a narrative informing the reader about the critical response to the material. Also, are there any more reviews for this series? This section seems rather short. You might also want to expand on the reviews you already have in the section.
  • I am not sure what you mean by “After Archie proposed the crossover”? Who is the Archie in this context? It makes me think of the fictional character, which is obviously not correct. Could you make this clearer for an unfamiliar reader?
Clarified that it was Archie Comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on the sentence about the editorial pushback for the story arc? Do you know what the story arc was and what the final version turned out to be? And could expand on what depth she added to Dilton Doiley? I know this may not be possible, but I want to clarify on these points.
I would really like to expand on the pushback, but the writer was vague in the interview. I suspect she had to be coy, since she was talking about a development the copyright holder did not approve.
I can expand on the depth she added, but I don't have a source to support anything specific. Is the work itself sufficient to support Dilton's additional motivation, or would that be OR? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response! I was more so curious if there is more information about this. These sentences look fine as there are right now, and I think that all of the references are appropriate for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that “Synopsis” is a more appropriate section title than “Plot” as I have seen this wording used more in the comic-related FAs. However, this may be more of a stylistic choice so this is up to you on this one.
The project MOS is oddly silent on this, since it's geared more toward articles about creators and characters. I've changed this to reflect your observation. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer:Good job with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will give another look and most likely support this FAC. Good luck with getting this promoted in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I have made changes based on your suggestions. Thank you for the input. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Thank you for your quick responses. You have done a wonderful job with this article. I support this nomination. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my FAC for Russell family (Passions)? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

By chance, I just finished reading this comic. There is quite an extensive afterword (and foreword) in the hard-cover version I have (along with other "behind the scenes" extras), and it seems like an oversight that much of this detail is left out, as it could provide much more context in most of the sections here. I assume you don't have these pages? If not, I can perhaps send some of them to you. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're correct - I have not looked through the hardcover. I'm going to my LCS later today, I'll see if they have a copy I can peruse. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I found a copy in the shop yesterday, but it was still shrink wrapped. Any access you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you enable email or send me one? Then I can send you some mobile photos, if they turn out good. --FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I have added additional material. Thanks for sending the images of those pages! Argento Surfer (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Cool, I'll review this after the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems when the Predator character is mentioned, Predator (alien) should be linked to, rather than the franchise page?
  • "1994 one-shot Archie Meets the Punisher" I'd maybe put "issue" or "comic" after one shot, just to break up the continuous blue link.
  • I think the roles of people involved should be stated at first mention. Such as "the artist Fernando Ruiz", etc.
  • "or that he would be get to be involved" Something seems wrong.
  • "Soon after, many media outlets carrying the news used a headline indicating it was not a joke." Wouldn't this sentence make more sense if it was explained before whether the announcement had been seen as a joke earlier?
  • Shouldn't it be mentioned in the synopsis that the predator only attacks the characters when they are armed? Seems to be a pretty important point.
  • "best selling comic book among other release that month" Releases?
  • "The book received positive review" Reviews?
  • "him meeting the galaxy's deadliest hunter, the Predator" Only stated in the intro. I think the Predator character needs more presentation in the article body. Unfamiliar readers would hardly know that it is an alien from a movie from just reading this article.
  • It seems it would be interesting to go into a bit more depth about the art style? The hardcover extras explain why they went for the "classic" Archie style (rather than more realistic, as in other recent Archie comics), and that they had to simplify the Predator a great deal, and that all the artists worked on the same physical papers, which isn't done much anymore.
  • Image review - there is a single fair use image in low res with an appropriate rationale.
I have addressed these points. I expanded on the not-a-joke headline to clarify why readers may have thought it was a joke, but as far as I know all those headlines were to avoid the idea, not dispel it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, but seems the last point about art style wasn't addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I also think the intro should have a very short synopsis of the story. It is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't hit the save button on the last point before I edited this. Both points have been addressed. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - everything addressed nicely, and it was good to see some more content added for comprehensiveness. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, looks good - I am not much of a comic reader so this might sound dumb, but how does this comic slot in with Archie canon if Archie and main characters are killed? Is it an alternate timeline and if so are there others in it or is it standalone?
Archie has pretty loose cannon and the stories don't usually reference each other, similar to The Simpsons. An alternate timeline would probably be the best way to describe this particular miniseries. So far, there have been no follow up stories to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
ok then. Would a note to this effect be helpful? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I've added the non-canon status to the lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it stated specifically in the sources that it is non-canonical? Also, there should be no info in the intro not found in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Well...it seemed WP:BLUE to me. Characters die here, but they're alive in all the other Archie material (except maybe Afterlife with Archie). I'm happy to move it from the lead to the PH section, or remove it entirely. Whichever will satisfy both you and @Casliber:. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but to play Devil's advocate, it could also just be another "universe", since multiverses aren't entirely unknown in comics... Especially since there seem to be various parallel Archie runs in different styles as well. My point being that if it isn't stated specifically in a source, it can be hard to make the judgement here... FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree, but I see your point. That line has been removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't necessarily have to be removed; if others are for it, I have no problem,. But if a source could be found, it would of course be nicer. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday's Enterprise[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about "Yesterday's Enterprise", a third-season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation commonly considered one of the best of the series, and part of the dramatic upswing in quality from previous seasons. Article has gone through GAN and PR and I'd like to see this get FA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "Running 106 pages it was far longer than the usual 65-page submission guideline, but a special allowance was made since the script was double-spaced.": Several questions, but I guess the main one is: why would the typical reader care that the script was double-spaced?
  • "is confronted with revealing to his guests their ultimate fate": He does it, or struggles with the decision and doesn't do it?
  • "and there all victories come at a cost": and where ...?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the look and edits, Dank. I've removed the page length note as it might be too inside baseball for a general overview and distracting from the salient points, and I've addressed the other two points with some slight modifications. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments. The References section shows three sources that have no matching inline citations: Captain's Logs: The Complete Trek Voyages; Beyond the Final Frontier : An Unauthorised Review of Star Trek; and Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Continuing Mission. If you have not already done so, you might want to add HarvErrors to your .js Then when you pull up any article, there are big red error messages when either the references section or the sfn citations have no matches. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the check. User:Miyagawa added those in, but I don't think he ended up pulling anything from them, so I've removed them. The .js file should come in handy in the future, thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry! Yep, those should have been removed. I'd checked them for expansion but they were only reiterating information which was already in the article. Miyagawa (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments by Aoba47
  • I think you should combine the second and third sentences in the first paragraph of the lead, in a similar way to Space See, to avoid short and choppy sentences in the start.
  • You repeat “featured” twice in the second paragraph of the lead, so I would recommend revising for variety. This may be a conscious choice for parallelism/repetition so this is more of a stylistic question/preference on your part.
  • The Denise Crosby image needs an ALT description. Please make sure that all of the images have ALT descriptions.
  • Should you mention in the “Media release” subsection that the episode was released in the following VHS and DVD releases: Star Trek: The Next Generation - 10th Anniversary Collector's Edition, Star Trek - Greatest Battles, and Star Trek: Fan Collective - Time Travel, Star Trek: Fan Collective - Alternate Realities? Not sure if this would be too trivial or not, but it would seem important to include information about the episode’s inclusion on numerous releases.
  • Should you incorporate the information about the mission “Temporal Ambassador” from Star Trek Online that was brought up in the peer review as it was created as a sequel to this episode and was created as part of the game’s third year anniversary.
  • Do you need to include the novels that reference this episode? I am not sure it would too trivial or not so I will leave this up to you. This is more of a clarification question. The episode was referenced in Back to Back, Q-Squared, Engines of Destiny, Q&A. This could be coupled with the Star Trek Online for a new section/subsection somewhere in the article if you feel this information is important/notable enough for inclusion.
  • I would make sure to address the questions/comments posed at the References section by Maile.

@David Fuchs: Great job with the article! I will definitely support this FAC once my comments are addressed. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia and the whole FAC process so take my comments with a grain of salt. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47:: Thanks for the review, and thanks for participating in the FA process (I know it seems daunting, but the more people participating, the better the process is!) I've made some tweaks to the lead per your pointers, as well as added in the image alt text. As to the proposed additions, I can't find much in the way of reliable sourcing that suggests the various connections in STO and the like are worth including. Ditto goes for the various repackaging collections/home media release. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Thank you for your quick responses. I agree with assessment about STO and the home media releases, but just wanted to confirm it with you. Great work with the article! I support this nomination. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my FAC for Russell family (Passions)? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments. taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The studio decided to spend more than the average on the episode, which at that time was estimated by Daily Variety as $1.2 million per episode. - has two 'episode's - why not "The studio decided to exceed/increase the budget, which at that time was estimated by Daily Variety as $1.2 million per episode." - and then change the next sentence to "This gave the production departments added liberties beyond what had been expected in the script." - just trying to trim some wordiness

Other than that, looking on target, I massaged the prose a little. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the look Cas. Your suggestion looked good so I implemented it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • At the end of the Plot section, maybe it would help to note that Guinan is the only one who senses anything was ever wrong?
    • Done.
  • Given that Trent Christopher Ganino was deleted via AfD, you can probable remove the redline.
    • Done.
  • While it was not the review Ganino had hoped for, it was enough to keep the script in circulation. - The first bit seems like a somewhat unnecessary comment. I might have tried something like "The lukewarm review was sufficient to keep the script in circulation."
    • Reworded.
  • The main issue was whether the producers wanted to do a show with time travel. - If possible, some context (like what reasons they might have had for avoiding a time travel plot) would be helpful.
    • Unfortunately there's no real elaboration to be found in the sources. I suspect it's because there had been a few time travel episodes before in the series run, but I don't have any sources to support that hunch.
  • Sarek and the Vulcans on the surface are the only people not affected by the timeline change - The surface of what?
    • The planet where the Guardian of Forever is, which I realize was not explicitly stated, so I reworded.
  • Some staff were convinced that with so many writers, the script would be a disaster. - This comes across as too informal for me, but I'm not quite sure how to fix it. Maybe something like "Some staff feared that the script would suffer because of the large writing team"?
    • I just removed the clause. It was an unnecessary aside from the rest of the paragraph anyhow.
  • The studio decided to exceed/increase the budget - I know that "exceed" and "increase" are effectively the same here, but given that they conventionally mean two different things, I would just stick with the single more accurate term.
    • Done.
  • Among the reasons for the increase - If there are other reasons, it would be good to include them I think.
    • The source doesn't really delve into the other reasons. I slightly reworded the clause.
  • military-looking tables - Needs to be reworded, since I'm not sure how a table can look like military...
    • Reworded.
  • in later Next Generation episodes ... one other The Next Generation episode - Should be consistent about whether to include the "the".
    • Made consistent.
  • about how things should be done - "Things" too vague for me.
    • Clarified.
  • The main cast enjoyed the opportunity to play their characters differently. The result was an unusual degree of friction between characters - That the cast enjoyed it resulted in friction? That seems counterintuitive, but I might be missing something.
    • Reworded.
  • Berman, for example, was afraid that the episode was pushing the timeline too far. - Meaning the battle-tested warship timeline or the luxury hotel one? A direct quote from Berman might be helpful.
    • No direct quote to be had; clarified it's the "alternate" universe.
  • It's a bit discrepant for the lead to say that "numerous" death scenes were too "costly to film" (which isn't cited later in the article, as far as I can tell - you only mention two unrealized deaths, and for time constraints), even though a seemingly major point of the "Design" section is that the production crew had lots of money to work with.
    • Removed.
  • The episode is cited as a favorite among cast members - Another fact that isn't mentioned or cited in the article body, unless I've missed it.
    • Adjusted to crew members.
  • Overall, the intro could stand to be fleshed out a little. There's tons of interesting info relating to this episode, but the lead just feels bare-bones.
    • I've added a few sentences about development and reception.

Otherwise, a very solid article on one of my favorite episodes (obviously). I've done some copyediting to improve flow and clarity, but feel free to revert me if I've inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. I look forward to supporting this very soon, but as it stands, not good enough, dammit, not good enough!! :) – Juliancolton | Talk 05:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

    • @Juliancolton:: Thanks for the review! I believe I've addressed your issues above (comments inline.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Support - Looks good to me, thanks for the quick response. Nice work! – Juliancolton | Talk 18:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Unless I've missed them, we still need source and image reviews for this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • image review - both images are appropriately licenced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • formatting of references is consistent WRT dates, names etc. web refs are archived. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Earwigs copyvio tool is clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't do spotchecks for a few hours - if anyone has a burning desire to then great, otherwise later today Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy - good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I'm not sure we are quite ready yet on prose. A very quick read-through showed several issues, including quite a few from the lead:

  • "to prevent their own disastrous timeline from ever occurring.": There is no indication in the lead of what "disastrous timeline" might mean.
  • "To complete the episode in time for sweeps, the final script was completed by a team of five writers": complete...completed
  • "Filming of the episode lasted a week, with some elements of the script were ultimately not included due to time constraints"
  • "with a 13.1 ranking, the third-highest number for the series at the time": This requires at least a link, but a better explanation would be preferable
  • "In the plot, the crew of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) must decide": Would "story" not be better than plot here? Or episode? Or can we reword it to avoid this at all (I'm pretty sure that the plot is different to the story, but if I am wrong, please ignore this)
  • "and is widely regarded as one of the best episodes of the series": There may be an issue here that, in the UK at least, series and season can be interchanged.

This was from a quick glance, so there may well be more. I think we might still need another copyedit, and maybe someone to have another look at the prose in this review. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Prince Romerson[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Prince Romerson a Civil War soldier who saw service on land and sea and fought in the colored regiments during the war and after the war as a Buffalo Soldier in the frontier. He is uniquely claimed as a Filipino and a Hawaiian soldier who fought in the war today. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman and J. R. Kealoha and has been an A-list quality article for a while. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. I believe it is not far from a Wikipedia:Very short featured articles.... KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Iry-Hor[edit]

I apologize if this is a stupid question with an obvious answer, but how is Prince Romerson particularly notable? I understand that the involvement of Hawaiian people in the civil war can be of interest and is notable within the history of Hawaii / US relations, but what makes any one of the involved soldiers important? Is there a reason why he stands out more than the other Hawaiian soldiers who served during the war? I have looked for an answer in the article, but couldn't find it. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, he might not be "particularly notable"...I mean I have chosen a few of the most notable combatants Pitman, Kealoha, Bush and Romerson to write quality articles for. And this was just my next step attempts to get another one of them to a feature article. They were not general just soldiers and none much known about them have survived or have been written about them, so a basic look may make them not so notable. Would this not qualify then for FAC? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
KAVEBEARThere is nothing in particular in the FA guidelines pertaining to this problem. As the article is well written, seems resonably complete and neutral and its sources are reliable etc. I would think it does meet these criteria. The guidelines state however that the article should also fulfill the criteria for standard wikipedia articles, including notability WP:N. However, I don't want to contest notability: i) I think individual biographies are important in as much as they provide illustrations of the broader history; ii) contesting notability could logically lead to deletion if the subject is seen as not notable, which would be a shame given the article quality; iii) I am an inclusionist. Could you somehow emphasize how Prince Romerson's life is an illustration of the involvment of Hawaiian in the civil war? I think you could write a small introductory section "Context" starting with the first paragraph of the section "Life". This context section could be further expanded to discuss Hawaiian people in the war and the broader implications their enlistment had. In any case, the first paragraph of the "Life" section would seem more at home in a "Context section". Iry-Hor (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Iry-Hor I have made some additional changes. The shortness of the context section has to do with the fact not much is known relating to the native recruits side of the story while much is written about the war's effect on the home front or why the missionary children joined for example which are not relevant here. Also other parts that I can think of adding to a context section like records of enlistment and segregation are already included in the life section sprinkled here and there. There isn't much written about the significance of Hawaiian participation and one can argue that it might be considered trivial considering how only a small number of them enlisted (100+ out of the three million who fought); what I can think of it is that it illustrated how Hawaii was a part of the early American story and how their contribution give modern Hawaiians something to be proud of. I have also brought in the quotes of McCunn speaking about him since she stated it best about how Prince Romerson's life is an illustration of the involvment of Hawaiian in the civil war: "The military records of Hawaii-born Prince Romerson reveal both his service the US and the diverse attitudes of officers toward people of color."--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR Excellent, McCunn's remark is precisely what I was looking for as it places Prince Romerson in his historical context and gives him a role as an illustration of a topic of wider importance in US history. I think it would be good if you could include a remark in the lede, perhaps at the end, to emphasize this aspect, that is a short sentence, perhaps after "He died in 1872", with "Romerson's military career shows the diverse attitudes of officers toward people of color during and shortly after the civil war", although a less close paraphrasing of McCunn would be even better. I also have a remark concerning the two citations in the lede. The use of citations in the lede is discouraged by the MOS unless they pertain to a controversial statement that is likely to be challenged by a reader encountering it the first time, see WP:LEADCITE. I don't think your lede is controversial in anyway, so I would argue that these two citations need to be removed from the lede and put in the main body of the article, where relevant. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Iry-Hor I made the recommended changes. Please let me know if you have any other concerns.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Support I think you have well addressed my concerns and this article, while short, is of good enough quality to be FA. I wonder what Prince Romerson would have thought about this whole thing. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Ian Rose[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I supported at MilHist ACR and apart from a couple of minor things that I've tweaked I'm happy prose-wise with minor changes made since then. Not being an expert on the subject matter, I'm leaning support but would prefer someone more familiar with the subject matter (at least in general) to look it over before I commit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Peter Prevc[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 16:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent sportsperson. It has been recently passed as a GA and I believe it meets the FA criteria. The article is stable, apart from the fact that the current winter sport season is ongoing so there will be occasional updates. Tone 16:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: The level of NPOV in this article could be improved, and the structure of the article needs some thought. Conditional support: a couple more minor issues that I will fix myself, and the article will need to be kept current for this season and future ones. As this is also my first featured article review, I would like for another editor to review this article as well.
  • Second sentence, "most successful" could probably be rephrased to something less POV, even if it is supported by a track record of international success. Others may agree or disagree, but I think anyone could support changing the wording to something more objective, like stating that he has won several international awards, including...
  • Removed that part, no harm to the introduction done. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The titles of the subsections in the "Professional career" section seem a bit too... glamorous? i.e. "early successes", "runner up", "the record-breaking season". I don't think that's NPOV enough. Perhaps take those parts out and label by their objective name.
  • I think they are NPOV. I changed the early successes to early seasons. The other two are factual, he was the runner-up and the fact that he broke several records is well-supported by various sources. I could remove the titles but that would make it look boring. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I will defer to the judgement of other editors on this point. Icebob99 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 2015/16: the record-breaking season: "Prevc dominated" should be changed to less intense synonym or perhaps cut out altogether. Again, just too POV.
  • Reworded. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Moving beyond NPOV issues: Some sentence positioning choices in the fourth paragraph of the 2015/16 section: By placing the fact that Prevc slid ("slided" in the article?) in the first sentence, the reader assumes that the competition on 14 February is notable solely for that fact that he slid, and not that he won (which is probably the more notable of the two). Maybe move that fact to the second sentence or further in the paragraph.
  • Reworded. What is notable is that there have been only rare cases of sliding and winning. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The statement that the family is closely connected to ski jumping is of course intuitive but constitutes original research. We the editors do not judge whether having immediate family as referees and competitors forms a close connection. Maybe that is obvious, but the sources should be the ones that come up with that, not us.
  • Reworded. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it in the scope of the article to put that Prevc's sister is training in skiing as well? I personally don't think so, other editors may have different opinions. Since the apparent purpose of that fact is to back up the (as-of-now OR) statement that his family has close connections to skiing, I think it would be best to omit the sentence.
  • Removed. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of the second paragraph of Personal life section shouldn't be there. Even if there are sources for the statement, it's really a conclusion to be left for the reader. Imagine if on the Winston Churchill article, someone put that he did everything he did for the sake of his country and that he had a charismatic, learned personality. Now, that may be true, but it's certainly not the only viewpoint with due weight, and it's not a conclusion for an encyclopedia article either way. Even though Prevc does not have the same name recognition as Churchill, the standards for biographical articles ought to be universal regardless of accomplishments or fame.
  • Removed. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of Personal life section seems like something out of a local newspaper on their international ski star. It's great that he enjoys football and supports a Slovenian club, but that seems overly detailed and/or not part of the notability of this person.
  • Removed. --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In general, I don't think the layout of this article renders a comprehensive outlook on Prevc (criterion 1). The lead is good, but the article begins with his professional accomplishments (which do appear to be comprehensive) and shoves the Personal life section at the end in two and a half paragraphs, which makes that information unuseful. A common strategy in featured biography articles is to start out with the personal life (or perhaps the sequence of life events) that eventually climaxed in the notability of the subject, and then detail the subject's ski exploits. A lot of personal information often wouldn't be notable enough for an article by itself (like the Personal life section at the end) but needs to be present in order to satisfy the Comprehensive criterion, so it makes sense to use that personal life information to establish notability, if it has to be there. This article meets the GA criterion of broad coverage, but I don't think that the structure of the article is conducive to comprehensiveness. Icebob99 (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The personal life section has been renamed biography, moved to the top, trimmed from redundant details and expanded to present a brief overview (as suggested). @Icebob99:, I believe this is ready for a second look. Thanks! --Tone 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Structure looks much better. I'm renaming the Biography section to Early life, since the word "biography" implies that that section contains every important life event (which it doesn't). In addition, I'm renaming the World Cup section to Performance in the World Cup. :*Quick question: in the table in the Individual starts section, on row 2012/13 and column 5, what is the value q? Is that a typo? In addition, what do the different highlights in the table mean? There should be some kind of key explaining that.
Comment: Regarding the colours, they are suppose to show the positions (gold background = win, silver = 2nd place etc.), but the table looks kinda messy with all that colours, so I would suggest that only the gold background for wins is kept, and other colours removed. 86.58.36.145 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Icebob99: Ok, I believe all should be fixed now. I would assume that the colours are obvious for the first three places. It does not look messy to me and is a great way to show how strong the last season was. This could be discussed, of course. --Tone 18:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tone: I'm fine with the presence of colors in the table since I agree with their informative purpose, but I think there should be some information regarding colors in the Key section directly below. When the laypeople (whose numbers include me) read that table, they would appreciate a good faith color code in the Key, since it's information that is not necessarily clear at first glance. Icebob99 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Icebob99: I agree. The key was added.
  • I also changed the refstyle of three refs to match the overall style of the article, that is, using the cite web or cite book templates.
  • I changed my oppose !vote to conditional support. See the reasoning above, as well as some extra issues that I found. Good work! Icebob99 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "will be eligible for Athlete of the Year, an award to be voted on at the end of the year": Was it voted on at the end of 2016? If not, this is wrong. If so, what was the vote?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! The website says that the voting is now closed so the results will probably be out soon. --Tone 13:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart)[edit]

Nominator(s): Syek88 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of Mozart's late piano concertos. It became a Good Article a while ago, thanks to a review conducted by Tim Riley. I encourage anyone who is not familiar with the work to listen to it while reading the article! Syek88 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:August_Gerasch_Vor_dem_alten_Burgtheater.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • This has been done, I believe. Syek88 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The tags and description on the excerpts should reflect the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I have amended the licensing tags for the three score excerpts on Wikipedia Commons to reflect the copyright status of Mozart's original work (out-of-copyright, obviously). I hope this is what you meant.

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in very good shape, and I'm glad that I took your advice to listen to the music as I read it. I have only the follwing comments

  • Not sure what the norms/guidelines are for FAs on classical music, but does "The concerto is divided into the following three movements..." need a reference?
  • I am not sure that there are norms or guidelines. I have added a reference in any event.
  • "there is a very simple four-measure bridge passage that Girdlestone calls to be ornamented by the soloist, arguing that "to play it as printed is to betray the memory of Mozart"" - why is not deviating from the score a betrayal? Is it due to an obvious flaw in the surviving original of the score, etc?
  • I have expanded upon Girdlestone's quote: he says that the passage as written by Mozart is a "sketch". Girdlestone's talk about betraying the memory of Mozart is probably a reference to Mozart being known as a performer who improvised a lot - not to improvise his own compositions, especially when they are mere "sketches" - would thus betray his memory. But I'm reading into Girdlestone's mind there.
  • I have to confess that I couldn't follow the technical language in the sections on the three movements, but the quotes from various musicians and experts helped to explain it. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was mindful of trying to have enough technical language for those who could understand it, while also not making it impenetrable. I am most grateful for your comments, thank you. Syek88 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Those changes address my comments, and I'm pleased to support this nomination: great work. Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Support (recusing as coordinator on this one): I've read this a couple of times now, and I can find little to grumble about. I can just about hang on to the musical sections and have a reasonable idea what is going on. There might be things in there I've missed, so I'd really like a musical specialist to have a look as well. With that qualification, it looks good to me from a prose point of view and seems very comprehensive. I think it does what a lot of work about Mozart doesn't do, which is to explain what made him different. Good work. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I am glad that is what you took from the article. I will mention at the Classical Music Wikiproject your request for a musical specialist. Tim Riley conducted the Good Article review but I understand that he is no longer on Wikipedia. Syek88 (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Operation Paravane[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This article covers the final, and most successful, of the air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz which were conducted while she was based at Kaafjord, Norway in 1944. The raid was among the most complex British aerial operations of World War II, and involved both of the Royal Air Force's elite heavy bomber units (including the famous "Dambusters" squadron) armed with huge Tallboy bombs and some ineffectual mines. Staging through a bed-bug ridden base in a remote area of northern Russia, the bombers only managed a single hit on the battleship. However, the damage caused by the Tallboy bomb was enough to damage Tirpitz beyond repair. In addition to covering the raid (which over very quickly), the article also describes the dramatic flights conducted by the British bombers, and the contribution made by Norwegian secret agents - with User:Manxruler providing very considerable input on this topic.

The article is a follow up to the three on Royal Navy air attacks on Tirpitz which I've developed to FA class over recent years (Operation Tungsten, Operation Mascot and Operation Goodwood) and I'm hopeful that it can also go the distance. It passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in early November, and has since been improved and copyedited. Thank you in advance for your time and comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2016 (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) 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

  • This article is in fine shape. I made a few minor copy edit tweaks, but it reads really well, covers everything you would expect, is well footnoted and the references all appear reliable.
    • Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. Just a few queries but nothing major:

  • I know only the lead so you don't want to get bogged down in details but what does "no longer practical for the Germans to sail her to a major port" mean?
    • I've changed this to "possible", which is more accurate Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it worth mentioning that Norway was under Nazi occupation at the time, and wasn't harbouring the Tirpitz in its waters voluntarily?
    • Good idea: done Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Why was the Tirpitz in (more or less) one place for such a long time?
    • Because it was a well defended anchorage in a location where she she could menace the Allied convoys. I've added a bit more on this. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Which bases did the bombers leave from? For obvious reasons, there were a lot of RAF bases along the east coast of Britain during WWII. If there's a long list it's probably not worth including, I'm just curious.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments -- recusing from coord duties, I didn't get to review at MilHist ACR so have read top to bottom here, copyediting as I went; great work as always, Nick, specifics follow...

  • Fine with prose but pls check I haven't misinterpreted anything as I tweaked the wording.
  • Structure is straightforward and logical.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
  • Detailed, but not excessively so.
  • Source-wise, all look reliable and I only found one formatting error that I fixed. I guess my only query -- and it echoes what I said at another of these that was at A-Class -- is that while I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth with the non-English (i.e. Norwegian) sources, these do throw into sharp relief what appears to be a lack of German and, for that matter, Russian sources. This was a multi-national operation with at least some involvement from British, US, Australian, Norwegian, Soviet and, on the receiving end, German forces, but unless I missed something the last two are not represented in the sources, and this might be an opportunity to provide something from all perspectives. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Apus[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a small constellation. A few of us have been working on getting all constellation articles improved over the years. This is a small one and easy to digest. Will address issues pronto so have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

You could write these in your sleep by now, so no real problems, just a couple of niggles to show I've actually read it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if you can avoid repeating "feet" in para 1, but you should be able to avoid repeating "brightest star" in para 2
yep. first I can't see how but second now rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The separate components can be resolved with binoculars, a telescope, or the naked eye.— if resolvable with the naked eye, aren't the optical instruments redundant here?
good point - rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • approximately 2059— in what sense is a 4-sig fig number approximate?
the source has that number. All of these are estimates for very distant objects...which gives me an idea.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: Overall it looks good, and appears to satisfy the FA criteria. However, it looks like the statement about the younger age of IC 4499 has been shown to be incorrect. Walker et al (2011) give an age of 12±1 Ga.[42] Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

aha interesting. debate to that level of detail probably not notable enough for the parent article so removed the young age statement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: Recusing as coordinator for this one. Up to the usual standard, and just a few nit-picks from me, none of which affect my support at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • "Bayer called it Apis Indica while Johannes Kepler and his son-in-law Jacob Baertsch called it Apus or Avis Indica.": This is the only time we mention Kepler; famous as he is, I think we need a word to say why he matters here. Also, there is no context for where they called it this. Bayer did so in an Atlas, so I assume Kepler and Baertsch didn't only do so over the dinner table! I also wonder if "while " is the best word here as it could imply at the same time in this context.
tricky - they were all notable German astronomers - so I added "fellow astronomers" to emphasise this was part of their business (mapping and naming the sky) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Apus later lost some of its tail when Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille used those stars to establish Octans in the 1750s": Coming straight after the section on the Bird of Paradise having its feet taken off, this is a little distracting, and I had to re-read to realise we had returned to the constellation.
Aaww, I thought it was quite cute. Anyway, does this help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "visible to observers south of 7°N": Which would be where?
Brilliant! been here over ten years and never twigged we had these - so fixed like this, as source doesn't say what places these parallels these align with and wouldn't want to do OR.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Can we link or explain "main sequence"?
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "It spent much of its life as a blue-white (B-type) main sequence star before expanding, cooling and brightening as it used up its core hydrogen,[14] now having swollen to 48 times the Sun's diameter,[15] and shining with a luminosity approximately 928 times that of the Sun, with a surface temperature of 4312 K.": Could this sentence be broken up a bit? There's quite a lot going on.
split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Nearby Zeta is Iota Apodis": Nearby confused me at first, as I thought "Nearby Zeta" was the subject of this sentence. Would "near" work, as I think that would avoid the problem.
duly tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I often wonder do non-science people realise what ± means? I'm not sure there is an easy way to explain it, unless there is a link. (And I'm not suggesting removing the symbol, just wondering aloud)
I used to say "around" but the margins of error make it more precise. I agree it is hard to link or explain. I tend to think it is common enough now for people to understand what it means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "has turned out to be a brown dwarf": Turned out is slightly unencyclopedic, especially in an article like this.
tweaked - trying to use plain english Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "a predicted mass": Can we expand this just a touch so that the lay reader doesn't think that this is just a wild guess.
changed to "calculated" - it's rather complex how this is done and might be a bit wordy for this article. Need to think about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
That works perfectly for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we need to say when it became a "modern constellation"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought that by reading the article it becomes clear that it was 1922/30 that the constellations were set in stone....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, missed that, sorry! Sarastro1 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Apus IAU.svg: Free image on Commons used to illustrate the constellation, a good usage. License supported by source website.
  • File:BayerUran1661apuschamtri.jpg: Free image on Commons, used to show the old portrayal of the constellation. Changed the license templates a little to use a broader and more precise one, but unquestionably PD for age.
  • File:Constellation Apus.jpg: Free image on Commons. Used to show how the constellation appears in the sky. Source website appears to imply a noncommercial license, though - is a free license specified somewhere? It also says own work.
  • File:Potw1431a.jpg: Free image on Commons, illustrating a stellar object discussed in the article. Seems like a legit free license as well.

Might want to use ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Spalding War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Another war memorial. Curiously, this one is not for a big city or a county or a rich company, but a relatively obscure town in Lincolnshire. It's interesting for several reasons, not least the personal tragedy suffered by an aristocratic family that led to its creation. Also curious is that little was written about it from its unveiling until relatively recently. Nevertheless, the article has passed an A-class review within the military history project and I think it's of featured quality. Of course, I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 18 December 2016 (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) 23:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Close to a Support:

  • A nice article. Some thoughts below:
  • "The memorial as-built consists of a brick pavilion" - in the context of the lead, I wasn't sure what the "as-built" was contrasting with (e.g. the first design, later modifications?)
    • I've done away with the "as-built" in the lead.
  • "The memorial as-built consists of a brick pavilion at the south end of the garden and a Stone of Remembrance (designed by Lutyens for the Imperial War Graves Commission, for which he was one of the principal architects), both at the head of a long reflecting pool, which incorporates the remains of an 18th-century canal." - I'd advise losing the bit in brackets - I don't think it is helping the flow of the sentence, and doesn't appear vital for the lead.
    • Agreed.
  • "In the aftermath of the First World War, thousands of war memorials were built across Britain. Amongst the most prominent designers of memorials was architect Sir Edwin Lutyens..." We're picking up the story at an odd moment here. The lead has told us that the plan originated in January 1918, when the war was still ongoing - this is roughly where the next paragraph picks up. So at this point in the main story, there haven't been many war memorials built in England and Lutyens isn't a famous designer of them. The background is therefore giving us the aftermath of the work at Spalding, not really the pre-story. Would this work better if the article described the situation regarding memorials as of early 1918, and pushed this bit down in to the final part of the history section?
  • "Lutyens designed the headstone for McLaren's grave in Busbridge in Surrey, where he was also responsible for the village's war memorial,[3] and had previously designed the McLarens' London house on Cowley Street in Westminster." - the sequencing here is a little out I think. Isn't the village war memorial post-war (1922?); this gives the impression that that Lutyens has already produced it in 1918.
  • "McLaren had hoped to include space for the families of those commemorated to add their own epitaphs—though she insisted that her husband not receive any special commemoration beyond that afforded to the other casualties—but this proved impractical due to the amount of space that would have been required" - is "though" right here? It implies a contrast with the first clause, but the content shows that it is supporting it (i.e. she had insisted her husband not receive any special treatment and had hoped to included space for the other families; this proved impractical however"?)
    • I've reworded this; see what you think.
  • "functional schemes like the conversion of Ayscoughfee Hall into a youth centre" - really, really nit-picky... I think you mean "such as", not "like". ;)
    • If you insist!
  • "The youth centre and Lutyens' proposal emerged as the leading proposals " - "leading options"? (would reduce the repetition)
    • Done.
  • "Henry McLaren (Francis McLaren's brother, Barbara's brother-in-law)" - do you need "Francis McLaren's brother" here? I don't think that she could have had a brother-in-law named McLaren who wasn't Francis's brother, could she?
    • Done.
  • "The stone is a monolith (carved from a single piece of rock)," - I was wondering if this could just say "The stone is carved from a single piece of rock,", which would remove the need to explain what a monolith is.
    • If it really bothers you it can go; I just like the word "monolith".
  • "with a contemporary Peace Garden located to the east" - contemporary to the 1920s, or contemporary to now?
    • Clarified (hopefully).
  • "The unveiling took place at a ceremony on 9 June 1922..." - it felt odd jumping back to 1922 after the architectural description of the gardens in 2016. Personally, I'd have gone for doing the history, then giving a modern description of the architecture etc.
  • "until Tim Skelton's Lutyens and the Great War (first published 2008)" - the brackets felt odd here. "until the publication of Tim Skelton's Lutyens and the Great War in 2008"?
    • Done.
  • Are there any details from local newspapers etc. about the adding of the additional names in 2015? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments; I'll come back for the remaining points later in the week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Iridescent[edit]

Reviewing this version. As usual, I've intentionally not looked at anyone else's comments or the talkpage so there may be some duplication.

Lead[edit]
  • Just a suggestion, but you may want to include the pronunciation of "Ayscoughfee" either in parentheses, a footnote, or as one of those fancy-pants embedded sound links. I've lived in England for over 20 years, and I have no idea whether this is pronounced "ice-coffee", "aye-skog-fee", "ess-koff" or something else, so people in other countries will certainly struggle;
    • I've borrowed the pronunciation form the article about the hall, but I have no idea if that's how it's pronounced locally.
  • The town's Member of Parliament Francis McLaren, was killed in the war is true, but to me seems a little misleading as it implies he died in combat; looking at the Francis McLaren article, he actually died in a plane crash in Scotland;
    • Fixed.
  • I'm no fan of using the "inflation" template for capital expenditure—because it's based on CPI it's misleading for anything other than household staples—but you should probably include something to give the idea of what £3,500 was worth then, as otherwise it may as well be a random number. ("The average labourer's wage at the time was around £200 a year", "a typical house in the area cost £400", etc.);
    • I have absolutely no idea what a labourer's wage was or what a hose in Spalding cost in the 1920s I'm afraid; at least the inflation template would give a rough idea, if only I could get it to stop spitting out nonsense, but as you say even that's not much use.
  • "Painted stone flags" should probably change to "stones painted with the Union Flag and White Ensign", since the common usage of flag stone means something entirely different.
    • But a "stone flag" is not a flagstone and I don't think there's any risk of confusing them. "Stones painted with" sounds like lumps of rock with patterns painted onto them rather than intricate sculptures.
Background[edit]
  • I'd suggest including photographs either of Lutyens or of one or both McLarens here ({{multipleimage}} is your friend). This section is currently unillustrated so another image won't cause sandwiching, and it would solve the problem of the article being illustrated by four very similar photos.
    • There are no free photos of Lutyens (the only one of him used on his own article is fair use); the only free photo of Barbara is from when she was a girl; there is a free photo of Francis, but the connection might be a bit tenuous.
Commissioning[edit]
  • The chronology here is somewhat garbled, as the Background section immediately preceding begins with "In the aftermath of the First World War", the Cenotaph (1920) and an exhibition in 1919, but all of a sudden we're now back in 1918 with the War very much still ongoing (and the winner by no means certain). As I read this, McLaren approached Lutyens before any of his other memorials had been built. This probably needs tidying up to give the actual dates, as if I'm reading that right then it might account for why this design is so different to his other memorials.
    • Working on this.
History and design[edit]
  • If you can find one, this really needs a photo of the internal design. It's not reasonable to expect the reader to visualise what "two painted stone flags, three panels and a central panel, and a stone of remembrance" actually looks like in practice—while there are lots of photos in the article, they're all distance-shots;
    • Those are the only free photos available; I scoured Commons, Geograph, Flickr, and Google Images when I was writing this; I see Carcharoth suggests linking to some non-free photos below.
  • Regarding A central panel bearing further names was added in 2015, do we have any idea why the authorities suddenly decided to alter the memorial after 95 years, and who took that decision?
    • All I can find is a brief report in the local rag (linked above); i'll add it in, but it's not much.
  • Presumably when it was erected, the Stone of Remembrance didn't include the dates of the Second World War. When was that added, and was the memorial itself also altered at the time to include a list of WWII casualties or does it still only list those killed in WWI?
    • It only lists WWI casualties; it was fairly common for the dates of WWII to be added to a town's WWI memorial later on, but if this was reported on at the time, I can't find anything.
  • The pavilion and the pool are surrounded by yew hedges—were these there already, or did Lutyens install them as part of the design?
    • Not in the sources, I'm afraid. It seems there were already yew hedges in the gardens, but whether these ones were added by Lutyens or just remodelled like the canal isn't specified.
  • By a modern peace garden located to the east, do you mean Lutyens designed it in a modernist style, or that it wasn't in the initial plans and was installed at a more modern date?
    • I've found the date (1994) and added that.
  • Was not featured in any publication about Lutyens' works until the publication of Tim Skelton's Lutyens and the Great War in 2008 is sourced to Skelton himself, who has an obvious motivation to boast about how comprehensive he is—do we have a better source for that?
    • It's difficult to prove a negative; I'll see if Historic England have anything to say, but I have several books about Lutyens sitting on my bookshelf for this project and none of them mention Spalding (in fact they largely overlook his war memorials altogether, which is possibly why they're only now being written about).
  • The sources may not exist for this, but does anything exist on its reception? If it was widely condemned when it was unveiled, that might account for why Lutyens didn't re-use the design in his later memorials, and why it slipped into obscurity—at the moment "an exceptional departure" from the usual style of Lutyens' war memorials is just kind of floating there without any explanation.
    • Unfortunately we're dealing with a relatively obscure memorial in a small town in Lincolnshire, not a major monument on Whitehall; whereas everybody who was anybody had something to say about the Cenotaph, this one seems to have gone largely unnoticed. The only thing I can offer, which is a combination of OR, SYNTH, and speculation, is that most of his war memorial commissions for major towns and cities resulted from the Cenotaph and many of his later memorials were based on it; Spalding being somewhat off the beaten track, it never really registered.

All fairly minor quibbles, and I assume unless anything problematic comes to light this will be a support. ‑ Iridescent 13:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm still working on a few things, so I'll have more replies later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Re-review[edit]

A few further thoughts on re-reading;

  • Does it really need the coordinates both in the corner and in the infobox?
  • I've taken the liberty of adding a photo of the clock and carillon in their current location. As I understand it, the clock is just as much "Spalding War Memorial" as Lutyens's structure; plus, this is quite a striking image and including it at this point breaks up an unavoidable flow of rather similar images. Ideally IMO it would be paired with a photo of the clock in situ on the Corn Exchange; since the Corn Exchange has been demolished for 50 years, you could probably get away with slipping a fair-use image of it (this one might be good, and is blurry enough to be of minimal commercial value but clear enough to show the clock clearly) past Nikkimaria's watchful eyes…
  • …and searching for 1922-published (and thus out-of-copyright) photos of the clock leads me here, which might be worth stripping of anything you can pass off as fair use. (I assume they won't raise any objections, since a Wikipedia TFA will generate public interest in their collection.)
  • Is "The solid rear wall bears two painted stone flags" correct? Looking at this photo, it looks to me like the stone flags are on metal poles embedded in concrete blocks on the floor, although admittedly it's not entirely clear whether they also attach to the wall.
  • On the subject of Flickr photos, if you can persuade this guy to change the licencing for this photo, you really should, as despite having read the article top-to-bottom quite a few times it's only on seeing his photo that it's really made sense to me what's being described and how the parts relate to each other. Since his interest are listed as "trains, churches, canals and weather" if he's not already on Wikipedia he certainly should be, and Flickr users tend to lose their scruples about protecting their rights when you point out that as part of a FA their photo will literally be seen by a thousand times as many people as will see it languishing in a Flickr album.
  • How do we get from she insisted that her husband not receive any special commemoration beyond that afforded to the other casualties to A separate stone is dedicated to Francis McLaren in the space of a couple of paragraphs?

These are all quibbles rather than serious issues, and I'm happy to support. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Carcharoth[edit]

Comments (picking up on a couple of points raised above):

  • The death of Francis McLaren in Scotland was a flying accident while a trainee pilot in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. This was a relatively common occurrence at the time. Not a combat death, but a bit more precise than either 'killed in the war' or 'died in a plane crash'.
  • I haven't been able to find a freely licensed photo of the interior. The painted flags and Stone of Remembrance are visible in one of the images used: this one. Better detail is needed. There are some images out there that could be linked in the external links if all else fails. One is here (Flickr photo). There is also a collection of images at the War Memorials Online page, mostly showing the poor condition at the time of photographing, plus one of the memorial garden. That should be an external link at the very least. There is also a hint there that some restoration work should be happening (or has happened) but I can't find any record at the War Memorials Trust website.
  • The IWM War Memorial Register page here is used in the references. Given that the IWM register is (or aims to be) a standard reference for war memorials in the UK, might it not be worth giving that link in the infobox or external links? ('IWM memorial ID' is a property on Wikidata for what that is worth).
  • It is definitely worth having more on the later history of the memorial, such as the recent commemoration events and the addition of names. An important point: the central panel and its inscription was not added in 2015. The inscription was present from the start. It was only additional names that were added in 2015. The phrasing used in the article gets this wrong at present. The Flickr picture I linked to above was taken in 2014, before the additional names were added. I haven't found any pictures yet from after the additions were made.
  • About the Lutyens design elements and influence on his later memorials (this is mentioned in the article, but does need more explaining or putting in context). The stone flag element of the design (which Lutyens had wanted on the Whitehall Cenotaph but that didn't happen) are seen at Etaples and also on the Rochdale Cenotaph. From the Historic England listing the 'Tuscan pavilion is a precursor to the shelter buildings built in the cemeteries of the Western Front'. Pictures of those exist and could be put in the article. Identifying such architectural features with a reliable source can be a bit of a pain though.
  • Bit of a stretch, but does a photo exist of the 'earlier castellated tower' that this memorial replaced? Or even of the general area before the memorial was built?

Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Few additional comments on looking at it again this morning:

  • Northampton War Memorial (a featured article nominated by the nominator of this article) mentions the 'stone flags' design element and goes into some detail about how they are a common element in several memorials by Lutyens. It seems odd that this level of detail is missing from this article. Is this just not mentioned in the sources for this one, or was this level of detail left out for some other reason?
    • I can include it if you want. It just didn't seem relevant here. It is a common design element but its use here doesn't seem to have had much impact or been commented on anywhere (unlike Northampton, which was one of the last to actually be erected, albeit a relatively early design).
  • The wider history of Ayscoughfee Hall is already covered in the article. There should be more on the tower that preceded the memorial and the plans for the 'Victory Clock and Carillon'. Some sources that mention this are here (the 'Owl Tower') and here ("This memorial project was originally meant to occupy the site of the present memorial at Ayscoughfee Hall. On this site was a folly - a 50 foot high Owl tower. However despite protests the Owl Tower was demolished by Spalding Urban District Council and the present Cloister style memorial designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens was constructed on the site."). Pictures of the Owl Tower are here and here. This is mentioned in books as well, such as here. At the very least, the name 'Owl Tower' (built in 1848 and variously described as a 50-foot-high Victorian Gothic folly) should be included in the article.
    • I've added some minimal detail about it but I'm reluctant to add more without better sources. Neither Skelton nor HE go into any detail about it (the listing description for the garden doesn't even mention it), Pevsner gives it the briefest of mentions, and those sources look like local history enthusiasts rather than reliable secondary sources.
  • There seems to be some confusion as to whether the clock and carillon plan was originally for the Owl Tower and later changed to the corn exchange. It seems the bells were funded and purchased, and a tower and memorial arch erected at some point. See the IWM Memorials Register record. Not sure how much of this is worth mentioning. (The bells and clock are still there today, see picture here).
  • You mention Spalding Urban District Council. It would be worth mentioning that changes in local government (in the 1970s) means that the current custodians of the memorial are South Holland District Council.
  • "the connection with Barbara McLaren may have led to his commission for the Royal Naval Division Memorial in London after she married a prominent officer in that unit" - this feels too speculative and too much detail to warrant being in the lead section of the article.
  • The lead says "in conjunction with a clock on the town's corn exchange building." This contradicts the body of the article which says "with a carillon on the corn exchange building". Is it possible to go back to your sources and be clearer on what actually happened here? (Possibly it was both, possibly plans changed again after the vote).
  • "curved so slightly as to barely be visible to the naked eye" - maybe make clearer that you mean the curvature (entasis) is barely visible to the naked eye, not the Stone itself. Entasis would be more useful to link than monolith.
  • "modern peace garden" - see here. If you are going to mention this, it might be worth expanding on the context of what Spalding did to commemorate the Second World War and why there are proposals to add WW2 names to this memorial. (FWIW, the WW2 names appear to be in the local churches). EDIT: I did find this for what it is worth. (added 00:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)).
  • "McLaren and her son" - she had two sons at this time (Martin McLaren and Guy Lewis Ian McLaren). Both would have been under 10. Was it just one of them with her, and do we know which one? I suppose it is unlikely the source will give that level of detail. This detail probably came originally from a report in a newspaper like The Times or a local newspaper. Similar reports will cover any re-dedication of the Stone of Remembrance for the dead of WW2, which will answer one of the outstanding questions above. (EDIT: Having scoured various news archives, I think only local papers will have details on this. 01:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC))

Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  • About Skelton and Gliddon's claim that this memorial hasn't featured in previous publications about Lutyens and his works, this memorial was listed here (what looks like a 1981 gallery exhibition publication), but seems to have only been listed and not more than that, so maybe the two co-authors (Gliddon should be mentioned together with Skelton) are indeed the first to actually write about the memorial in any proper sense.
  • It may be useful to try and get hold of a copy of The Builder, Volume 122 (1922) as there is a feature on this memorial on page 906 with illustrations (this is at the time of the unveiling). It is available from the links here, but not outside the USA unfortunately. I did find some pictures in another contemporary architectural journal (Building News and Engineering Journal, volume 118, 1920) of the plans, though from before the actual construction took place (so the details differ). See here and here. The associated text is here. Also here (illustration on the right) and the associated text here. Those illustrations (and the designs they show) should be public domain. I may try and upload them at some point soon to Commons. If used, the image captions would need to make clear they were only showing proposed plans, not the actual plans eventually used. The other architectural journals don't seem to be available online for that period. (For more on how such journals are an important part of the historical record for architecture in their periods, see here).
    • I did manage to get access to volume 122 (a good friend lent me access to VPN) but was disappointed: the feature on page 906 is a full-page photo of the banqueting hall of Cardiff Castle; Spalding gets a short paragraph of prose on page 904.

Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Update: I've now uploaded the images and put them in a gallery on the article talk page for consideration: Talk:Spalding War Memorial#Gallery of memorial plans. That makes clearer what the original plans were by Lutyens, and how much the plans were modified by. Whether or not this was the 'unmodified plan' that was part of the vote, I don't know, but these images do show the War Stone at a different orientation, the presence of a Lutyens cross, the u-shaped cloister garth, and the lily pond. The final form of the memorial has the stone facing the canal and just a shelter, rather than a full-blown u-shaped cloister garth.
  • Looking at those 1920 plans again, I am not sure that the following bits from the article are correct: "a plan for a grand memorial cloister sited in the middle of a circular pond" (lead section) and "Lutyens proposed a U-shaped cloister around a Stone of Remembrance with a cross, all mounted at the centre of a circular lily pool". At least in the 1920 proposals, the lily pond is a separate feature. Was there ever really a proposal to surround the entire memorial complex with a lily pond? That sounds... ambitious (but would be typical for Lutyens).
  • The 1919 exhibition catalogue for the Royal Academy War Memorials Exhibition of 1919 is online here. I think the Spalding War Memorial plans are there... Actually, the numbers refer to the exhibition numbers. The catalogue is complete, but just a listing.

Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: To save space, I won't reply inline to each bullet point. I think I've actioned almost all of your suggestions, or I've replied inline with an explanation. I believe all that's left is to add a little more background about the state of war memorials in 1918, and to tidy up what's now the "impact" section and add some detail about the shelters in the CWGC cemeteries (sources permitting). I'd welcome your thoughts and those of Iridescent and Hchc2009 on the progress so far. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes. Some additional comments/responses:
  • The clock part of the proposal was also a carillon, and is described as a 'chiming clock'. The extensive account given on pages 48 to 57 of Lutyens and The Great War makes it very clear (it is identified as a carillon on page 54 in the account of Dr Farrow's address to the public meeting). The reason I am pressing on this point is that the article says that the option that won the public vote included the clock. This is why I feel something needs to be said about this, even if only in the form of a footnote or an external link to further reading. The clock and carillon clearly exist today. Just falling silent and saying nothing more about the further history here feels wrong.
  • Fair enough, I've added a paragraph about it now.
  • Personally, I'd include (as external links if necessary) the War Memorials Online page, the online copy of the Royal Academy exhibition catalogue (maybe better used as a primary source to accompany the secondary source), a link to a close-up photo of the memorial panels and stone flags, and a link to a photo of the Owl Tower. They would all be of interest to a reader of this article, and would therefore be suitable as external links, IMO.
  • Do you intend to use the images I put on the article talk page? They would need an image review.
  • I've now included three of them; thank you very much for those!
  • Is it worth including the connections with Francis McLaren's childhood home of Bodnant Garden? The flowers laid by Barbara McLaren and her sons were from Bodnant Garden, and Skelton says on page 56 of Lutyens and The Great War that the setting is "very reminiscent of the well known view of Pin Mill" (see picture here).
  • Yes, it's worth a brief mention.
  • Should there not be a link somewhere to a list of the names of those on the memorial? There are several possibilities: 1, 2, 3. The first one is nice, the second one is full of details, the third one from the IWM should be authoritative, but in my experience they get spellings and names wrong far too often. They also miss out Francis McLaren (I checked, he is not on the IWM list for this memorial). I also have a horrible feeling that the figure of 224 currently given in the article for the number of names is not right. If you count the visible names, there are 250 (including McLaren but not including the names added in 2014). Where did you get the figure of 224 from? Most sources use that, so if it is wrong there is a bit of a problem. This source (the second one listed above) quotes from a 1923 account in Ayscoughfee and its History, stating that there are 250 names (but actually gives 252, the extra two names are Henry Beecham and Fred Freeman). I have no idea where the number of 224 came from and how it got established in the sources out there, but it is clearly wrong. I suspect the IWM register got the number wrong and everyone else has been following that ever since. If anyone wants to double-check, they can use this photo and this photo and compare with the list here. Further update: There are 26 names on the memorial that are not on the IWM list of 224 names: Francis McLaren and the 25 names at the end of the memorial list, from VINE, R. to YORKE, ALBERT P.
  • I've included the South Holland Life page as an external link. It's a shame the IWM's records are so poor but that's probably due to bad OCR given the sheer number of names they endeavour to list. I got 224 from Historic England (who list the IWM among their sources), but given that now two sources seem to agree on the exact number I've removed it altogether and gone with "over 200".
  • There are two additional inscriptions that are not mentioned yet in the article: (1) the stone mentioning Francis McLaren (visible at lower right here and at the bottom of this page) with the inscription "This stone commemorates Francis Walter Stafford McLaren Member of Parliament for the Spalding Division 1910-1917 when he fell in the service of his country at the age of 31." (this is difficult to source, Google it and only two websites have this); and (2) the inscription above the names: "Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let light perpetual shine upon them." This can be sourced from several of the references you are already using. Whether you want to say where that comes from I don't know, but it should be included.
  • And I've added these now as well.
Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
NB: this gives a total of around 270 names (which I think is after the modern additions). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Carcharoth, Hchc2009, and Iridescent: Many apologies for the delay; I've been hard pressed for more than small snippets of time lately and didn't have as much time over Christmas as I expected. I believe I've addressed everything outstanding (with a lot of help from Carcharoth on the impact section) but it's possible I've missed something. If you could take a look to see if you have any more concerns, I'd be very much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
All looks good to me. You will need another image review, and someone needs to review what I added, but I don't have any more concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry, there was one thing I forgot to mention: the lead section doesn't say who the memorial was raised for - the infobox says it, but the lead section should say this as well. War memorials cover a wide range, so even though this is an example of the most common kind (the local village/town/parish memorials), it still needs to be explicitly stated. Carcharoth (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Will look at this tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It's changed a bit since I last read it through properly; will try to do a second run through this evening, HJ. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Th substance is mostly the same but some things have moved around or been expanded slightly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ben Crosby[edit]

Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Questions?) 05:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Third time's a charm? I really hope so.

After contributing just 35 edits since May (including an incredibly embarrassing single edit in all of November) due to a variety of off-wiki issues, which happened to be the primary reason why this failed the last FAC, I'm trying to get back into editing, and I figured that the best way to start out is to finally finish dealing with this article. I've recently gone back and fixed all of the outstanding concerns from last time, and although I've been wrong with this kind of a statement in the past, I think that this miniscule nine paragraph article is now free of all of my various flaws.

And just to give a very brief description: Ben Crosby was a late-19th century football player and coach, who basically accomplished nothing with his life before dying at 22 from Typhoid. He spent one year as a head coach of an important team and gained notability in his playing career for being worse than someone younger than him. I hope you like the article!

Thanks to everyone who reviews this. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 05:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I only had one issue last time, and I see you've edited to remove some of the repetition, but I think if you made it "Crosby died on December 29, 1892 at the age of 24" it would be clear that he died from typhoid. As it stands, since "succumbs" usually means "died", I think it's still repetitious. Alternatively you could edit the first mention of typhoid to remove the word "succumbs" and just say that it he contracted typhoid; I'm guessing you phrase it as you do because the source doesn't make it clear whether he contracted typhoid at that point, or the "severe cold" was typhoid all along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I think I understand what you mean now, and I've changed the paragraph accordingly. Thanks for coming back and reviewing again, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. The above was the only remaining issue from my previous review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Mike. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As before, quotes should only be used minimally and only really for something memorable. Both of the following should be eminently fixable
"'contracted a "severe cold" - can be dequoted "URTI" or something, "fell very ill with a cold/URTI"
his illness intensified and he apparently "succumbed to an attack of typhoid fever". - "his illness intensified and he apparently fell gravely ill from typhoid fever." (or somesuch)

Otherwise looking on track for FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about taking so long to give you a response; I'll try to address your concerns later today. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Wow, you corrected everything I saw on the BC#2 FAC, and did it in a very clear and concise manner. No other objections. I'm happy to support this. — Maile (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for following up and for the support. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Source review – All of the references appear reliable and the links are working fine. The only issue I see with the formatting is that there is a mixture of 10- and 13-digit ISBN numbers; I believe the MoS favors the 13-digit ones. This is easy to fix; go here and type the 10-digit number in (click a button to hyphenate them), and it spits out the 13-digit number. Other than that admittedly minor concern, everything looks good in the sourcing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Wolfenstein 3D[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 15:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Odd as it seems now in the era of ever-more realistic shooter games, churned out in yearly installments, back in 1992 there really wasn't such as thing as a "first person shooter"—not only did the name not exist, but what few first person video games with guns that existed were stealth ones, low on speed and violence; even the idea of a 3D game on computers at all was a novel one, confined to flight simulators and slow RPGs. So, when Wolfenstein 3D burst on to the scene with frenetic action and never-before-seen levels of blood and violence, it sent shockwaves through the industry, launching companies, distribution models, and genres into the mainstream. I rewrote the article on this classic game from top to bottom this July, took it through GA, and now I think it's ready to go for FAC. Thank you all for reviewing the article, and I hope it reminds you that sometimes you don't need a dramatic plot to make a game fun—sometimes you just have to shoot mecha-Hitler in the face with a chaingun while playing the "grandfather" of first person shooter games. --PresN 15:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2[edit]

The article looks in good shape although I think the date "May 5" from the section "Release" lacks a year. Also, remember to add alts to the images. Still, I'll just support it. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Added alt text; the year is missing from the sentence because "May 5, 1992" is listed 2 sentences prior. Thanks! --PresN 03:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

A nice read, a couple of minor quibbles below:

He and designer Tom Hall designed the game, built on Carmack's engine, to be fast, violent, and unlike other computer games on the market at the time. - if the speed and violence are the reason for the difference then the "and" should go...scans funny for me.
Some folks might think "sans Wilbur" a tad informal, but I don't mind...just sayin'
...led id to receive "five calls a month" from investment companies... - I'd rewrite to dequote.

Otherwise looking on target for FA-hood....

@Casliber: reworked to remove the "and", and dequoted the "five calls" quote. --PresN 20:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

ok all good then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

I spent an unwisely large chunk of my early teens playing Wolf 3D and this article does a good job of covering this landmark game. I have the following comments:

  • "FormGen developed an additional two episodes for the game, while Apogee released a pack of over 800 fan-created levels" - is the extent of fan-editing and distribution worth noting in the lead and later in the article? I remember buying floppy disks full of levels for this game!
  • The plot section is currently unreferenced.
MOS:PLOT says The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. (I'm not involved with this article at all, just happened to see the FAC page)--IDVtalk 00:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This section also seems to credit the game with a bit more plot than I remember - do sources support saying that it had a fairly limited plot? It's notable that in the "Development" section it seems like the plot was added towards the end of the game's development.
  • "that he felt kept the game from playing smooth and fast" - this wording is a bit awkward (also, the previous sentence uses "smoother and faster", so a bit more variation would be helpful)
  • The "release" section doesn't cover the game's distribution via shareware (from memory, the first episode was widely distributed this way, often on disks on the covers of magazines)
  • " While some prior computer shooter games existed, they were generally scrolling shooters, while Wolfenstein 3D helped move the market towards first-person shooters" - this could probably be rephrased to avoid repeating "while" and "shooters" in this sentence
  • The exactly dates of publishing for books aren't needed in the "sources" section: please tweak this to just the years. The location the books were published at should also be noted. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Note: I will get to this review and the below image issue soon; between the holidays and real-life events I have limited Wikipedia time until January 10 so there may be a delay. --PresN 00:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, finally back in town. @Nick-D: responses in order:
  • I don't have a good source for Wolf3D having a larger mod/distribution community than other games, moreso than the one line in Legacy "Although Wolfenstein 3D was not designed to be editable or modified, players developed character and level editors to create original alterations to the game's content." and the fact that Apogee sold a pack of levels. Modding/selling add-ons may have been rampant for the game (especially since id and Apogee loved it and didn't try to crack down at all), but its all anecdotal. One day maybe we'll have a big sourceable article on the history of video game mods/player levels...
  • From a quick search in Google Books, Masters of Doom seems to have some material on modding of the game, and the material in the first paragraph here looks useful. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Google is telling me that page isn't available to view (probably because I'm in the US, not AUS); can you email me the information you see? MoD pp. 115-116 has a little bit, but it's not much more than "people made mods; Carmack and Romero use to do that before they made games, so they thought it was cool and id left it alone." --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Plot sections don't need to be referenced, as IDV mentions- it's usually not even possible except maybe to quotes from the game
  • I'm not sure what you mean; each episode has maybe a sentence of plot listed. There wasn't more than a thin premise for the theme of that set of levels
  • Yes, that's what I was getting at. The section should note that the plot was thin. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, done. --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Rephrased
  • Made it a bit clearer that the 1st episode was released as shareware, meaning that anyone could distribute it anywhere however they'd like
  • Fixed the double "while", and one of the "shooters"
  • I'd actually argue the opposite- having the exact publishing date doesn't hurt anything and may give readers some small contextual benefit similar to the full dates given for websites, while the city that the publishing house is based in is not useful information to readers (after all, I read all of these books online or on my phone, physical location notwithstanding) and does not help with tracking down the book itself (as the isbn is included)
  • Please use standard practice for references. The exact date of publishing printed works is irrelevant given that this is based on publisher's schedules, not the date the work was actually completed (which is typically several months before the book is published). The location of publishing is needed to distinguish between different editions as it's fairly common for there to be minor differences in page numbers, and sometimes content, between editions published in, say, the US and UK. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Eh, there's no such thing as "standard practice" for references (any consistent style is allowed), and if the date is supposed to reflect when the work was made rather than when it was available then using the publishing date/year doesn't make a lot of sense in the first place, but sure, done. --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
--PresN 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Responded. --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nick-D: pinging again. --PresN 17:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • The images are CC licensed or have appropriate fair use rationales. There is one major issue, though. This[43] image is a crop of another photo that has been deleted from Commons, due to "missing source".[44] Since the original uploader was called "Romero"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Romero], it is pretty likely that it is the same person as on the photo. But this needs some looking into. The cropped photo can only stay on Commons if the original is restored. So it might be an idea to contact the deleting admin. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the parent photo was deleted despite being marked as the uploader's own work. Discussion here: commons:User talk:Jcb#File:Romero 3designers.jpg czar 21:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Cool. If it is concluded that the parent image was rightly deleted, the one in this article will have to be deleted too (as well as other crops[45]). If the other way around, the parent image should be restored. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I've removed the image and replaced it with a shot of Romero (File:John Romero - Jason Scott interview (6951215353) (cropped).jpg, itself a crop of File:John Romero - Jason Scott interview (6951215353).jpg, a flickr import purporting to be from an interview and posted by the interviewer). It appears that, other than possibly being uploaded by Romero, there's no justification for the original image being free-use, so all of the crops should be deleted. --PresN 00:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, this article should be fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: ? --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 94 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the last of Michigan's primary Interstate Highways to be nominated here, and the next one in the series to bring the GT up to FT level. There's some notable national firsts involved here, and it should be a good read. Imzadi 1979  14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. I also conducted an image review at the ACR and determined all the images are properly licensed and the captions are fine. Dough4872 22:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 94 in Michigan. Source review was also done. --Rschen7754 02:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and comments. Happy to support, but a couple of minor oncerns, both in the lead.
  • To me at least, the 1987 a plane crash sits oddly where it is, perhaps better at the end after the road details?
  • Various segments have been dedicated to various people and places.— surely one of the variouses could be replaced?
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak:, thanks for catching that duplicate word. As for the other, I added a little more summary of the post-completion history; hopefully that places it in the historical context a little better. Let me know if you have a different idea there, and thank you for the review. Imzadi 1979  19:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
All Ok now, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive by comments by Nick-D

The "Since completion" section isn't of FA standard at present given that it consists of a series of single sentence paragraphs. It also seems to be incomplete. For instance:

  • "The interchange with the Southfield Freeway (M-39) was closed entirely in 1985 to replace the original exit design, which included on-ramps that sharply merged into the left lanes of I-94." - what did the replacement consist of?
    • This was recently added by TenPoundHammer on January 3; unless he can supply additional details similar to what we have on the US 24 interchange, I'm going to remove it as insignificant to the history of I-94. Imzadi 1979  07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I added a little more info. If you can find any more by entering various search terms into "site:newspapers.com", then give me the links and I'll see if I can add any other refs found this way. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "On August 16, 1987, Northwest Airlines Flight 255 crashed after attempting to take off from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, killing all but one passenger upon exploding at an overpass at Middlebelt Road" - the photo shows what looks to be very extensive debris across the highway, as well as it being the scene of a tragedy which would require a formal investigation. How long was the road closed for, and was a memorial or similar installed?
    • Memorial yes. The photo is of Middlebelt Road, not I-94, which is carried by the pair of overpasses in that photo. A search of various newspaper databases does show that I-94 was closed at least until the next day, however the Detroit Free Press article with that information is locked behind a pricy subscription level at newspapers.com. More to come on this search soon. Imzadi 1979  07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • And found the answer: I-94 reopened on August 18, 1987. Imzadi 1979  08:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
      • The new wording here could still be improved: "According to the crash report from the National Transportation Safety Board, that overpass above Middlebelt Road was not damaged in the crash." - why specify that this is from the crash report (is it a problematic or disputed source), and repeating "overpass above Middlebelt Road" in two sentences could be avoided. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "In July 1997, the second span of the Blue Water Bridge opened between Port Huron and Point Edward, Ontario" - when did construction start?
  • "The lane configuration changes have confused drivers in the area" - current tense seems inappropriate for something which occured over three years ago: presumably this confusion is no longer an issue.
  • "and cost $76 million (equivalent to $80.6 million in 2015" - there's no need to adjust figures for inflation over only two years
    • It's a matter of future proofing though, and consistency. This way no one has to remember to add the inflation adjustments in whatever arbitrary year we would otherwise decide they would need to be inserted. It also means we have all dollar values listed with values for the same year, and in a few weeks, they'll all be listed in 2016 values when the next round of inflation numbers are released. Imzadi 1979  07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
      • This is a 2017 FAC though, and it looks odd. I'd suggest adding this in ten years or so when it becomes meaningful/useful to readers. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
        • And yet we're supposed to be consistent, Nick-D, and now someone tells me to be inconsistent. In this case, all dollar values that aren't from 2015 or later have inflationary equivalents present. All of them. In short, if there's a dollar value, I always include the adjusted value just so that no one has to remember at some arbitrary date to go back to add them, and no one can complain that they can't make a comparison. As I noted, the values will be updating to 2016 inflation values in just a few weeks, furthering the gap between the year between original value and adjusted value more, temporally and monetarily. Imzadi 1979  14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Journalists and historians don't adjust currency values across such short periods or so recently except in cases of hyper inflation, and neither should we. This is not FA quality prose, it's not at all useful for readers, and there's no reason to stick with odd looking material for any reason. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Even though it is only a few years, it is still a $4 million difference (about 5%) and is still significant IMO. Also concerned about being consistent. --Rschen7754 08:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Watch out also for imprecise wording and purple prose in the "Memorial highway names" section, such as:

  • "Some initial support surfaced" - from whom, and how did this "surface"? (can you say something "groups such as ... suggested naming it..." to avoid this construction?)
    • Barnett does not specify which groups, so sadly I can't quite use your suggestion. Imzadi 1979  07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "The plants at Willow Run produced B-24 Liberator bombers by Ford Motor Company " - "for Ford Motor Company" perhaps?
  • "the honor was included in a budget bill passed in 1997" - which legislature passed this bill?
  • "the Legislature thought it only fitting to name the section of highway for the unit" - like other institutions, legislatures can't think for themselves. This was the reason the change was made though, so you could say something like the coincidence(?) in the numbers being the reason the change was made and passed. Also, which legislature is being referred to here?
    • Wording revised. The body in question is the Michigan Legislature, which also named earlier in the specific paragraph. There's only the one in the state, and our federal-level analog is named the United States Congress, and the county-level bodies are "county commissions", meaning the term without the state name is not ambiguous. Imzadi 1979  07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, does the Exit list section need to be referenced? Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The exit list is referenced to the mapping source used to derive the mileposts. That's been sufficient for the dozens of other FAs on highways. Thanks for the review, Nick-D. Imzadi 1979  07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nick-D: will you be coming back to this review at all? Imzadi 1979  21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Just notices my typo,so restating the ping. Imzadi 1979  17:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Those sections look good. I've left a couple of minor suggestions for further improvements above for your consideration. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Mostly grammatical comments from Pepper (this is my first time commenting on a FAC, so I'd also appreciate feedback on whether the suggestions I make are helpful or not) "Pepper" @ 04:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • There's a weird hyphen dash going on in #Early conversions to freeways, perhaps concentrate it to "for a more direct Detroit–Chicago freeway routing"?
  • "The completion of I-69 in the 1980s, and the approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, increased traffic at the Blue Water Bridge." - Are the commas necessary here?
  • "an international task force determined that traffic on the existing structure exceeded capacity in 1992" - Did they determine it in 1992 or did it exceed capacity in 1992 (or both)?
  • "allowing for dedicated lanes for local traffic and for bridge traffic" - change to "allowing for dedicated local traffic and bridge traffic lanes" to be more concise and avoid for for for.
  • "The name honors the US Army's 94th Infantry Division which was activated" - comma necessary before which (should I be making simple changes like this myself or is it better form to provide the suggestion to the FAC nominator?)
  • "In this year Michigan became the first state to complete a border-to-border toll-free Interstate within their state, running for 205 miles (330 km) from Detroit toward New Buffalo, the longest toll-free freeway in the country at the time." - comma after year, and it would probably be good to reword this as it currently sounds like New Buffalo is the longest toll-free freeway.
  • "East of Benton Harbor, I-94 meets the Napier Avenue interchange where US 31 merges onto the freeway" - comma before where
  • "Continuing eastward I-94 traverses rural land on the north side of Marshall" - comma after eastward
  • "it runs generally due east" - oxymoron
  • "across the state from Benton Harbor–St. Joseph area east to the Ann Arbor area" - add "the" before Benton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepper (talkcontribs)
    • To reply to the above, Pepper, you certainly can make minor fixes to the article while reviewing it. Another practice that helps nominators is to keep your comments in the same order as the article text or reference section names. You started with comments on the History section, and then went to the Memorial names before jumping back to the History and at the end jumped to the Route description and then back to the History... let's just say that it took me a few moments to find where we were going.

      That said, everything above has been changed except your second point where the commas are needed since both reasons contributed to the traffic increase. I'm also unsure about your comment about an oxymoron in the text, so I have left that alone for the moment. Imzadi 1979  21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Will definitely be more orderly in the future! The changes look good to me. The oxymoron is the incompatibility between due east, which implies exactly east, and generally east, which implies not exactly east. It's a similar construction to "I'm almost completely sure" - I don't think it's an issue if you are against modifying the sentence as it reads fine and I understood it to mean running in a very easterly direction without being completely straight. Overall I'm happy to support this well put together article. "Pepper" @ 21:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Hi Pepper and welcome to FAC. If I could just ask one favour for future reference, please add a signature after your comments as well as your opening statement. It just makes it easier to keep track of everything for the nominator and the coordinators. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly will do in the future, thanks. "Pepper" @ 00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – I alphabetized the categories at the bottom of the article. It looks fantastic to me! Carbrera (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard Feynman[edit]

Nominator(s): DVdm (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Richard Feynman, a Nobel-Prize-winning physicist. But it's more than that; in terms of page views, he ranks above all other winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics except Albert Einstein and Marie Curie! He also ranks ahead of all the Manhattan Project people except Robert Oppenheimer. The article averages over 3,000 page views per diem, which works out to over one million per annum. It is a Level 4 Vital Article. Why? God knows.

This article has a chequered history. It was created by Larry Sanger back in September 2001, so it is also one of Wikipedia's oldest articles. It became a featured article in August 2004 and was featured on the front page in December 2004. But it was demoted in May 2006. In June 2006 it became a Good Article but was delisted in October 2008. I restored the article as part of my effort to improve the Manhattan Project People in August 2016. Now DVdm and I are co-nominating it for restoration of its long-lost feature status. The article has 697 watchers, so I'm hoping that maybe two or three of them will step up and review the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Support - Some readers will inevitably have problems understanding the physics, but the links will help. I enjoyed reading the article immensely and found no contradictions with what I already knew about Feynman from my reading of Gleick (although this was some years ago). I have not fully checked the images - the Lead one might present a problem. My thanks to the nominators and all the other editors who have contributed to this. Graham Beards (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank for your review Graham. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: my concern was addressed. The article appears to satisfy the FA criteria. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: overall it looks good. The section I have some concerns about is "What Science is". Are the explanations under each of the bullets meant to be quotes from his address? I understand the intent, but believe the statements need to be placed in context. Praemonitus (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
No, the points are not from his lecture. I am concerned about it too - enough to remove the section it and replace it with an external link to the actual text of the lecture. The section doesn't reflect what I recall from the lecture, which you can read here Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Same here. After my removal of the TEDxCALTECH section, I thought about removing this section too, but I decided to stay silent and see what happened. This happened just now. Fully agree. - DVdm (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg: suggest adding a data source
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • File:FeynmanAMNH.jpg. If we consider this to be a 2D work, the uploader holds no copyright; if we consider this to be a 3D work, we should include a licensing tag for the original monument
    I thought it fell below the threshold of originality - removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • File:The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics.jpg: what is the licensing of the original work?
    Copyright © 1963, 2006, 2013 by the California Institute of Technology. I'd add a template:Non-free use rationale book cover template, but it's on Commons, so I can't. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Feymanlibrary.JPG: not sure we can ignore the cover copyrights here...Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    It's a composite work, so the photographer has copyright of the image, but not of the book covers. Again, it's on Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this as a DYK in August when it was a double hook with Matthew Sands. Feynmann has always been an interesting character to me. I can see there has been some fine tuning since August in the way of format, prose, citations. But it remains pretty much the article I reviewed in August. Nothing to quibble about. I'm glad to see this at FAC, and am happy to give my support. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The lead image (File:Richard Feynman Nobel.jpg) has tags that indicate that the file is PD in Sweden but may be copyrighted in the United States. What time it was PD? Is it appropriate to use {{PD-URAA}}? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The image was taken in 1965. It was first published in Sweden that year. Copyright there was 25 years at the time, so it expired in 1990 and the image entered the public domain in Sweden. It was in the public domain there in 1996, and it is therefore appropriate to use {{PD-URAA}}, which I have added. The image should not be copied to Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The Sweden PD tag says "If the media is in the public domain in both Sweden and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons." So it can be transferred to Commons, since it's PD in the source country (Sweden) and the United States. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, why General Relativity is capitalized? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably an artifact. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

God of War: Ascension[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 2013 PlayStation 3 video game, God of War: Ascension. I have tried to edit and model this off of God of War III, which is an FA, though of course there are differences. Albeit with the new God of War announced this past summer, this is the only article of a God of War video game that has not been promoted to FA. It has been over a year since I last nominated this article for FAC. I feel comfortable in nominating this article and feel that any issues that reviewers may bring up can be easily resolved. I am quick to respond and make corrections. Thanks for reviewing. JDC808 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2[edit]

Impressive work in the article. However, there are some things that I'd like to point out.

The third paragraph from the lead is too detailed. How about:

"God of War: Ascension received generally favorable reception from critics, who praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle, which they said were true to the series. Some reviewers said the story was not as compelling as previous installments. The game's multiplayer element received a mixed response. Although reviewers said the gameplay translated well into the multiplayer element, they criticized the balance and depth of combat.

The first sentence of plot "Gameplay begins with Kratos, who is imprisoned, chained, and tormented by the Furies for breaking his blood oath to Ares. Megaera" Explain who Magaera is. It could be easily written as The Fury Magaera.
In development whenever there is a quote reference it instantly.
Why is "Rise of the Warrior" in past tense? Did the novel completely disappear? Not even an archive could have it?

Other than that, the article is well-written and could easily become FA. Just do a "ping" like this @Tintor2: when you want talk to me. By the way, do you know how to do source reviews. I'd need that to my FAC. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tintor2:

  • Shortened the third paragraph some, while retaining the last couple of sentences regarding its nominations.
  • In response to the Plot issue, the "Character" section that precedes "Plot" says that Megarea is a Fury and explains the Furies. Did change it to "The Fury Megaera" etc.
  • That "rule" is kind of annoying, especially if the seceding sentences/quotes all come from the same source. Nonetheless, done.
  • Annoyingly, yes, it has disappeared from their website. I mistakenly did not archive them when I should have, or maybe I did try to archive them then, but because the website has an age verification, it screws with archiving. I don't remember exactly. I also did not expect them to completely remove it from their website, considering that was the only place to access it. I did find it elsewhere, and although those are the actual images of the graphic novel from Santa Monica's website back then, that is a fan wiki.
  • Thanks for the comments, and if no one else gets on the source review for you, I'll do it tomorrow. --JDC808 03:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll give it a support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment from ProtoDrake[edit]

I've had a look through the article, and I can't see anything that will stop me from giving this article a Support. Well done, JDC808. I hope it actually passes this time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review from GamerPro64[edit]

  • Looking through the sources most of them seem to be all right. The only source that is rather questionable is the PlayStation LifeStyle sources. There doesn't seem to be any real consensus of its reliability, indicated by the most recent discussion. GamerPro64 21:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @GamerPro64: I used those because the site was not marked as unreliable at the time of using the sources and there were not any previous discussions at the time. Basing it on that and having read over the sources, they seemed to check out okay when I used them for this article. It looks as if the only person who thinks that PlayStation LifeStyle is unreliable is czar in both discussions on the matter. --JDC808 23:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Allright. Personally I'm fine with the usage of PSLS. But I want to also mention citation 31, which is GameTrailers. Since the website is dead and got redirected to YouTube, I think there should be an attempt to find a working link to the video or replace the source. GamerPro64 23:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll see if I can find a replacement. --JDC808 00:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @GamerPro64: I was able to just remove the GameTrailers source as other sources already there covered its info. --JDC808 00:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Jaguar[edit]

I've just finished reading through the article and I couldn't find any issues to raise, so I'll be glad to lend my support here. One minor thing I want to mention is to be careful about personifying publications – in the reception section for example I'm seeing "Edge said the multiplayer element is an "evolutionary step"". But feel free to ignore that. This is a great article! JAGUAR  17:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Thank you, and the reason for that is because no author's name was given for the Edge review, just "Edge Staff". I changed the wording slightly, with that particularly instance, for example, "The review from Edge magazine said..." --JDC808 17:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, I forgot to mention that! The online version of Edge don't usually leave the authors' names, so as a rule of thumb I usually write "A reviewer from Edge" etc. JAGUAR  23:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

The prose is a little uneven in places. I'll note a few examples, along with a couple of other points I saw as I scanned the article. It's not all that far off FA quality, but I think a copyedit is needed.

  • "the new World Weapons mechanic": I've no idea what "mechanic" means here; I assume it's a standard video game term. Can it be linked to something?
    • Linked. --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "A graphic novel prequel to the single and multiplayer modes launched as Rise of the Warrior prior to the game's release": I don't know what "prequel to the single and multiplayer modes" means, and "launched as" is a bit jargony.
    • It means just as it says. Prequel means the events that are set before the current events. The single-player/multiplayer modes are the current events in terms of this game's narrative. I'm not sure what to replace "launched" with. I don't want to put "released" because the sentence ends with that. --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I sat on this overnight and reworded as seen here. --JDC808 01:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      That's clearer -- I hadn't realized till you rewrote that sentence that the graphic novel was only available online, and only temporarily. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "received generally favorable reception": you don't receive reception, you receive reviews or comments.</vs>
    • changed "reception" to "reviews". --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle, which they said were true to the series": wordy; just "praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle as true to the series" would do.
    • Done. --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "but accidentally facilitates his freedom": "facilitates" is too vague; can we either be more specific, or just say "accidentally lets him go"? Or "he escapes"?
    • It's not quite that simple. I was gonna try to explain it, but it would be easier for you to just see: event occurs from 6:00 to 7:00. --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      I see what you mean. He catches her claw in the chain; tricking/forcing her into breaking that chain, and from then on it's a fight. "Facilitates his freedom" isn't wrong, but it's a little more polysyllabic than I think we need. How about "but he manages to break his chains"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded to "but he manages to break free". --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "in a preceding week": why "a week"? Is each turn a week?
    • As the "Setting" section outlines, the narrative takes place over a period of 4 weeks, and shifts between the present and the past. The game begins in the present, then shifts to the past (3 weeks before the present). Just to note, this isn't a "turn based" type of game. --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Thought over this one today as well. Reworded as "which the Furies had confiscated from him when he was imprisoned". --JDC808 02:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "The decision to add multiplayer came about from curiosity": I don't think this adds much to the quotes that follow; I'd cut this or the quotes, perhaps with a slight rephrase since "came about from curiosity" is a bit vague.
  • "Although the original idea for multiplayer was exclusively co-op, as development progressed, the team realized it was not what they wanted. Before the first press show, the team found the experience they wanted": repetitive.
    • I was stumped on this one. This whole paragraph was copy-edited by a GOCE copy-editor (the whole article has at least once), and I made little adjustments as it looked good and no one else saw any issues with it. I changed the second sentence to: "Before the first press show, the team found their ideal multiplayer experience". --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      I read the source; it looks like "The Road to Multiplayer Was Longer than Expected" is the source for these sentences and the one or two above them. It's tough because the source is vague, but I would guess someone who's played the game would know exactly what is meant. For example, "the heart of what would become our final multiplayer game" means something to someone who's played multiplayer, but it doesn't mean much to me. I think what's bothering me now is mostly the repetition of "it was not what they wanted...the experience they wanted", plus the fact that I don't know what it means. I'll think some more about this and see if I can suggest a way to rewrite it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Christopher Shy was the artist of the graphic novel" seems an odd way to say it. If he's considered the author, I'd start that paragraph with "Rise of the Warrior was a graphic novel by Christopher Shy"; if he simply produced the art for it then something like "with art by Christopher Shy" would work.
    • Done. --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Because of their focus on preparing multiplayer for the first press announcement, single-player received less attention. When single-player was reemphasized, its production was accelerated, resulting in less focus on multiplayer. Development focus shifted between single-player and multiplayer throughout its entire course": also repetitive.
    • Can you elaborate, because I am not sure how to address this without losing clarity in what's being described here. --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      Yes, I see it'll be hard. I'll try to come up with something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A separate point on that paragraph: I think it would make more sense to start by saying it's a graphic novel, and giving the information related to that, and then following up with the information on the social experience. Or was the novel not published till after the social experience was completed?
    • The 20 chapters were released from October 2012 to March 2013, and the social experience happened simultaneously. Made this change. --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "The demo showcased that Kratos would": "showcase" as a verb is jargon; make it something like "An encounter [...] was included in the demo, but was cut from the final game".
    • Changed to "At E3 2012, a single-player demo was shown, featuring new gameplay mechanics and combat systems." Also added about the one part being cut. --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I misread here. I didn't realize until just now that you had jumped backwards in the article to the Development section. I thought you were still in the Release section. Reworded this spot with your suggestion. --JDC808 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "who have each done voice work": should be "had each done".
    • Are you sure on that? --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      I think so. Past perfect tense is used when you're talking about an event that is in the past of another event being described in the simple past tense. Here we have (simplifying): "West, Barbeau, and Freeman, who have each worked on previous installments, voiced characters". If we were hiring them to work on the game right now, and were talking about their previous experience, we'd say "they have worked on previous installments", but since they voiced this game a few years ago, we'd say "had worked" when referring to the past of that time. I wouldn't oppose if you really want to keep it as is; I think it's wrong, but it's pretty minor. Perhaps you could get another opinion from another copyeditor? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Changed. --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

-- I haven't read the whole article; these are just some examples. I'll revisit after a copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Mike Christie: Thanks for the comments. I have addressed and/or responded to all above points. --JDC808 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The above points are mostly dealt with; I'll do another pass and leave any additional notes below. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert as needed.

  • I'd suggest cutting the parenthetical "elephantaur" since it's unlinked and it's not clear what it means. Perhaps move it to a footnote, where you could explain it?
    • Cut. It was just the name they had used when they showed the first demo, but changed in the final game. Not actually sure why they changed it as elephantaur makes more since because they are elephants that are like Minotaurs. --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Many of the monsters also appear in the multiplayer": should this be "multiplayer mode", not just "multiplayer"?
    • Done. Was using shorthand there. --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Another new addition": redundant; if it's an addition it's new. Perhaps "new feature", or "new mechanic", if I understand the usage of "mechanic"?
    • Changed to mechanic. --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "When certain foes, such as a cyclops or a juggernaut, have been sufficiently weakened, the player may jump on its back and briefly force it to attack other foes": this starts with foes in the plural ("have been"), but then you have "its"; I think it could be recast to be singular or plural, but it's inconsistent as it stands.
    • Fixed. --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "a first and only for the series": "first" is redundant with only. How about "God of War: Ascension is the only game in the series to offers an online multiplayer feature. Up to eight players can take part. The main objective..." I don't think you need "a small story element"; it's covered by the rest of the paragraph.
    • Done. --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I copyedited that paragraph to get rid of an apparent inconsistency between singular "player" and plural "players"; please check I didn't screw up the intended meaning.
    • Looks good. --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Game events are set six months after Kratos killed his family, which takes place before Chains of Olympus (2008) and ten years before the original God of War (2005)." I'm not clear what "which" refers to -- the game events, or Kratos killing his family? If the latter, are the game events before or after Chains of Olympus?
    • It's referring to both. The game's narrative begins 6 months after Kratos had killed his family. Timeline: Ares tricked Kratos into killing his family, then six months later, Ascension, then after that, Chains of Olympus; CoO takes place sometime in the 10-year gap between Ascension and the original God of War. --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      The way you explain it is clearer than in the article; the fact that CoO can't be given an exact time is what makes it hard. How about "Game events are set six months after Kratos killed his family, and ten years before the original God of War (2005); Chains of Olympus (2008) takes place before some time between Ascension and God of War."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's the only thing annoying about CoO. All that we were told is that it takes place during Kratos' 10 years of service to the gods, which is that 10-year gap. Changed with your suggestion. --JDC808 23:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The plot paragraph starting "A week later" seems to have inconsistent tenses; if it's "Kratos is ambushed", should it be "who confiscate" in the same sentence? And "the Furies took the Oracle's eyes" is a past tense between two sentences in present tense.
    • Fixed the first tense issue. The other one, "the Furies took the Oracle's eyes", is past tense because because it's not occurring in the present. At that part, Orkos is telling Kratos what happened to the Oracle, and revealing that the Eyes of Truth that he's seeking are actually the Oracle's eyes. --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Multiplayer had been discussed for past games, but had never been implemented as previous game directors were either not interested, feeling that God of War was a single-player-only experience, or, in Chains of Olympus's case, it was cut due to time constraints during development": I copyedited this a little but I got stuck on something I don't have enough context to feel confident of rewriting accurately. You have "game directors were either...or...it was cut...". If you have "game directors were either A or B", both A and B have to fit after "game directors were", which is not the case here.
    • Reworded as "Multiplayer had been discussed for past games, but had never been implemented as previous game directors felt that God of War was a single-player-only experience; in Chains of Olympus's case, it was cut due to time constraints during its development." --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      OK; I tweaked it to "during development" which feels more concise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 'For Ascension, the development team decided to seriously consider multiplayer and questioned whether or not it could be done, and if it would be fun. Multiplayer was first tested using Kratos, and Lead Combat Designer Jason McDonald said the game testers had "a lot of fun". Seeing their reaction made the team feel that multiplayer was worth investing in.' I think this is a bit wordy. How about 'For Ascension, the development team made the decision to invest in multiplayer after a simple version, tested using two players, each with [or "each playing"?] Kratos, turned out to be "a lot of fun" for the game testers.'
    • Done, but trimmed down the middle part to just say "tested using two Kratoses". --JDC808 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

  • I've been trying to copyedit the third development paragraph, but I'm stuck because when they say "they found their ideal multiplayer experience", and it's not co-op, I can't be sure what they mean. I assume they mean that they felt two players was not enough; the eight-person experience was better, in their eyes. The source isn't specific enough for me to be comfortable saying that, unless you have other sources that would support it. Assuming that's not the case, here's a suggested rewrite:
    The development team faced a number of challenges in adding multiplayer to an established single-player franchise. Other established franchises had been criticized for sub-par multiplayer implementations, so Santa Monica felt they had to prove to critics that their multiplayer mode would not be "tacked on". Since multiplayer was new to the team, new staff were hired who specialized in multiplayer engineering and design, but Santa Monica didn't realize the amount of work required for the experience they had envisioned. Development was delayed because multiplayer mode required several rewrites. The player navigation code had to be changed for online play, which was initially designed for co-op; the team eventually decided this was unsatisfactory, and the changed approach cost significant development time. Local co-op was also explored, but the team decided to keep multiplayer online-only. The team finally "found the heart of [the] final multiplayer game" shortly before the first press show. Development focus switched back and forth between single player and multiplayer; single-player received less attention while the team were preparing multiplayer for the first press announcement, but when single-player mode was reemphasized prior to its public debut at E3, multiplayer mode suffered.
This is more than just a trivial copyedit, so a couple of reasons might be in order:
  • Since "the heart of ... final multiplayer game" isn't made explicit, I think it's best to quote it rather than rephrase.
  • I cut "difficult task"; it's clearly implied by the rest of the paragraph.
  • I connected the hiring to "didn't realize the work required"; I think it flows better, and I think the sources support it.
  • I got rid of "what they wanted", which I think is just too vague; I know it's in the sources but it jars.
  • I moved up the "local co-op" note to fit in with the other comments about how multiplayer mode would work.
  • I added the mention of E3 to justify the reemphasis on single-player.
  • I put the information about development switching back and forth into a single sentence to avoid it sounding repetitive.
If you don't like this version, that's fine, but I think it fixes some issues that would need to be fixed in some other way.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

What's not to like about this article? It is brilliantly written, beautifully illustrated and lavishly referenced. There is drama and controversy, triumph and heartbreak. Admittedly, no Paralympic article has even been promoted to Featured, but none had made it to A class before this one either. It has had two previous reviews, but no problems with the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I know nothing about basketball, so at least I have no preconceptions. Looks pretty good to me, but a few comments below, most of which you can ignore if you disagree

  • from whom much was hoped—perhaps "expected" for last word?
    No, it was hope, not expectation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sure there is some logic to the 5-2-5 image layout, but there's nothing to say what it is. Also, can the images be centred? May not be feasible, so not a big deal
    All part of the magic of template:gallery. Fiddled with this, and I have fixed the problem. The layout adjusts to your screen width, so you should now see 5-5-2, but if you can get it a bit wider it will be 6-6. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Canada had beaten them… the Netherlands had also beaten them… Canada would be hard to beat.—a bit repetitive?
    Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • watching video tapes.—Literally? By 2012 you'd expect DVD or internet downloads
    Yeah, literally. They were on VHS. Quality was crap too. I would add this, but I can't find a source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Merritt, in her British accent—to me, sounds as if she is making a choice, perhaps who had a British accent
    Done. Amber's British accent became more pronounced during the London games. Since then it has greatly softened. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Netherlands based on defeating them—perhaps add in their head-to-head
    Done. The ramifications of that were considerable; the Netherlands had to face Germany, while the Gliders went up against the USA. The Netherlands' loss cost them a shot at gold; but they credit the Gliders' win with giving them the bronze medal, as the USA were morally crushed by their loss. And they had not forgotten this in Rio; this figured in their preparation for back-to-back bronze medals. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • their shooting was worse than their rivals—possessive rivals' I think
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
All my issues have been addressed, so I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "Stewart took the tap, and lost": What did they lose?
    Possession. Re-worded. Wikipedia uses "tip" instead of "tap"; changed the article to conform. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "runaway break": I'm not familiar with the term.
    Occasionally our Australian basketball jargon is polluted with terms from football. Changed to "fast break", which is the term used on Wikipedia
  • "The Gliders played Germany like they had played against and defeated the United States": nonparallel; "played" can take "against" or not, but not both in the same sentence.
    Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Syek88. I was attracted to this article among those in the list of Featured Article candidates only because of the extreme length of the title. I confess no knowledge of the subject. Nevertheless, it seems to be a comprehensive article that cannot have been easy to write. I have made a string of copy-editing changes, simply because doing so was easier than listing them here. Please undo any of them with which you disagree. Some other things:

  • The treatment of numbers seems inconsistent. Sometimes single-digit numbers are expressed in numeric form (8 points) while double-digit numbers are spelt out (twelve team members). It becomes noticeable to the reader because the article uses so many numbers.
    I've changed the words in the Background section to numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What has Ms Merritt's British accent got to do with her comments about the Canada match?
    The irony of talking about "the Australian way" in a British accent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The opening paragraph about the semifinal seems to descend into unnecessary play-by-play detail that the remainder of the article avoids.
    Trimmed the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The final sentence about the semifinal says that the Gliders' win was controversial. The preceding sentences establish drama, but not controversy. For example, the article says nothing about dirty play (I understand deliberate fouling is common in basketball) or refereeing errors. Why was the win controversial?
    The article says: Spectators saw Hollermann's shot from the paint hit the ring with a second to go, but the shot clock was not reset. Team USA's Alana Nichols rebounded, and put the ball in the bucket, but not before time ran out and a shot clock violation was called. The spectators included myself. A Youtube video can be viewed in the external links (forward to 1:40 to view the incident), but at the time Olympic/Paralympic basketball had no provision for video review. This was changed for the 2016 Rio Olympics/Paralympics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how the ranking system worked between Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. Australia seems to have finished ahead of the Netherlands because of their head-to-head result, but wouldn't this mean Canada finished ahead of Australia? What has Canada's result against Great Britain got to do with it? The table in the article talks about "Tiebreaker 1" and "Tiebreaker 2", which again I don't understand. And Wheelchair basketball at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Women tells me nothing either.
    Turning to the IWBF rules (pp. 73-77), we find that the first tiebreaker is on the basis of points differential in the games between them. The three games were CAN 59 –70 NED, AUS 50 – 57 CAN, and NED 49 – 58 AUS. So the point differentials were: CAN: -11 + 7 = -4; NED: 11 - 9 = +2; AUS: -7 + 9 = +2. Australia and the Netherlands were still tied, but Australia beat the Netherlands, and so claimed first place in the second tiebreaker. Should this be added to the article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    Added it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The summary of each match says "Referees:" but in each case there is only one referee.
    Yes. It's a feature of the template {{Basketballbox}}. At the Olympics there is one "referee" and two "umpires". The template is used by thousands of articles, so it would be tricky to change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Regards Syek88 (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Much appreciated! The article was very difficult to write, and no Paralympic article has ever become featured. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The explanation of the tiebreakers is difficult! My only remaining comment about that part is that "head-to-head match" is tautologous. And my apologies for missing the British accent joke! Syek88 (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The article contains several of these. My favourite is "Gauci, a two-point player, took a three-pointer" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry[edit]

  • Consider linking Brazil, Great Britain, Canada, Netherlands to their respective teams.
    I hadn't done so because the pages did not exist; but someone has since created one for Canada. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "the last two of which had recently beaten them." - During the previous tournament?
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Prior to 2012 ..." - This should be linked to the Paralympics article
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think the lead adequately summarises the article. Given, the article is about the team's display at a particular tournament it could be a little more detailed. Viz., Squads, dates, prize money, et al.,
    Prize money? Oh no, there was no prize money. Had the Americans won a medal they would have received US$3,000 each, but the Gliders didn't get a brass razoo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    Ah, my bad. Got it! Vensatry (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Paralympic Games' -> Paralympic games
    No, Paralympic Games is capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    I see that Vensatry (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first para (Background) is a bit too short.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    Given its length, wouldn't it be better to note it earlier when we introduced her? Vensatry (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The second para seems fine, but it could do a bit more with information about the changes in the squad (if any) and the tournament.
    But I already said that there three new players. Melanie Domaschenz, Melanie Hall and Kathleen O'Kelly-Kennedy were not selected, and Liesl Tesch had retired since 2008. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The quote should either be placed inside the quote box or at least quotes.
    Per MOS:QUOTE: Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "12 included 9 veterans" - twelve included nine veterans per WP:MOSNUM
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
That's it for now. Will review the rest later. Vensatry (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Revisit

  • Talking about the opening para of the 'Group stage', is there a special reason to highlight their encounter against Canada, while leaving out the rest of the teams?
    Expanded the quote to encompass the Netherlands. Despite this, the group was still better than Group B, where they would have been up against Germany and the USA. The quote contains an irony; despite what he says, the Gliders' shooting percentage did not improve. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • " ... at the Basketball Arena in Olympic Park in Stratford, London,[10] also known as "the Marshmallow"." - This gives an impression that the city of London is referred by the name. Also why include the inside quotes?
    Changed to 'a venue also known as "The Marshmallow"'. The "the" is in quotes because it was always referred to that way. Several of the venues were referred to by other than their official names. In the case of the Basketball Arena, that name could easily be confused with the North Greenwich Arena. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    I've made a minor change. Vensatry (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    But we cannot talk about the Marshmallow in the present tense. It was demolished in 2013. There was some talk in 2012 about it being used again in Rio, but the Rio basketball was held at the Carioca Arena 1 and the nearby Rio Olympic Arena. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pardon my ignorance, is 'affair' encyclopedic (when used in the context of the game)?
    Well it's a common sports idiom. [46] It's used here to try and avoid too much repetition of "match" and "game". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Who was the Great Britain coach?
    Gary Peel. He was sacked after London. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 9 - 7 = +2, 11 - 9 = +2, 7 - 11 = -4 - Should the arithmetic bits go inside a bracket?
    I don't know if that would be practical. The idea was to allow the reader to follow the arithmetic. The head of the IWBF, Maureen Orchid,m explained it to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "He warned the media" - Really?
    Changed to "cautioned". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Merritt, who had a British accent" - Is it necessary?
    Per the above, it is another ironic reference. Another reviewer asked me to add it. Do you think it should be remove. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    The statement reads more like a press release. Vensatry (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ""They will come back!" Triscari warned his players. "We've got to stop them!"[47]" The second quote is unattributed.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This one is a personal preference: The statements issued by the coaches border WP:QUOTEFARM. You could try not to overuse them by trimming down a bit.
  • "In Australia, Basketball Australia CEO ..." - This could simply do without "In Australia".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was not to be." This sentence seems incomplete
    It's fine. It's a common idiom. 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    I see that. But this seems like a disconnect from the previous para. Also, the second quote (of the previous para is unattributed). Vensatry (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    I thought it segued nicely. Kean says: "the plan is, next four years, Rio we go one more." And then we say: "It was no to be." This avoids a single sentence final paragraph, (and provides yet another irony). Unavoidably, the article ends on a jarring note. (Interestingly, everybody in London was talking about Rio, but no one is Rio was talking about Tokyo except the Japanese.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

Image and source reviews? Cheers, 11:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The book(let?) in FN3 does not include location, but the unnumbered one at the end of the section does - should be consistent
  • FNs 21–23 look similar to me, but the titles vary in terms of content and format - is there a reason for that?
  • FN58 doesn't match the formatting of the other refs
  • Fn59 should use |publisher= rather than |work=. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. Yes, the Media Guide was an A5 booklet. Designed to be easy to carry and lays flat when opened. Add the publication location. It was the last printed media guide; they are online now. So is London; linked.
  2. There was some inconsistency - the pages did not have title cards in the HTML. I have corrected tjhis so all the pages have consistent names. For each one there was a main page, a statistics page, and a play by play page. Unfortunately, archive.org did not correctly archive all the pages. Checked them all, and used archive.is to replace the three faulty ones.
  3. FN 58 had a typo - fixed
  4. FRN 59 - fixed.

Thanks for your review! Much appreciated! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Aitraaz[edit]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a film which features Priyanka Chopra's first brilliant performance. A highly entertaining film, which was noted for its bold subject of Sexual harassment, a first for Bollywood. This is my first solo FAC and I am looking forward to lots of constructive comments.Krish | Talk 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash[edit]

If I have any comments I'll post here, but I'll take care of any c/e related material. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede

* As per WP:LEADCITE, there are no sources and that makes the lead section look clean. The same content in the lead section is sourced in the body of the article. * Any production details worth including in this section?

I am not sure what can be added. Krish | Talk 19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

* the film received ten nominations at the 6th IIFA Awards, winning three - what were they? If they were technical categories you need not mention, but major ones (producing, directing, acting and writing) must be mentioned.

The film won in three technical categories, so.Krish | Talk 20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Production
  • I see that Abbas-Mustan are two people. Mention this, otherwise they'll be mistaken for one man with a double-barrelled name.
  • Change "action star" to "action hero".
  • According to Kumar, Raj is realistic and could be described as a "new-age metrosexual" man" - try to maintain one tense (past/present, whatever) throughout the sentence.
  • In an interview with Tribune India, Kapoor remarked that "every Indian woman could identify with her character" of Priya - but the original quote reads, "Indian women will identify with my character". We usually substitute quoted words with parentheses, e.g.: "This is my life" becomes "This is [his] life".
  • She said her character is extremely supportive of her husband; she stands by him, as any Indian woman would - again, try to maintain one tense throughout (preferably past tense).
  • Any info on when filming ended? Or what was the last scene filmed? If I can't find much info on a film's completion, I try to include info on its final length in feet (using info from the CBFC certificate).
Not a single source is present about the filming schedule, you know how Indian media works.Krish | Talk 19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
No information is available about its length in feet or last day filming.Krish | Talk 20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "steadycam" redirects to "Steadicam" which is a brand name and must be capitalised.
Soundtrack

* There is overlinking here which must be dealt with. * The tracklist must be sourced, and the tracks must be arranged as they are in the source.

I am not sure about the first note, since there are no sources about the discontinuation of that award. Filmfare doesn't even have its own award site.Krish | Talk 19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Final comments

Although somewhat brief, I find this article very much FAC worthy as all the essential info is covered in detail. The references could be archived to avoid link rotting (using Checklinks, you could replace the links with their archives). Also, both the footnotes may require sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

:::Why is there a category called "Techno-thriller films"? A techno-thriller is usually considered science fiction. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Kailash29792 Removed that category and replaced sources with the archived ones.Krish | Talk 20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Support: Good work Krish. I hope this passes FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
...actually, no. After seeing Numerounovedant's comments (most of which I agree with), I see the article can be improved further. Once his comments are addressed, I'll reinstate my support for this FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Now it is in much better shape, and it has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2[edit]

The article is in really good shape but there are some minor flaws that kinda bother me:

  • Is it possible to add sales from the home media release of the film?
  • Same with cast. I know it's okay be unsourced, but did any of the actors said something that might fit there?

Other than that, I'll support. My concerns are minor. If you have free time could you take a look at my own FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tidus/archive1? Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Tintor2 Well, DVD sales of Indian movies are not reported in the media. If you look at other Indian film FAs, they don't really include this information. Coming to your second point, well, there are few quotes about cast' respective characters in the "Production" section. Thanks for your response.Krish | Talk 14:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by comment the fact the film resembles the plot of the film Disclosure should be noted in the article. They both feature a woman who, when refused sex, accuses her employee/colleague of sexual harassment. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

FrB.TG Thank you for pointing that out. Actually, I was having a discussion with Ssven2 on the same on my talk page. Initially I was apprehensive earlier but thanks, anyway.Krish | Talk 17:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher[edit]

  • I am not sure how 'Indiaglitz' is a RS to be used in a FA.
  • Same goes for 'Indya' and 'Planet Bollywood'.
  • Instead of writing "The BBC noted the film's bold theme", you can write its author's name with it.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Done: Yashthepunisher Replaced the first one with a Hindustan Times source. Indya was the official site of Star Network back then and Planet Bollywood source has been used in other FAs like Mother India.Krish | Talk 08:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Please confirm the point about 'Indya', also you can't rely on WP:OSE in a FAC. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "The film has been noted for its bold subject of sexual harassment, a first in Indian cinema." Any source for this? Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Done: Cited the last point, and removed "Indya" source.Krish | Talk 11:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. After reading the article last night, i found it comprehensive enough for a 2004 Indian film and am of the opinion that it meets the criteria after going through the resolved comments provided above by other reviewers. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Numerounovedant[edit]

Leaning Oppose

  • The prose quality is sub-par :
The phrase "According to the director" in close proximity in the first paragraph of the production section.
"film was scrrened"
"It also praised other aspects of the film, describing it as" - reference made to a person by "it"?
"originality in Bollywood" - odd choice of words
"and complimenting the directors' opting for "a theme that has been untouched on the Indian screen so far" and the film's "dramatic moments"" - no punctuation
"drew the hatred of the audience" - not sure if that's the best choice of words.
"Aitraaz made its Indian television premiere 30 October 2005"
"directors several hours to remind her she was only playing a character" - odd phrasing, why not simply say "to console her"
"found it challenging to play such an "extremely negative character"" - repetition of superlatives
"damage her career" - really strong implications considering that they are not in direct quotes, how could a role have damaged an entire career.
"About the film's unusual title" - quotes needed for "unusual", there is no other way of justifying the unusual nature other than a direct quote
  • You want me to add this "And what best pleased us is that when we went to register the name, it hadn't ever been used!"?Krish | Talk 19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Inconsistent punctuation throughout the article.

These comments aren't exhaustive, and I haven't even been through the plot section, and nit-picking is rather undesirable.

  • Tweaked most of the points.Krish | Talk 19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The production section is not at all comprehensive, not a single mention of the crew? The producers? The production and distribution house? (The article seems to mention distribution rights of the televised premiere, so why not here?) No details of the post production work. The filming schedule doesn't find any mention either. To me the whole section is cluttered with quotes, and has little substance.
  • Well the above reviewers have already said about this. It's very hard to find sources for old Indian movies. Indian media is more concerned about the gossip rather than the production news.Krish | Talk 19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Krish!:This sections feels incomplete, even more so after the second time that I went through it. Most of the information in the info-box is not substantiated in the section. The mention of writers, cinematographer, film editors, and the corresponding refs are all missing. You can substantiate all of these using Bollywood Hungama. This would not only work in favour of the unsubstantiated claims, but also add to the weight if the section. NumerounovedantTalk 05:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: Added information about writers, cinematographer, film editors, and costume designers. I hope you are fine with it.Krish | Talk 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Krish!: You can still include the following details: 1. The action director for the film. 2. The Central Film Censor Board trouble that the film had. (Ref: here) 3. Interviews 1, 2, and 3 all talk about filming experiences of the three leads. See if you can find any noteworthy details there 4. Kumar also talks about the completion status of the film towards the end of his interview which would greatly help in putting up some sort of schedule onto the filming and production work. Also, the case of Kobe Bryant is identical to the film's plot, so I am not sure how the director duo explored the "reverse" side. I know that's what the reference says, but it does not make any sense, and should be removed. NumerounovedantTalk 10:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: Sadly these sources have nothing regarding the production. I had seen all these sources earlier, infact some of them are used in the article. Thanks for your input though.Krish | Talk 16:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Krish!: Well that's unfortunate, but you can still include the director of action and the censor board trouble. Aldo, do look into the Kobe Bryant issue. Good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 06:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: Well considering this is not an action film, how action director is neccessary here? You should note that in Indian films, action directors are credited even if there is no use of them. Coming back to Bryant, I had already removed that line, in case you didn't saw the updated version of the article. I hope everything is fine. now.Krish | Talk 10:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The reception section has major neutrality concerns. I don't see a single complete mixed/negative review. (I am certain that there are a several, atleast a couple already being used.) The reviews have been moulded rather inconspicuously to make them look more appreciative than they actually are. To cite an example, how does "good timepass" account for a positive review? Also, the rediff review is negative in general, it only acknowledges audience response, not creative quality. Kamanth criticised major parts of the film and not just the second half as is claimed. This section needs a thorough cleaning and check for neutrality issues.
  • Well these are the only notable reviews available. It would have been great if you had read the cited reviews. The "good timepass" review is only a four line review, Kamath's review is more like a gossip report and Reddif's review is, well, read it you will understand what I mean.Krish | Talk 19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Krish!:I would like to offer a minor c.e. for the reception section, if that's alright with you. NumerounovedantTalk 04:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Numerounovedant Sure.Krish | Talk 08:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I stand by the fact that the article is well short of FA standard. NumerounovedantTalk 12:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved all your points. Thanks.Krish | Talk 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I have offered a copy-edit, but as Kailash rightly pointed out the opening argument remains rather unsubstantiated. Feel free to work around my changes, although I think the article carries more weight now with all the additions, and I can now offer Weak Support. Ping me after the source review, Good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 11:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • File:Aitraaz.jpg has a generally appropriate fair-use rationale, though it would help to have a URL for where you got this image. Was it by any chance this?
Yes, but I've added a more credible source to the file.
Thank you for that :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how File:Aitraaz cast.jpg is free under creative commons. Either way, it would be nice to include a location in its caption.
Done: Krish (seemingly) forgot to add Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama to the licensing section of the file, but I've done it.
Let me know when it's been reviewed (whether approved or rejected), and its caption still could use detail on where the image took place Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I might come back to review other aspects later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, did you still want to add something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Definitely still would like a confirmation whether the File:Aitraaz cast.jpg is properly licensed. As for other aspects, I would like to see a budget figure (it's otherwise hard to determine whether the earnings made it a financial success), and the cast list needs to be sourced (WP:FILMCAST doesn't provide exemptions for such sections). Looking through this, it doesn't support the assertion that "Aitraaz received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its direction, music and performances, particularly Chopra's." Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: Isn't the "particular praise for Chopra" verified by the the following reviews? Same for "Aitraaz received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its direction, music and performances." And, in case you don't know the BOI source credits the film as a success and do you think the budget of a 2004 film can be found? The media don't even properly cover the production details now, it was worse back then. Krish | Talk 06:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding reviews, see WP:SYNTH; we can't form a conclusion solely based on several samples. I mention budget because it is a major component of films as it shows how much was invested and whether this was a financial loss. In other words, a film is financially successful when it grosses the total of its budget or higher, and is a financial failure when its earnings total up to less than the budget's worth. It might take some searching, but I've definitely seen budget figures before for films that came out prior to the 21st century, so finding something for a 2004 film isn't entirely out of the question. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: Added the budget, cited the cast list by the Box Office India source and provided sources for the review conclusion and "particular praise". I hope everything is fine now.Krish | Talk 08:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In that case, I support as soon as the image I mentioned before passes its review. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @SNUGGUMS: The image has passed its review.Krish | Talk 20:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Very good :). I can now more officially give my full support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: The picture has been nominated for deletion so I had to remove from the article. Hope the article is fine now.Krish | Talk 05:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

  • I feel you should remove Taran Adarsh's review of the film as he has been suspected of getting paid for his reviews.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
While I don't deny your point of view, declaring a source unreliable based on your own thoughts and without presenting conclusive evidence is like gaming the system. Even if Adarsh's review were to be removed, I think it could still be used to source the characters to comply with WP:FILMCAST. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: That's good.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ssven2: I think the review is fine. Plus, there is no evidence of him getting paid. If you ask me I would say majority of Indian publications write paid reviews, so it is impossible to remove every review.Krish | Talk 16:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's about it from me. Otherwise, the article looks good. You have my support.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • No dead links. That's good.
  • Ref no. 28. — Couldn't you find a better source than "Indian Television"?
@Ssven2: "Indian Television" is a very reliable source. In case you don't know, Indian Telly Awards is presented by the same publication.Krish | Talk 12:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Krish!: Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Change the references with authors to "first, last" instead of comma — Example: "|author=Tuteja, Joginder" to "|last=Tuteja|first=Joginder".

Other than that, the sources are reliable to use.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Done.Krish | Talk 12:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment/copyedit from Ian Rose[edit]

I was looking over this with my FAC coord hat on but felt that the prose needed more attention and decided to have a go myself -- given the extent of the resultant ce I think I'd best recuse from closing. As long as the nominator is fine with it I'm fairly happy with it now -- I don't know that I'll go so far as to support outright but prose-wise wouldn't have any serious objection to promotion. One thing though, re. the film's "unusual title", is there nothing that actually explains what the word means; did I miss something there? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Thank you for the copy-editing. Well there is not much about the film's "unusual title" in the cited source. I think the interviewer was trying to ask the significance of the name.Krish | Talk 15:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Mmm, bit frustrating because I think it's probably a good idea to say what you can about the title, but it still leaves us hanging as to its actual meaning. Well, you can only go by the sources so, fair enough, just leave as is until/unless a reliable source does explain it... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Henry Morgan[edit]

Nominator(s): The Bounder (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Henry Morgan is one of the more interesting historical figures around. A privateer who was the scourge of the Spanish in the Caribbean who later became a Governor of Jamaica. He secured Jamaica as one of the jewels of the British Empire – and made himself extremely wealthy in the process. He is possibly better known to modern eyes through the books and films in which he is fictionalised, or perhaps the brand of rum which bears his name. This has recently been through the PR process to take some of the edges off, and I look forward to hearing further comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Port Royal map
  • File:Puerto_del_Príncipe_-_being_sacked_in_1668_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_19396.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
  • Non-US images on Commons should include info on copyright status in country of origin as well as the US
  • What is the source of the data presented in File:Lake_Maracaibo_map.png? Same with File:PortRoyalEarthquakeMap.jpg
  • File:Voorpagina_Americaensche_Zee-Roovers.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. I've added, removed and altered those mentioned. Thanks again. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but in some cases problems persist.
  • File:Henry_Morgan_in_colour.jpg has a tag stating the author is unknown, but the description identifies a named author. Same with File:Captain_Henry_Morgan_attacking_Panama.jpg, File:King_Charles_II_(Lely).jpg
  • For the two Morgan ones we know the author of the books from which the images came, but not the illustrator, which is why I went with the 'unknown' tag. If they are incorrect, which tag should it be? Many thanks – The Bounder (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there an illustrator identified in the book (or, conversely, are they stated to be anonymous)? Is there a copyright statement in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No illustrator is named, and neither carry a copyright notice The Morgan in colour was published in 1684 (which pre-dates any copyright statutes); it çan be seen here. This is for the Panama image (first published in 1742). The Bounder (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay. If Exquemelin did not create those illustrations, he shouldn't be listed as author in the image description. The 'unknown' tag also requires that you detail what steps you've taken to try to identify the author - the information you've provided here should work for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Nikkimaria. I've added that information now, and tidied up the information in the Morgan colour description too. I think I have all the images now sorted out, but if I have overlooked something, could you let me know? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks like you've changed one of the Morgan images and not the other? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought I'd got them both (This edit for the colour image and this one for the Panama image). Have I missed one of the other images that needs working on? Thanks (and sorry if I'm making a mess of this). The Bounder (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • OK - my mistake! I've now addressed that one with this edit. I think that should clear it up, but please let mw know if there are any other steps I should take. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Puerto_del_Príncipe_-_being_sacked_in_1668_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_19396.jpg needs a tag for the country of original publication. Same with File:Henry_Morgan's_attack_on_the_Castillo_de_San_Jeronimo,_Porto_Bello,_1669.jpg, File:Pyle_pirate_prisoner.jpg, File:Henry_Morgan_libel_news.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Should now be OK, but please let me know if I've erred. I haven't edited the Pyle image, as this was a US publication and he's a US author. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto[edit]

Some comments, mostly on prose:

  • Very nitpicky, but "Much of Morgan's early life is unknown, although he was born in south Wales; it is not known how he made his way to the West Indies, or how he began his career as a privateer" reads awkwardly. Perhaps "Much of Morgan's early life is unknown. He was born in south Wales, but it is not known how he made his way to the West Indies, or how he began his career as a privateer"?
  • "Morgan was probably a member of a group of privateers led by Sir Christopher Myngs attacking cities and settlements on the Spanish Main. By 1663 he captained a ship within Myngs' fleet". If Morgan captained one of Myngs' ships, why is it only probable that he was a member of the group?
  • "Several sources state Morgan's father was Robert Morgan, a farmer." this suggests that this is uncertain, but doesn't say so explicitly, and no sources which contradict this are mentioned. What is the consensus about this identification? I note that the sources given which identify Morgan's father all significantly postdate the DWB's claim that attempts to identify Morgan's antecedents have all proved unsatisfactory.
    • Most indicate Robert as the father, but not all, and I don't think we can judge either way. We represent the uncertainty of the sources with the wording we have. - The Bounder (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In the section on "early career", we once again switch between the probabilistic "it is probable that Morgan served" and the certain "By 1663, Morgan captained". This is confusing.
  • How meaningful is it to say that £70,000 in 1668 was equivalent to £10m in 2016? Did they have equivalent purchasing power? Is that even meaningful when so many consumer goods today wouldn't have been available in 1668? I'm generally sceptical of this kind of equivalence...
  • "Morgan admitted he had met the French officials, but pointed out that this was diplomatic relations, rather than anything duplicitous." Pointed out? It certainly sounds like there's a case to be made that Morgan was doing exactly what he was accused of; "pointed out" seems a bit PoV to me...

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

    • Tweaked, although I'd doubt this is a POV thing! - The Bounder (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Caeciliusinhorto, thank you very much for your comments; I have adopted all your suggestions, aside from the one on his father. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Caeciliusinhorto, I just thought I'd check to see if you were happy with the changes I had made? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @The Bounder: The article is looking better. A few more thoughts:
  1. There are still a number of instances in the article where we read that such and such an amount of money was equivalent to howevermuch in 2016; I continue to be dubious about this.
I know there are two schools of thought on the use of the conversion, but I think it's useful for readers to give them a frame of reference. - The Bounder (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. For a lot of Morgan's life, we don't really know anything, and so the article says, for instance "It is unknown how Morgan made his way to the Caribbean", before giving four separate possibilities. However, in (almost?) all of these cases, no information is given to the reader as to e.g. what scholars think of these various suggestions. In the case of Morgan's travel to the Carribean, each of the four separate possibilities has a different source, three from the 2000s and one from the 1950s. Which is fine as far as it goes. But would it be possible, without straying too far into WP:SYNTH, to say that scholars have generally sided with x or y when answering this question? (And similarly for other points of uncertainty: are the four examples of people who identify Morgan's father as farmer Robert the only four examples, or are they four of hundreds?)
I think it may cross over to SYNTH to try and put weight onto one over the others. I've scanned over four of the sources and they give their preferred path, but without questioning it. I've tweaked the opening para of the early life section to show the DNB stresses that the early life is lacking in reliable information. – The Bounder (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. On the question of sources, WP:WIAFA specifies that we should look for "high-quality reliable sources" in featured articles. Are sources from 1911 (Barbour), 1932 (Gosse) and 1936 (Cundall) still considered to be "high-quality reliable sources"?
Yes, they are still used as sources by more recent historians (Cundall was a source for the DNB, for example). – The Bounder (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to Dank for reminding me of this: I'm still not keen on the conversions, but unless anyone else objects I'm not going to push you on that. Happy to support this one for now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on this. If others object to the conversion I'll remove it, but I still think it provides more contextual help than acts as a hinderance. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Harry Mitchell[edit]

Ooh, interesting article. I'm rather partial to a Morgan's Spiced and Coke (although it rarely ends at one!). This is very nice work; just a few comments:

  • We generally bold honorifics like "sir"; most publications treat it as part of the name (see MOS:HONORIFIC).
  • I don't know if there's much that can be done about it, but the opening "was a Welsh privateer" and the allegiance to the Kingdom of England in the infobox struck me as a juxtaposition.
    • The only thing I can think of is a footnote to explain that Wales was part of the Kingdom of England at the time, but I'm not sure where it would be best placed. Any thoughts? - The Bounder (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "and was involved in the Sack of Campeche" Morgan was or the ship was? Presumably Morgan but it feels like the ship is the subject at this point of the sentence.
  • "in the Caribbean and what is now central America" Was it not always? Also, isn't it one proper noun (ie Central America, with a capital C)?
  • "was given the rank of Admiral" we don't treat ranks as proper nouns unless they're attached to a name (took me a moment to track down the relevant part of the MoS but it's MOS:MILTERMS)
  • Suggest linking the ODNB on the one occasion it's mentioned in the prose
  • "destroyed the ship and over 200 of its complement" seems a rather blazé way to report the deaths of 200 sailors
  • "£50,000 (£7,067,848 in 2016 pounds[37])" Do we need to be so precise (I doubt it's possible to calculate precisely anyway); wouldn't it do to round it down to 7 million, or perhaps up to 7.1 million? Likewise with "£853,521 in 2016 pounds"
  • "and increased his intake of alcohol" Do we know what he drank? From his presence in Jamaica and his legacy I presume rum?
    • Anything he could get his hands on, I think! Although rum is the obvious possibility, madeira, brandy and wine were also being shipped over to the Carribbean at the time, and none of the biographies identify what Morgan's choice was. - The Bounder (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside from those minor quibbles, this is an excellent article on a fascinating subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Many thanks HJ Mitchell, and I am extremely grateful for your comments. I have addressed them as best I can, which I hope is suitable. If you have any thoughts as to the Kingdom of England footnote, I would enjoy reading them too. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That's very kind of you: thank you very much; a very happy new year to you! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in very good shape. I have the following comments on it, of which only the first two are substantive:

  • Per WP:LEAD (especially WP:LEADPARAGRAPH) I'd suggest restructuring the first paragraph of the lead so that it summarises who Morgan was, without getting into the nuts and bolts of his early life.
  • More generally, I think that the lead is a bit too detailed - there's no need for details here (eg, "Under the authority of the commission, Morgan attacked Puerto Principe (now Camagüey) and Porto Bello (in modern Panama). The raids brought the privateers between £70,000 and £100,000 of money and valuables" could be replaced with something like "In X and Y Morgan conducted successful and personally highly lucrative raids on Puerto Principe (now Camagüey) and Porto Bello (in modern Panama)".
    • I'll work on these and ping you when they are done. - The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
      • That looks good Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "the authorisation to colonial governors that they could issue letters of marque against the Dutch" - this is a bit awkward
  • The first three sentences in the para starting with "Morgan and his men arrived at Old Panama City" all start with "Morgan": this could be diversified a bit
  • " it included a call to revoke all letters of marque and similar commissions" - wouldn't a treaty have been more specific than calling for things? Did the countries "agree", "commit" or similar to get rid of privateers?
  • "In 1684 an account of Morgan's exploits was published by Exquemelin, in a Dutch volume entitled De Americaensche Zee-Roovers (trans: About the Buccaneers of America)" - can a brief summary of the book's claims against Morgan be provided?
    • Only in a few places that we identify within the text. It was more a case of a few exaggerations here and there to create the wrong impression, then a few big lies (like the use of nuns as a human shield at Porto Bello. - The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
      • OK fair enough Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that the "Map of Port Royal showing shorelines before and after the earthquake" should be omitted: it doesn't really show anything terribly relevant to Morgan as the text in the article notes only that his grave vanished when the town was devastated Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • OK - I thought it may be useful to show just how much the shores had moved, but now deleted. - The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your insightful comments. I am still working on the first two, but the others were covered (where appropriate) by this series of edits. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Nick-D, I've attacked the lead (in this edit) as you suggested: was this what you thought, or did you have something else in mind? Thanks again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I've run out of time to look at this today: I'll follow up tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
      • No problem - no rush at all. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you so much for your input and comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE TO REVIEWERS. If I could ask reviewers to have a brief look at Talk:Henry Morgan‎#‎Sub sections this talk page thread to discuss whether this sub division of the article is necessary. All comments and views are welcome. Many thanks - The Bounder (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • I'm not sure some of what's in the lead is entirely supported by the article text. For example, the lead says he died "largely as a result of excessive drinking"; the text confirms he drank excessively but does not so definitively link it to his death. Cites in the lead may be needed.
    • Having gone over the sources again, they all discuss his heavy drinking immediately before writing about his death (often in same paragraph), but none specifically put the cause down to the death, so I've removed in information from the lead. (We don't make the connection in the body, so I've left it as is. - The Bounder (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The ISBN for the Curtis book leads to a 2007 edition, and I can't find a 2009 one
  • Scientific American should be italicized, as should Britannica
  • I'm a little confused by your Online/Journals split - for example, you've got DWB and Scientific American in online, but then ODNB in journals - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The DWB isn't available in book format (as far as I am aware), and the Scientific American article looks like online only, rather than copied from a hard copy publication. ONDB is a hard copy. I can see how this may cause confusion, however, so I'll move the DNB into online. - The Bounder (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for your input here yet again: I hope my changes are all satisfactory. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Iridescent[edit]

Version reviewed is this one; as usual, I've intentionally not read anyone else's comments or the talkpage so there may be some duplication.

  • I know the weird mix of spaced and unspaced dashes in the section headings is complying with the MOS prescription that if there's a "c." the dash is spaced and if there isn't, it isn't, but it makes the TOC look horrible. Is there any way around it, even if it means quietly dropping the circas, or even losing the dates from the headings altogether? (Or, of course, ignoring the MOS and not spacing the dashes in either case—if "Early years in the Caribbean, c.1658–1667" is good enough for the OUP, the world will not come to an end if we do the same.)
    • I've removed the circas to stop the MoS circus! - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Per the comments on my talkpage, He was born in south Wales needs an explanatory footnote regarding the status of Monmouth (I'd say put in a second link to the existing footnote 1).
    • I'd already added one (footnote 2). Better where it is, or as a note to a note? - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Does that work? Revert if you disagree. ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Excellent - even better. Thanks for that; I never knew you could duplicate notes like this - very useful. - The Bounder (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Richard Browne, who served as surgeon under Morgan in 1670 stated that Morgan had travelled as a "private gentleman" soon after the 1655 capture of Jamaica by the English, or he may have been kidnapped in Bristol and transported to Barbados, where he was sold as a servant. is unclear—does this mean "Browne said he either travelled as a private gentleman or was kidnapped" or "Browne said he travelled as a private gentleman but he may actually have been kidnapped"?
    • I've added a minor tweak of "either" to clarify the choice of two. - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is possibly a really stupid question, but if privateers were commissioned by government to attack the country's enemies, was Spain actually an enemy at the time? Looking at Anglo-Spanish War (1654–1660), the war between England and Spain ended at the Restoration in 1660 and Myngs's raids were undertaken without the consent of the government.
    • I'll add a footnote on this. Although the wars ended, that was a European affair: the situation in the Caribbean, with the Spanish dominance there meant a whole different situation. - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Now added. - The Bounder (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • While it's reasonable to assume readers will know (at least vaguely) where Havana is, it's not reasonable to assume they know where Tortuga or Camagüey are (I've never heard of either before). Yes, readers can click the links, but we shouldn't be sending people on treasure hunts for such basic information.
    • Now clarified (I think most watchers of the Pirates of the Carribbean films will have heard of Tortuga, but have no idea of where it is!) - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we have any idea why the target of the raid was changed to Camagüey, which looking at the map appears to be the one point in Cuba least suited to an invasion by sea?
    • Too heavily defended - now clarified - The Bounder (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Did he ever hang the murderer in the end, or was he just saying this to shut the French up?
  • The 200 French privateers, unhappy with the division of the treasure and the murder of their countryman, left Morgan's service.—what happened to them? At this point in the narrative Morgan is still 50 miles behind enemy lines—did he just dump them in Cuba and leave them to swim home?
    • They came - and returned - in their own ships. I've added this. - The Bounder (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The story of the castles and the giant ladders raises more questions than answers. Did he bring the ladders wide enough for three men to climb abreast with him in the 23 canoes, or did he build them on his arrival?
  • The {{inflation}} template measures the varying costs of low-value activities of daily life. It's fine for the changing price of bread or train tickets, but you can't use it for capital costs, let alone the value of the gold stripped from a looted city. (See the big warning box on the template itself.) For post-1830 dates you can get away with using the UKNGDPPC index, but pre-Industrial Revolution this is also meaningless. Personally, I'd leave the conversion out altogether and just point out that the entire English government at the time had an annual budget of £1.2–2 million. If you are going to attempt currency conversions, you won't be able to get anything more accurate than "within an order of magnitude", and certainly don't want to make precise claims like £5,263 (£853,521 in 2017 pounds).
    • Removed, and I'll add the English budget figures shortly. Caeciliusinhorto also raised a question on the use of these, and I promised to remove them if a second reviewer asked for it. - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Rather than the English budget figure, I've gone for the equivalent levels the DNB gives instead - measured against the exports of Jamaica and Barbados. - The Bounder (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Re a huge quantity of merchandise and slaves—were these existing slaves of the locals which Morgan had taken for himself, or was he actually enslaving the Spaniards?
    • Existing ones - I've clarified. - The Bounder (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Is "Attack of Panama" what it's actually called, or is this a typo?
  • The loss of Panama so soon after the signing of the treaty—by "loss of", are we just talking about destruction, or had Morgan actually annexed it? I would read "loss of" as the latter, and I suspect most present-day readers would as well.
    • Changed for "destruction". - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Morgan had been a heavy drinker for several years, but he received the news of the revocation of his positions badly is a non sequitur.
  • The piece on the libel action talks about a single book published by Crooke and Malthus, but the accompanying press cutting talks about the libel action being about two different books, one by each. Which is correct?
    • It referred to the same book by Exquemelin, which was issued in Britain by two different booksellers. - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Does the bit about the finding of the Encarnación really need to be here? "Archaeologists found a ship which didn't belong to him" isn't of much interest, and having it here at the end means that a very dramatic narrative ends on something of a wet fart.
  • In 2008 the Captain Morgan brand was sold to Diageo isn't in the source provided, and doesn't tally with the 2001 date in Captain Morgan. The history section on the Diageo website isn't great, but would appear to confirm the 2001 date.
    • No idea why I put 2008 - I know it was 2001! - The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Jamaica as the centerpiece of the British Empire in America—I appreciate this is a quote, but WTF? The American Revolution hadn't yet happened; I'm sure Virginia, New York, Boston and Montreal would all dispute that statement fairly strongly.
    • I'll look into this shortly and how better to put this across, but Blalock is an American academic writing for the American Dictionary of National Biography! I suspect he's talking about the modern, or at least post-1776, British Empire. - The Bounder (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I've re-worked it out of a quote to give the same impression, but not as the "centerpiece". - The Bounder (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I know this isn't your fault, but that "Pirates of the Modern Age" navbox really grates on me. I don't care what the historiographical terminology is—I guarantee that if I go outside and ask 100 people "when did the modern age begin", not a single one of them will give me a year as early as the 1660s.
    • I've boldly tweaked it to "Pirates since the 1660s". We shall see if it lasts that way. - The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a daunting list but they're all relatively minor quibbles. ‑ Iridescent 23:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Iridescent - your thoughts are much appreciated. I've made a start and will ping when I've sorted them all. Only a couple need me to go back to the sources for extra input, so this should be done quite soon. Thanks again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Iridescent, All your suggestions done - I hope to your satisfaction. Please let me know if there is anything else you want to to revisit, or work on further. Many, many thanks for your input: it has been most valuable. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That all looks fine—happy to support. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your comments and support: they are very welcome. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very interesting so far. The usual nitpicks:

  • "privateer. He was probably a member of a group of privateers" repetition. I would substitute a synonym or else change one "privateer" into an adjective.
  • "When diplomatic relations between the Kingdom of England and Spain were worsening in 1667," "when" does not relate well to a period of time. Possibly change "were worsening" to "worsened".
  • "Morgan subsequently conducted successful and personally highly lucrative raids " I would cut "personally" as unneeded, considering you've already made it clear he profited from the raids.
  • " Shortly afterwards" this follows a "subsequently" and so is a bit remote from the last dating.
  • " destroying a large Spanish defence squadron as he escaped." I would cut "defence" as not really needed and probably raising more questions than answered (little late for defence)
  • "In 1671 Morgan attacked Old Panama City, landing on the Caribbean coast of Panama and traversing the Isthmus before he attacked the city, which was on the Pacific coast. " I would cut "of Panama" and possibly "Old". I might also make Isthmus lower case.
  • "although the privateers gathered less spoils than in other raids." While "less spoils" is, I suppose, correct, it reads a bit oddly. Consider "profited less" for "gathered less spoils"
  • "leading figures of government, including Charles II. Charles" close repetition. Not 100 percent positive the king was a figure of government, technically.
  • The Jamaica offices should probably get links.
  • "although a significant investment was needed to obtain the high returns" I would cut "a" and "the"
  • " and took part in the attacks on Santiago, Cuba and the Sack of Campeche on the Yucatán Peninsula" not clear if there were multiple attacks on Santiago or if Campeche makes it plural.
  • " and brought in significant revenue to the island." I might cut "in"
  • "As the planting community of 5,000 was still in a nascent form," nascent form reads oddly.
  • "A privateer was granted a letter of marque which gave them a licence to attack and seize vessels, normally against a specific country," there is a mismatch between "a privateer" and "them". I might also change "against" to "of"
  • "A proportion" I might say "A portion"
  • "In August 1665 Morgan, along with his fellow captains John Morris and Jacob Fackman, " I might cut "his"
  • "Curaçao, although he did not attack the city, " Willemstad?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. All your points addressed in these edits. Thank you so much for taking the time to look over this. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Santiago, Cuba" maybe just "Santiago de Cuba".
  • "Before a riot between the French and English sailors began" I would change "began" to "could begin".
  • "Morgan announced the plan of attacking Porto Bello" I might say "Morgan announced a plan to attack Porto Bello"
  • "and the murder of their countryman" it was not clear earlier that the man died.
  • "returned to Tortuga.[32] Morgan and his ships returned briefly" returned/returned.
  • "On 11 July 1668 Morgan anchored short of his target and transferred his men to 23 canoes, where they paddled to within three miles (4.8 km) of the target." multiple points. First, target/target. Second, I would say "which" rather than "where"
  • "approached the castle" which?
  • I would separate out the material about the religious people being used as human shields and place it after the account of the taking of the castle, in a separate paragraph, or it may colour the reader's perception of how the castle was taken. Thus, I would move up the final sentence to after the word "quickly", and then separate out the controversial account.
  • "President of Panama" is this an accurate title?
  • "the average salary" I might say "the average annual earnings"
  • "which was the price of Morgan's commission" As you use "commission" shortly thereafter, I would make this "letter of marque". And doesn't this contradict what you earlier said about the privateers being able to keep all booty from land attacks?
  • I'll check that in the morning. Cheers – The Bounder (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There is the caveat we mention (one that Morgan used up to the hilt and further): "if Morgan was able to provide evidence of a potential Spanish attack, the attacks on cities were justifiable under the terms of his commission". Regardless of evidence (always obtainable if you torture someone), Morgan was going to attck the cities. - The Bounder (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Morgan and the captains seated on one side of the table were blown into the water and survived; the flotilla's four captains on the other side of the table were all killed." I would cut "flotilla's"
  • "The French captain knew the approaches for the ships to take, which was through a narrow and shallow channel." "approaches" goes to "was", but "were" doesn't really improve things. Possibly, "The French captain knew the approaches to the lake, through a narrow and shallow channel"
  • "outside the city" Maracaibo or Gibraltar?
  • Done to here for now with these edits; more to follow in the morning. Many thanks for these comments. – The Bounder (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "ten ships and 800 men" ... "fire the fortress's 11 guns" "20 miles" I'm not sure I understand your practice for rendering numbers as words.
  • I thought this was the MoS prescribed manner - one to ten as words, 11 and up as numerals. Have I got that wrong? - The Bounder (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "at the narrow passage to Lake Maracaibo, where the San Carlos de la Barra Fortress was sited." since they were already on the lake, this should probably be phrased in terms of passage to the Caribbean.
  • It's not clear what was contained in the Spanish offers that Morgan put to his men.
  • "to catch the ropes and sails of Magdalen and ensure the vessels would become entangled when the fire or explosion took place." I would cut the final seven words.
  • "flag ship" you use "flagship" elsewhere
  • A boat is not synonymous with a ship.
  • "Morgan still needed to pass the San Carlos de la Barra Fortress, but was still out-gunned by the stronghold, which had the ability to destroy the privateer fleet if it tried to pass." when last we encountered the fortress, Morgan had spiked and buried its guns. This should be explained.
  • "and raised 15,000 pesos." "raised" may be understood to "successfully solicited". I might say "secured" and add "from the wreck"
  • " and a huge quantity of merchandise and local slaves." I'm uncomfortable using "quantity" to describe human beings.
  • "The privateers faked a landing of their forces in preparation of a landward attack on the fort." I might strike "in preparation of a landward attack on the fort".
  • "That night, while the Spanish were facing toward where they thought the privateers were," maybe "That evening, with Spanish forces deployed to repel a landing,
  • "before Morgan and his men made their way back to Port Royal unscathed" I might change "before" to "and"
  • "a pro-Spanish faction had the ear of King Charles II" I might add a "gained" before "the ear"
  • "Modyford reproved Morgan for his action," You use "reproved", in quotes, earlier on to indicate Morgan getting a slap on the wrist from Modyford; this seems a little more serious so I would use another word. --Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. All these addressed in these edits. Please let me know if there are any that need re-addressing. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
A few more:
  • "army of privateers was the largest that gathered in the Caribbean" a bit awkward. I'd make it clearer that this was at this time.
  • "They were faced by" opposed by
  • "down a ravine to a small hill on the Spanish right flank." the ravine was higher than the hill?
  • " if his troops lost to the privateers ... after the privateer's victory;" while the second reference can be taken to be referring to Morgan, it still could be mistaken for a typographical error.
  • "a warm and positive welcome" I'm afraid I'm not clear on what that might be in 1591.
  • "The historian Violet Barbour considers it probable that one of the Spanish conditions was the removal of Modyford from the Governorship. Before the attack on Panama, Sir Thomas Lynch was given a commission to replace Modyford. Following diplomatic pressure from Spain, Lynch was instructed to arrest Modyford and return him to England." The sequence of events is not clear. I imagine that the Spanish were originally content to see Modyford replaced, but the sack of Panama City, which is not even on the same ocean as Jamaica, got them hopping mad and they insisted on his arrest. In any event, this should be more clearly stated.
  • "Morgan was temporarily stranded on the island until picked up by a passing merchant ship" and the others?
  • "Bindloss and Morgan received recompense for those who signed." maybe "Bindloss and Morgan received a commission for each one signed."
  • "criticism of their action in London was fermented" possibly "fomented" for the last word?
  • "Morgan still retained his position on the Assembly of Jamaica." I'm not sure you've mentioned this.
  • " Howard Pyle's 1921 work, Howard Pyle's Book of Pirates." It's not precisely a 1921 work as Pyle died in 1911 and his publisher assembled some of his pirate tales and illustrations. Suggest a slight rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Wehwalt. These all addressed in these edits. Thanks again, The Bounder (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Excellently done. Yo ho ho and a bottle of ... well, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That is excellent news: thank you very much for your time and patience on this. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Citations #141 and 142 say "AFI:Captain Blood" and "AFI:BlackSwan" but I don't see an "AFI" listed as author in the source section?
  • Breaking the sources into "books", "online resources" and "journals and magazines" makes it more difficult to find sources based on the short footnotes (i.e. I have to search three different lists to figure out what "Thomas 2014" is.
  • Footnote #1 is "Britannica: Monmouthshire" but there is no author listed in the sources as "Britannica" ...
  • Footnote #127 is "US Geological Survey" but there is no author listed in the sources as "US Geological Survey"...
  • Footnote #145 is "Diageo history" but the nearest match in sources is "Diageo Company History" - I assume they are the same?
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your review, and congratulations on your recent successful RfA – a good decision reached. For all these sources there is no listed author, so I have tried to provide what I hope is a logical description of the sources below, so AFI is the American Film Institute, Britannica is the Encyclopaedia Britannica, etc. There is no real need to searching through the lists to find the sources: the hyperlinks for the reference "Britannica: Monmouthshire" will drop down straight onto the relevant source. The division of sources by type is one I have seen in numerous academic works, but in this instance I copied it from a couple of articles I had read on Wiki before, Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)#Sources and S. O. Davies#Sources, both of which are FAs from Brian Boulton. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually - there is a need. If someone prints out the book form or reads in some other form than through the computer - they will have to look through the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah - I didn't realise that we had to format things for all media viewing. Thank you, I shall remember that for next time. Do you have any suggestions for renaming while retaining the three sections, which I think should be retained? Many thanks. - The Bounder (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest just standardizing - either use the name of the article in the short footnote or put the AFI/Britannica/US Geo as the author in the long citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's great. I'll address that later this evening and ping when it's done. Thanks. - The Bounder (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Ealdgyth, All now done and thanks very much. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

The Bounder, I think this'd be your first FA if promoted? In that case I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use while avoiding close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all newbs to jump through. One of the above reviewers may be able to do it, or else you can leave a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi Ian Rose, Yes it is. I'll ping Ealdgyth as the source reviewer and Nikkimaria as someone I've seen doing source reviews to see if they are able to help out (or anyone else, if they see this!). If neither of them as able to, I'll place a note on the FAC talk. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi one and all (pinging all those who have commented and reviewed so far: Nikkimaria, Caeciliusinhorto, HJ Mitchell, Nick-D, Iridescent, Wehwalt and Ealdgyth). As Ian Rose has requested a spot check on the sources, are any of you able to pick up on this? I'm not sure if any of you wil have access to the sources, so I would be happy to email you scans of specific pages (or downloads of DNB pages) to make the process easier - just let me know the page/source and email me so I have your email address, and I'll ping them over. Many thanks if anyone is able to take this extra step on. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Gabriel Pleydell[edit]

Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel Pleydell was a controversial politician from Wiltshire who served in the English Parliament throughout the 1550s and 60s. He is mostly remembered for his involvement in several court cases, ranging from illegal hunting to conspiring against "Bloody" Mary I. This article also describes his family's origins, rise to the House of Commons and information surrounding his death. I've worked hard on this article, having created it and responded to GA and PR feedback. My prose isn't the best, but I've benefited from a thorough copyedit by a user from the guild. I'm not expecting this article to be perfect as this is my first FAC nomination; I will say, however, I believe it to be comprehensive and reliably sourced. Your constructive feedback will be much appreciated. Yours, Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I reviewed this at PR, and it's in very good shape. I have copyedited -- please revert anything you disagree with. A handful of minor points:

  • What does "permissible" mean in "the acquisition of property in Chippenham and Preshute (a permissible distance from Marlborough)"?
    Detail added in a note, feel free to copyedit if necessary.
    That's a very helpful note, but I'm still not quite clear -- does "permissible" mean that Chippenham and Preshute were within the Marlborough constituency? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    I now understand where you're coming from. Chippenham was a constituency in it's own right; Preshute, however, is a parish that lies immediately on the town of Marlborough's western boundary and thus fell into it's constituency. I've tweaked the sentence slightly. Curlymanjaro (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    OK, that makes sense. I think we might as well be more direct with the reader, though; how about replacing the parenthesis you have now with "(both of which were within the borough of Marlborough)"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    That would usually be a good suggestion. However, by 'borough' I refer to Marlborough as a borough constituency, which does not include Chippenham but does Preshute. Indeed, at this time, Chippenham was it's own borough constituency. Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    Ah, OK. So it was only Pleydell's acquisition of the Preshute property that qualified him for Marlborough; the acquisition of Chippenham had nothing to do with his nomination? If so, how about "His position as ranger probably led to the acquisition of property in Chippenham and Preshute; the latter allowed him to qualify for Marlborough's seat in Parliament"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    Done. Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Direct quotations such as "Regarded as a ringleader" should have a citation immediately following.
Cited.
  • "Although the Star Chamber considered his comments slanderous, it took little judicial action against them": little, or none? If the source isn't specific it's fine as is. Also, I'd change it to either "action against him" or "action regarding them" as an action would have been against Pleydell, not against his comments.
    You were right to point this out, Bindoff suggests the "result is unknown" regarding the matter. Hopefully I've rectified.
    Much better. I tweaked it a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "a kinsman of William Garrard, with whom Pleydell served as Member for Wootton Bassett": perhaps "a kinsman of the William Garrard with whom Pleydell served as Member for Wootton Bassett".
Added.
  • It looks like Alison Wall's description of Pleydell and Sharington as "scoundrels" is only cited to Hasler; I think it should be cited directly to the ODNB.
Citation added.
  • Are "corrupt" and "notorious" from Bindoff? If so, that's fine; otherwise I'd cite them directly following the quoted words.
They're from Wall; the citation is included in the note correcting her description. I've added another footnote for good measure.
  • How confident are we that Cordell is the gentleman depicted? Unless we're pretty sure I think the connection is too minor for a possibly unconnected picture.
    Most online references to the picture describe the painting as "Portrait of an Unknown Gentleman (sometimes called 'Sir William Cordell')". Given the obscurity of much of Tudor history, I feel it's acceptable. I trust your good judgement regardless.
    Johnbod, can you comment? I'm not knowledgeable about art history at all, so I'd like another opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, struck; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "several Members of the Wiltshire gentry": should this be "members"? Or were they all MPs?
My mistake, just a typo. Duly corrected.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much, Mike Christie. Once again, you've been incredibly helpful. Curlymanjaro (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Pleydell_coat_of_arms.png: what is the copyright status of the original design?
    I've recreated the arms based on Burke and Burke's description in A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England, Ireland, and Scotland (1844). As for free use, the design outdates any possible copyright limitation currently in place. The design has been published at least twice outside of Wikimedia Commons - here and here. There is also a free use image on Commons that includes the arms; I'll leave the link here (see furthest left on the second row).
  • File:Westminster_16C.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    Done.

Many thanks Nikkimaria for carrying out the review; please let me know if my response is insufficient. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

With regards to the second, do we know the author's date of death? Assuming Brewer was contemporary to the 1884 publication, he could have survived well into the 20th century, which calls into question both a life+100 designation and a pre-1996 UK copyright expiration. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems I can't find anything online regarding Brewer. I will say, however, the modern incarnation of The Builder magazine must have given explicit permission for the website of the UK Parliament to republish the work. Despite this, licensing for images from Parliament's website has been a contentious issue among users in the past, especially in regard to the 'Open Parliament License' described on the site's copyright page. Being undoubtedly more experienced than myself in this field, I would be grateful if you could cast your eye over this. Curlymanjaro (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That Open Parliament License site indicates it applies only to works which were/are under Crown copyright or are owned by Parliament; that doesn't appear to be the case here, absent evidence to the contrary.
  • We can solve the US copyright easily by using a {{PD-1923-abroad}} tag, but the UK will be more problematic. If we cannot find any further info on the author, or identify any other reason why it would be PD in the UK, we could always upload it locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Added the tag for American users. Done some digging into H.J. Brewer and could only find a San Fransisco-based artist active at a similar time to our draughtsman; I've no way of verifying a connection. Curlymanjaro (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Given this, what do you think we should do from here, Nikkimaria? I could upload locally; although I would appreciate advice on the non-free guidelines. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Upload locally. This will eliminate the need to confirm that the image is free in the UK - if we later uncover information that it is, we can re-upload to Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Done. You're more than welcome to tweak the details of the upload; as I've mentioned, I'm no expert in the minutiae of non-free files! Curlymanjaro (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Technically, now it isn't non-free. Commons requires that works be free/PD in both their country of origin and the US, but Wikipedia only requires that works be free/PD in the US - and this image is, it's only the UK status that is questionable. See intro to WP:NUSC. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • More fool me. Thanks once again for your insight. Curlymanjaro (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Coming of age by 1540, his entrance into politics in 1553 was secured by his residence at Midgehall, near Wootton Bassett, giving him a valid claim to the market town's seat in Parliament." This does not sound right. The first clause is superfluous as you have already said that he was born by 1519. In the rest of the sentence, "secured by his residence" and "valid claim" are far too strong. Many people living there would not have been thought to have a valid claim.
Deleted first clause. Replaced "secured" with "permitted"; removed "valid".
  • "confirm for Gabriel Pleydell a niche in parliamentary history", according to a contemporary biographer." Bindoff is modern, not contemporary, and "biographer" implies that Pleyfell has been the subject of a full scale biography. I would prefer "historian".
Amended.
  • "Pleydell was born by 1519 at his family's estate of Midgehall" In note 4 you imply that Midgehall was leased by Stanley Abbey until 1534.
Amended.
  • "A 1545 record, ordering him to pay 26 shillings and 8 pence in benevolence to the crown under King Henry VIII, indicates that he was managing the financial affairs of the Midgehall estate." It would be helpful to explain before this sentence that his father had been granted a 95 year lease in 1534.
Sentence added.
  • The note explaining "benevolence" should be after the word, not at the end of the sentence.
Amended.
  • "In 1549, William Pleydell bequeathed Gabriel tenancy of the manor house at West Ilsley, Berkshire;" This implies that William died in 1549, but in the next sentence you say he died in 1555.
My mistake, "bequeathed" changed to "entrusted".
  • The description of the dispute over Midgehall is confusingly worded. Rather than saying Gabriel would inherit after his father's death in 1555 and then qualifying it, why not just explain how he left the estate, then his death and that of his wife and Virgil (when?), then that Virgil was a "wayward" and what that means.
Hopefully my changes have been satisfactory here. The last clause of your suggestion was a misinterpretation; I was implying that Gabriel had been described as "wayward", but I've removed the quote to avoid confusion.
  • "Gabriel received the remainder of Midgehall's 95-year lease after unsuccessfully challenging the former's will" This is again unclear. Whose will? His mother's?
Yes, I hope I've made this clearer.
  • Why did he challenge it and how did this result in him receiving the lease?
One would speculate for financial or material gain, but this would be conjecture. I believe this had little to do with Midgehall, circumstances meant that he would inherit the lease regardless.
  • "(an action that estranged his sibling John, who was never "involved in the misadventures of his brother")" Presumably his younger brother John, so it would be better to say so. Why was he concerned in the dispute and what misadventures?
Amended. The "misadventures" refer to his later legal affairs; I concede this was an inappropriate section to use the quotation.
  • "Tobias relinquished his inheritance, having been settled in Chipping Faringdon for 11 years." 1. This presumably explains why Gabriel inherited the lease as Tobias was the only person who had a superior claim, but you seem to have confused the issue by putting the apparently irrelevant court case in the middle of the explanation. 2. 11 years to when? You are giving no dates here. 3. The passive form implies that he lost his claim by his residence in Chipping Faringdon. It would be better to say " By [year] Tobias had been resident in Chipping Faringdon for 11 years, and he relinquished his inheritance."
1. You'd be correct in that presumption; are you referring to the Chancery case mentioned under "Plaintiff and early defendant"? 2. Date given. 3. Adopted suggestion.
  • "He married Anne," "He" appears to refer to Tobias, the last person mentioned in the previous paragraph, but presumably you mean Gabriel.
Amended.
  • At present I am not inclined to support. The content looks OK, but the awkward style and elliptical references to matters which are not explained make the article unnecessarily difficult to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully I can change your mind. I've made an effort to address the issues listed, please let me know if the response is insufficient. Thanks so much for taking the time. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

With peace and joy, Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, is another cantata by J. S. Bach, for the first time a chorale cantata. The idea grew discussing what we can do about celebrating 500 years Protestant Reformation. My 2ct: this article on music by Bach who set a text by a contemporary poet who included and paraphrased Luther who paraphrased Simeon's canticle which is part of the prescribed gospel for Purification, 2 February. With such a great story, I was surprised that it's rather a work not published and recorded often. - The article received a GA review by Sainsf in April. I went over it, moving Mincham to external links (as Brianboulton advised) and checking for double links (as Tim would have done). - Previous cantatas didn't rely so much on other articles (look for "Main"), - I am a bit unsure how much from them needs to be taken on board, tried to include a bit but am open to suggestions about less or more. Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2[edit]

Hello, nice work in article. I'm pretty sure it can become a FA but there are still some things that could use some touches:
  • The final sentence of "readings" is lacking citation.
The sentence says no more than that there are compositions, such as Chant (pictured) and Pärt's work (linked, to be expanded). There are many others, because it's a regular part of evensong and was set by numerous English composers, but I feel it would be undue weight to list more. --GA
  • The movements have some pretty small sections. Can't some be expanded or removed?
Not removed because it's a consistent format over other FAs about Bach cantatas, compare BWV 161 perhaps. Expanded hopefully. Much more could be said based on Mincham (external link), but see above. --GA
  • Also that table above is lacking references.
As in the others, the references are given once above. --GA
  • "The instruments are shown separately for winds and strings, while the continuo, playing throughout, is not shown." is unsourced too.
It's only an explanation of the organization of the table. --GA

Other than that, I found this article well written and referenced. Once you fix this issues, I'll give my support. Also remember to ping me when you are that "@Tintor2:" Also, I recently made a FA nomination here. I would appreciate feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for diligent reading and comments. I'll see what I can do about expansion of the movements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I added a bit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I support it. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Sortable fields in tables should not contain multiple values since only one can be used to sort
done --GA
Done in one table, still the other yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
did the other ---GA
  • How are entries in Bibliography being sorted? Also shouldn't be mixing cited and uncited sources in the same section
within a group: by author, within same author by date, - what if no author? I took the publisher then, but am open to suggestions. - The only "uncited" source is the free score, simply because I don't know to cite it. Should I not use the template, or is there another way? --GA
I'm confused. I see in the group "Online sources": Bischof, Hale, Braatz - not sorted by author. There are three Bach Digital sources: two shortened footnotes use part of their title, one uses publisher name. The free score you can place in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Hale sorted, - I feel that access to a score would be the most important thing for a reader to have. Will think about that and the digitals ---GA
  • File:Nunc_dimittis_(Gregorian).png needs a US PD tag, as does File:Mit_Fried_und_Freud_Babstsches_Gesangbuch_1545.jpg
Calling my image expert RexxS --GA
PumpkinSky helped. please look again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be longer
Will try, - was so far waiting for possible changes to the article which would influence what to mention --GA
  • Quotes of longer than 40 words should be blockquoted
where would that be? --GA
Hymn and words, second para. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I think only the translation makes it more than 40 words. The translation could go to a footnote, but I'd prefer it closes to the other, for comparison. I think a blockquote in the one section that has images would be awkward. Could we IRA? ---GA
I am not sure what you mean by IRA, but both the original and the translation are individually over 40 words. If comparison should be emphasized, perhaps place them side by side? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Good idea, will try ----GA
  • Suggest scaling up the chant transcription
done --GA
Pärt is not linked because his piece is, - to avoid a sea of blue. "Strophic" is now linked. "Presentation" is linked in the lead and the first occurrence in the text, also in a Main article listing and an image caption. What would you drop? The first occurrence below the "Main"? Removed links: Lutheran, chorale fantasia, added links: hymn, - any other suggestions? Thank you for the review, appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If you have a Main article listing, there's no need to relink within that section. For other duplicated links, you've got "motif" twice within one section - you may want to install the duplinks script. For adding links, think about a reader who doesn't have a musical or religious background: liturgical year (I see it the lead, but linked to church cantata rather than liturgical year?), stanza, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Arvo Pärt linked now, blue sea of of other, less important, links not withstanding. Better phrasing can avoid this. Ceoil (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
In projects Opera and Classical music, we don't link the composer when the piece has an article. Why should a FA deviate from that? Any reader who doesn't know Pärt can be sure to find the link in the article on his Nunc dimittis. He is not significant for the cantata, just a (random) example of composers setting the text in the 21st century. I will expand the article on his piece, promised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
some duplicates removed, as indicated, liturgical year linked although the other article is much more specific about what it means for Bach at his time, not all denominations ever, - stanza I thought was as common a term as poem, no? ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Stanza is a term also used in poetry, yes, but unfortunately that doesn't mean it will be known... Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I have no way of knowing such things. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

Can we add some audio files, and why is 4/4 at least not blue liked as a time signature. Very good, and more from me shortly. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't create audio files. There are YouTube samples available, but readers should make a choice, not we. I don't think 4/4 needs a link as time has one, no? Looking forward to more, and thank you for helpful copy-editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagaree with all these points, but fine. Ceoil (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you create audio files? - About 4/4, I'm just asking. If you think it's needed, go ahead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The autograph score is lost...The original parts are kept in the Bach-Archiv Leipzig. The termonology should be clarified here, I was a bit confused. Ceoil (talk)
Do you mean score (the complete music, as for a conductor) vs. parts (for the individual players) needs explanation? If yes, how about a link (to I don't know yet to where, never had the question so far). We can't explain that in every piece of Mehrstimmigkeit (de), music where several voices are heard simultaneously, such as cantatas and symphonies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
ps: hunting for score, I arrived at sheet music, but don't find a concise good explanation there, - best probably at subsection Type. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand score; what is a 'part' needs differentiation for lay readers. Am enjoying this article; nice recent work on the lead. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
How to do that without boring those for whom it's the normal term to use? link to Part (music)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Note I am leaning support, pending issue below and a last read through. Ceoil (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Support from me. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

John[edit]

It looks good. I can do audio samples. 10% of the piece would only be two 10-second samples. Where should I sample? Gerda, we can do this by email if you prefer. --John (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I know what you'd need. Listening or sheet music as on IMSLP? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Audio timecodes. I am looking at a 3 12 minute song, so we could include up to 10% as a fair-use sample, I think. Which two 10-sec bits would we use? --John (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the very beginning and the choral entry, but afraid that the first line might take longer than 10 secs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Take a look and see if it is any good. --John (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I listened, - for me, it's too short, but perhaps ask others such as Ceoil. The second sounds like the alto's entrance from No. 1 (by text and many singing) rather than No. 2, good example of first bit of hymn tune. The hymn is played in the hymn article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, take that as an example. We are constrained for how much we can have; I believe the rule is 10% though other reviewers may have other opinions. It is relatively easy for me to generate other samples if you can give me approximate timecodes. --John (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to wait to find out how others feel. Problem I see is that Bach's rather complex approach is tough to capture in bits. Can you move the second example if my guess is right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I rather like the sound file provided by John I think it is well chosen, but of course no snippet can capture all Gerda seems to desire. Ceoil (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

N[edit]

Why is the title not "Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin (BWV 125)" or just "Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin"? Nergaal (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The titles of Bach's works were discussed in 2010. We need to differentiate from the hymn on which it is based, "Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin", among others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Yash![edit]

Thank you for looking! Hope your exam went well! --GA
  • "The opening chorus has been compared to the opening movement of Bach's St Matthew Passion." - compared by? Would prefer having some information about that.
Well, this is handled in detail by Julian Mincham, see the GA version, but Brianboulton doesn't consider him a reliable source, compare Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4. I could just compare things myself, if that helps. How do others feel? Mincham, who gives a detailed analysis, is now an External link. --GA
Adding to that: At least Gardiner and Mincham compare, probably others also, - I'd prefer to mention Mincham, and certainly not Gardiner alone, because Mincham's analysis is more detailed, but see above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Chorale cantata (Bach)" is linked in the the first sentence of the prose then again linked in the "main article" template. Perhaps it can be unlinked from the first sentence?
It's common to link in the lead, in the infobox, and the first time in the prose. --GA
Yes, I know. It is linked here: "Bach wrote the chorale cantata..." - which is the first mention in the prose. Then again, in the "main article" template of "Bach's chorale cantata format".  — Yash talk stalk 12:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Now I understand, but still: think it's impossible (nor useful) to exclude the link from the Main template, and see no need to remove the one from the first mentioning. - Bach's chorale cantatas and their cycle differ from everything other composers did, and this is the first FAC about one of them, - we almost can't emphasize enough ;) ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "chorale cantata cycle" should be unlinked from the last sentence of the first paragraph since it is already linked in the "main article" template.
Good point, done, --GA
  • "and had himself written many hymns" -> "and had written many hymns" - I like to avoid the usage of "himself" as much as possible.
"Himself" avoided now, but is there a way to stress that he not only promoted the idea of German hymns but actively did something to make it possible: write them?. Half of the hymns in the first Lutheran hymnal are by him. --GA
  • "early for a cantata for" -> "early in a cantata for" - if that doesn't change the intended meaning.
Yes, done, --GA
  • "and reworked it much later as a cantata for Reformation Day" - "much later" sounds a bit too vague. Perhaps mention the year?
We could better if we knew exactly when he wrote Ein feste Burg. Scholars vary between 1723 and in the 1730s, see the question marks in the linked section Reformation Day. That is not the topic of this cantata. Unfortunately, we don't even know when the Advent cantata was composed, 1715 or 1716. Anyway, for Bach who composed about a cantata per week for three years, the minimum difference of 7 1/2 years is "much later". --GA
  • "Purification" - wouldn't it better to link it the first time it is mentioned rather than the second?
I see it linked the first time, --GA
I was referring to the link in the "Reading" section. Maybe linking "Purification" in "Reading" is overlinking? I am not sure as the previous mention happens in those nine bullet points.  — Yash talk stalk 12:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Look what I did: replaced that link by one to the readings. - Some time ago, the link to Bach's works for the feast came with the readings, which I liked better, but perhaps this works? ----GA
  • Can "Nikolaikirche" and "Thomaskirche" be linked?
yes --GA
  • "The Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann", in the 3.2.4. 4 should just be Hofmann as he is referred to as "Hofmann" in the previous sub-sections too.
Good point, must have been the first mentioning in an earlier version. More Hofmann was moved in, when Mincham was moved out--GA
  • If I am not mistaken, any usage of "x" inside a quote should be done as 'x' - referring to the quote by Hofmann.
Do you mean to change quotation marks within a quotation? If yes, done, --GA
  • "The autograph score is lost. Its last documented owner was Christian Friedrich Prenzel." - perhaps those two can be merged.
How would you? --GA
How about "The autograph score is lost with its last documented owner being Christian Friedrich Prenzel"?  — Yash talk stalk 12:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, "with it's" doesn't sound more elegant to me than two clear separate sentences ;) ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not sure about this but wouldn't it be better to use bold instead of italics in "Bibliography"? Referring to "General" and such.
I learned italics on Kafka, but am not religious about it. --GA

It is a very well-written article - great work, Gerda Arendt.  — Yash talk stalk 11:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I replied to some above. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - the issues I raised have been addressed to my satisfaction. Regards,  — Yash talk stalk 15:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Victoria[edit]

I thought I'd take a look because I noticed from my watchlist that Gerda needs it to be reviewed. I am absolutely stupid in regards to music, so don't have the credentials to do a full review but I have a few questions about things that to a layperson such as myself are unclear:

Thank you for coming to help, Victoria! --GA
  • First sentence mentions this is a "church cantanta" but the link goes to Bach cantata. What's the difference, if any?
The link goes to Bach cantata, because many readers may be unfamiliar with basic knowledge of his cantatas, both church and secular. These things can't be explained in every one of 200+ cantatas. In earlier versions it was "is a cantata by Bach, a church cantata for ..." - but that was regarded as too repetitive. --GA
Bach's chorale cantatas are in a special format. While most other composers (all that I know) used the chorale text unchanged, he had a contemporary poet rephrase all inner stanzas in the literary style of their time, which is more or less 200 years later. - Chorale cantata in general is linked from there. --GA
This a very detailed and nuanced defence - needs to be clear on the page. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok. Let me explain. I clicked the links and they seem to suggest that only Bach wrote cantatas. But after reading your replies I searched for Cantata, and see there that it's a type of Madrigal, which has meaning to me. I suggest that somewhere at the very beginning we provide a simple link for lay people. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Just above, I said that we had it that way, cantata first, then church cantata, - only reviewers found that too repetitive. Do you have a better wording? (The present is a standard for about 200 cantatas.) - Other example: Motets (Bruckner) is more specific than motet, but would you think that only Bruckner wrote motets? - We (classical music editors) go from specific to general, Church cantata (Bach) is a Bach cantata, which is a cantata. Whoever doesn't know can follow the path. - I'm rather surprised that cantata is a kind of madrigal. Most important in the cantata article: the meaning changed over time. We need to say what it means related to Bach, not what it meant in the 17th century. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Four stanzas >> does that mean the hymn is in four stanzas?
yes --GA
  • "The gospel for the feast day, the presentation of Jesus at the Temple, includes Simeon's canticle Nunc dimittis, which Luther paraphrased in his hymn." >> difficult for non-churchgoers to parse the meaning of this (plus there's a lot of blue). Can it be simplified? And is this sentence saying the same thing: "The relation of the hymn to the liturgical occasion is unusually close in this instance because the text which Luther paraphrased is part of the prescribed readings for the feast day."
Before saying the second sentence, I feel the first has to be said, it's also a standard for all Bach's church cantatas, compare Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 - Gospel -> Latin hymn -> Luther's paraphrase -> Bach's setting. - For many other occasions, no relation of the hymn chosen to the occasion and it's prescribed readings is obvious at all, while here it is the prescribed gospel itself, even if paraphrased, because this gospel contains the song, one of three songs of the New Testament (Magnificat and Benedictus the two others). --GA
  • "Bach had used single stanzas of the hymn in his early funeral cantata Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit, BWV 106, and other cantatas of his first Leipzig cycle." >> the same hymn? And what does the Leipzig cycle refer to?
Yes, the same hymn. - There are several Bach Leipzig cycles, of which the Choral cantata cycle is the second. The link was there, a bit earlier, and the cycles are all in the footer of the navbox at the very bottom, and explained in Church cantata (Bach). --GA
  • Do these articles never include a section for critical reception, i.,e it's the most wonderful piece of music ever written because [fill in the blank?]. That would be helpful for the layperson to know, I think.
At Bach's time, there was no critical reception. We'd love to know if the listeners appreciated what Bach gave them. At least his successors kept the music of the chorale cantatas and revived some of them. Otherwise, the rediscovery of his music was left to the 19th century. --GA

Possibly more later, but not editing daily so might not get back. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Between now and then? Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried to read the article and came away very confused, made a few comments, but no if it's too difficult to comprehend I might not come back. I don't understand music, (tone deaf, ya know), so whatevs. Sorry Gerda for bothering you. I do think you should make it more friendly to a lay audience but I'll let it go. Thanks all. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not bothered by questions but "more friendly" leaves me uneasy. Need sleep though, past midnight, and if I was not patient enough trying to explain that may have been the reason. - If you have a better wording for the first sentence, Victoria and Ceoil, you are very welcome, but remember that it is a standard for a series of similar articles, seeral of them FA. See you tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I referred to reader friendly, a term commonly used when evaluating prose. The article appears to be a specialized piece and is difficult to navigate for an uninitiated reader. For example, the first sentence gives us a German title, an English translation in parens, a bolded set of three initials with a number, and a link that doesn't exactly explain what a church cantata is, for those who don't know. The next sentence seems to assume the readers know what "Feast" refers to, the link goes to Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. The third sentence is slightly awkward in that it's not clear whether the "four stanzas" modifies text or hymn. The fourth sentence has a duplicate link to the presentation (this assumes the readers know that purification = presentation), followed by four unfamiliar words. A common mistake in writing, one we all make, is that what makes sense to the writer will not always translate well to the audience. In posting the questions above, I simply tried to explain that as a lay reader I had some difficulty. I do, however, apologize if that was in any way misconstrued. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, food for thought! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict with you and saw that you modified some questions. If necessary please do it again, - sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
New day: I tried to word the first sentence with more basic terms. Victoria, please let me know what you think. It's now a lead to Bach cantata instead of Church cantata (Bach), - I believe more helpful than cantata which is very broad. - It's like a link to painting instead of oil painting, - trying to find a comparison. I don't know if in the arts, you have articles such as Mozart piano concertos. When in a specific one, a link to that overview would help me more than to piano concerto. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It's very odd that we posted at the same time in the same section without an edit conflict. When I write about a short story, I link directly to that, not to Short story (Hemingway), but perhaps there is something here that I don't understand. Which I suppose is what I'm trying to explain. Not sure whether you saw my comment posted above?. Anyway, don't worry about it. I'm sure this is all fine. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your post, but now. - We are in a series of articles, and how the leads should look was decided by project talk in 2010. Yes, the cantata articles are specialized, and it would be very repetitive to put even a summary of Bach cantata, Church cantata (Bach), Chorale cantata (Bach), Bach's early cantatas, + five cycle articles + the complete list in a single cantata's article. Back in 2010, we decided to have their titles uniformly 'German title, BWV #", because they are performed in German around the world in most cases, and some start the same way, so the composer's name is not distinct enough. That article title needs to be explained, the German title by a translation (sometimes two), the BWV # by a footnote. BWV # is bolded because BWV 125 is a redirect. We could then link to Bach cantata, piping "cantata by JS Bach", however, we want a link to Bach as well, no? It's like some link to Armonk, New York, others split that in two links. I would not like to link to cantata for two reasons: because it's too broad (madrigal is early Italian secular, misleading for Bach, for example), and how would the reader ever find Bach cantata which everybody who is new to the topic better reads before any on a single cantata. Sorry for that, again. - Mixed replies: I confess that I thought every reader would know what a feast is, but may be wrong. - Purification of the Virgin is a redirect. - The four stanzas belong to what was mentioned immediately before, otherwise I would clarify, but perhaps you have a better idea? - Nunc dimittis: I could just say that with a link, where it would be explained that it's Simeon's canticle, but thought more readers would understand a bit better when the perhaps more familiar terms were added. Sorry that it doesn't help you. Ideas welcome, also how to explain without linking twice that purification refers to the scene in the temple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I was simply explaining what I meant by reader friendly, not that each point had to be addressed again. I made few edits (and then reverted myself), but just to show you in this version, I've edited so as to move some of the blue out the very beginning, to move from general to specific, i.,e it's a church cantata, it's part of a specific cycle, it was written for a specific occasion, and so on. For a lay reader, such as myself who is steeped in ignorance, it seems to flow better, but I could well be wrong. Simply wanted to offer it should you be interested. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I am interested, and thank you for the elimination of one of two "paraphrased". From general to specific was what I also attempted: first give the reader a date and a time of where to put this specific work in Bach's biography and music history, and the hymn of the same title which is still part of explaining that title, - then more on the occasion and its readings, which were the same every year. The chorale cantata cycle aspect seems the most specific thing to me, distinguishing this cantata from the others written for the same occasion. Then details about structure and music. - How do you feel about a sentence about when Bach took up the position as Thomaskantor in the lead? How about the evaluation by Jones to conclude the lead, - could you paraphrase that? (I was told to not use the same quote twice.) Jones translated Dürr's book on all Bach cantatas, translating all their texts, and wrote himself the book in two volumes on Bach's creative development, - he knows the topic, and I am not good enough in English to say it in other words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Montanabw[edit]

  • Support: I'd offer detailed comments, but this late in the process, I looked at the concerns expressed above and there is really nothing I can add. Most of the comments raised have been addressed and most of what is left are minor questions of style that do not significantly affect my analysis. The article meets FA criteria, in my opinion. I think that it might be wise to resolve any redirects via a piped link, but that's a very minor quibble. Montanabw(talk) 17:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! There's an image question open, look for "US PD", also one about sorting refs. Perhaps you can help with one or the other? Off to rehearsal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
After rehearsal, the image licenses were improved ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Passing thought from Bencherlite[edit]

In all the extensive history of Bach appreciation and scholarship, is there really only one sentence's-worth of material for a section headed "evaluation"? That does surprise me. BencherliteTalk 22:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There is one sentence that summarizes it well, as explained in my response to Victoria. All others I came across were not as good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
One-sentence paragraphs are a bad sign. Either expand it or merge the sentence elsewhere. BencherliteTalk 23:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I moved it to the lead for now, serving it early. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Material should not be presented only in the lead. This is not an appropriate solution. BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll work on that but not tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Reading through a bit more, some questions/further comments:

Thank you for offering improvement! No rush, and no need to even get this to FA, because something else was scheduled for the one day it would be good. - I won't drop it though, because I'm interested in article quality, not stars. - Thanks for waiting, there's RL also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Background: what is "concerted music"? It's not a phrase I'm used to, and it's not explained.
I read it in a source (forgot where) and thought that I finally found the English term for musica concertata or konzertante Musik. Obviously not. Is there one? - Bach called the work not a cantata, but concerto, and that kind of music was not allowed during silent time (Advent and Lent), but was requested other times. I was happy not to repeat cantata. concert music? ideas?
No - as I had to ask you what "concerted music" means, I can hardly give you an alternative. I don't think that "concert music" is a synonym, though. BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Do I understand right that there is no English term for musica concertata? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • When the first cycle was completed a year later, he set out to compose another cycle with the restriction that each cantata was a chorale cantata, based exclusively on a Lutheran hymn. The cycle became known as the his chorale cantata cycle. Two sentences, four "cycle"s and three "cantata"s - the repetition is clumsy and ought to be trimmed. And did he merely "set out", or did he in fact achieve this? It's not clear from this. And the timeframe jumps about from second cycle to first cycle to second cycle. How about:
  • "Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig in 1723, where he was responsible for the music at four churches and for the training and education of boys singing in the Thomanerchor. During his first twelve months, he composed a cantata for every occasion of the liturgical year where [concerted music] was requested. Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin was part of his second set, which became known as his chorale cantata cycle, based exclusively on Lutheran hymns." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for combining, but it's a bit too simple regarding the specialty of the second cycle, which he set out and managed from mid of 1724 to Palm Sunday 1725, missing only a few (absence, Sunday = Feastday ...), then lost his librettist and began to write "normal" cantatas again. This is explained in the article on the cycle. I'll think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried the chronology you recommended, please check again. --GA
Worse than before. I complained about the repetition of four "cycle"s and three "cantata"s, and you've now increased this to five examples of each word, as well as adding in unnecessary details. BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
trimmed more --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Protestant reformer Martin Luther had emphasised the importance of singing hymns in church services and at home. He had written many hymns, including "Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin". Hymns were important for Lutheran worship..." The article says twice in three sentences that hymns were important.
trimmed ..GA
  • Do we really need to list lots of other Luther's hymns used during the Lutheran chorale cantata cycle? Seems to be unnecessary padding - the detail is in linked articles if people are that interested.
Define need. The details are in the linked articles, right, but not together at a glance, such as the dates showing that Bach (or the minister) didn't rush to use Luther's hymns, there's higher concentration towards the end. - The year of the Reformation prompted the article expansion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)7
At best, it's worthy of a footnote to this article, which is about this cantata, not about other cantatas nor original research about whether Bach or the minister was rushing to use Luther's hymns or not (and so what if he wasn't?) BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There's no OR in the article, only the titles, dates and occasions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Text: " The canticle, one of only three in the New Testament, along with the Magnificat and the Benedictus, has often been set to music, traditionally sung in the daily evening service compline,[17] from Gregorian chant to music of the 21st century such as Arvo Pärt's 2001 Nunc dimittis." This sentence contains too many ideas for one sentence (as shown by the multiple commas), adds little to the reader's understanding, and gets in the way of the flow of the article.
Split in 3. I think the context of Bach's Nunc dimittis within European tradition might show. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Clearly you missed my comment that the sentence added little to the reader's understanding of this article. If you want to say that this cantata is part of the tradition of setting the Nunc, find a source that says so. Why does it matter for these purposes whether the ND is one of three or thirty canticles in the New Testament? Furthermore, you now claim that the Magnificat is part of the compline service, but it isn't according to your source (it's part of the CofE Evensong service, as is the Nunc, FYI) - and, again, as far as this article is concerned, so what anyway? BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It matters that there are these few canticles which therefore are especially cherished and repeated through the centeries, no? Cut Magnificat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Simeon", "canticle" and "Nunc Dimittis" are linked in the lead (in a sea of blue, which isn't great) but Simeon and canticle are not linked here. Is there a reason? And shouldn't Nunc Dimittis be in italics, as per Nunc Dimittis itself?
As in a reply to Victoria above: when mentioned the first time (in the lead), I thought the addition of Simeon and canticle might help some readers who may not know the Latin but perhaps the person or the term which is close to chant, and helped better with a link. The second time, I think that help is no longer needed. I am open to dropping the addition altogether the second time. What about the first? - Regarding the italics, there was a discussion for no italics for Latin incipits (sorry, again forgot where) such as Requiem, Benedictus, - which to my understanding includes Magnificat and Nunc dimittis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
A link in the lead and a link for the first time in the text is the general approach, I think. Perhaps you don't need to mention Simeon in the lead (too much detail). Mentioning a discussion about italics that you can't remember the location of is not terribly helpful, is it? BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Dropped Simeon in the lead, and linked canticle both times, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion found: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 48#Italicization of Latin incipits --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
In short: we can have
"Nunc dimittis" – a Latin incipit
Nunc dimittis – a phrase that entered the English language, like Requiem
Nunc Dimittis – a title in English
Nunc dimittis – a title in Latin
I would say Verdi's Requiem (term), but Reger's Requiem (title), because Verdi's is the liturgical work that the English term means, while Reger's is not.
The choice in an article depends on the case, not on "our article" which is limited to one of the valid options. Peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't "four stanza hymn" be "four-stanza hymn"?
Don't like both, sentences reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Can the sections on "readings" and "hymn and words" be combined? Both, for example, talk about Simeon's canticle, so there's a stop-start feeling to it.
They could be combined, but the specialty of this cantata - that the chorale paraphrases the gospel reading - is clearer when separate? There are many chorale cantatas where you hae to search long to find any relation between chorale and reading. Also, there would be many Main templates above that combined section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are misusing {{main}} here and elsewhere - it is for when a summary of a subtopic article is used in a more general article, not as a substitute for an inline link (check the template documentation). Furthermore, templates should not be the tail that wags the dog. Trim the irrelevant stuff from "readings", remove both level 3 headings, and the sections can flow nicely together. BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Removed Main, happily, and made one header. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "An unknown librettist kept the first and the last stanza and paraphrased the inner stanzas in four movements. The second movement takes Luther's stanza as a starting point and takes Simeon's view as an example on how to look at one's own death." We have "takes... takes...". Also, "takes Luther's stanza as a starting point" tells us that it's a paraphrase, which is what we were told in the previous sentence.
reworded --GA
Actually, on re-reading, is the "unknown librettist" perhaps Andreas Stübel? If so, you could mention him here instead of earlier. BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps, but no more. I dropped "unknown".--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • " Movement 3" - should be "The third movement" (appears more than once, looks slangy)
The "slangishness" is consistent with the numbers as the headers, avoiding long German incipits instead. It's also consistent with the other FAs (example O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165) and GAs on the topic. You are the first reviewer to find it slangish. --GA
The fact that I'm the first to mention something doesn't mean I must be wrong, and the use of numbers as headers doesn't mean that numbers have to be used in prose. The choice isn't "Movement 3" or "[long German phrase]" - that's another strawman argument. BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "as it was customary in Leipzig on high holidays." How about "as was the custom in Leipzig [etc]"? That reads more naturally.
Nothing English is "natural" to me, I need to be told, thank you for doing it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Structure and scoring: "Bach structured the cantata in six movements, with chorale movements framing the alternating arias and recitatives, an opening chorale fantasia and a closing chorale." I had to read this sentence several times and still couldn't make it fit with the table below. The "with -ing" construction is one problem, and the lack of clarity as to whether the "chorale movements" are the "chorale fantasia and closing chorale" or something else. (Remember that you know this article and the piece very well, but most readers will not have heard this and will be reading the article for the first time). Since the table shows me that the chorale movements open and close the work, the sentence unnecessarily repeats "chorale". How about "Bach structured the cantata in six movements: a chorale fantasia to open; an aria and a recitative, twice; and a closing chorale."
Reworded, differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Suggestions: "on Luther's unchanged text" --> either (preferably) remove, as you're repeating yourself from the previous section, or use another word instead of "on" e.g. "using Luther's unchanged text"; you don't need to say "last" and "closing" in the same sentence; "on the words of the librettist", again (preferably) remove or reword; "who quotes the second stance embedded in recitative in movement 3." is a phrase where I can't follow what you're actually trying to say. BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I dropped the Luther and the quote of Luther's text inserted in the recitative, single old lines in the new, making it a unity with new meaning, - sorry that I am unable to express that. Stübel or whoever did it was able. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave it there for now. I think the prose is below the engaging and professional standard required of a FA. BencherliteTalk 23:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I still think the prose is substandard, and I've not analysed every paragraph, so the coordinators should treat this as an oppose. BencherliteTalk 22:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Part I.

  • The first sentence, third paragraph of the lede strikes me as unclear, and the opening phrase is unhelpful in figuring out the sentence. I would begin, "An unknown librettist ..."
Where would you place that this is common to the cantatas of that cycle, a unique concept to "translate" part of older text to contemporary lyrics? --GA
  • " framing four movements for soloists by a chorale fantasia and a closing chorale." I might say "surrounding" for "framing" and "with" for "by"
Thanks to Bencherlite (ThtB), that changed already, but the term "frame" seems appropriate to Baroque architecture and music, with da capo arias (form: ABA) for example. --GA
  • "with the restriction that each cantata was a chorale cantata, based exclusively on a Lutheran hymn." possibly "consisting entirely of chorale cantatas, each based on a Lutheran hymn."
Changed already (ThtB) --GA
  • "Hymns were important for Lutheran worship, and the choice of hymns for the series of chorale cantatas was probably made by the minister," some indication of when this was? When Luther started things or at the time of Bach?
The first is gone as repetitive (ThtB), the second Bach's time. --GA
  • "(per omnes versus)" the reader may be perplexed at this.
It's a technical term for what has just been said in English. How would you recommend to give it to those who understand? --GA
  • You are not consistent with the dashes you use to indicate multiple Biblical verses (compare Malachi with Luke)
fixed, I hope
  • "Simeon's canticle Nunc dimittis " our article on this seems to italicize the title.
Yes, see my response about Latin incipits. (Thank you for not capitalizing the second word of this one ;) ) - Adding: I don't know if the article didn't follow through, or if things changed again. It's Requiem, not Requiem, for example. --GA
  • "Bach had used the hymn " you use this, or a very similar construction, to begin consecutive sentences.
please explain --GA
  • "An unknown librettist" are we talking about the subject of the article or one of the things mentioned in the previous paragraph?
repeated cantata name to clarify --GA
  • "Movement 3 comments the embedded complete text " possibly, "Movement 3 includes the complete text ..." --Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Would you have a good wording for that he - in a highly artistic way - made the Luther text part of the complete one line by line, best visible in the translation by Dellal?
Thank you for looking closely. As explained, I don't care anymore if this article will be FA, just take it as kind of peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: @Gerda Arendt: |It might be worth pinging a few of the reviewers who have commented so far. There have been nothing here for over 3 weeks, and we are in danger of this going stale. We can leave it open a little longer, but something needs to happen soon. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The article seems to be in good shape but due to lack of commenters, I propose the nominator review other articles and gain feedback in response. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt:, your comment above to Wehwalt – (Thank you for not capitalizing the second word of this one ;) ) – is obviously a direct dig at me, since I'm the only person to use a capital "D" in "Nunc Dimittis" on this page (old chorister habits die hard). It was a completely unnecessary comment and comes across as rather provocative in a passive-aggressive way, which is particularly annoying when I'm trying to help improve this article with you. BencherliteTalk 22:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry to have annoyed you, it was not intended. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You all who commented made the article better, thank you! I will work on the open issues, but after other projects that I neglected. Next time I will invite to a peer review. This can be archived; in peace and joy I depart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Can I clarify, Gerda Arendt, do you want to withdraw this? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Define withdraw. This article will not make it to be TFA on 2 February 2017 (the year of the Reformation) for which it would have been timely, - I am sorry that I had the idea too late, and then not enough time to pursue it. I don't want to waste Bencherlite's time, and I don't work well when accused of aggression of any kind (here for smiling about some irony for a moment and making the mistake to type it: there is not only one way to write Nunc dimittis, as explained above). It's not good for my peace of mind, and I have many other things to do, update all Bach cantatas by links to the cycle articles, complete Poulenc's catalogue, work on DYK noms from 2016, write new articles, + RL. If that means "withdraw", I withdraw. I will still work on the open questions until the day for which it was composed. The next attempt is planned for 2 July which leaves us a bit more time ;) - This is an invitation to keep it watchlisted and collaborate. - A year ago today, I received the news that a friend had died, - if in peace and joy we will never know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, don't you think you can address the comments within a day or so and then request the TFA? I don't know enough about the topic to support or oppose, but did make some comments about the lead and provided an alternative. I'm happy to work with you on this, if that would help. As long as you realize that I work fairly slowly these days and am only online a few days a week. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your help, a lot! - No, I don't think, I can address the comments because when I tried I made it worse, but you know the language ;) - I also don't want to change the scheduling already done until 10 February. - But improvements are always welcome. The missing evaluation section will take some peaceful research time, not interrupted by another request to find references for published books in Latin, as between my last post and now (see my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I'm running a few days behind & just saw this and tried to make a few fixes. To be absolutely honest, I'm not the person to be making those fixes, because as I said earlier I don't know the subject well enough. I'm a strong believer of taking time and working slowly, so I understand perfectly. The result is usually a better article. Good luck. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I'm afraid speaking in riddles doesn't really help the co-ordinators. I'll assume this means that you want to leave this open for now and let it run its course. Perhaps see what Victoriaearle can do to overcome any hurdles, and take it from there. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: and @Sarastro1: I've given it a small try but need to stop now and have to be gone for the next two days. I won't mind at all if Gerda reverts all my edits because I've been guessing (and tone deaf is tone deaf); this material is much beyond me. Bencherlite seems to have a much better understanding, and I've tried to address some of his comments, but very unsure at what I'm doing. It's really up to Gerda whether she wants to keep this open. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've worked over the prose, but classical music isn't my field so I'd appreciate it if Gerda and perhaps someone else would go over it to make sure I haven't introduced anything not justified by the sources. If all is in order, I'm prepared to support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see below: by my mistake, you went over an older version. I restored Victoria's and tried to add your improvements, with the three exception outlined further down: minister/clergy, "typically for Bach", and "melodies". I am very pleased with your solutions for things I struggled to word, such as "Simeon's perspective as a means of how to anticipate one's own death". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support I've gone over it again, and it seems to meet the criteria. One thing, "Herr, du siehst statt guter Werke" you translate as "Lord, you see, instead of good works"). I'm not sure that conveys what you intend, because it doesn't seem to make the most sense in English.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I looked at the third movement again, and rewrote much of it, using longer phrases of the cantata text (it's not my translation, but Dellal's, and in short doesn't even make sense in German). Perhaps the text excerpts provide some more feeling for the style of the 18th century in contrast to the 16th. (I can take the earlier better.) Please check once more, if you have the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Help from Victoria[edit]

  • Update and pinging (Gerda Arendt, Bencherlite, Wehwalt, Sarastro1 ): I've done the best I can here and it's now up the Gerda to finish. I'm unable to work through the "Music" section because it's so far out of my knowledge. Of the sections I've worked on the one where I still have the most concern is "Luther's hymns", which I've tried to prosify and break up a little. But it's still extremely blue and I'm not convinced that we need some of the target links. My suggestion would be to simplify, to mention that Bach used seven of Luther's hymns in 1724 and continued with more in 1725. I also think some of this information could be possibly shoved into a note, or even cut. Currently the text is:
  • I've hidden the information about the canticle (of three, etc.,) which, though interesting, seems to stray from the scope of the article. It could go to the Nunc Dimittis page or to a note.
  • This sentence doesn't make sense (and I've left an inline comment after): "Luther paraphrased Simeon's canticle ("With peace and joy I depart in God's will"), in one stanza." >> we are saying Luther's hymn is four stanzas, but here it says only one.
  • I've made various other fixes and copyedits. There are still a few areas that I think can be buffed up, but it's best for Gerda or someone else to do it. I've tried my best! Victoriaearle (tk) 01:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Victoria! I think that help from someone new to the topic is especially valuable, and then from you, with your background of FAs in art and literature! I took the liberty to eliminate the refs from the quoted section, all different pages of the same book anyway.
  • The section about the other chorale cantatas on Luther hymns was created as background. In 2015, I wrote an FA that includes a section with links to all cantatas written in 1715, in 2016 one with a section of all Early ones, and one all in 1716, - sections that can by referred to from other articles. Remember that the article Bach's early cantatas didn't exist and was written - partly based on the section - by Francis Schonken, who also wrote the other cycle articles. In 1717, Bach didn't write cantatas, but the year of the Reformation gave me the idea to focus on those cantatas based on Luther's hymns, making them all GA quality at least (like all early ones were made GA last year). These sections are not good enough for a stand-alone article, so I thought, but Francis proved me wrong ;) - The section could go to List of hymns by Martin Luther or the base for Bach's use of hymns by Martin Luther. I think the section is short and can easily be skipped by uninterested readers. What do you (all) think?
  • "one stanza": I thought I had corrected already that it was one stanza for each of the four verses of the canticle, but I seem to not have pressed "save", sorry.
  • Dec (my version): Luther's hymn in four stanzas is a paraphrase of Simeon's canticle, "With peace and joy I depart in God's will". Luther phrased each verse of the canticle in one stanza. The first stanza expresses accepting death in peace ...
  • 11 Dec: "Luther's four stanza hymn paraphrases Simeon's canticle "With peace and joy I depart in God's will". He phrased each verse of the canticle in one stanza. The first expresses accepting death in peace ..."
  • 18 Jan: "Luther paraphrases Simeon's canticle "With peace and joy I depart in God's will", each of the four verses of the canticle in one stanza. The first expresses accepting death in peace ..."
  • 18 Jan: "Luther paraphrases each of the four verses in Simeon's canticle ("With peace and joy I depart in God's will"), in one stanza. The first expresses accepting death in peace ..."
  • The change to wrong happened then: "Luther paraphrased Simeon's canticle ("With peace and joy I depart in God's will"), in one stanza. The first expresses accepting death in peace ..." I will correct to the first version, please copyedit.
  • The other copyedits: I will look in detail (just woke up and saw the ping), and I await a second round of comments from Wehwalt. Thank you again Victoria for taking the time to deal with this topic! If I sent a click for every edit I like, your were flooded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Beginning of the lead is now:
I'd like to see time and place sooner, suggesting the following (note that the "first performed" is replaced by mentioning the day of the feast):
Please let's discuss:
  • I feel some link to purification (Purification?) is needed. I don't know why we have Annunciation, but nothing similar for Purification, but Visitation (Christianity). We can't say Bach wrote it for Candlemas which he didn't know.
  • I'd prefer to avoid the very broad liturgical year, which takes the reader to the general concepts in many religions (which many readers will know), while for Bach the precise Leipzig one was relevant, as outlined in Church cantata (Bach) (which many readers will not know, - I didn't know until I got interested in the topic that the readings were the same every year then, while prescribed I know today have a sequence of three years.)
What do others think? One source mentioned that the chorale cantata cycle was created in 1724 because of 200 years after the first Lutheran hymnal and two more in 1524. We can't be sure, but interesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Re Candlemas - I took a risk there because I thought the name of the Feast day should be mentioned, and Klaus Hofmann explicitly mentions it here, page 8. If you're uncomfortable with it, you could simply stick a ref after it, or if you want, get rid of it. Re purification, I can't speak to that but having two links that go the same page didn't seem optimal. All that said, I'm fine with whatever changes you make to the lead. The Lutheran hymns (though interesting in the context of 2017), appear to be a tangent and somewhat beyond the scope of this particular article, but a solution might be to move elsewhere - either to a note or a separate article. Anyway, handing back over to you and the reviewers. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Adding: Perhaps what you want for purification is Churching of women. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Last first: Churching of women is an interesting article, but only tangentially related to Bach. The feast celebrated in Leipzig was Mariae Reinigung, Reinigung = cleaning = purification, - mentioned later in the article, because I didn't want too much German in the lead. Candlemas can stay in the way suggested, but should then probably be mentioned also in the body. If you look at Hofmann in German (p.15), it says more precisely than in English: "... Mariæ Reinigung 1725 entstanden. Dieser Festtag, auch „Tag der Darstellung des Herrn“ oder volkstümlich „Lichtmess“ genannt, ...", in English: Purification of Mary composed in 1725. This feast day, also called "Day of the presentation of the Lord" or popularly Candlemas, ...", - note "also" and "popularly". The German Lichtmess (literally Light Mass) is much more a Catholic term than a Lutheran, - The other chorale cantatas: if they are removed from here, at least the early BWV 4 for Easter should still be mentioned, showing how early (probably in 1707, 18 years earlier) Bach composed a Luther hymn, and then performed that work on Easter Sunday both his first Leipzig year and his second. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm striking all my comment above per this edit which reverted my copyedits. Happy to see reviewers on board. Unwatching now. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, I made a silly mistake: when I copied the information related to Arvo Pärt's Nunc dimittis from the old version, I saved that old version, without wanting it. Sorry, do you understand? I'll try to get back to that version, but it's not easy, because Wehwalt made edits afterwards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Victoria, I restored the version before my mistake and then took on board what I saw in Wehwalt's diffs as well as I could, with a few intended differences:
  • I don't know if the minister was of the Thomaskirche. Bach was responsible for music in four churches, perhaps ministers also? The same music was performed in two churches one day, - perhaps the sermon also? The exact organization of the clergy seems not relevant for the cantata, and perhaps "clergy" was even better than "minister".
  • By the clergy would be fine. I will give it a final read-over in the morning (US time).--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Typically for Bach, he treated the first as a chorale fantasia ..." - no, not for Bach, but for this format. A chorale fantasia is something many other composers would also do, but the recitatives and arias on contemporary rephrased text are - afaik - unique to Bach, not similar to the works of others.
  • "melodies"? The melody is the same in first and the last movement.
  • OK. Melody then.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I am very sorry about my confusion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
How about "the local minister"?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, but I would make it "a local minister", - for four churches, they must have had more than one. Perhaps they had one specifically interested in the topic, but we should not guess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. If you do a search or find on this version before I made any changes you'll see that "minister" is there, "typically" is there, and I've looked through the diffs of all my changes and don't see that I made a change to "melodies". I don't know enough about the subject, but as I said feel free to revert everything. Much of the discussion became moot, so I struck it and I'm tired. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

These three were some of the changes by Wehwalt. I changed a few things of both of you, that's all for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, I'm rather lost here. You've said above, more than once, that this FAC can be withdrawn / archived and that this is now effectively a peer review. When talking about me elsewhere you have said that you don't care if it gets promoted, and also that you have assumed (without asking me) that I'm too busy to re-review. Bizarrely, you also complain that "[I] expressed that I didn't appreciate his help enough." That claim definitely needs a [citation needed], frankly - I objected to you being snarky about my use of a capital letter, but you should have noticed that despite that I continued to review the article and to make suggestions for improvements. I never said anything along the lines of "you haven't appreciated my help enough". So, Gerda - have you un-withdrawn this nomination? If so, I'll carry on, but if not I have better things to do in my private and professional life over the next couple of weeks than to resume my review. BencherliteTalk 13:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I was ready to give it up first when 2 February was scheduled, but Victoria offered help, which made me think it over. I was ready to give it up again when I read your oppose, which seemed an indication that you were done with the review and didn't want to waste more time on it, - I may have read that wrong, then I apologize. I value your judgement. In the meantime, both Victoria and Wehwalt improved the prose, so if you have more time, I'd appreciate another look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Burning Rangers[edit]

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Behold, one of the least respected video games of the 1990s. What makes this article different—at least for me anyway—is the fact that it relies on mostly offline sources, which were all accessible! It was something of a minor miracle that I was able to squeeze as much information out of this incredibly rare product. I believe that this article meets both the 1b and 1c aspect of the FA criteria as it is comprehensive for the subject matter. A couple of scans have missing urls because they are only accessible through sites like Sega Retro and the like. If you want access to a particular source for spot-checking, just let me know. I learned from my past mistake on Nights into Dreams... that having at least one Japanese source for a Japanese game in necessity for FAC, so I've added some snippets from the Sega Saturn Magazine's review of this game. As if that wasn't enough, I have access to a couple more issues, but implementing Japanese sources is a slow process.

Burning Rangers was released at the very end of the Sega Saturn's life span (it was among the final five games released in America). But what makes it so sad is the fact that it demonstrated that the Saturn was a more powerful machine than its rival, the PlayStation. Still though, it faded into obscurity and thus I'm trying to promote this to FA status in hopes that some people would appreciate it. Despite the broadness of the article, I have never played this game. Please don't hold it against me as last time I checked it was something like £200 on eBay! JAGUAR  21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


Comments from Aoba47
Resolved
  • I would recommend adding ALT descriptions to all of the images in the article.
  • Added. JAGUAR  16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't it "most of which are" rather than "most of which is" since you are referring to "tasks"?
  • Good catch, fixed. JAGUAR  16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do you think the article needs a "Plot" section, similar to the one used in the Nights into Dreams... article? This may not be necessary as the game may not have a narrative (which is why I am assuming you do not have this kind of section in this article), but I just want double-check that this assumption is correct.
  • I don't think there is any kind of narrative in this game. Before I came to this article there was a small plot section, but I found expanding it to be impossible, and WP:VG/GL recommends merging some aspects of the plot into the gameplay section if there is nothing to expand upon. Hopefully the reader can surmise that the game revolves around a group of rangers putting out fires and rescuing people, as that is the only thing it is. If anything is unclear please let me know and I'll try and clarify it. JAGUAR  19:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. The "Gameplay" section makes it clear that the game is about a group of rangers. I just wanted to double-check to make sure that there was not a major narrative in the game requiring a separate section. Merging it into the "Gameplay" section was definitely the right decision. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section reads somewhat awkwardly to me. It runs rather long and may benefit by splitting into multiple sentences. I am also wondering if a reader unfamiliar with the Sonic the Hedgehog games (as I am sure there are still some out there) would understand the concept. I would suggest revising this part to make it a little clearer and stronger.
  • I thought that the latter half of the sentence (marked by the semi-colon) describes the similarities with the crystals and rings, but I see your point. I've split and reworked the sentence to explain the crystals' function in more detail. JAGUAR  21:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and I think your revision made that part much stronger. Your original wording was good, but I think it is important to be as clear as possible when it comes to one of the central gameplay mechanics. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Gameplay" section sounds somewhat odd to me. When listing the locations, you mention burning buildings and a few other places. However, I would imagine that all of the locations are burning considering that it is a firefighter game. It might be better to state what type of building if possible rather than describing it as burning, as the presenting wording could make it seem like the "burning" part is unique to the building stage if that makes any sense.
  • I understand what you mean. I've removed the "burning" part and further elaborated that the game also takes place in apartment blocks and factories too. JAGUAR  21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and the revision looks good. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Did the development team provide any reasons for why they believed "the element of fire was the most appropriate way to create fear and tension"? This is more of a clarification question and I understand if this is all the information given in the source, but I just want to double-check.
  • I double-checked the source and it doesn't give a reason a why, as it just says "it seemed that fire was the most appropriate way to cause fear and tension", along with the 'rescue game' element. It's always good to check these things over though! JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I just wanted to make sure about this point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In the first sentence of the third paragraph of the "Conceptualisation and planning" subsection, you use the term "targeted" twice in a close proximity and I would suggest revising for variation.
  • Good catch, rephrased. JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I do not believe the "interesting things" quote is really necessary. It might be stronger to simply say "in hopes that they would find inspiration for designing the game's stages". I am only suggesting this as I have received a note in the past about only using quotes when absolutely necessary, so I think this part would benefit from your own words.
  • That's much better, thanks! I try my best to cut down on quotes but sometimes it's difficult to paraphrase. It didn't seem to be the case here, though. I'll go over the development section once again and see if I can paraphrase anything else. JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I definitely know that feeling all too well. You are much better at paraphrasing than I am. The section looks great! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Great job with the article. It is a very interesting read! I found relatively few areas for improvement. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. I will support this once all of my comments are addressed.

@Aoba47: thank you for the review! It looks like I owe you another one. I think I've addressed all of the above; even though I would have done it a lot quicker but I found myself going in and out of sleep last night. This was a nice little article to write, and I'm glad that it's going smoothly. JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar: No worries. Sleep is definitely more important so no need to apologize for that. I really enjoyed reading through this article. I never heard of this game before, so it was cool to learn about it. I would love to play it (if only it wasn't so expensive lol). If you have time in the future, could you help me with my FAC for Love, Inc.? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. I did the review for this article primarily because I was really interested in the subject (maybe one day in the future I will work on more video game-related articles) so don't feel pressured to owe me a review or anything like that. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Aoba47! Don't worry, I'll leave some comments at your FAC soon. I'll probably read through it tonight and will leave some comments tomorrow, if that's OK. I make sure to always keep my promises. To be honest I hadn't heard of this game until a couple of years ago, but I became interested in this because it showed that the Saturn was a more powerful console than the PlayStation, and this arguably had better graphics than anything else. It's unfortunate that this costs so much as my writing of this article would have been more articulate had I owned it! JAGUAR  18:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I know my article is not particularly in your field of interest so I greatly appreciate your help. And the history about the Saturn is very interesting. You did a wonderful job on the article, especially since you never actually owned the game or played it. That is very impressive. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Tintor2! I'll be happy to review your FAC. JAGUAR  16:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


Resolved comments from Odie5533
  • Comments "Burning Rangers interview and review" says it is issue 10, but the link is to issue 31. The Archive.org link goes to search results. Change the url to [47] to go to the selected page instead. Is Soft Bank SoftBank Group? If so, you could link to it. Hobby Consolas link could also be changed to [48] to not jump to search results. If I'm looking at the magazine right, it looks like the review is from 104-106, not 104-107. The GMR magazine citation is to page 103, but the review appears on page 102 (see page number in corner of the page). GamePro magazine citation says page 109, but the magazine shows page 108. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Could Hobby Consolas be linked in the references? I am not sure what the MoS says, but I prefer more source links so people don't have to look around for them. In Citations you use e.g. "p. 54, 55". But in the Bibliography you use "54–55". Also you use p. instead of pp. even when you are referring to multiple pages. But I could not find anything about this in the MoS, so I have no idea what proper usage is. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @Odie5533: thanks for the source review! I have addressed all of your concerns. I've used the double "pp" for all of the harvrefs that covers two pages, and I also put in the dash instead of the comma. Thanks for finding the issue error. I don't know why but archived scans always gives out the pages one more than what they should be (for example 109 instead of 108), but they're all fixed now. JAGUAR  17:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Looks good. Someone else will need to do a real "source review" because I've never done one for FAC and I'm unfamiliar with the criteria. Other comments:
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  • For the Weigand review in GamePro, you have two Citations for it, one to page 108 and one to page 109, but the review is only 1 page on 108. Also you have it in the Bibliography, but it's only one page. Same with the GMR review.
  • Already seems to be like that, I think? JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Note: Do a search for "Weigand 1998, p. 109." on the page. There's one for p. 108 too, but the article is only on page 108. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You also have a citations for Brookes p. 68, p. 69, p. 70, but the Bibliography only shows pp. 68-69.
  • Just checked the issue again and it is indeed pages 68-69, so fixed. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Citation #15 for Nutter still has p. 51, 52.
  • Fixed and added 'pp'. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Citation #32 references p. 107, but Bibliography now only goes to 106. There is something off here because you reference Herranz p. 104, p. 105, p. 106, p. 107, but the magazine article is only 3 pages, so even with the Archive.org numbering being off by one, still shouldn't have 4 pages of refs.
  • Good catch. I mistakenly allocated the bit where she couldn't understand the dialogue to page 107, where that's clearly an advert. I've corrected it to page 106. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sega Saturn Magazine staff in the Bibliography shows pp. 58-61, but you have refs spanning from 61-63.
  • I could only access the Japanese issues through Sega Retro, and their organisation of the issues weren't great. I recall having multiple tabs open at once so I must have got confused. I went back to issue in question and can confirm that the feature spans 58 to 61, so the citations are now corrected. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The Nutter interview starts on page 50 in the magazine. You don't reference page 50 though. I'm not sure the protocol on citing pages you don't use in the bibliography, but as it's an article I personally would cite the whole article even if I skipped some pages. Also, the content from the mag ends on page 59, not 61.
  • Fixed. I have no idea why it says it starts on page 49 in the address bar and when I was in the original search mode it said page 51. To make it worse the Sega Saturn Magazine didn't number their pages (or perhaps they're cropped in the scans). Anyway, I've changed it to page 51 to 61. You're right, it's best to list the pages of all the relevant content, even if it's not used in the article. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You have a citation for Smith 2003, p. 102., but p. 102 is unrelated content. You probably mean p. 103.
  • Internet archive playing up with the extra page number again. Fixed. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • For the GameSpot review, Ryan Mac Donald spells his last name with a space. He does so on his profile, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook too.
  • Fixed. Thanks for checking JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I fixed this, but the AllGame citation had the wrong Archive Date.
  • Thanks. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain. I hope I'm not nitpicking either. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Odie5533! Once again I've addressed everything. It's confusing because the scans either gives out the wrong number - it's either one ahead or one behind. But I've got it all sorted now. Thanks for checking. I owe you one. Please let me know if there's anything else. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Glad to help. I don't nominate stuff often, so you should probably pay it forward. Looked over two files as well: File:Burning Rangers cover.jpg - too large for a WP:NFCC 3b. Scale it down to around 500-550 on the longer dimension. And the one of Yuji Naka might do with a crop of just him from the chest up, is how I'd do it at least. That leaves off his bandage, some other person's foot, and someone's bag. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Odie5533: thanks again. I've shrunk File:Burning Rangers cover.jpg by 80% (hope that looks OK). Regarding cropping the photo of Naka; Indopug actually uploaded a cropped version but I admit that I removed it as I wasn't sure if it obstructed the photo too much. I agree that the current image of him does look awkward, so I've cropped it again and added it to the article. JAGUAR  12:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. There is still a reference to Weigand p. 109 when that page is an ad. I think it should be p. 108. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@Odie5533: oops, fixed. Thanks. The issue was actually 109, to make it even more confusing. JAGUAR  21:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hi, I realise this nomination seems a bit short (in comparison to most others, anyway), but I think I've addressed all comments reviews regarding prose, sources, and images. Odie's review consisted of both a source and image check, so I'd just like to make sure if there's anything else I need? JAGUAR  15:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Note to contributors that I did not do any fact-checking of the article. Someone should perhaps do so. And I have never done a source review before, so it might be worth having someone give it a once over. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar: I don't think this is ready to be considered for promotion yet, and will need additional review/feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both for the replies. I agree – just wanted to make sure that it wasn't over yet. I'll request for a source spotcheck. JAGUAR  22:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • You don't seem to have visited WP:VG/RL and so your coverage may not be comprehensive. I have a 5 page Burning Rangers article/interview with Takao Miyoshi from GamesTM which is not referenced in the article.
      • If you have access to it please may I have it? I would like to expand expand this as much as possible. I'll skim through WP:VG/GL to see if there are any offline sources I have missed. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
        • WP:VG/RL, not GL. In addition to the GamesTM feature, GameFan has a preview, Next Generation Magazine has a preview, and Edge has a review (rated it 8/10). There are WPVG users listed in the ref library as having copies of them, or you could ask on WPVG. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Thanks! I can't find access to the Edge review (I did see the score though). The 'GL' was a typo. I've asked for Saturn scans before, so I'll see what people have in store. I'll start looking at the Next Generation preview now. JAGUAR  18:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • "The game's four stages take place in varying locations from factories, flats, underwater habitats, and space stations in zero gravity." - Do they take place in varying locations such as these, or these exact four locations?
      • Just the four specific locations. Rephrased to make it sound clearer. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • "can be repeated at any time by pressing the "Z" button on the Saturn controller" - what about the jump button? The extinguisher button? Why is this relevant?
      • I see your point. Removed the "by pressing the "Z" button..." line. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • "the size of what Naka considered a regular project" - There's very little context to what a "regular project" means. Regular for Sonic Team, or Sega, or game development as a whole? Nowadays, teams regularly have 100s of people, so maybe you've included that phrase to give an indication of typical dev team sizes in the late 90s, if that is the case, make it explicit.
      • The source states "the Burning Rangers team is the size of a regular project-there are bigger teams within Sega", so I think he was alluding to Sega itself rather than Sonic Team. The interview was conducted in 1998, so I don't see any reason to compare it to development team sizes today. I've rephrased this to "regular project for Sega", if that's OK. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • "Ohshima claimed that during development of Nights... ...all Sonic Team games" is fluff that can be cut.
      • Cut, and merged the remainder with the last paragraph. JAGUAR  18:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The release subsection is pointless, and the small paragraph should just be incorporated in the design subsection above.
      • Done. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Gamerankings adds no value. You already have more scores, and more diverse sources than Gamerankings.
      • I thought including review aggregators was a mandatory thing with VG articles? JAGUAR  17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • "he expressed concern with occasional clipping and glitching" and "criticised the occasional clipping" - clipping happens all the time so that areas not visible are not rendered. What you may mean is collision detection, which is sometimes used interchangeably with the term clipping in the VG space - Clipping_(computer_graphics)#Importance_of_clipping_in_video_games. You should make this clear.
      • Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. The reviewers explicitly say "clipping", but they more than likely mean poor collision detection, so I've replaced all instances of "clipping" with that. Hope I'm right in linking this to Collision_detection#Video_games. JAGUAR  18:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Consider the split in the reception. You spend half of it talking about the graphics, a third on the sound, and the tiny remainder on the gameplay. This feels wrong. Surprised that none of the reviewers mentioned how short the game was.
      • I usually organise reception sections by principle (eg. critics enjoyed a game's visuals, critics were disappointed with sound) rather than by author, since see this form as easier to read. The third paragraph was initially about the control scheme, but I suppose it makes sense to expand it to cover the whole of the gameplay. JAGUAR  18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
      • hahnchen 23:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hahnchen: thanks for the review, I really appreciate it. Do you have access to the GamesTM feature? I'd be eager to get hold of it as I would like to expand the article's coverage as much as possible. I'll also check through WP:VG/RL and will ask for access to any other scans I might have missed. Anyway, I should have everything addressed, except the inclusion of GameRankings. I thought it was a mandatory thing to mention the game's aggregate score, regardless of its content value. Thanks again! JAGUAR  18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Email me for the article. - hahnchen 20:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hahnchen: thanks, I've used the scan to expand and flesh out the development and gameplay sections. Is there anything else you think is incomplete? JAGUAR  17:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I've addressed all of the concerns so far and have requested a scan of GameFan to implement in this article. JAGUAR  21:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The lead states that it was one of the last five Sega Saturn games to be released in North America, but the body states that it was one of the five final Sega Saturn games to be released in just America, and the source states that it was one of the five final such games to be released in America. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gamingforfun365: thanks. It was originally "North America" in both instances, but another editor changed it to simply "America" in the body. I suppose it's more accurate that way but I prefer using the former as it refers to the region, and not the more ambiguous "America". Anyway, fixed. Did you find anything else? I'll leave some comments on one of your peer reviews soon. JAGUAR  21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, I am not getting your pings. Anyway, "3125 different routes" would be better off being "3125 unique routes. I have just noticed that this article is written in British English (hence the dates), so I guess that I am going to have to scan the article for any Americanisms. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you not think that the information on the release dates in the lead (other than in the infobox) is a little tedious for the average reader to read? I believe that it should just be "It was first released in Japan, in North America, and then in Europe in 1998.". Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, this source may prove to be useful for the last-given source in the Bibliography section. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
And finally, I wonder whether the other non-URL-linked sources in the section can be linked to the corresponding magazine issues. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I've changed it to "3125 unique routes", sounds better that way. I think that keeping the release dates in the lead gives the reader more information and also balances out the paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH. If I condense the dates then I'll have trouble keeping the three paragraphs an equal length and would be forced to merge it into two paragraphs, which would interfere with organisation, if that makes sense. Thanks for the link to the manual, I've made use of it in the gameplay section. It seems that the North American manual is a little different, so I've adjusted the page numbers accordingly. Finally, sources with missing URLs in them are left that way because the only accessible links are copyvios. I'll link them here if you want to check them: Edge interview, GameFan 1 and GameFan 2. Thanks again! JAGUAR  11:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Support. I trust these sources as truthful, although I would like it if someone were to check the quotes to see whether they are accurate. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed the very last sentence in the Design section, which said that many Saturn magazines were discontinued and that the console lot third-party support, as it seemed irrelevant to the article's subject. Should it be put back up there? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! You're right about that. I saw it in the source and wanted to emphasise that all Saturn support had diminished by the time this game was released, but it doesn't seem too relevant, so it was best to remove it. JAGUAR  20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: just making sure if there's anything else needed here? I got more input since the last time, and Gamingforfun365 done an additional source spotcheck. JAGUAR  23:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I know what I said about my supporting the FAC, but my complaint is that I had to use alternative text for the in-game screenshot to find out what on Sonic Earth is going on. I could not tell that the playable character was fighting a fire. Either the caption can tell us that the player-character is fighting a fire, or a less ambiguous screenshot can be used. Still in favor of support, though. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was very clear that the player-character was standing in front of a giant fireball in that screenshot. I've rephrased the caption slightly as I couldn't find another decent screenshot anywhere. JAGUAR  18:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: And finally, do note that I had extremely hardly done any fact-checking, so someone else may want to do it. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
What? That's what I asked you to do and you said you did it? JAGUAR  10:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind; I'm sure the FAC coordinators will check the prior reviews and s