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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut:

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]

Jonathan Mitchell[edit]

Nominator(s): Ylevental (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Jonathan Mitchell, an American autistic author and blogger who advocates for a cure for autism. He is a controversial figure among autistic bloggers because of his opposition to the neurodiversity movement, his view of autism as a disability, and his desire for a cure. His viewpoint is notably unique in the online world of autism. The article is well-organized, comprehensive and well-researched, drawing from a variety of sources. The article length is appropriate, and all images are free works. There were some editing conflicts concerning neutrality, but they have been resolved. Ylevental (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. While there has been improvement, I suggest that this article is still some way short of FA status. There is some very clumsy writing (eg: "his parents record player spin", "He has stated that compared to the experiences of other disadvantaged groups, his deficits are social in nature, and that he has attempted to join support groups but always ended up lonely", "having written three novels, 25 short stories, and runs a blog called Autism's Gadfly", "He was interviewed on Studio 360 on one of his novels, The School of Hard Knocks,[2] and another novel of his is The Mu Rhythm Bluff, about an autistic man that undergoes Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation", "having taken neuroscience classes in the past and has also volunteered for MRI research studies") and much of the article is underdeveloped (eg: "He claims to have worked in the past doing jobs such as data entry but was fired too many times for being too loud and making too many mistakes. Mitchell resides in Los Angeles and has a degree in psychology", "He also has written that parents' expectation of savant abilities legitimizes aid workers' fees and encourages false hope."). "He is one of the most controversial voices in the autism blogosphere for wanting a cure, discussing the need to consider the long-term effects of autism" is simultaneously a strong claim with unclear sourcing and a little weaselly. The sources are fairly good (I'm not sold on the "MassLive" blog post...) but I wonder if there are more out there- right now, the subject only seems to be borderline notable. Again, I suggest that PR and GAC would be a better route; without some more in-depth sources, I think you're going to have a real up-hill battle to get this to FA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, perhaps you could try looking a little further into the academic literature- I'm seeing a lot of potentially relevant hits on Google Scholar. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
That is some really good advice; however, I have too many things to take care of to work on it now. Thank you though. Ylevental (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Happy to help. For future reference, it may be best to hold off nominating something at FAC for when it's forseeable that you'll have a little free time- responding to comments can be time-consuming, and if you don't respond to comments, that sometimes leaves reviewers feeling that they have wasted their time, which is bad for everyone. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Ride the Lightning[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's second studio album, and the fourth one I'll attempt to improve to FA standards. The good article review went smoothly, and hope to receive support from my peers.--Retrohead (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Media check - all OK

  • Lead image and 2 song samples with valid fair-use rationale - OK.
  • Please make sure to mention the original song length in rationales for audio samples to allow verification of minimal usage (just fyi, fixed already for both) - OK.
  • Flickr image (CC BY 2.0) shows no signs of problems, source and author provided - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review - all OK

  • All sources are correctly formatted
  • Sources are reliable
  • Verified footnotes 1,7,37,39,47 and 55
  • had a problem with footnote 31: The name was taken from one of Lovecraft's main stories featuring Cthulhu, The Call of Cthulhu, although the original name was modified to "Ktulu" for easier pronunciation. The song begins with D minor chord progression in the intro, followed by a two-minute bass solo over a rhythmic riff pattern. Michael Kamen rearranged the song for Metallica's 1999 S&M project and won a Grammy Award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance in 2001. Footnote only covers the last sentence.
The first two sentences from your passage are cited from McIver's book (footnote 30). I moved ref 30 a bit down to cover all three sentences. Thanks for the review.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries. All good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Operation Ironside[edit]

Nominator(s): Errant (chat!) 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Next FAC in the WW2 Deception series; Ironside had a lot of thinking behind it, but didn't really get the resources to make it effective. To be honest, the target was so far away from the realms of reality that it wasn't much of a threat. In fact, it was pretty obviously a deception from the outset. All in all events moved apace elsewhere and Bordeaux got left behind. Errant (chat!) 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Images: the one image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Good Terrorist[edit]

Nominator(s): —Bruce1eetalk 11:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Nobel Prize in Literature-winner Doris Lessing's 1985 political novel concerning a naïve woman who moves in with a group of radicals in London, and is drawn into their terrorist activities. Currently a GA, it has been peer reviewed and improved on since then. I believe it should be featured as it meets the FA criteria, but I'm open to any comments/suggestions. —Bruce1eetalk 11:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:GoodTerrorist.jpg: image description page should identify the edition, and the source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: thanks for pointing that out. I've replaced it with a better image, updated the source, added an archive of the source, and added the edition to the description. —Bruce1eetalk 08:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Heterodontosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC), Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a small dinosaur which became quite important to the study of dinosaur evolution upon its discovery. It is notable for its eponymous teeth and primitive features, and for being the basis of a family of dinosaurs. We have covered most of the scientific literature about the animal, the article has been copy-edited, and is a GA. Luckily, an article covering its family was published in a CC journal, which has provided most of our free images. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • If you're using American English, it might be best to use imperial units rather than the metric system
I think we originally wrote this in British English, but the copy-editor changed it to American for some reason. How do you feel about this, Jens Lallensack? Most of the papers about this dinosaur are in BE. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Before we started editing, the article was in American English, as far as I can see. So we might have to stick with it. Regarding the papers, its often not the authors who decide whether to choose AM or BE; this is often predetermined by the journal they are publishing in. Therefore I'm not sure if this would be a good argument to switch to BE for this article. But regardless what we choose, I'm clearly against abandoning the metric system in a scientific article like this. The metric system is the standard in other dinosaur FAs, including the American dinosaurs. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The editors who improve the article can decide what to write it in, the only other determining factor is whether the article's subject has some sort of connection to a spelling.[1] In this case, being South African, AE at least doesn't seem logical. Also Charig was British, and I guess SA English is closer to BE... But in any case, both measurements should always be included, I think Dunkleosteus means which one that should be displayed first? FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

William Sterndale Bennett[edit]

Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the English composer William Sterndale Bennett. Bennett has been underrated as a composer but, as I hope the article shows, he also had a significant influence on musical life in England in the 19th century. I have tried to include in my recent revisions of the article comments made by editors in the article's pre-GA peer review and at its GA review. I hope that it may be a candidate for FA on Bennett's birth bicentenary, 13 April 2016.Smerus (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley: I worked quite a bit on the article back in 2012, and though that was long before Smerus's overhaul began, I think I am nonetheless disqualified from offering my support here. What I think I can conscientiously say is that I have been struck - and much pleased - by the great improvement between the article as I left it and the article as it is now, and propriety or no I venture to give my opinion that the present article meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 14:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM
  • "During this visit he also arranged the first cricket match ever played in Germany, "as fitting a Yorkshireman" as the musicologist Percy M. Young comments." I think we may have different comma philosophies, but this sentence doesn't really work for me.
  • Should "Symphonic Studies" be italicised?
  • Is "Sonata Duo" the name of a composition? Should it be in italics?
  • "The directors of the RAM decided to close it, over the head of Bennett as Principal. Bennett, with the support of the faculty and the students, assumed the Chairmanship of the board of directors." Reference?
  • What was his cause of death? Do we know?
  • I think "as already mentioned" would count as a self reference to avoid
  • It's perhaps a little odd to start a section with "however".
  • The quote beginning "Rejecting the superficial virtuosity" doesn't seem to end
  • I don't think "pianoforte" is as well-known a word as you may think. I'm struggling a bit with the whole sentence. In fact, the whole section could perhaps be ironed out a little- the terminology is a bit alien to me.
  • "is described above" Another self-reference

I really don't know much about the topic, but this seems to be a very strong article. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed for these helpful comments and for your edits. I think I have now addressed all the issues your raise above, except for the Sonata Duo. That is indeed what WSB called the work. However, as, had it been titled simply either Sonata or Duo, there would have been no requirement for italicization, it is my present feeling, in what is an admittedly an equivocal situation, to leave it unitalicized (unless a storm of protest erupts :-}). Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I think the article looks great- I want to have another look through before supporting, but I suspect I will be. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Sheffield_Parish_Church_1819.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:Michael_Costa_(conductor)_-_Rosenthal_1958_after_p96.jpg
  • File:SirWilliamSterndaleBennett.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:Many thanks for this. On Commons I have now provided US PD tags as necessary, and given the correct source link for File:SirWilliamSterndaleBennett.jpg --Smerus (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Conditional Support by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Very nearly perfect. My largest concern by far is the rather expansive stretches of text cited to Bennett (1907); I'd strongly suggest/request that someone who has this text check for close paraphrase. These things can sneak in against our wishes at times. Nitpicks:
    • The text seems to suggest B. and Schumann hit it off very well from the start, both musically and personally, but later suggests that B. felt a bit uncomfortable with S's music ("He would not have a note of Schumann"). Am I missing something?
    • "although he faced a continuing reluctance of many British music lovers and several leading critics to acknowledge the possibility that an English composer could be of the same stature as a German one" ... perhaps better as "although many British music lovers and several leading critics remained reluctant to acknowledge the possibility that an English composer could be of the same stature as a German one"
    • In the same paragraph, is the informality of "won round" a bit out of place in the formality of surrounding text?
    • "whose book, like that of The May Queen, is by Chorley" IMO completely irrelevant.
    • "In Bennett's 1858 lecture on "The visits of illustrious foreign musicians to England", the latest mention is of Mendelssohn, enabling the likes of Wagner, Hector Berlioz and Giuseppe Verdi to be bypassed, and omitting Franz Liszt and Chopin" ...This sentence niggles at me on three fronts: first, it's odd to my American ear, especially "enabling.. to be bypassed" rather than a straightforward "bypassing" (especially given the resulting parallelism with "omitting"); second, is there some reason why the first three omitted individuals are given a separate verb, suggesting some qualitative or temporal distinction between them; and third, if B is deliberately skipping his "continental contemporaries" then why does he praise Gioacchino Rossini? Perhaps a simple adjective or two describing why the latter found favor might make this easier to understand. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Many thanks for these useful comments. My feelings are as follows:

  • Bennett (1907). I am very aware of the problems of close paraphrase and can give you my assurance that I have been very concerned to ensure that WP standards are not infringed in this respect. The complete text of the book is available here (page by page) if you nor any other editors wish to check.
  • I think there were always reservations on WSB's side about Schumann's music. In the section 'Style' I mentioned WSB's 1837 comment to Davison that he found Schumann's music 'rather too eccentric'. I have now moved this comment 'up' to the section 'Germany: Mendelssohn and Schumann', so this should now be clearer.
  • although/won round....now copyedited per your suggestions.
  • book - well, I wouldn't say totally irrelevant, but agree pretty irrelevant, and have removed.
  • visitors. I have rephrased this, making it (I hope) clearer. Rossini had retired from opera after 1829, so although he lived on until 1868 he was already history by the time of WSB's lecture. I would infer (although the lecture text does not make explicit) that WSB saw Rossini as being more 'classical' than Verdi, but to enlarge on this would I think be WP:OR. Therefore perhaps better left as it is and let readers draw their own conclusions.
With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Courtney Love[edit]

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about singer/songwriter Courtney Love, and covers her life comprehensively. I have researched and edited this article over several years, and got it to GA status prior. I am seeking FA status because I feel it has developed significantly over the past year and qualifies. –Drown Soda (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hartebeest[edit]

Nominator(s): Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an African antelope. The article is very comprehensive and supported by a large number of credible sources, it is interesting throughout and goes well into almost all facets of the topic. Though this article did not do well in its initial FA nomination, I have improved it substantially since then. I believe this article greatly deserves to be a Featured Article. Thanks! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • First impression, is there no better image for the taxobox? Seems a shame the legs are cut out. FunkMonk (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
As you lay stress upon the legs, how about these: 1, 2, 3? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the second and third are the best, because the first one has a l0t of intrusive branches... The third one doesn't show the legs, but at least it's because of the grass, not because they're out of frame... FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, let's go with the second one. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Nice, because seems the red hartebeest was already overrepresented among the images in the article. By the way, some captions don't mention the subspecies shown, is it possible to fix this? FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Done for the juvenile image. Not sure about the herd image, but it is most likely red hartebeest. No idea about the image in Diet, and I think the caption might get spoiled if I add subspecies name to it. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "could have originated from the obsolete Afrikaans word hertebeest" Which means what?
It was the name for the hartebeest in the old language. Could not see how exactly to put it in. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no explanation of the component words in the source? Beest still means beast, at least... FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No idea from where "Harte-" originated, your guess about "beest" is correct though. Still can't see how to put it. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Alcelaphus can be partitioned into three major divisions on the basis of skull structure: A. buselaphus division (nominate, also including A. major division), A. tora division (also including A. cokii and A. swaynei) and A. lelwel division.[2] An analysis of cytochrome b and D-loop sequence data show a notable affinity between the A. lelwel and A. tora divisions.[10]" I'm not sure I get this. Those are subspecies or species? If this is divisions of the genus Alcelaphus, where are the other two species then that are not covered by this article?
The two controversial subspecies were omitted in the source. These are all subspecies, don't know who changed them to species. These are just morphological and not phylogenetic divisions. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "Alcelaphus buselaphus can be partitioned" then? FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, done. Anyway Alcelaphus is synonymous to A. buselaphus, its sole species. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
In that case, shouldn't Alcelaphus redirect here? FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Well not all will agree that the red and Lichtenstein's hartebeest are not independent subspecies, but in the line we were discussing they all have been treated as subspecies and A. buselaphus as species. In this article we assume mention the two controversial subspecies and continue to treat them as subspecies. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Many taxa were introduced as syntypes for this genus, due to which fixing a lectotype was required." Only specimens can be syntypes, so I'm not sure what is meant...
Some jargon-like legacy, unsourced as well. Removed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "would render A. buselaphus paraphyletic" Most readers won't know what this means.
Though I do understand paraphyly, I am not very much of an expert about this and can not explain this well. The reason mentioned in the source is all I have mentioned in the article. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
You can just say "an unnatural grouping" in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Still has some bold in the article, not sure if you want to remove it or not
I think this needs a consensus. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure if it's a conscious choice that you don't do this, but it's possible to embed range maps in the taxobox, thereby saving space for other images in the article (if that is wanted).
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is regarded as a hybrid between the Lelwel and Coke's hartebeest. The African Antelope Database (1998) treats it as synonymous to the Lelwel hartebeest." The second sentence makes the first one seem to sure in its formulation.
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't the part above make more sense in the hybrids section?
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Hybrids between the Lelwel and Tora hartebeest have been reported" I assume these are fertile?
Sorry no info about this. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just noticed that this nomination isn't transcluded on the FAC page, anything wrong, Graham Beards? Oh, on second thoughts, I guess Sainsf just didn't add it to the row... FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I had forgotten, sorry for my negligence! Added it to the list now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 05:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Jackson's hartebeest, another type of hartebeest," isn't the second part stating the obvious?
Removed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 07:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Now that the map is in the infobox, perhaps move the subspecies head compilation image up to the subspecies section? Then space under description could be freed for some unusual or distinct anatomical features or similar... FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 07:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "such as the relatives of the hirola" I guess it has many relatives, how about "a relative"? FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "A phylogenetic study showed an early split" Based on what, genetics, morphology, fossils?
Added. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Hartebeest have been known since the Natufian and Neolithic times well into the Bronze and Iron Ages." What do you mean with "been known"? By humans? If so, doesn't it make more sense under Relationship with humans? If you mean they have existed since then, it should be clearer. And what does "well into the Bronze and Iron Ages" mean? I'm sure it was known after that as well...
Looks like something confusing, or rather about the origin in a locality in Israel. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "and oddly shaped horns." This seems a bit subjective, and not very descriptive.
I think that refers to the various shapes of the horns of hartebeest that are not usually seen in other antelopes. But it is not stated explicitly in the source. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Any subspecies not shown in a photo? Could perhaps be nice in the empty space under description. Or an anatomy detail.
Only the Tora hartebeest is not represented, but then it does not have any image. I could not find any interesting image on anatomy. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "The hartebeest has preorbital glands" Perhaps mention this is near the eyes, as the regular reader won't know what orbital means.
Done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the following paragraph make more sense under behaviour? "The hartebeest has several adaptations that allow it to survive even under adverse conditions and in poor habitats. The thin long legs are probably an anti-predator mechanism helpful to animals inhabiting open plains, clearings or grassland-woodland ecotones. The elevated position of the eyes enables the hartebeest to continuously inspect its surroundings even as it is grazing. The mouth is specially adapted to derive maximum nutrition from even a frugal diet.[15] Thee horns are used for defence from predators, and during fights among males for dominance in the breeding season;[16] the clash of the horns is so loud that it can be heard from hundreds of metres away.[15]"
Yes, done. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "One attempts to fling the head of the other to one side to stab the neck and shoulders with its horns." Sounds violent, are these fights fatal?
Added. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Hartebeest are remarkably alert animals with highly developed brains." and "The hartebeest is more alert and cautious than other ungulates." Seems repetitive.
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Herds do not tend to migrate unless it becomes unavoidable to remain at a place" This doesn't seem to make sense?
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"These were named Longistrongylus meyeri after their collector, T. Meyer" When?

Added. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "llowed the hartebeest to prevail over other animals millions of years ago, which eventually led to its successful evolution." The order seems wrong here, if it had already evolved. Perhaps successful distribution is meant?
Reworded. It is radiation, not distribution. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "The hartebeest is extinct in Algeria, Egypt, Lesotho, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, and Tunisia." Isn't this more relevant under status than habitat? I wouldn't say a country counts as a habitat... But you could maybe add distribution to the title instead ("Habitat and distribution").
Done, took first solution. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I fixed a few places where you said species instead of subspecies, perhaps there are more.
Will check. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • A somewhat overlooked (but important) issue, it seems some subspecies have separate articles (bubal hartebeest, red hartebeest, perhaps more). Generally, such are merged into the species article, so not sure what you want to do. If not, they should all be linked at first mention, at least, and in the taxobox and captions. I'd prefer merging them all, especially if only some of them have articles.
They have been linked at first mention in the Subspecies section. I do not know what to do about the merging, anyway all have their own articles, and some are well expanded as well. Like a consensus? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Pictorial as well as epigraphic evidence from Egypt suggests that in the Upper Palaeolithic age, Egyptians hunted hartebeest and domesticated them." Sure could be nice with an ancient Egyptian image of them! Some can be seen here[2], but of course, we might not have free ones. There are some free images of banknotes which could maybe be interesting.
I could find one on a Namibian banknote, nothing else. Did you find something? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope... FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - All looks good then. I can't help but feel it would be nice with an additional image, for example a good head-shot close up, under description... To show some of the details, for exaple the horns and the gland. FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Now that you speak of head-shots, how about this (another red hartebeest) or a closer one (that's one more red). I found a great one of Jackson's hartebeest, but I placed it in Hybrids where it looked better. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I like the second one, because it focuses much more on the head (and is a promoted "quality image"), whereas the first one doesn't really show anything new compared to the other photos. also, these serve another purpose, since the former head-shot is a stuffed animal. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Using the second. Anything to do with the first? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, the one you added seems to be a different one than those listed, but looks nice! I was thinking the side view could be used under description, by the paragraph starting with "both sexes"? FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
How does it look now? I hope the "that's one more red" image was what you meant. I seem to be getting images wrong here....Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks good to me, now it clashes a bit with the herd image below, but you could either move that image a paragraph down, or introduce the upright parameter to the vertical images... FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Taken first solution. Thanks. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

CMLL World Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  00:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship. It was recently elevated to GA status and I believe it's got the potential to be a Feature Article as well. I have put a lot of work into this article and the associated list (List of CMLL World Heavyweight Champions, which is currently a Featured List). The article hits the level of quality, coverage, neutrality, sources etc. needed for it to be considered a Featured Article. I hope you agree.  MPJ-US  00:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Literary Hall[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the former home of the Romney Literary Society, which is also represented with a featured article on Wikipedia. This article is the most comprehensive history of the this notable structure. This article also underwent a peer review. Please feel free to share your comments, guidance, and suggestions here; I will address them as quickly as possible. Thank you in advance! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you for taking the time to complete this image review! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... McKinley's groundbreaking campaign of 1896. I did the Bryan campaign a few years ago, now we see the other side of the first modern presidential election. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Very clean and readable article; only a couple minor copy edits. Weird to think of Karl Rove as a Reliable Source for anything, but his book on this subject was well-received. Good work, Wehwalt. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I felt the same way, actually. But Rove has the credentials, studied McKinley, and he wrote an excellent book (though I don't agree with all his conclusions). In fact, the publication of the book made me feel I had enough material to go forward. Everyone gets distracted by Bryan's campaign. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Support How could I not, I just wrote a McKinley-related article myself! LavaBaron (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I was perusing the FA nominations section and, because I have an interest in American history, clicked on this one. In the lead, it is stated that McKinley's victory launched "an era of dominance for the Republican Party." I have no problem with the article saying that the victory as a "realigning election," but the era of Republican dominance did not with this victory. It began with the victory of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. From 1860 until 1912, Republican candidates won all but 2 of the presidential elections of the period. Perhaps the sentence could be amended to say something like this: "McKinley's decisive victory in what is sometimes considered a realigning election brought about an end to the Third Party System and ushered in the Fourth Party System by helping to continue Republican dominance of national politics." Display name 99 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm flexible on the subject, but I wonder if saying "Third Party System" and "Fourth Party System" in text rather than behind links is a good idea, because the reader very likely will not know what they are, and I'd rather keep them than lose them to another article. Instead, I tried to have the explanation be the text, with the articles available by pipe. As for Republican dominance, from the distance of 120 years, of course, we see who was elected and who was not. But from an 1896 perspective, the Republicans had to deal with a Democratic president. The Democrats had won the popular vote in the last three elections, in fact the only Republican to win the popular vote in the past 20 years was Garfield. Barely. Presidential elections were turning on who would win New York and Ohio. Beginning in 1896, Republicans generally had a popular majority and a easy electoral victory, and usually were in control of Congress. Since 1875, Republicans had only really controlled Congress in 1889-91 and 1895 on. Democrats only controlled Congress in the 1910s, because of the Roosevelt/Taft conflict. So I'm dubious that Republicans controlled national politics at any time between Grant and McKinley. What do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Butting in: Please keep the matter simple. The terms "Third Party System" and "Fourth Party System" will, as Wehwalt indicates, befuddle and confuse British readers, who will not, I believe, read through the link articles. I think the above explanation justifies the wording presently used, but as a possible alternative, can I offer: "McKinley's decisive victory, sometimes seen as a realigning election, ended a period of close presidential elections and ushered in an era of electoral dominance for the Republican Party". This avoids "launching", which seems the word most objected to. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map size
  • File:William_McKinley_campaign_speech_1896.ogg: source link is dead
  • File:Front_porch_campaign_2.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:ElectoralCollege1896.svg should include a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I have fixed those. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: I gave this a detailed going-over at peer review. It's a fascinating account, one of several of its kind that Wehwalt has expanded and improved. Required reading in a presidential election year (how they used to do things). Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Persoonia terminalis[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC), {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear all, my main reason for spamming the 5000000th article spot was this - I tried to hit the goal with an article that was improvable to FA standard to show folks that new articles could still be buffed to this level...to show just how much there was still to write. So here we are. This is sort of a co-nom as a bunch of folks have helped along the way - Chevvin, Checkingfax, Koavf, Northamerica1000, Sandstein, ‎Mike Peel, Sasata and many others who chipped in a few edits here and there. Anyone who feels they did a good bit of grunt-work and wanna be co-nom are welcome to put their name to this nom. This was one of the most collaborative articles I've worked on. So have at it folks....I'm here to buff it to the goodest I can....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Co-nominator As an aside, I would be honored to be co-nominated and I will happily improve the article however reviewers see necessary. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Co-nominator – Yee haw! Count me in. Why is this nom in an archive? Ping me back, Casliber. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sainsf[edit]

I would indeed be honored to be the first to give my comments on the 5,000,000th article. I think some improvement and copyediting is needed here, though the article is fine overall. Here we go!

Lead[edit]
  • ...it was described as a species by Lawrie Johnson and Peter Weston in 1991 please add "his colleague" before "Peter Weston"
    • Done.
  • You can link Australia, described
    • Done.
      • We generally don't link continents - there are enough bluelinks with states and localities.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, that can vary with articles. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we seriously need a link for leaf?
      • Similar to australia - linking too-general terms generally unnecessary so removed.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ... with subspecies terminalis ... Better write P. t. terminalis, it is the way in many other articles I have seen.
  • Directly naming a subspecies (in the sentence in the previous comment) before identifying both by their name in a separate sentence may confuse readers.
  • ...with narrow short leaves to 1 centimetre (0.4 in) in length Should the "to" be removed or is a measurement missing?
    • Changed to → up to.
Taxonomy[edit]
  • Persoonia terminalis was first treated by Lawrie Johnson of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney in the 1981 edition of Flora of New South Wales as a distinctive subspecies of Persoonia nutans, a broadly defined species that included many forms later classified as separate species. I think we need a rearrangement in this long sentence to make it more readable and easily comprehensible. It could be broken into two sentences. Also, is the description of P. nutans really needed? It is adding to the length of the sentence.
    • I agree the sentence is long and needs rejigging. How it goes is this - P. nutans was a bit of a dumping ground for a bunch of similar-looking plants in Eastern Australia - so folks made some preliminary splits as undescribed subspecies. P. oxycoccoides gets split from nutans and then terminalis gets split from that. So I do think the explanation of P. nutans is important context...will work on this today. I have split the sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Sainsf - I did split it....I do think we need the context of nutans. Are you thinking we should somehow rejig the start of it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed it just now - it looks excellent! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Queensland botanists Trevor Donald Stanley and Estelle M. Ross classed it as a subspecies... Replace "it" by P. terminalis so as to avoid confusion with P. nutans.
    • Done.
  • ... though considered it more likely to be a species in its own right I think "they" is missing.
    • added - I often drop pronouns like this and other folks pick me up on it. It sounds natural to my ears to drop them but happy to concede I am a tad too parsimonious with words at times..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I wish writing was as simple as hearing! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Upon re-examining these species, Johnson and colleague Peter Weston concluded that there were several distinct species and Persoonia terminalis was described as such in 1991. What are "these species"? Does it also include P. nutans and P. oxycoccoides? I feel the beginning of this sentence needs to be clearer about this.
  • Who is Peter Richards?
  • I think you are not concerned with the genus here, it has its own page. I guess you meant generic name? Then you should write something like the generic name Persoonia derives from the name of South African botanist Christiaan Hendrik Persoon.
  • About Christiaan Hendrik Persoon. Is it relevant to the article to mention how long he lived or what his author abbreviation is?
  • It has been given the common name of Torrington geebung Seems to invite vagueness.
    • I made it more concrete - is that what you mean? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Precisely. But I deleted the "common name" link - too common to be linked! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • P. terminalis has been reported to interbreed with P. cornifolia and P. sericea. If you are citing this as an example of interbreeding in Lanceolata group, you should mention in the sentence that these two species belong to this group.
  • Two subspecies are recognised ... a maximum of 1 centimetre (0.4 in) long You should use any one format of mentioning subspecies throughout the article. This format differs from that in the Lead. I have suggested one common format under Lead.
  • Link or locate Torrington.
  • Just a question-I changed the abbreviations to the full words to try to make the taxonomy look more specific, but should I revert it? 96.237.18.103 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Description[edit]
  • It has smooth bark "a" missing?
    • ? - no, bark is a word like 'skin' so needs no article in front of it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
My folly.Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The leaf link once again!
  • ...that is both leaf surfaces... comma missing
  • The leaves are rougher than other persoonias Needs a reword like The leaves of this persoonia are rougher than those of others.
  • ...although occasional flowers have been seen to July. Why is "to" here? I guess you should be more careful, I have been pointing out several such errors throughout this article.
    • changed to "as late as July" as the usual flowering period is December-Jan but there can be flowers later until July Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ...arising at the ends of branchlets When you were explaining the name 'terminalis under Taxonomy, you said these flowers occur toward the end of branches. Now what are branchlets?
    • changed first to "branchlets". Branchlets are merely little branches. As this is a shrub and not a big tree, branchlet is a more apt name than branch... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ...each stalk bears an individual flower that is subtended by a scale leaf at its junction with the stem Not sure what scale leaf means.
    • It's a small rudimentary leaf. I have redlinked it for the moment as we have no article nor article section, and mentioned this as the plants wikiproject. If no-one makes a page in 24 hours I will try to make one. I thought some of the more knowledgeable botanists might have a better idea Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I see it is Wikitionary-linked now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A proportion of flowers have a true leaf instead, and are described as auxotelic (inflorescences or axes) I think the meaning of the term can be explained in a better way in the brackets.
    • I just took the bracketed bit out as I don't think it added any meaning Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Link style
Habitat and distribution[edit]
  • Link outcrop
  • Warialda is a duplicate link
  • ...could be expected to be found there as there is suitable habitat I am not being overcritical, but I think due to the availability of suitable habitat sounds better.
    • ok..I have some misgivings though the second emphasises the reasoning so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Both subspecies are found in the Arakoola Nature Reserve... It is weird that though you mention in Taxonomy near which reserve or area the subspecies are found, you do not mention the actual place where they indeed are found there. But you do mention it here. I think the mention of the occurrence of these subspecies should be removed altogether from Taxonomy to avoid repetition or other similar issues.
Ecology[edit]
  • Link bushfire, pollinate, subtropical
  • Temperate is a duplicate link
  • Colletid bees of the genus Leioproctus subgenus Cladocerapis Would look better if you separated genus and subgenus by "and".
    • hmm "and" would make it scan in a manner I have not seen or used, I went with this instead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Cultivation[edit]
  • It has been proposed that ... Vague?
    • It was plantsmen and scientists Rodger Elliot and David L Jones who have widely written on Australian plants and published a mammoth encyclopedia on them. So I credited them with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sending my comments in batches. It is really a trouble with conominators flooding in and causing edit conflicts and data loss! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

    • I can pick up where we are quite readily from the page history, so not insurmountable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, so that's the lot. A lot of minor errors seem to have been neglected before the nomination. But let us sort them out together. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 07:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: and @Checkingfax: Working with you has been so splendid! So, after finishing a most precise copyediting and thorough reading, I hardly think there is any other flaw in the article. That, of course, barring image review and source review, at which I am not that good.
Therefore this article has my Support on prose. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Thankyou for being thorough and patient. Sometimes this happens when I've read an article a few times - it is fascinating what the eye misses after a few reads. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments from JM
  • "with one a component of granite outcrops" It wasn't immediately clear to me what this meant
  • "an area of under 100 kilometres (62 mi)" Do you mean square kilometres?
  • Is there any chance you could cite Flora of South-eastern Queensland itself? It strikes me as a little odd that you mention a not-ancient work by name but don't cite it.
    • found and added....also has the fruit measurements Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Is "recurved" jargon?
  • "Initially slightly hairy (or hairless) and becoming hairless with age" This strikes me as an odd way to say this. How about something like "New leaves can be hairless or slightly hairy; if the latter, it becomes hairless with age. They are..."
  • How big are the drupes? Are we talking rosehips, figs, peaches?
    • they are currant-sized...will look for some numbers... annoyingly not one of the sources mentions a size for them. adddd now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Does "Torrington-Binghi area" mean "around the settlements of Torrington and Binghi"? If so, presumably we'd need a wikilink to an article on Binghi somewhere? The first page of Google is suggesting that this is a slang word for an aborigine- am I misunderstanding something here?
    • A look on google shows that it is a name that applies to the area (see here), but exactly howto define it - not sure as yet. I've heard the word occasionally over the past 30 years but will try get a correct definition...redlink time methinks.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "The '2' indicates it has a range of under 100 km" Again- km don't measure area, they measure distance (also, what does the "R" mean? And is it worth using the convert template?)
    • R stands for 'restricted' and convert template used Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is rated as 3R[c] on ROTAP,[14]" Punctuation
  • Not a big deal, but maybe you could colour-code the distribution map based on subspecies?
    • (groan) will be tricky. Will take a look to see if feasible tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Again, not at all a big deal- if it's not doable, it's not doable. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • To me, with the currawong picture, I think the article looks a bit cluttered at most text sizes.
    • Removed that...I hadn't realised it was there... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there a gender-neutral alternative to "Plantsmen"?
  • ""Holotype of Persoonia terminalis L.A.S.Johnson & P.H.Weston [family PROTEACEAE]". Global Plants; JSTOR. JSTOR 225972." What am I looking at here? Is your JSTOR link correct?
    • The number is not the jstor number as such. Entered the url instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, great- I wasn't familiar with the Global Plants project. Would an access date be needed? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that some of your Hunter sources are self-published, so there's no more information to be given in the cites?
    • The only other thing is "A Report to the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service" - not sure how to shoehorn that in to both Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
      • We have {{cite report}}- you could do something like this: "Hunter, John T. (2000). "Flora Survey of Kings Plains National Park" (report). New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1740.2724." This certainly isn't a dealbreaker- I defer to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It's great to see this article at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Cautious support. Not as long as some others, but I think that reflects the limited literature. I wonder if the current image placement makes the article look a little crowded. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • "Queensland botanists Trevor Donald Stanley and Estelle M. Ross classed P. terminalis as part of Persoonia oxycoccoides" If they referred to it as a subspecies, shouldn't it be referred to in an other way here? Perhaps say "as P. o. terminalis" in parenthesis after Persoonia oxycoccoides? FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • they didn't formally describe it at al, so can't call it anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "He viewed it as a distinctive subspecies of Persoonia nutans" Likewise, (as P. n. terminalis)?
    • It was called Persoonia nutans subsp. D and is mentioned in the footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems remarkable it was named so late, any word on why it was overlooked? Confused for already described species?
  • "though persoonias as a genus" Is it common practice to refer to genus names like this?
    • It is more common in plants than other critters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - not much more else to add, so will contribute with an image review as well. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Image review - all images CC licensed, either photos from Flickr or selfmade maps, all with appropriate sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Philippine Constabulary Band[edit]

Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a military band in the Philippines that operated for a 39 year period in the early 20th century. I am nominating this because it is well-written, though short(er) it represents the entirety of published research on a dated and obscure topic and presents information in summary style hitting highlights and avoiding nuanced detail, it is extremely stable with no significant edits in more than three months, layout conforms to MOS, citation style is consistent, it is lavishly illustrated, and the topic is interesting even if not widely known. LavaBaron (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Philippine_Constabulary_Band_in_1904.png: the given source identifies the original publication
  • File:Walter_Loving.jpg: the given tag requires that the image was published, not just created, prior to 1923 - if this is sourced to an archival file, that may not have happened. Same problem with File:PedroNavarro.jpg
  • File:PCBand1905.jpg: how do we know this was published in 1904? The source doesn't say so
  • File:Philippine_Constabulary_Band.png: source link gives an original source, which might have more details about the first publication of the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "less some of them": if that's what the source said, it needs to be "[lest] some of them".
  • "It is also believed this may have been ...": Opinions need attribution in the text, I'm guessing (in this case) to Michael D. Johnson. Give a short description of Johnson (historian, whatever).
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The 7th Army was a Yugoslav formation which was responsible for the defence of north-western Yugoslavia along the Italian and Reich borders during the WWII Axis invasion of that country that commenced on 6 April 1941. It was quickly cut off and encircled before surrendering. The article was recently promoted to Military History A-Class, and has subsequently had a Background section added to improve context. I believe it now meets the FA criteria, but any and all feedback will be gratefully received. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Caption of the first map should explain the meaning of the colours used for the dots
    • Done.
  • q: see freedom of panorama explanation. Does this image qualify for FOP under those restrictions? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Nikki, does the fact that the tunnel was built by Austrians and the area was part of Austria-Hungary when it was completed have any impact here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Under Austro-Hungarian law, would it have been PD for any reason while still part of Austria-Hungary? I suspect it would have been considered too utilitarian for protection at the time, but I don't have a source to confirm this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
        • According to this reference, the 1895 Austrian act did not protect architecture. Does that address the issue? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Yes. I don't know whether there's any tag that would address this, so perhaps we can just make a text note to that effect on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Excellent work as usual. Prose is good. Just two points.

  1. The first line of "Mobilisation" talks about Simović's post-coup government. For comprehensiveness and context there should be a sentence or two clarifying when the coup occurred and how it prompted the invasion.
  2. The last paragraph of "Fate" should state that Yugoslavia was occupied and dismembered by the Axis. Not too much detail needed, just enough for a casual reader.

Otherwise, a job well done. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Etchmiadzin Cathedral[edit]

Nominator(s): Երևանցի talk 17:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the Armenia's most important church. Although Etchmiadzin is not a worldwide known structure like St. Peter's Basilica or Masjid al-Haram or Notre Dame de Paris and is architecturally not as impressive as the listed (and even by Armenian standards), it has a tremendous historic value. I first started working on this article in late 2013. I, and a few other users, have made hundreds of edits since then. It is now in a pretty good shape. Երևանցի talk 17:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - Can you provide an English translation on the image description page at Commons:File:Էջմիածնի Մայր Տաճար.jpg. It's the lead image, and as the infobox caption is not recognised as such by the image viewer, readers see Armenian script below the image when it is clicked. - hahnchen 10:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Երևանցի talk 11:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Many images are lacking captions - why? It's not always clear what is being shown
Fixed--Երևանցի talk 10:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Of the captions that are present, several need editing for grammar/MOS issues. Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Centuries used as adjectives should be hyphenated.
Fixed. Please let me know if there are any left that need to be corrected.--Երևանցի talk 10:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Etchmiadzin_with_walls.png: if this is to be hosted on Commons, it needs to be PD in Germany also; same with File:Etchmiadzin_Cathedral_cross_relief.png and File:Etchmiadzin_Cathedral_Thecla_%26_Paul.png in Austria
{{PD-1923}} and {{PD-Austria}} added
File:Etchmiadzin_with_walls.png needs to be PD in Germany, the current tag doesn't support that. The sourcing for the two Austrian images is currently reversed, and these appear to be sketches rather than photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
What would be an appropriate tag for the sketches? I've added {{PD-Austria-1932}}. --Երևանցի talk 08:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Etchmiadzin_with_walls.png needs to be PD in Germany, the current tag doesn't support that. The sourcing for the two Austrian images is currently reversed, and these appear to be sketches rather than photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • File:Bagaran_church_plan.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:View_of_Ararat_and_the_Monastery_of_Echmiadzin.png
Added {{PD-1923}} to both
I should clarify that that tag should be added, rather than replacing the existing tags. Images on Commons need an indication of copyright status in both the US and the source country. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Better now?--Երևանցի talk 10:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Plan_germigny_carolingien.svg: what is the source of the data underlying this diagram?
Do not know. Should probably ask the uploader
Yes, that would be a good option, if he/she is still active. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
He does not seem to be. Should I remove the image? --Երևանցի talk 20:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Էջմիածնի_վանքը_(1903).jpg: based on the current tag, this would be non-free in the US, unless there is another reason why it would be free?
Its author died in 1941, that's 75 years ago. I corrected the tag to show this. --Երևանցի talk 09:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
As the tag you've added indicates, this still needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Better now?--Երևանցի talk 10:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
"Created" is not the same as "published" - was this published or publicly displayed before 1923? If no, a different tag will be needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
No idea when it was published/publicly displayed and there's no way to know for sure. --Երևանցի talk 07:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Flag_of_Ejmiatsin.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This flag is part of the city of Vagharshapat template at the bottom of the article and can be removed if proved problematic, but I changed the link to a working one. Hope it helps. --Երևանցի talk 09:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • It's good to see such a subject being tackled, but I think this article has some way to go. Some preliminary comments, based on a quick look:
  • The architectural development of the cathedral between the 5th and 19th centuries is not described, though it seems there was a lot, nor are there dates in most captions for photos of details, except for "A relief of Gregory the Illuminator on the cathedral's western belfry (1650s)" - Is this the date of the whole of that tower? Generally the descriptions of the architecture or decorations don't seem very full or confident. For example it isn't explained (or shown in images) whether the high walls round the compound shown in early views survive.
The architectural development is described in detail in the History section of the article. Should it be described in the Architecture section, too?
Yes, the entire western belfry was built in 1653/4-1658.
The reason why there's not much on the walls is because I was unable to find any reliable info. All we know is that they do not survive to this day. But I can say with almost 100% certainty were destroyed in the early Soviet period (1920s-1930s), but I'll need to find source(s) to back this up. --Երևանցի talk 20:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There is only one tiny and not very helpful image of the interior, when there are several decent ones on Commons. But there are too many very similar views by artists of the exterior.
Will try to fix the problem asap. --Երևանցի talk 20:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The influence on Western European architecture would be disputed by many if not most art historians - Josef Strzygowski tends not to be given much credence by most. There should be some coverage of contrary views.
What contrary views? Strzygowski's views are obviously in minority and the fact that only Armenian architecture scholars support his views is explicitly stated.--Երևանցի talk 20:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The English needs minor touches (eg, don't say "the Etchmiadzin Cathedral", just "Etchmiadzin Cathedral".
Fixed--Երևանցի talk 20:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Generally "Notable visitors" sections tend to be seen as trivia cruft. Does it really help to know that "Alain Delon (2012),[169] Spanish opera singer Montserrat Caballé (2013)" visited? I think other FAs have restricted such lists to heads of government (and maybe Prince Charles).
Yes check.svg Done Celebrities removed. --Երևանցի talk 20:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I hope to do a full review later, ideally after these points have been addressed. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Misty Copeland[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the prominent ballerina, Misty Copeland. She has risen to prominence from humble beginnings, despite great racial, social, family and financial stresses. Her story needs to be told and this article does that. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Indeed a worthy subject, and I hope to read it soon and add further comments. In the meantime, please note that Ref. 48 is unformatted. I also question whether, in the lead paragraph summarising Copeland's achievements, it is appropriate to begin with a list of her commercial sponsors. That, surely, is not her greatest claim to fame. Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Two things. First, I kept wondering, when I read this, isn't Copeland the first black principal ballerina in the history of any of the big three US ballet companies (not just ABT)? If so, we should say so. Has any major European ballet company had a black principal ballerina? If not, that would seem relevant too. Second, does the article purport to describe all of Copeland's solo roles? If not, we should consider whether it names all of her most important roles. In any case, the article seems to peter out with respect to her roles after her recovery in mid-2013. It does not name any of her 2013 roles, and it names only one of her 2015 roles. It does not name any roles that she has danced since becoming principal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • We are here to summarize the RS. They consistently describe her as the first at ABT and not the first from the big 3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know what constitutes a "major European ballet company" and have not seen RS about that subject. I would not know how to approach this issue in terms of sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with TTT here. Lauren Anderson was principal ballerina at Houston 25 years ago, and describing Copeland as "first at a major company" is an invitation to endless arguments about whether Houston Ballet (the fourth-largest in the US) is "major" enough. ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Numerous sources like this one identify the big three US ballet companies as ABT, NYCB and San Francisco, and we already say so in Copeland's article. I wonder if Copeland says so in her memoir, or if a more general book about the history of ballet might make the point. I know there have been a couple of male principal dancers, but I don't think there has ever been a principal ballerina in either NYCB or San Francisco. The fact that Lauren Anderson (first black principal ballerina at Houston Ballet) is mentioned in articles about Copeland's promotion (and they do not mention any other previous black prima ballerinas) makes me think it is even more likely that neither of those two has ever has a black prima ballerina, and if that is the case, why not say so? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I will look at this and add something over the next three days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What is encyclopedic? Should we enumerate her roles like a stage or theatre performer. I could start digging if this is desirable. Thanks for noticing this. I have become less active as an editor since becoming an Uber driver in 2014. I don't edit much between Friday and Monday, since that is when I drive the bulk of my hours. Hopefully, next week I will have time during the middle of the week to consider this type of detail if that is what you think is desirable. Since you have become active in this article, I would welcome any assistance you might lend in rounding out the article further.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    I think the article should mention all of her major solo roles. Here is a list of them. We already probably mention most of them, we just need to fill in some of the recent ones. Probably if you search her name and the name of the role, you'll find reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    I will expand this over the next three days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    I'll be honest. When I read her career detail, it is not clear to me which roles are solo roles. Do any of you know, which of these roles are solo roles. I would gladly research any list of roles if you could itemize the missing ones.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    I can't tell which roles were solos, but I am digging in.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    They're all solos, but the ones called "leading" roles should get the most attention. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    I have not made it all the way through her bio yet. My Friday-Monday Uber work week begins in the morning. I'll have at it some more next week.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    It looks to me like you are making some good progress. Over the next few of days, I'll try to read through as much of the the article as I can and check the sources as I go. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, Ssilvers and Iridescent can you let me know if I am adding the right amount of detail. It seems a bit much to me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    Defer to Ssilvers (and anyone from WikiProject Ballet who shows up) on the appropriate level of detail; I'm more used to painting & architecture articles, where the levels of what's considered appropriate detail are likely different since it's more important to illustrate changes in style over time. As an aside, I'd strongly suggest posting a request at WikiProject Ballet for people to take a look; I don't think it could reasonably be called inappropriate canvassing, given that those editors are the people least likely to support, as they're best placed to spot potential problems. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think you're going too far overboard. I think it's better to write something and let others trim it than to miss something important. I agree with Iridescent that you need to get more editors to review this, and a notice at the Ballet project (and also at the Dance project?) might attract some good reviewers. And anywhere else you can think of. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ssilvers Why did "Stylistically, she is considered a classical ballet dancer." get removed from the article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Because it doesn't add anything. She is a ballerina at a ballet company. Obviously, it's ballet, not modern dance, ballroom or any other style. It's like saying that "Stylistically, Placido Domingo was considered a classical opera singer." Note that the article classical ballet is a nearly unreferenced article that should be merged into Ballet. It just means older ballets in the standard rep. Even if one wants to break ballet down, Copeland and ABT perform contemporary ballet and neoclassical ballet as well as older ballets, so the statement is actually false, or a joke, like in Victor/Victoria when Julie Andrews pretentiously says: "Monsieur, I have a *lejitimate* voice!" In any case, the statement misinterpreted what the source meant. The NYT reviewer was basically admiring Copeland's "classical" approach, even though she is also good at modern ballet. But, again, that's sort of a pretentious and condescending thing to say, because you could basically say it about all good ballerinas. Like, even though she danced on Prince's piano, don't worry!, she's a real ballet dancer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Ssilvers, Can you make sense of this article's commentary on her classical abilities?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Not really, except that it shows that different reviewers can disagree. This reminds me that the article really needs a well-balanced "reputation section", where the really substantial discussions about Copeland's actual dancing (considering her body of work, as this article does) by legitimate ballet reviewers -- like Robert Gottlieb -- are consolidated. Copeland has implied in numerous interviews that what he (and others) has said is racist; he writes: "was race a determining factor in her ascension?" -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ballet expert needed I am trying to beef up her career history as requested above. It is not clear to me whether in 2013 she played both Queen of the Dryads and Mercedes or just the former. In 2014, it is clear that she performed both. Help would be great on clarifying this point.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Date formats. Per WP:DATE#Things to avoid, it is unacceptable to use the date format used in most of the refs in the article. They should all be spelled out in American date format: March 9, 2015, not 2015-03-09, which is ambiguous. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see that you are technically correct. Still, I think it's a bad idea, and that it is always much easier for readers if the month is spelled out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(Moving comment from Talk:Misty Copeland) In the lead section (although not necessarily the body), I'd suggest "Copeland became the first Black woman" rather than "Copeland became the first African American woman". Professional dancers tend to move between countries quite a lot, and in this context "first African American" could give the impression—partcularly to non-US readers to whom the term "African American" isn't as familiar—that there had been other black women to hold the position and she was just the first to be a US citizen. ‑ Iridescent 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked into this, and I conclude that readers in other countries would *not* be confused by her description as an African American woman. We even bluelink the term just in case there is any question at all. The term black people seems to be, if anything, more ambiguous. That article says: "the meaning of the expression varies widely both between and within societies". Similar Featured Articles?: Barack Obama's LEAD section calls him the first African American to hold the office of President, and Maya Angelou's article calls her the first African American woman to direct a film, but both also use the term "black". Most prestigious black-edited news and entertainment outlets seem to use both terms interchangeably. The Grio calls Copeland African-American here, but it calls her "black" here. Note the lower case "b". Black Enterprise magazine seems to use the terms interchangeably for Copeland. Ebony (magazine) does the same but uses an upper-case "B". My guess is that it does not matter, and that we, too, can use the term interchangeably in the article for variety's sake. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Because I don't believe that this article is at GA level yet. It will be soon, once we create a well-structured "Reputation" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
GA or FA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
None of these are "leading" roles, according to Copeland's ABT bio. "...and roles in Airs, Amazed in Burning Dreams, Baker’s Dozen, Ballo della Regina, Birthday Offering, Black Tuesday, The Brahms-Haydn Variations, Brief Fling, Company B, Désir, Gong, Hereafter, In the Upper Room, Overgrown Path, Pretty Good Year, Private Light, Raymonda Divertissements, Sechs Tänze, Sinatra Suite.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The were leading roles according to the source. Unless you have a contrary source, we should restore this description of this content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You are citing the wrong source -- this page incorrectly summarizes Copeland's actual bio at ABT (which I mentioned and QUOTED for you above): http://www.abt.org/dancers/detail.asp?Dancer_ID=56 It clearly identifies and distinguishes the "roles", from the "leading roles". Please look more carefully at her actual ABT bio. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The statement was WP:OR; several facts within it are not adequately referenced. One might be able to prove that they were "in the same cast". Moreover, whether or not she had an "opportunity" to dance "alongside" one of her inspirations while still in the corps, is not of encyclopedic interest. It could hardly have been otherwise, since Herrera was a principal dancer with the company, so everyone in the corps had that "opportunity". Note that we previously state the encyclopedic information: that Herrera was one of her idols at an early age. If you could find a ref that says that she chose ABT over San Francisco because of her affection for Herrera, that might be of interest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It most certainly was not WP:OR as it had two WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
OR and RS are separate rules. If you read WP:OR carefully, you will see that the sources must actually support the facts relied on. As I stated above the sentence contains facts that are NOT supported by the sources. They only support the REDUNDANT idea that Copeland had idolized Herrera in 1999 (we already say that above in Copeland's article) and that she was on the same stage as Herrera while in the corps, which is totally unremarkable, since every corps dancer at ABT shared the stage with Herrera. It's an unhelpful sentence. As I said, if you want to write more about Herrera (but she is already mentioned enough in this article!), it might be of some interest to note (if it is true) that Copeland joined ABT instead of San Francisco (after dancing in both their summer programs) because Herrera was at ABT. But I have not seen anything that says so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Once you mention Anderson, the mention of additional non-bluelinked ballerinas from lesser companies is tangential information, and we didn't even assert that Jimenez is black. Jimenez is of no more significance than any number of dancers from Joffrey Ballet and other such companies. I think the paragraph is much clearer now, and I was able to fill in a major gap in the article with the addition of the AP article and the bold statement from the documentary. It would be nice to also show that there have been no black ballerinas at San Francisco Ballet, but I have not done the research for that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
What source do you have that Boston Ballet is lesser than Houston Ballet? Both were sourced from the same article regarding other African American principals.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Anderson, who is blue-linked, is mentioned in numerous news articles about Copeland's promotion. Jimenez, who is not blue-linked, is mentioned in only a few news articles. Even if Boston is comparable to Houston, it is neither helpful nor necessary to mention Jimenez or other examples of earlier black ballerinas like Virginia Johnson, Raven Wilkinson, Delores Brown, Carmen de Lavallade, Janet Collins, Debra Austin, Robyn Gardenhire, Andrea Long, Sandra Fortune-Green, Nora Kimball, Anne Benna Sims, Aesha Ash, Kayla Rowser, Céline Gittens or Michaela DePrince. Currently, this article is not well-written, and adding redundant examples is not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Copeland's memoir. TTT, do you have a copy of Copeland's memoir? I think that it is essential for anyone nominating this article for FA to have it and to read it carefully. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I had a copy from the Chicago Public Library when I originally added the content. I don't have a copy now, but could probably get a hold of one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
At some point, you will need to go through it again to check all the cites to the book in this article and to make sure, now that you have read more about her, that we note (1) if she says anything that casts doubt on other sources, or (2) if there is anything significant about her life that we are missing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Boise National Forest[edit]

Nominator(s): Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is my second nomination of this article for FA status. The first was a year ago, and after taking it to GA status, I'm renominating it. I think this article comprehensively covers numerous aspects about this national forest in Idaho. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Imzadi1979[edit]

I'll go ahead and give this a basic source review after meandering here from my own nomination:

  • A key hallmark of FA status can be summed up in one word: consistency, and with citations, I'll probably mention that a lot. First example: "United States Geological Survey" but you have "U.S. Forest Service". I don't think either is wrong, but it's odd to have one spelled out fully, but the other is partially abbreviated. Further down, in note 16, the former gets abbreviated down to just "USGS", and it should be spelled out in whatever fashion to match. So in short, you should audit how you're going to spell out agency names and apply a consistent rule across all of the footnotes.
  • Back to note 16, you have an access date defined, but no URL, which triggers an error message. (It might be one of the error messages that's hidden by default, but it's there all the same for those of us who have them all enabled.) The access date does not display without a URL defined, and it would be meaningless if it could be displayed anyway.
    • Also, and this is a bit of a personal preference, but maps have authors, which can be the same organization as the publisher. I personally list the USGS in both positions in the template and include the place of publication (Reston, VA) for map citations. It's also my experience that map scales with numbers of 5 digits or more have commas inserted (1:24,000) to ease parsing the number.
  • Note 17, etc, shouldn't have the publisher wikilinked after it was in the very first note. You may need to bypass a source-specific template and use {{cite web}} directly to customize the output to avoid an unneeded wikilink.
  • In note 45, "New York, NY" the state abbreviation is normally not needed when New York is the place of publication for a book.
  • In sequential notes (53–54), you have "Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service" and just "Rocky Mountain Research Station" as the publisher. Especially if you can wikilink the first one, you could use the shorter form alone
  • In note 63, etc, "Incident Information System" sounds to me like the name of a website/work, and I'm left wondering whose system that is, i.e. who's the publisher?
  • I corrected it to "InciWeb" and added a wikilink. It's an interagency service in the U.S. government.
  • For the map in note 79, I'd spell out the series name as you did in note 16.

The sources are all appropriate for the article, so the only quibbles I have are related to the formatting, not their quality or reliability on first blush. Imzadi 1979  12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made all of these corrections. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

This is my first sight of the article – I missed the previous FAC. I've read that review, and it seems that prose quality was the principal reason why it was archived. So I've been looking particularly at the prose. Hmmm. I've got as far as the end of the "Management" section, and found quite a few issues. These are all fixable, but will require some attention, and I'd obviously like to look at the rest. In the meantime, please consider the following:

  • Lead: "in addition to" is not appropriate wording, as the facts that follow it are quite separate from the land cover details. I suggest something like "...spruce-fir forests; there are 9,600 miles (15,400 km) of streams and rivers, and 15,400 acres (6,200 ha) of lakes and reservoirs."
  • Done.
  • Also in lead: by "through the mid-twentieth century" I assume you mean "until the mid-twentieth century". This is important, because in British English, "through" means "during the duration of" rather than "up to", as in "he lived through the war years".
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "The most important known placer deposit of niobium and tantalum in the United States is located in Bear Valley." Needs a citation.
  • Done. Though the last three sentences in that paragraph are all covered by the same page of the same source.
  • "The President was given the authority..." Clarify you mean the U.S. president.
  • Done.
  • This seems like unnecessary detail in this article: "The original Payette National Forest had been established on June 3, 1905 as Payette Forest Reserve".
  • I think it is necessary since it shows when the forest was first protected. I moved it and reworded that section so it makes more sense.
  • Over-use of the word "establiahed" in the latter part of the US Forestry section. Try some synonyms, e.g. "formed", "set up", "founded" etc
  • Done.
  • I think the rather clumsy formation "and a district ranger who manages the ranger district" could be replaced by "and is managed by a district ranger"
  • Done.
  • Is it necesssary to name the "top forest official" – and that title sounds a little informal for an encyclopaedia?
  • Removed.
  • This is very clumsy: "There have been 2,648,273 acres (10,717.18 km2) of Idaho proclaimed to be part of Boise National Forest, however the forest manages only about 2,203,703 acres (891,807 ha)." Apart from the awkward wording and inappropriate comma, why is the first figure given an equivalence in km2 and the second in hectares?
  • I reworked this.
  • I'm afraid my head started to spin when I tried to follow the details in the second part of the Management section. Is all this detail necessary? If so, is this the best way of presenting it? Perhaps a table – I don't know, but you may lose readers in this morass of detail.
  • I'm not sure it would really fit into a table. I do think it is necessary to include the sentences about the two wilderness areas since they are quite large areas, but the rest could perhaps just be removed. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll return later with my comments on the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Continuing: Sorry for the delay:

Geog and geology
  • "which extend even further north and east..." I don't see a need for "even further"
  • Done.
  • "are referred to as the Trinity Mountains" – is this a formal alternate name or some sort of local usage? Some clarification needed.
  • Reworded to eliminate "referred" and indicate it is a subrange. This is an official name supported by the GNIS reference at the end of the sentence.
  • "The forest borders parts of seven reservoirs, however the Forest Service does not own or manage any of the dams." Inappropriate comma and dodgy "however". Perhaps revise: "The forest borders parts of seven reservoirs, none of which are owned or managed by the Forest Service". This could merge with the next sentence if you replace "Rather, it..." with "which".
  • Done.
  • What are "acre feet"? An explanatory note would help.
  • Linked
Climate
  • Just a comment: bearing in mind Idaho's location in the North-west of the States, I'm a little surprised that its climate is affected by moisture from the Gulf of Mexico, which seems very distant.
  • I removed "Gulf of Mexico" because it does seem odd and overly specific but not impossible
  • I assume the snowfall figures are annual averages?
  • Clarified.
Natural resources
  • Can we somehow avoid "ecoregion" occuring three times in the first line of the section?
  • I think the third can be removed, but think the first two link to ecoregion and distinguish between the batholith itself and its eponymous ecoregion.
  • "the presence of frequent non-lethal fires" − I think "occurence" rather than presence. How about: "the frequent occurence of non-lethal fires"?
  • Agreed and changed
  • You have "Douglas fir occasionally occur" (plural verb form) but later "Douglas fir dominates" (singular verb form). Consistency needed – the latter is preferable and in more general use.
  • Done
  • Overuse of "dominates/dominated" – five in quick succession. "Is predominant", or some other variant, would make a change.
  • Changed a few
  • "Boise National Forest is directed to "control the establishment..." – who does the directing?
  • Higher level regional and/or national level Forest Service management, which I revised to
  • "Habitat in Boise National Forest supports..." – "Habitat" is not a mass noun, so it should be "Habitats"
  • Done
  • "including 36 accidental species, or those that are not normally found in the region but have been observed on at least one occasion". A little unclear; I suggest "including 36 "accidental" species – those not normally found in the region but have been observed on at least one occasion".
  • Done
  • "Deadwood Lookout is now maintained as a cabin that can be rented by the public" – this information is given in more detail in the next section, and doesn't need to appear here.
  • Removed
Recreation
  • (third line): "as on" surely just "on"?
  • Clarified to most difficult sections on these rivers since there's rafting on others as well

This is a meticulously researched article, nicely put together. Most of my points are minor quibbles or merely suggestions. I have also made a few tweaks to the text. I'll be happy to support when the above points are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Support: My concerns have been properly addressed and I'll be happy to see the article promoted, subject to image clearance. I hope other editors will read and review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Isopogon anemonifolius[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) & Melburnian (talk · contribs) 20:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Another collaboration, this came together well and is comprehensive and cohesive. We'll hop to it and fix any issues quick-like. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

And yes it's a wikicup nomination. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Woorikee2000.jpg: can you verify and replace the autogenerated source? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok I updated the article page. I uploaded that a looong time ago. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • "He gave it the name Leucadendron apiifolium, but never officially described it." Perhaps mention that it is therefore a Nomen nudum? FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Good point - will try to find a source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Finding material on this is proving difficult.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the definition of nomen nudum, it has to be published without a description to be one, where as this name was not published. Still waiting on a source.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "specific epithet derived from anemone "anemone"" Seems a little bit like over explaining here? Why not just link the genus, or when anemone is mentioned at the end of the sentence?
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There is inconsistency in whether you say "I. anemonifolius" or the full binomial throughout, within sections. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I initially thought one needed to use the full binomial to start a para (and was told it was needed to start a sentence), but looking online I found that the the general use is for abbreviation after first mention. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Isopogon anethifolius is found along the east coast of New South Wales, from near the Victorian border" I assume this is a mistake?
Yeah, I was originally going to expand and nom that species but there was more on this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "though broader than the related Isopogon anethifolius" Only appears to be stated in the intro?
See sentence #4 in Description section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to mention broadness? Or am I missing something? "Its flat leaves distinguish it from the terete (round in cross section) leaves of Isopogon anethifolius." When I think of "flat" I think of height, not width (would be "narrow" then?)... FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right - added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Any news on the naked name? If not, I have nothing more to add. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - all serious issues solved. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thx, edits look fine. I can go either/or on but/though.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

I happened to review this article for GA status. I think I had overlooked a few issues, which I must mention here:

  • I think "described" can be linked in both Lead and Taxonomy.
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In Description ...compared with the 1 mm wide leaves of the latter species... needs convert template
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In Taxonomy It gained its current name in 1809 when it was redescribed as the anemone-leaved isopogon (Isopogon anemonefolius) in a controversial work On the cultivation of the plants belonging to the natural order of Proteeae,... Is Isopogon anemonefolius the same as the current Isopogon anemonifolius? Very slight difference, but there it is.
this is not uncommon with names with compound genitive components - often in early works an 'e' or 'æ' would become an 'i'. I can't find a comment about it specifically as most botanists would accept it at face value. Will see if I can find something to put as footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting. Amazing how you get to learn stuff while reviewing! Yes, I think you should add a footnote with the above explanation. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Have added a general footnote detailing the rule. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Link variety (Taxonomy). Is not "common name" too common to be linked?
I was the one who linked that. Maybe because I'm not a native English speaker this term isn't too familiar (in a taxonomic context)... Not sure if my language has an equivalent, doesn't have an article at least. Feel free to remove if it is common knowledge for English speakers. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
added link for variety - common name has a specific meaning which I think is interesting for layperson. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The thing is that I never saw "common name" linked elsewhere. Why not use "vernacular name"? Would you need a link even then? At least I have not seen it linked anywhere else. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
"Vernacular name" is a redirect to common name and to my ears all intents and purposes a synonym I think. However "common name" is more accessible to lay reader. You are right in that I have not linked it much in other articles and would not be opposed to unlinking it here (i.e. my preference is to remain linked but not by much and if consensus was that it was redundant I would not have a problem with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
So should we wait for a consensus? Well, as for me, I oppose linking the term. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 07:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I delinked as neither Funkmonk or I care one way or the other and you feel more strongly. That's no problem. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not find any more issues with the article. Thanks @Casliber: and @FunkMonk: for their cooperation. I give my Support on prose to this article. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your thoroughness and support. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments from JM

I can't see this being controversial! A few thoughts:

  • "broad-leaved drumsticks" Is this plural or singular?
Used for both, in the manner of glasses, billiards etc.--Melburnian (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Its height usually ranges between 1 and 1.5 metres (31⁄4–5 feet), generally being smaller in exposed heathland" This doesn't quite work- "its height" is the subject of the first clause, while the plant itself seems to be the subject of the second.
Agreed - tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "common name of drumsticks" How about "common name, drumsticks"? I think it would be words as words. (Perhaps something similar could be done with the mention of the common name in the taxonomy section?)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "The flowers appear anywhere from July to January" I assume you mean any time?
facepalm. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • What's a globe?
it's the woody base the flowers come out of. I'll have a look for technical terms Cas Liber (talk
I've used the wording "globular inflorescence" to refer to the whole structure and tweaked the wording around it. --Melburnian (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "appeared in his paper On the natural order of plants called Proteaceae in the Transactions of the Linnean Society in 1810" According to our article (I think) the published version had a different title- as an article, it'd probably need to be in quotes rather than italicised, too?
The name On the natural order of plants called Proteaceae was published as a standalone, which indicates it needs italics. When called "On the Proteaceae of Jussieu", it was as an article in a journal and hence that title is in quotation marks. I've seen it referred to as either name. What I don't know is what the lectures were called. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, the article reads "Brown's description appeared in his paper On the natural order of plants called Proteaceae in the Transactions of the Linnean Society in 1810"; my understanding is that this is incorrect. Perhaps "Brown's description appeared in his paper On the natural order of plants called Proteaceae, subsequently published as "On the Proteaceae of Jussieu" in the Transactions of the Linnean Society in 1810"? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • What happened to Brown's varieties?
I forgot to do this edit before. Both were synonymised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "around two months of being burnt in a bushfire" ?
facepalm. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "to resprout for more intense fires" Again- I'm struggling
facepalm. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This is probably just a personal preference, but I really don't like the table format for the images; Template:Multiple image looks much better, to my eyes.
Done. --Melburnian (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm being picky, but I'm not sold on the one-line paragraphs
Yeah. I had trouble shoehorning those into paras, which was why I didn't do it initially. I've had a go now but am at a loss with where/how to place the single line in the ecology section... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Images are all fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Tibesti Mountains[edit]

Nominator(s): Brycehughes (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the Tibesti Mountains in northern Chad. I translated almost all of the article from the French article several years ago. I have recently updated the history section of the article, and so I've brought it here for consideration, because it seems more of a fit under the FA criteria rather than the GA criteria. Please feel free to slap me down; in my years here, I have never done anything close to this before. Brycehughes (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Trader[edit]

Nominator(s): → Call me Razr Nation 18:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Trader is a turn-based strategy video game developed by Slovakia-based studio 4Kids Games. It was released on 27 June 2010 for Microsoft Windows and the Xbox 360, and on 17 December 2010 for iOS. The game was designed using Microsoft XNA, and its year long development cycle was executed by six individuals. The game consists of a player exploring and trading in a sixteenth century cartography-influenced map with the ultimate goal to collect three artifacts to defeat the game's main antagonist, a sea creature called the Ancient Guardian. → Call me Razr Nation 18:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for the previous FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks. → Call me Razr Nation 22:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Ancient Trader gameplay elements.png -- do we allow double-screenshots? This is derivative work when arranging items in a collage. For an article of this size, two similar screenshots may not pass NFCC.
    • I used two images to give an example of the two main core gameplay elements of the game, specially the card game. I am fine if only one is allowed. Though I've seen some FAs use two or three in the same line of thought without issue. → Call me Razr Nation 03:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I think the other FAs are way longer, which allows more leeway for NFCC "minimal use". But it still (probably) remains derived work, even if a very simple one -- you cannot naturally acquire the double screenshot like that from the game, so you have taken two copyrighted images and created a third one from them. I have no idea what our fair use interpretation says about this or if other FAs have done this. And--as far as I understand--you need to have NFUR for both screenshots, especially since collage is yours, each individually explaining how it is minimal use, contextually significant, etc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Ancient Trader logo.png -- I'm not sure why this isn't non-free? Are you the copyright holder for the game's logo? Or are we saying it's text and basic design that cannot be copyrighted? The file needs to be tagged to explain this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Logos comprised of pure text cannot be copyrighted. I'll change the license to use the correct one. → Call me Razr Nation 03:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything outstanding wrong with this article. In fact, I've seen other FACs in rockier shape when they got that golden star. This may not count for as much as a review that tears the article to shreds, but I'll Support this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Prose

(since there were a couple copyedits already, will leave comments here rather than editing some of this directly)

  • Infobox says "strategy game", lead say "turn-based strategy game".
    • Done
  • "Single-player" -- gameplay says it has multiplayer
    • Done
  • "designed using Microsoft XNA" -- "developed", you can't design with XNA
    • True, fixed.
  • Any reason "turn-based strategy video game" linking is different between lead and gameplay?
    • Fixed.
  • "Piloting a ship, the player explores.." - passive voice, something like "The player pilots an ship and explores..."
    • Changed to "The player controls a ship, exploring"
  • "explores a large map" -- it doesn't say anything about size or "large" in later prose
    • Changed to "exploring and makes trades" since map size is selected by the player.
  • "gameplay structure of the game" -- what is a "gameplay structure"?
    • Eh, no idea, oops. Removed.
  • "two-dimensional perspective" -- a link to 2D perspective, since this is fairly technical
  • "gather tea, spices, and fruit." -- gather how, from wreckage?
    • Yes, it is explained later in the prose. "Commodities can be found in wreckages." Changed the prose to have this information together.
  • "game's main antagonist" -- I don't see the AG described as antagonist in the source, though it might be fine to call it that
  • "These can be exchanged for gold" and "sell their ship's cargo for gold" both say the same thing
    • True, changed.
  • "Ports (called puertos)" -- is this the only word in the game that is non-English (no other term has one mentioned)? In other words, why do we need the in-game name?
    • Removed.
  • "Whirlpools teleport" -- I assume the player has to actually choose to enter a whirlpool, they don't just do this randomly?
    • I don't actually remember but I think that's how it works. I'll have to find the game again.
  • "sometimes encounters message bottles" - encounters how? The previous list of things in water didn't mention this. If this is wreckage, it should be mentioned.
    • Moved that sentence to be next to the one listing the things that appear on water
  • "At the beginning of the game, the entire map is obscured until explored by the player." -- this is more of an introduction to maps and should probably be in 2nd paragraph, before all the details about the map.
  • "artificial intelligence (AI)" -- "AI" is never used again.
  • "a card game is triggered to decide if the player loses gold to a rival ship or cargo to a sea creature" -- this makes it sound like there is no other option but to either lose gold or cargo?
  • "card game" -- should probably say "minigame" as this is the first mention.
  • "a card game is triggered to decide if..." -- a bit clumsy passive tense. The game can just "start" and "decide" or simialr.
  • "powerful color" and "strongest hue" -- while "highest-numbered" is self-explanatory, colors don't have any standard "strengths", so this needs some explanations or at least mention that game's rules determine color "strength" somehow.
  • "two-point attack bonus" -- the points are never discussed before this and never again. Either they need to be introduced properly or omitted.
  • "following turn" - may be just "next turn"
  • "at the end of the minigame" -- I assume after the minigame, not when it is ending.
  • "allowed to buy the three powerful artifacts" -- allowed by whom and buy where? I suppose this implies "game's rules" and "port", but it reads a bit ambiguously.
  • It says "seeking three artifacts" and "seeks out three powerful artifacts", but the above sentence says "buy" -- where does the "seeking" come in?
  • "Defeating the Ancient Guardian in a card minigame" -- how did the card minigame suddenly start with AG?
  • "awards the player additional loot and previously unavailable upgrades" -- the goal of the game was to defeat AG, so how come there are post-defeat loot and upgrades?
  • "chase the artifacts" -- I guess this is stylistic choice, but--in context of writing for encyclopaedia--the player doesn't actually "chase" artifacts.
  • "defeat the Guardian" -- inconsistent naming, either full one every time, or short one after first use.
  • Inconsistent inline citations -- some sentences are cited, some aren't, but the same citation is used, such as 3rd para of Gameplay. Is this because some stuff isn't sourced (i.e. sourced directly to the game)?
Development
  • "designed and animated the graphics" -- common VG jargon, but technically you cannot "design" or "animate" graphics.
  • "a set of game development tools"
  • """most of our team..."" -- can we not paraphrase? the quote seems simple enough and his original words don't seem unique, many indies have other projects
  • "submitted for XNA approval" -- what is that?
  • "by that of board games and of the video games Elite and Advance Wars" -- lots of extra words, e.g. "was influenced by board games and video games Elite and Advance Wars"
  • "Elite and Advance Wars" -- might include release dates (I don't really know if it's standard, but I've seen it done in better articles)
  • ""without explaining..."" -- another paraphrase quote, nothing unique here, many devs/indies do this
  • "design Ancient Trader's appearance" - probably okay, but "design appearance" reads weird to me... you don't really design appearance, you can create appearance or design elements for a certain appearance or something like that
  • "paper textures and clouds" -- what does this mean "paper"? They look like paper or they were made as paper and scanned/photoed?
  • "reduce the color saturation in the game and allow players to decide how much color they wanted to have" -- is this not saying the same thing twice?
  • ""is a big thing for me..."" -- long quote again without any unique phrasing
Reception
  • Reviews use way too many quotes some, very long. Almost no wording there is unique phrasing that we cannot paraphrase.
  • "British magazine Edge" -- is it important that it's British? Others are not mentioned by country of origin.
  • "Xbox Live Marketplace" -- first mention, link may be good
  • ""ambitious, devious and surprisingly hard to fault."" -- of any quotes to keep, this is probably a good one
  • "IGN called it..." -- can't have info from reviewer purely a quote. (Also see ref review below)
  • "to video games such as Seven Cities of Gold and Pirates", "Strange Adventures in Infinite Space and Flotilla" -- might include release dates
  • "However, he also mentioned" -- "mention" is not a counter-point to "highly praised", so "however" is out of place
  • "he also mentioned" -- what does this mean by "mentioned", surely not just said that those things exist, in which case it's not really reception material
  • Not quite a thorough review of reception, because majority is quotations.
  • Not sure what we do about Eurogamer and IGN for italics -- they are both websites, yet one article uses italics, the other doesn't. As far as I know, we are supposed to italicize websites with original article-type content per MOS:ITALIC and MOS:TITLE.
Source review
  • [3] -- this is a press release, it is not by IGN themselves, nothing from it can be used that wouldn't otherwise be usable from a primary source. "a simple, easy entry" is thus quoting the primary source and not IGN. (here's some of their PR stuff for comparing.)
  • [4] -- what makes the source reliable (WP:VG/RS)
  • [5] -- what makes the source reliable? Also "Developer Summary" is from developer.
  • [6] is 404; and what makes the source reliable?
  • [7] -- what makes the source reliable?
  • [8] -- we don't use MetaCritic for any content information, they don't write it themselves anyway, it's just taken from [9].

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    • @Hellknowz. Thanks for the review. I already took care os some and will take care of the rest soon. → Call me Razr Nation 20:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Hellknowz: About the sources: FidGit is considered an acceptable source for indie games, and I've had no problems with it in previous FAs. Same with Indie Game Reviewer. One must understand that obscure games such as Ancient Trader don't enjoy coverage from the standard sources (IGN, GameInformer, etc.). Although this game did receive some coverage from these sources, I had to dig a bit deeper to find substantial information about the game itself, and I think such information is necessary for the article to be complete. → Call me Razr Nation 04:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I've no issue with sources not explicitly listed as reliable, I would just ask justification for considering them so. Other FAs may not have done a detailed source check. For example, [10] says "collective of independent gamers and developers" and points to Wikipedia article for further details, while the author has no journalism experience/credentials. On WP:VG/RS, this source would likely be deemed unreliable. If such sources are used in a FA, we have to be well-justified in doing so. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm afraid I have to oppose remain without supporting on the grounds of sourcing. Only 11 sources are about the game itself, there are only 7 in-depth sources, of which only 3 are currently vetted as reliable at WP:VG/RS. The rest are about sequel, are primary, PR information, or brief entries. While I can support a short article with few sources for GA, I don't believe it reaches the FA sourcing standard we wish to maintain. Especially compared to some other video game FAs with exhaustive sourcing. It's unfortunate, but some topics simply do not have many quality sources, such as lesser-known indie games. I went on a content review before really checking the sourcing, so apologies for a somewhat backwards review. I still think it can be a really good article, but I don't believe it can be of is FA standard simply because there isn't sufficient quality sourcing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Changing "oppose" to "neutral" because FA criteria don't really require a minimum number of sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JDC808[edit]

Went through and done some copy-editing. If you have any questions or concerns about my copy-edits, let me know.

Support - This is a nice short article that covers a game of this size as much as it can with what's available in terms of sources. I disagree with Hellknowz, though more sources would not hurt, if they can be found. --JDC808 21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • "The player controls a ship, allowing them to explore the world and make trades.." -- I feel we are still using passive wording where a simpler form would suffice, for example, "The player explores the world in a ship and makes trades..." or some such. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

This is a nice little article. A few comments:

  • Are you italicising "Eurogamer" or not?
  • "Ancient Trader received positive responses from several video game journalists upon its release. Most critics praised the game's art design and gameplay, but criticized the lack of key elements such as a saving feature and scoreboards." What's your reference for this? It sounds like synthesis.
  • Is the sequel notable?
    • No, as far as I can tell. I've tried to gather enough sources but most of them just say it's basically AT with some improvements and don't go into detail. → Call me Razr Nation 16:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't bother including the publishers for the magazines and ezines. If you're going to, though, be consistent.
  • What is Gaming Union? Are you convinced it's reliable?
  • What's your reference for the claim that this is an art game?
  • Would Category:Fantasy video games or a subset be appropriate? Category:Trade simulation games and perhaps Category:Naval video games (or a subcategory) would surely definitely be appropriate.
  • It looks like there are other decent enough sources out there which you are not citing. PopMatters, Metro and GamesIndustry.biz, for example, may well be worth citing. Given that this is a very short article, I'm not seeing much advantage to excluding them. See the talk page of this review (I'll save it in a few minutes) for more sources.
    Ok, now I've added two articles from the Daily Record, one from The Observer, one from The Independent and one from the Charleston Gazette. They're all on the talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not keen on the composite image- I always get the impression (likely unfairly) that two images in one like this are an attempt to make it look like there's less NFC than there is. You should really separate them so that you can provide clear and specific rationales for each (that's assuming that both are absolutely needed).

I've done some copyediting (I'm assuming this is meant to be in British English? It uses dmy dates, and it's a European topic?)- please double-check. This makes for a great GA, but I wonder if it is a little short of FA quality right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Based on the above, I think there are some issues with the article, but the key problem is that this is a very short article which does not incorporate all of the available sources, and in fact misses out some very good sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Wow, thank you for finding these sources! I'll incorporate them as soon as I can. → Call me Razr Nation 16:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) and Thoughtfortheday (talk · contribs)

This article is about a very early cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, who supplied a wealth of them later in life. The extraordinary work remained his only extant cantata for the First Day of Easter, as if his first statement to the battle of Life and Death, based on the unchanged hymn by Martin Luther (based on Medieval models), was final. Read yourself ...

Thoughtfortheday and I worked on an article from Wikipedia's early years for a while, Corinne copy-edited, to have it ready to appear on Easter Sunday. All comments and improvements welcome. Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • I'm not very sure that the Bach's early cantatas section belongs in this article, and doubly unsure about the table it contains. Will defer if others think this is significant/useful. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Please compare O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165 and other FA, - these articles establish the context for periods in Bach's life (so far 1714, 1715, early 1723), planned to cover his life eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Looking forward to supporting, but a few minor comments first.

  • Statements that could do with a citation:
    • First performance
      • First para: second, third and last sentences
      • Third para: in toto
    • Scoring and structure
      • Most of the fourth para
Will look later. -GA
I will ask Thoughtfortheday who wrote the passages and can probably simply add the sources, while I would have to search for them. I dropped the outlook to Mozart, - see below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is more I could say. John Eliot Gardiner, for example, doesn't use a solo bass in the aria in question. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Selected recordings
    • I'd be inclined to omit the adjective from the heading, as the section is an overview rather than a selection. I'd also omit the uncited six words at the beginning of the section: WP:PEA, you know.
Header shortened, agree. - If you look into the article history, it was first the other way round: saying that the many recordings demonstrate how important the work is. That it is unique in many respects should be clear by the time a reader gets here, and why not tell someone (again) who only reads this section? --GA
  • Spelling
    • English or American? We have "colour" but "center". English strikes me as preferable, of course, but we should be consistent one way or the other.
I agree to mostly English, but am not strict myself as long as it will be understood. "Centre", yes, but those English names for the shorter notes ..., "bar" - highly ambiguous to the uninitiated, "programme" ... - not necessary, I believe. Please feel free to change what I overlooked --GA

This is a fine article and I shall be glad to support its promotion once my few quibbles are addressed. – Tim riley talk 14:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reading and valuable comments! I will get to adding references only later. In case you have access to Taruskin's book: mentioning individual page numbers would be helpful. We inherited some sources and lack of them from users from the past. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the melodic comparisons
good idea, done --GA
  • File:Osterlieder.jpg: should explicitly identify the copyright status and details of the original works - these are not exclusively "own work"
please help me to understand whose copyright is in danger for these centuries-old,mostly anonymous melodies, and if, what can be done --GA
To be clear, we will not have to remove this as a copyright violation, but we should still use the correct reason for why. A life+100 tag would be correct for the melodies themselves, with some further details added to the description about who is really the author and what is the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Christ_lag_in_Todesbanden.JPG: given licensing is incorrect - a single note would be ineligible for protection, but a melody is not
  • File:Nadia_Boulanger_1925.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, - I will notify my image expert, I still feel insecure when it comes to image licensing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Crisco comments[edit]

  • The cantata is a chorale cantata, a type of composition in which both text and music are based on a Lutheran hymn, in this case Martin Luther's hymn of the same name, the main hymn for Easter in seven stanzas which is based in text and tune on Medieval models. - That's a lot of commas. Can you simplify this sentence?
tried ---GA
  • Link the instruments?
better not,because violon would leed to (mostly) modern violin, etc.. They are linked below in the section dealing with the scoring, while in the lead (and the infobox) the baroque instruments in general are linked.
  • Lead strikes me as long. I think you could nix the final paragraph without any issues.
Lead seems shortish to me,compared to all the thingsthat could be said ;) - I would not like to end on "17th century", - I like a final statement. ---GA
another question for Thoughtfortheday ---GA
I take your point. I could rewrite to refer to Wolff as regards quality (as well as the speculation on missing cantatas). -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There is documentary evidence of a performance in 1707. - A performance of what? Christ lag in Todes Banden? Say so. Or nix the sentence, as you've got "It is known that Bach performed a cantata of his own composition at Easter in 1707 as a part of his application for the post of organist of Divi Blasii church in Mühlhausen, and this may have been Christ lag in Todes Banden."
nixed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If he composed any other cantata for Easter Sunday, it did not survive. - I'd expect the plural to be used in this sentence (i.e. any other cantatas). Compare "Did you buy any other paintings while you were gone?"
Probably my lack of English, - I would find it strange to use a plural when most likely it wasn't even one. ---GA
  • Luther wrote - you haven't introduced him in-text yet (only in a table). As such, I'd use his full name on first mention, and link him. The same for his hymn.
good thought, tried ---GA
  • between Life and Death. - The capitalization suggests that life and death are personified, or otherwise more than simple life and death. Not sure that's what you are going for.
This came up in the GA review. Please compare the translation in the Dürr-Jones Source, Life and Death almost allegorical figures. ---GA

That's it for now. Be back later or tomorrow with more. Overall, though, I'd suggest looking at a way to avoid having single-paragraph sections. THere are quite a few in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, will look, but please be patient, real death hit twice in a few days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • My condolences. Take all the time you need. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I answered some now, -thank you for helpful comments. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Back

  • CN tag added
I removed (commented out) the sentence about trombones doubling the voices in Mozart's Requiem. It's often done, but is - as so much in the score - not written down by Mozart himself, and a discussion of all this would belong in the Requiem article, - then there could be a link. --GA
  • Shouldn't Easter be linked on first mention, rather than halfway down the article?
Yes, done. It's often not linked at all, and so was here. The link "further down" points specifically to Easter Sunday, with different liturgy than Easter Monday and Easter Tuesday. Bach wrote new cantatas for Monday and Tuesday, but not - that we know - for Sunday. --GA
  • Although Boulanger decided to concentrate on teaching, she had a notable career as a performer of early music, and in 1937 she made pioneering recordings of Monteverdi madrigals with a group of singers that included the tenor Hugues Cuénod, who was featured in her second recording of the cantata. - not sure how pertinent this is to the cantata — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A question for Thoughtfortheday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It could go. My reason for going into this level of detail was to suggest that the Boulanger recordings of the cantata are an important landmark. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Oppose at this time, per 1(c) and 2(c) of the FAC criteria. I would like to think that these can be fixed during this nomination, and if so, I would be happy to switch to support. My reasons being that there is a distinct lack of closing citations. CassiantoTalk 12:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • In the "Performances" section, there are a few paragraphs that end with no citation.
Only one left, about the style and Pachelbel, hope for my partner ---GA
  • "Although the cantata is remarkably accomplished" -- POV?
  • The Martin Luther images finishes with no full stop.
does now --GA
  • The paragraph starting "The exact scoring of the first version is unknown..." is lacking a citation.
a few added ---GA
  • ...as is the next paragraph.
Only the last sentence is "unreferenced", which is a description of the following table (saying what is not shown). ---GA
  • First paragraph in "Tune" section closes without a citation.
two sections rephrased ---GA
  • Last para of the "Verses 1" section has a wrongly ordered citation series.
fixed --GA
  • As does "Verses 7".
fixed --GA
  • "An outstanding work among Bach's cantata..." -- POV in "Transcriptions" section
See above. The lead summarizes, that this is outstanding in more than one respect, - it's only repeated for those who read only this section. --GA
The issue is that it omits to say who considers it to be "remarkably accomplished" and "outstanding". Currently, this looks like your opinion and your Point Of Veiw is neither here nor there, unfortunately. CassiantoTalk 18:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The first chorale cantata, the only extant cantata for Easter Sunday (which is the highest feast): everybody agrees it's outstanding. To repeat a few voices who say that in the recordings section would be undue weight, - I'd rather drop the half-sentence which is only repeated from the lead, as said before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Then simply saying "critics" or similar would cure this and keep everyone happy, I think. CassiantoTalk 21:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Critics? Of Bach? I don't know any ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Then refer to my "or similar". Was there anyone who would've given this opinion? You don't have to name them, just say what there role was; ie, critic, scholar, etc... . What ever happens though, this still comes across as being your POV, and as lovely as that is Gerda, we can't be having it in FA's. CassiantoTalk 07:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I just removed it. It was not introduced by me, but I try to keep the good work of former editors if I can. Giving up in this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to why you think somebody's unfounded personal opinion can be considered as "good work", but here is not the place to question such things as the sentence has now been made more neutral. Thanks. CassiantoTalk 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Transcriptions" finishes without a cite.
  • As does the third para of the "Recordings" section.
Thank you for diligent reading. You possibly didn't read what Tim mentioned above, so we have some duplication. Please bear in mind that it's a joint effort, and the first FAC for Thoughtfortheday. I will go over more ref details later today. A problem - said before - is that this is a very old article with some unreferenced facts which we don't want to throw out without at least trying to find refs in retrospect. Facts that we can't source will be eliminated, but that's the last step. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I appreciate that Gerda and like I say, I will happily switch to support as and when these major problems are fixed. I hadn't noticed Tim's comments but with two of us now picking up on this, maybe this brings a sense of urgency to the table. Welcome to FAC, Thoughtfortheday, please don't be put off by my oppose; we are all here to help, should you need us. Gerda, did you consider a peer review first? CassiantoTalk 13:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I fixed some. I didn't consider a peer review for two reasons: lack of time because Easter is early this year, and similarity with other FA articles. I notice by now that there are also differences. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome , Cassantio. I have been a bit busy this week. Otherwise I would have done more editing on this article. I look forward to doing more work in due course. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

  • In the lead, the English title "Christ lay in death's bonds" should probably be in bold text. Reading through, delighted to see a nom from Thoughtfortheday, having seen their good work over the years. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be bold if a redirect, for example from an English title or a frequent translation. But this is only one of several possibilities, nothing to bold, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
ok Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Rather than "1707 ?", is c 1707 more appropriate. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's most likely, just not 100%. "c 1707" might also be 1706, which is impossible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Compare this, we could do the same: no question mark but explain in the text, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The link would seem to indicate at least before 1707, which is a very different thing to "?". Is 1705 or earlier also "impossible"? Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
How? It says 24 April 1707, and then "wahrscheinlich" (probably). No indication of a "before". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
"Early performances": 24 April 1707. Presumably it was written before performed. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Now I see what you mean;) - No, he was fast. Usually he wrote a cantata and rehearsed it it within a week. He did that for three years, from 1723, one a week + extra holidays, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok Gerarda, but things that are obvious to you, who is so steeped and knowledgeable with Bach (a large value to wiki) might have to be spelled out for others. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
They are available in Bach's biography and Bach cantata, the first link. We can't spell them out in individual articles, would be close to 200. - I changed "composed" (where we really know nothing) to "performed". We could add the two notable performances in Leipzig. - Please note that will be on vacation, with no to limited internet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

I took a look at the lead.

  1. "One of his earliest church cantatas, and his earliest surviving chorale cantata, it was probably intended for performance in 1707, an early work in the genre to which he later contributed complete cantata cycles for occasion of the liturgical year."—Possibly remove first comma. This sentence is rather long and cumbersome; I don't understand "for occasion of".
    Please look above, the sentence was just changed in a copy-edit, a factual error introduced which I fixed, admitting (see above) that it will need more work. I tried to split it now. --GA
  2. "Christ lag in Todes Banden is a chorale cantata"—just been told that. Instead: "A chorale canata is a style in which ...".
    solved by the split --GA
  3. "The work was composed in seven stanzas and based on text and tunes adhering to Medieval models."—Maybe "and was based on". Maybe "... tunes after Medieval models". "Adhering" is pretty clunky.
    tried, and think that's a version we had before --GA
  4. I don't see a good reason to cap Life and Death.
    The source does. Most frequently asked question ;) --GA
    But it's a paraphrase, not a direct quote. I see no reason to cap. Tony (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    It's like this in the translation to English of the cantata text by Jones, the best translation I know, interpreting with this little device that Luther and Bach seem to look at Life and Death as almost allegorical figures. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  5. I don't go with the imputed logic: "Although all movements are in the same key of E minor, Bach employs a variety of musical forms and techniques to intensify the meaning of the text." You'd have to build in, briefly, the notion that unchanging key is not good at intensifying the textual meanings. And do you later explain the mechanics of those intensifications?
    I do the latter, but isn't obvious even to a lay reader that "same key" implies little variation. I think it would be too long for the lead (which has already been described as too long above) to explain that Bach later went for change of expression by key also.--GA
    The logic doesn't hold up. Tony (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't get it. Should we make it two unrelated sentences? My logic is that he keeps the key - almost boringly - the same but still achieves a great variety of expression. Any better wording welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  6. "Christ lag in Todes Banden is Bach's first cantata for Easter, also his only extant original composition for the first day of the feast." Comma splice.
    will look later what that means, on vacation --GA
  7. "He later repeatedly performed it as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, beginning in 1724 when he first celebrated Easter there." Specific claim but no ref. I've been away from FAC for so long I'm unsure of the party line on reffing in leads.
    You don't have to source summaries in the lead (this is a summary of two dates sourced later), only quotations. --GA
  8. "Only the performance material from Leipzig is extant." Perhaps "... survives". Whereabouts is it? Maybe that's not important, though.
    English is not my fist language, thanks for those little differences. In German,"survives" sounds strange for something that never lived. --GA
  9. Slight grammar shift: "and a choir of cornetto and trombones doubling the voices at times" -> "and a choir of cornetto and trombones that double the voices at times". I'd numerate them (one ... and ?three), to avoid the jolt from singular to plural.
    A choir is singular, no? And doubles the four voices, so has to be 1 + 3 without mentioning, no? --GA
    Yes, choir is singular. You need "of one cornetto and three ..."/ Tony (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    Why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  10. Interesting, but I hope it's explained or reffed in the main text: "The scoring of the first performances was possibly similar, in the style of a "Choralkonzert" (chorale concerto) from the 17th century."
  11. drama" and. -> drama", and
    I think it is, please look --GA

Tony (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for very helpful comments, partly done, partly for later, hopefully today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Back from vacation, but a lot of other work waiting, - please excuse that work will trickle, not flow.

I'm Not Your Hero[edit]

Nominator(s): 和DITOREtails 02:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"I'm Not Your Hero" is a song by Tegan and Sara off there critically-acclaimed Heartthrob. It did moderately on the Canadian and French charts. Writers who have reviewed the article have noticed its significant amount of effort that I put into this. I feel every bit of information necessary to this topic is included, and the writing is also great. Any comments are welcomed. 和DITOREtails 02:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tbhotch.
  • Infobox
•In Recorded, I think the year and studios should be separated by a semicolon.*
Warner Bros. Records -> Warner Bros.
*I was referring to this: [[Warner Bros. Records|Warner Bros.]]. Sorry for not being more explicit. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
(*) Optional
  • Lead
•"indie rock/indie pop duo" -> MOS:SLASH
•The lyrics for the three-minute and 51-second -> Probably falls into Numbers.
•It peaked at number -> "I'm Not Your Hero" peaked at number
•their "Let's Make Things Physical" tour -> Tours are not quoted
  • "Song"
•"Song" -> "Writing and composition"; the whole article is about a song.
•"it was revealed" -> [by whom?]
•"Tegan and Sara Quin" is wikilinked after a previous usage of Tegan and Sara.
•"...I found the verses to be quintessential Sara." -> Needs a source here per BLP.
•"lasts for three minutes and 51 seconds." -> Same as lead.
•Back in my day Musicnotes.com was not a reliable source. I don't know if it still being unreliable and if it should be removed. Note I am referring to the website itself and not to the music sheet provided by the website.
  • I see you removed the whole text and source. Unfortunately, I wasn't referring to this. It was simply to remove the url. But, I have checked other FAs including "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)", "4 Minutes" and "Rehab (Rihanna song)". They all include the website, but at the same time they include the following line "According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by [Publisher]". Also, I found this that didn't exist before: WP:USM. So, you can re-add it, but with the given format. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
•"...found the non-traditional rhythms 'strangely reminiscent' of 'Sweet Disposition'..." is similarly written as ARL's.
  • Quoted
  • Release and reception
•"Their seventh studio album, Heartthrob, came out on January 29, 2013, and "I'm Not Your Hero" was released on October 21, 2012 as a promotional single for worldwide streaming." -> Chronological order needed.
•""I'm Your Not Hero" entered the French SNEP singles..." -> They're Canadian, why not enlist Canada first?
  • I understand what your saying, but this is because France is where the song charted first. It charted in France in 2012, and didn't start charting in Canada until 2014. Also, since you have said that chronological order is needed per above, I have just clarified this information in the article, but I'll still accept your argument if you still disagree. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
•"a total of eleven weeks" -> Consistency.
  • I just checked the group's page from Billboard.com showing their chart performances on the Canadian Hot 100, and oddly enough, the source now saids the song chart3e for only one week when it peaked at number 58, even though it had debuted on the chart of number 82 five weeks before without leaving once during those five weeks. This must have been an error of the source I initially used. I have replaced this source with a much more accurate Billboard.biz search showing the song lasted 13 weeks. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 21:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
*OK, but I was referring to the eleven (now thirteen) spelled out. Also, the external link is now wrongly written. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a technical issue. The only solution is to include this website alone: [11]. Later include a "|id=" guiding the reader the instructions they must follow to arrive to the information. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 05:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • References
•teganandsara.com. -> Tegan and Sara Official Website.
•Warner Bros. (Ref. 4) -> They refer to as "The Live Room powered by Warner Music"; also a "Official YouTube Channel" could be added.
•If Musicnotes.com link is kept, the message "Oops! The item you have requested, catalog # MN0125416, is currently unavailable." appears.
MTV Buzzworthy. -> I think it is unitaliziced.
Paste's archive website is not working as desired.
  • Somehow it sent me to Paste's main page. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 05:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
•"Tegan and Sara Official YouTube Channel." -> If you add a link for YT before, don't forget to remove this one.
iTunes Store (GB). -> iTunes Store (GB) or iTunes Store (Great Britain).
•"Billboard. Prometheus Global Media" (Ref. 18) -> "Billboard. Prometheus Global Media"
•Ref. 19 displays an error message.
MTV Hive. -> Same as Buzzworthy.
•Alter The Press! -> In the main text it appears as "Alter The Press!"; it should be consistent.
  • External sites
•"Tegan and Sara official site" -> I don't see how it is relevant here.
  • Media (Images, etc.)
File:Tegan-and-Sara-I'm-Not-Your-Hero.jpg -> IMO, the file is PD. Warner Bros. logo was found to be PD, according to [Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warner Channel.svg Commons]. While I do not agree with that result, the logo here is similar to that of WB TV. If the cover is to be kept here as NFC, it has to be reduced to 300px x 300px. Otherwise, you can bring this to WP:NFCR to determinate its status.
I forgot this, it also needs an online link. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Added edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 00:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
File:SaraQuin.JPG seems OK. Not necessarily but, a {{Personality Rights}} (Commons only) can be added to the picture.
•Optional as well, but a sample of the song can be added as well, considering it can have value to the article.
  • Other
•SaraQuin.JPG is missing an ALT description.

These are all the issues I could find. Good work. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 04:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Adam Stansfield[edit]

Nominator(s): '''tAD''' (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Adam Stansfield, who was an English professional footballer. A late starter into the professional team, he played for Yeovil Town, Hereford United and Exeter City, gaining promotion into the Football League at all three teams. He was idolised as an elder statesman at Exeter, who gained a second promotion with him in the team. Tragically, he fell gravely ill in April 2010 and four months later he had passed on. His legend remains, particularly at Exeter.

The article went through a GA and peer review, both of which were thorough. The PR reviewer was an American who noted the accessibility of the article from a global perspective, in that it was not delving into walls of minutiae. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Imperial Gift[edit]

Nominator(s): Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the post-WW1 donation of surplus aircraft and related equipment by the British government to the governments of Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and New Zealand in order to enhance aviation in the respective Dominions and contribute to the air defence of the British Empire. This article should be a FA because the events described in it led to the establishment of Air Forces in four of the recipient countries, thus it is highly significant in aviation and military history. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments
  • G'day, Roger, good work so far. Nice to see someone working on this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • for a Featured Article, I would like to see the lead expanded a little bit more;
  • I have expanded the lead to more than double the previous length, I hope it is now satisfactory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • not sure about the capitalization here: " Canadian Air board director of Flying Operations"...(seems inconsistent);
  • Fixed
  • inconsistent caps: "the Dominions" v. " dominions";
  • Should be lowercase when mentioning the concept of dominion and upper case when referring to specific Dominion(s), where it is a title. This is analogous to "a republic" versus "the Republic". In this case all should be upper case.
  • is there a link that could be provided to explain "dominions" and "colonial governments"?
  • link "Australian Army Service Corps";
  • Done
  • "At first New Zealand refused the offer..." is it possible to say why?
  • The source does not give a reason.
  • "companies, 1920–1924" --> "companies over the period 1920–24" or "companies between 1920 and 1924";
  • Done
  • "completed the SAAF..." --> the abbreviation should be formally introduced on the first mention of South African Air Force;
  • Done
  • "There is, however, no record of the B.E.2s ever being used after 1919" --> "According to author Dave Becker, there is..."
  • Done
  • "The combined facility was then known as the..." --> "The combined facility then became known as the..."
  • Done
  • this needs a ref: "The combined facility was then known as the Aircraft and Artillery Depot."
  • Done
  • " Roberts heights was..." --> "Roberts Heights was..."
  • Done
  • "File:Felixstowe f3.jpg": the image description page probably needs a US licence in addition to the current one...I'd says PD-US-1996 would probably be applicable (I think).
  • Done
  • All of my comments have been addressed, the only thing I wonder about now is depth of coverage. I have no knowledge of this topic at all, so I could very well be wrong, but the article strikes me as a bit light in its coverage. I think part of this is the perception created by the number of short one or two sentence paragraphs. Anyway, overall, I'm supportive of promotion, but I would like to see a review potentially from someone who knows the content well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @AustralianRupert and Nikkimaria Coverage about the Imperial Gift is actually quite sparse in most of the standard "go to" histories of the respective air forces, most devote only a couple of pages to the topic before moving on to later events. The Spencer PhD thesis is the only readily available source that covers the subject in substantial depth i.r.o. all the involved countries. In the case of South Africa I actually have a sandbox draft for a separate article. It's a matter of access, I'm South African and have many sources on my own bookshelf, as well as access to friends' bookshelves. When I first wrote the article I had a Canadian collaborator whose bookshelf filled a few gaps about the Canadian case. For the other countries I'm entirely dependent on Google, unfortunately sources for events of almost a century ago are not common online.
Would it be acceptable if I "canvassed" at the Aviation and Military History projects for a topic-specialist reviewer? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
G'day, yes, I think that would be ok. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "The first batch of aircraft arrived in South Africa in September 1919 at the Artillery Depot at Roberts Heights, Pretoria where an Air Depot was established on 1 January 1920. The combined facility was then known as the Aircraft and Artillery Depot." - source?
  • Done
  • Legion Magazine should be italicized, so should Telegraph
  • What makes RW Walker a high-quality reliable source?
  • Removed - was redundant anyway as other (better) sources cover same material
  • FN16: publisher?
  • It's a website reference, the "publisher" is airforce.gov.au - a.k.a The Royal Australian Air Force
  • Okay. I note that your other website publishers are not italicized - should be consistent in formatting. Also, current footnote 17 is missing publisher as well.
  • "Cite web" doesn't actually use a "publisher" parameter - the website itself is the publisher. Is a standard "cite web" reference not acceptable for FA articles? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Er...{{cite web}} does use |publisher= . You can use |website= instead if you want, as long as you do so consistently. But at the moment, many of your other web refs are using |publisher= . Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You are indeed correct - I've edited them to consistently use "publisher". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Why the different formatting between FN15 and 21?
  • I don't see it, please explain
  • Now 13 ("ADF Serials") and 19 ("Adf-serials.com.au")
  • FN28 is missing date
  • No, the date is there
  • Now 27, Maxwell and Smith
  • As a Ph.D dissertation surely it is the most "scholarly" of all the cited sources?
  • It's being used for basic facts; "A said this...", "B did that..." - there's no scholarly interpretation or opinion involved, so it should be just as acceptable as if it were a newspaper article or non-academic book. If the author got such basics wrong he would surely not have got the Ph.D., we have no grounds to doubt these basic factual claims, they also match other sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Shores: where in Ontario? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed - Stoney Creek
My responses interleaved above. Thanks for the review. The outstanding item - expanding the lead - will be seen to ASAP, but right now my bed is calling... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert and @Nikkimaria - I hope I have adequately addressed all the issues raised thus far. Could we complete the process by Friday as I will be away from home for a few days from Saturday? Thanks for your contributions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments

I am just looking at the Australian section.

  • Per source 10: The government accordingly formed the Air Services Committee (ASC) as a temporary body to organise the new air force. Not the Australian Army Service Corps (AASC).
  • AIUI, it was the AASC that advised the government to create the Air Services Committee. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    That is not correct. And you source the sentence to Dennis et al, p. 59, which does not mention the ASC at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The sentence starting with "On 30 June 1919" is sourced from source 10, not source 14
  • Are the aircraft numbers and types coming from source 12 or source 13?
  • The RAAF was formed on 31 March 1921. I think the full date should be used here.
  • Done
  • A2-4 (RAAF serial) was C1916 (RAF serial) and A3-4 was H2174, if you want to be consistent with "Airco/de Haviland DH-9a (A1-17/F2779)"
  • Done
  • You might mention that the 28 additional aircraft replaced 44 aircraft gifted to the RFC/RAF during the Great War
  • Already mentioned in the sentence just before the list.
    No, it just says "aircraft"; the reader might reasonably assume they were replaced on a one-for-one basis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The Treloar Technology Centre is an annex of the Australian War Memorial in the Canberra industrial suburb of Mitchell. I suppose it is "on display" there, but the Treloar Technology Centre is only open to the public once a year.
  • Changed to "...stored at the Treloar Technology Centre..."
  • Is there a good reason not to?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7. I didn't write most of this section as I don't have access to the specifically Australian book sources. Those parts were contributed by someone else. If you have time and opportunity I'd really appreciate your further input. Other specific comments interleaved above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but the South Africa section has too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dank Thanks for your contribution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments While it's good to see this article has been developed into a very solid and useful article, I don't think it's FA standard at present I'm afraid.

  • Following up on Hawkeye's comments above, I'd suggest describing the aircraft in the Treloar Technology Centre as being "in storage" or similar; as Hawkeye notes this storage facility is only occasionally opened to the public, and the items in it tend to be squished in to make good use of the available space rather than displayed
  • Done
  • I'm a bit surprised to see that much of the "Australia" section is referenced to relatively low-quality sources, and no use has been made of the excellent official histories of the force during this era which are available online here - see in particular pages 159-172 of this book.
  • Thanks, I'll take a look at them, but if anyone else feels like jumping in, please do so.
  • The single-para "background" section is rather under-developed, and I'm surprised there isn't a "legacy" section or similar discussing the long-term results of this program.
  • I'll see what I can do about expanding the "Background" section. The long term "legacy" is the creation of four national air forces - explained in the lead. Should it be moved to a specific "Legacy" section? I added that detail to the lead after earlier comments that the lead was too short.
  • More generally, the sections on each air force don't really discuss the impact the aircraft had, or how they were used.
  • I have sources for such detail only for the SAAF, which I've used in a separate article currently in my sandbox at User:Dodger67/Sandbox/South Africa's Imperial Gift. Early in the article's history I was advised by a fellow contributor to remove that detail because it "unbalanced" the article.

Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Nick-D. I have interleaved my specific responses above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Margaret Murray[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent Anglo-Indian Egyptologist, archaeologist, and folklorist, known for being one of the earliest female scholars in her subject matter and for establishing the controversial witch-cult theory. It is a GA-rated article and although a recent Peer Review Nomination did not result in any review, I have read through the article to correct any prose issues that were apparent. I think that it is either FA quality, or very close, and thus would like to nominate the article here to see if others concur with my assessment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
    • I have added the necessary full stops in the image captions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The lead image should use {{non-free biog-pic}} rather than the current tag, and the "purpose of use" description could be more expansive. Do we know the date of the image, or its original source?
    • With regard to your initial points, done and done. I shall look into the latter point and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria: I haven't been able to find any information on the date or original source for this image. Would it still be permissible to use this image without said information, or would you recommend that I find an alternative image about which we have more information? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
        • According to ODNB, this is the original source - can you update the image description page in accordance with this information? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Oh wow, thank you Nikkimaria. I hadn't even thought of looking at that website. I'll make the necessary changes! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Nuremberg_chronicles_-_Devil_and_Woman_on_Horseback_(CLXXXIXv).jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Bust_of_Margaret_Murray,_UCL.jpg: the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture. What is the copyright status of the original work? Same with File:Horned_God.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The photographs in question were both taken in the United Kingdom rather than the United States, and thus fall under the jurisdiction of UK law, which is far more accepting of panoramic freedom. I've also added the "FoP-UK" tag to both; does this deal with the issue? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying - that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments from JM

I've read through down to "legacy", making tweaks as I go. My only comments so far follow:

  • " He also noted that the book's tone was generally "dry and clinical, and every assertion was meticulously footned to a source, with lavish quotation"." Could you check this quote? What does "footned" mean?
    • This was a spelling error of mine. I have changed it to "footnoted". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "historian Jeffrey B. Russell and Brooks Alexander" Russell's a historian, but who is Alexander?
    • Alexander is an "independent writer and editor" (according to his own description here) who focuses on discussing occultism and new religious movements from his own evangelical Christian perspective. Russell had written the book in question, A History of Witchcraft, back in 1980, and when revising it with updated information for the 2007 work A New History of Witchcraft he brought Alexander in to add a chapter on the growth of contemporary witchcraft. I'll add "independent writer" before Alexander's name in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll be back to look through the remainder of the article later this week. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Josh, it's appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I've finished looking through the article again; overall, I think it's fantastic. My only real concern (and I think I already know what your answer will be) is that there seems to be a strong focus on the witchcraft content at the expense of information about the influence of her academic archaeological work. I assume that her archeological work (for example, her work on Malta) has not really had a significant legacy? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of, to be honest. Vast amounts of ink have been spent discussing her impact in witchcraft historiography, less on her impact in Egyptology, and next to nothing on her impact elsewhere. Then again, I am not really familiar with the archaeology of Malta as a field of research, so must admit that it is possible that his side of her work is discussed in some obscure edited volume or something of that nature which has been published within that academic arena. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Support, providing nothing major is raised. This strikes me as an exemplary article. Delegates: I was the GA reviewer. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I believe this article's use of Anglo-Indian, to mean "the wealthy British imperial elite", is outdated (please see Anglo-Indian).—indopug (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The article notes that the use of "Anglo-Indian" to describe the British community living in the Raj is a common use of the term. It notes that it is largely a historical term, but then again, Murray was a historical personage; she grew up as a British person living in British-occupied India. Is there a more appropriate term for such people? I'm certainly not aware of any apposite alternative. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 20:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... a 2007 song by Barbadian singer Rihanna. It is one of her most successful and signature singles of her career. I hope this FAC is gonna be successful because the previous one lacked activity and got some points over the prose which were hopefully fixed since the article got and full c/e from Miniapolis and a slight help from Fdssdf to whom I am truly grateful. — Tom(T2ME) 20:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Persona (series)[edit]

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Persona series, formally marketed overseas as Shin Megami Tensei: Persona is a role-playing video game series developed by Atlus as a branch of the Megami Tensei franchise. Beginning in 1996 with the first Persona title, the series consists of six main entries, multiple spin-offs, and various media expansions including manga, anime, novels and stageplays. While a spin-off from Megami Tensei, there are very few direct plot-related connections to it, so understanding both series is not a prerequisite. All online references in this article are archived, and while the usage of images may come up at some point in this review, I deemed it necessary to use them as I did to help break up the article and demonstrate points made in the text. Plus, due to the series pre-dating the mid-2000s, GameRankings is used in the aggregate tables as per consensus on the WikiProject talk page. This title became a GA in August 2015, and was given a peer review that same month upon which I performed some copyediting. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The GameRankings scores do not add any value over Metacritic's in this case. The two are very similar in score, such that GR duplicates the function of Metacritic. The only exception could be the GR score for Innocent Sin on PlayStation, which has no Metacritic—however, I would strike that score anyway because it is an average of two scores, which isn't a suitable minimum for inclusion as a metascore (we usually set four reviews as a suitable minimum). czar 07:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Just parachuting in to look at the lead. Some points:

  1. "Since then, there have been eight further"—what's a simpler grammar? "There have since been ..."?
  2. "with another one"—one word could be removed.
  3. Just checking: the "aspects" are summoned during battles, right?
  4. Subsetting disease? Maybe not, since only you know whether you're citing the whole list or a subset of it: "The series' trademark features include ...". If the whole, use "comprises".
  5. utlizing ... why not using?
  6. "has also used a social simulation function called Social Links, which are directly linked to the gameplay"—Clash between singular and plural; perhaps "is" rather than "are", unless there's a good reason to stresses the individual links (but difficult with the capped title). Alternative, remove "which are" altogther. Bin "also", unless that function needs to be stressed as an addition, add-on.
  7. You "do" a design? Simplify the grammar ... central characters were designed by.
  8. The + noun + of. the exploration of.
  9. Sick of "series"—"The series' recurring concepts ...".
  10. "Beginning with Persona 2: Eternal Punishment, the localizations have been notably faithful to the Japanese versions at the insistence of Atlus."—I don't like "notably faithful". Is notably part of the mood (Notably, beginning with ...)? What does notably mean, otherwise.
  11. Helping to
  12. "Numerous adaptations have been made, including anime television and theatrical series, novelizations, manga and stage plays."—There have been numerous adaptations, ... Check the subsetting of this list.

So some fine checking of the whole article would be good. Might be ok as a candidate, then. Tony (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Tony1, I've done some work based on your suggestions. It's very useful. A full prose review would be nice, if you can manage that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing. I don't think I can allocate more time to going through in fine detail. Can you recruit fresh copyediting eyes for the rest? Tony (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure I can. Maybe CR4ZE or JimmyBlackwing could oblige. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Just saw this message. Really sorry, but I'm just too busy with off-Wiki work to edit these days. Even making time to fulfill scan requests has been a challenge lately. Hopefully you can find another copyeditor without too much trouble. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sonam Kapoor[edit]

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 20:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sonam Kapoor is an Indian actress, working in Bollywood films. She, not as successful as her contemporaries, is known more for her dresses than her roles and films, which are not quite entertaining and most of them have failed commercially. In the meanwhile, she has starred in some of the films -- such as Raanjhnaa and the recent Prem Ratan Dhan Payo -- which might be remembered for a short period of time.

I nominated the article some months ago but failed due to some reservations about prose and neutrality. It was recently copy-edited by WP:GOCE and peer reviewed. Please note that an image review was done in its peer review. I would like to see comments on how I can further improve the article. Thank you. -- Frankie talk 20:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support – All my concerns were addressed during its previous nomination and the peer review. Hopefully it'll pass this time. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  • Remove Strdust Awards from the lead.
  • Remove Sooraj Barjatya's name from the lead.
  • Add info in the lead about her fashion choices, she is more notable for being fashionable star than an actress. But you dont need to make her look bad. Just add a line about her being one of the fashionable stars in Bollywood.Krish | Talk 14:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Krish!: Thanks very much for the comments, much appreciated. I have taken care of them in its entirety. -- Frankie talk 15:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Despite being a box-office failure, Saawariya earned Kapoor" and "Nevertheless, she received her third nomination for Best Actress at the Filmfare Awards." The text should be exchanged with each other because one can get a nomination despite failure, and it's not wierd; But, getting a nomination for a panned performance is. The latter projects the reviewers in bad light.
  • Information about her personality (outsopken), and few quotes for her style should be added in her Media image section. That's all.Krish | Talk 16:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I knew this would come up. There were quite a lot of information about her "outspoken" personality and style in this revision but they were the main reason for the failure of its previous nomination as a few reviewers thought they border WP:PUFFERY. -- Frankie talk 17:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Just saw that. It's sad that so many important information were removed. However, you can re-add them (minus fluff). Let me look at it.Krish | Talk 19:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: The article meets all the criteria. Plus, now with re-addition of important information, the article seems brilliant. Well done Frankie.Krish | Talk 20:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the comments, support and re-addition of the personal life "stuff" but please note that I didn't remove but merged them to the "Life and career" section. And as for the media image section, I liked the changes you made. I just removed some quotes and did some trimming so that reviewers don't complain about its neutrality. Thanks for your time, Krish! -- Frankie talk 21:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Source review from Johanna

I had done a source review on the previous FAC and found the article to check out, as it was based on high-quality, reliable sources. I had a few questions regarding the nature of a few of the sources, and they were summarily answered. With that, I reiterate my Support. Johanna(talk to me!) 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I do have one question—in the prior FAC, you said that Mid Day was "a reputable source"--could you expand on this? Johanna(talk to me!) 15:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, it has been used on almost every FA concerning Bollywood. It has received several awards, such as INMA Global Media Awards and INMA Awards so I believe it's a decent source to use. -- Frankie talk 15:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Mid Day is indeed a RS, as it's operated by Jagran publication's. The same company behind Dainik Jagran, one of the most read indian newspaper. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(Off-topic discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Sonam Kapoor/archive2) --Laser brain (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Just read through the article for a second time, and I think it's pretty much flawless. I remember reviewing the GAN and found no issues with the sources, and I've also looked through the source review in the previous FAC and everything has been addressed. There is one thing I did notice; "Kapoor was born in the Mumbai suburb of Chembur on 9 June 1985.[1][3]" - although the first reference contains the information on her date of birth and Chembur, the second reference doesn't. This is minor, but I'd recommend moving that citation anywhere else. Other than that, this article definitely meets the criteria. JAGUAR  21:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Removed that source. Thanks for your GA review, PR comments and support, much appreciated. -- Frankie talk 21:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
  • "She also had a minor role in the successful biographical sports film Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013)." Can "had" be replaced with "played"?
  • Coming to the genres romantic drama and comedy-drama, why a endash was placed between comedy and drama?
Comedy-drama!
So what? Either link all the genres or remove the endash. And i find the former more beneficial after coming to know that article's spelling. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite find linking them helpful as they are pretty much WP:OVERLINKING.
  • In the sentence "In 2015 Kapoor was praised for her performance in the melodrama...", add a comma after 2015.
  • Mention the year of release of Black in the "Debut and career fluctuations" section.
  • "During the production of Black, Kapoor became interested in acting"—"developed interest" is a better choice.
  • "Saanwariya proved to be a major critical and commercial failure."—Saanwariya? I thought we were reading aboiut Saawariya, aren't we?
  • Jaspreet Pandohar called a "misfire on a massive scale". But whom? Kapoor's performance or the film? Please mention it.
  • Please add a comma after the word role in the sentence, "To prepare for the role Kapoor interacted..."
  • Add a comma after 2015 in the sentence "As of November 2015 Kapoor was filming Ram Madhvani's ....".
  • Space required after "In the media" and "Philanthropy" and "Filmography" sections.
  • An image in the "Philanthropy" section is suggested to be placed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: Thanks very much for the comments. Hopefully I have addressed them with the exception of the last one as I can't find an image of her attending a charitable event. -- Frankie talk 07:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
So what? Filming of "Dheere Dheere" or any pic from Mijwan Welfare Society ramp walk etc. can be used and mention the charity intended in the caption. What say? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I could but the philanthropy section is not too big and adding an image creates an unnecessary space between it and filmography. -- Frankie talk 08:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Support—After going through the article once again, i found that the nominator has resolved mny queries and i also find his explanation to a couple of comments quite reasonable. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: I would like to know if the source review and spot checks by Johanna and Jaguar are enough or should I request for one on the top of WT:FAC? -- Frankie talk 08:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a FA coordinator but I'm sure Ian Rose would agree with me that this would benefit from a more vigorous spot check from somebody like Nikkimaria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm sorry to say but this article fails 1(a) of the FA criteria. Take this paragraph for instance:

"Born into a family of popular actors, Kapoor has appeared in the media since an early age. Kapoor is praised for her dress sense and style by the Indian media but has often been criticised for her traditional Indian dresses. Known as outspoken by the Indian media, Kapoor has been the subject of controversy. Her remarks about contemporaries and others in the Indian film industry have attracted media attention and occasional criticism. In a 2015 interview, she explained that her honest opinions "often get [her] into trouble ... But I believe it pays to be honest in the longer run."

It's quite obvious that this hasn't been written by a native English speaker—unfortunately, the entire prose needs a complete rewrite from an editor who has a better command of the language. In addition, the article reads like a random collection of opinions which don't mesh well together. The "in the media" section in particular jumps from one aspect of her personality to another with little coherence. The second sentence of the first paragraph talks about her "dress sense" and suddenly jumps to an opinion about her loquaciousness. Then suddenly, in the third paragraph there is another mention of her dressing. I highly recommend a thorough peer-review before bringing this back here. All the very best! Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for showing interest in the article but I don't think it needs to be copy-edited by any more "native" English speaker (already ce'd by four veteran and "native" English users). Besides, I don't think that three different facts presented in one paragraph are a random listing of facts. It has already been peer-reviewed and does not need that one more time. Thanks. -- Frankie talk 07:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but there is always room for improvement, and in this case, there is a major need for that. I must also add that the entire "career" section (minus the PRDP part) was written by me in early 2015, and I can see several ways in which I can improve on it. In addition,
I think that you are failing to see that the source 89 explicitly claims that she was praised for her role in the film.
And what does the article cite to make said claim? Two reviews by Taran Adarsh and Komal Nahta. Fairly certain that the article is yet another of those paid journalism crap that TOI regularly churns out. Unless we have a review roundup where several critics speak of her performance, or have a separate review roundup done in the talk page, the claim will be considered dubious. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I had no idea about those paid review. Anyway, I am not a Kapoor fan to write all the appreciations for her. I just wrote what I got from the sources. Claim removed. -- Frankie talk 09:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, abc news point is in no way affiliated to the ABC News you seem to be citing, so yes, it does not qualify as a reliable source. (Hint: they say this about themselves, "Abcnewspoint is a plate form to deliver you healthy, complete and brief stories about latest all over the world" ==> "plate form"). --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
What about The Times of India source that you removed for no reason? Also, there is now the Hindustan Times source that supports the claim. -- Frankie talk 09:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You provided the Hindustan Times link after I said that the links you cited weren't good enough. And I have no issues with the new source. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if the more established editors such as Graham Beards, Cirt, Dr. Blofeld, who took part in the previous FAC, would be kind enough to take a look at this? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is so much better after Dr. Blofeld's edits. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Taran Adarsh is something of a joke critic, it's blatantly obvious that he is paid by film producers to say what he says. Personally I think he should be blacklisted from here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"assisted director Sanjay Leela Bhansali with his 2005 drama film, Black" -not clear if this was as a director or what?

  • "

Saawariya, which released in 2007, told the story of a tramp who falls in love with a woman awaiting the return of her lover and also starred Mukerji and Ranbir Kapoor." -what was her role in all this?

  • "It tells the story of an engaged woman who develops a one-sided attraction to her commitment-phobic co-worker. " -again, it's unclear if that was her role or not.
  • "Raanjhanaa tells the story of Zoya Haider, a young Muslim student from Varanasi who is drawn into politics after the murder of her Sikh lover. " -again. You really need to be assertive in describing what she actually played as the reader is expected to try to guess that it was her.
Done, thanks. -- Frankie talk 10:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Weak support Had to give a significant copyedit myself but the prose is certainly improved overall. The article is now in my opinion approaching FA quality so I'm leaning towards support. The lede though I think is still rather weak and needs to be strengthened and a bit more informative about the nature of the roles, perhaps with less films mentioned. Could still benefit from a few decent editors overlooking it and really polishing it off, and I would like to see somebody like Nikkimaria do a vigorous spotcheck for sources and citations. In places I think the citations look a bit cluttered and in places you might give more sources than you actually need to. Other than this, I believe it covers the necessary aspects of her career to date and is on the right track to pass now. Good luck.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks x2. -- FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by an IP
I'm afraid, the article hasn't benefited much from the recent copy-edits. The writing is still short of professional standards. The prose is dull and confusing in many places. There's a lot of sentences that makes excessive use of commas, besides a few comma-splice errors. A few random ones:

  • "The daughter of actor Anil Kapoor, she is one of the highest-paid actresses and most fashionable celebrities in India". I don't understand how the second part of the sentence follows from the first one.
  • "reminding myself that I need to be thankful for so much". What is the quote trying to convey?
I personally don't see a problem with including it. "Kapoor, who practices Hinduism, states that she is "quite religious", and that it is a way of "reminding myself that I need to be thankful for so much"." is fine IMO. I can think of numerous quotes from actresses in other featured articles about this sort of thing. I think it says a lot about their mentality. It's more informative than if you just said "Kapoor is a practising Hindu".♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Kapoor stated that her first job was as a waitress at age 15, although it lasted only a week." To whom?
  • "Kapoor enrolled at the United World College of South East Asia in Singapore for her pre-university education, where she studied theatre and arts,[11] before studying economics and political science through University of Mumbai correspondence". Breathless
  • What exactly was Rani Mukherji's role in launching her career?
  • "Kapoor has cited actresses Waheeda Rehman and Nutan as influences, admiring their "path-breaking films ... [and] quality of doing different things".". This one seems out of place.
  • "In 2009, Kapoor played an aspiring singer in the Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra-directed drama Delhi-6 with Waheeda Rehman and Abhishek Bachchan". This one is awkwardly phrased.
  • "In 2015, Kapoor next starred as a runaway bride in Dolly Ki Doli (2015)". Nuff said (about precision).
  • "In 2014, Kapoor portayed the banker Mayera ..." There's a typo. You can't use the word portray here. AFAIK, Mayera isn't a part of any literature nor a character of historic significance.
  • The lead does not wholly summarize the article. Further, it says she is one of the highest-paid actresses in India, but the body says Bollywood. (IP)

Eh, it has certainly benefited from the recent copyedits, and a number of your points no longer exist and were addressed in my copyedit this morning. I suggest you give the article another look and revise. You're right though that the prose could still use polishing up in places and the lede does need the most work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Route 25 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a highway that no longer exists in Michigan, at least not under a single designation. All of what was US 25 in Michigan is still maintained by the state, but under other names. This is one of the only places online to collect all of these pieces of information about the highway in one place, and I think it's the highest quality compilation you'll find. Imzadi 1979  23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Aso of note, the article just received an A-Class Review, which included an image review and source review. Imzadi 1979  23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I reviewed the article at the A-class review and believe it meets the FA criteria. --Rschen7754 17:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I also reviewed the article at ACR and too feel that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 18:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Support. I figured I'd come over here, since you visited my own FAC, why not travel a bit?

  1. Is it worth linking "decommissioned"?
  2. In the section for "State line to Downriver", you say "before turning more northeasterly" in the 2nd paragraph, but the writing implies it had been going northeasterly ever since it reached US 24, and there is never a mention of it going a direction aside from northeasterly. Is it really turning if it doesn't change directions? Or, if it changed directions, when did it?
  3. "In Downtown Detroit, Fort Street ended at Campus Martius Park at M-1 (Woodward Avenue). US 25 looped around the square and followed the street named Cadillac Square over to Randolph Street, turning north to connect to Gratiot Avenue." - you say "looped around the square", but is this referencing to Campus Martius Park or Cadillac Square?
  4. "Gratiot Avenue is a major thoroughfare on the east side of Detroit running through residential neighborhoods and connecting to the Detroit City Airport." - why isn't this mentioned when you first mention this avenue? The flow just seems a bit off in this paragraph, but understandably so given how dense the roads are in the motor city. I would also mention in this paragraph when it turns off of Gratiot Avenue, given you later say that it crosses the avenue again.
  5. I'm slightly uncomfortable with how "The Thumb" is referred in the article. It acts as if it's an official name with a clear boundary, which it doesn't (according to the article). I don't know how to get around that - I don't mind that it's used, I just wish the wording treated the region slightly less officially. If you can't think of a solution, don't worry too much, it's not a big deal.
  6. "Eight miles (13 km)" - per WP:MOSNUM, both units should either be abbreviated or spelled out - Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures.
  7. "The chief transportation routes in 1701" - what's important about 1701? Would "early 18th century" work here too?

All in all it's a good article, especially one that hasn't been an active route for several decades. My comments are relatively minor, and I'll be happy to support afterward. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I'm numbering your points above for ease of replies.

  1. It's usually been a good practice to link because some people get confused over the term in relation to highways.
    • Yea, I agree. Make sure you link decommissioned then. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. It does turn there and change angles/directions from north-northeasterly (in comparing the routing to that of the parallel Telegraph Road, "both ran north-northeasterly in the area") to more of a just northeasterly direction. It's the joys of trying to describe things when the entire routing in that southern third is canted off north–south or east–west because it parallels the Lake Erie shoreline which is NNE–SSW or so, and the roads switch between NNE–SSW and NE–SW.
    • In that case, you should add another directional reference, as the order of directions in "State line to Downriver" is N, NNE, NE, N, NE (new paragraph), NE, NE. From the end of the first paragraph to the next one, it says the two highways ran concurrently northeasterly, continued northeasterly, and before turning more northeasterly, without references to new directions. I'm assuming there is a direction change in there that prompted the "before turning more northeasterly", but there is none listed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Tweaked to try to make the angle changes more explicit. Imzadi 1979  10:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Tweaked.
  4. Tweaked, and noting that the point was already mentioned in the article where US 25/M-59 departed Gratiot Avenue to intersect I-94 west of New Baltimore.
  5. It's about as official as any of the other subregions of the two peninsulas as "Northern Michigan" (oddly refers only to the northern part of Lower Michigan and never to the UP even though Northern Michigan University is in the UP...) or "Central Michigan (which does have Central Michigan University in its midst).
  6. Tweaked
  7. The year 1701 marks the founding of Detroit, and while that's not the first settlement in the future state of Michigan (the UP has two cities that are older), it is the year demarcated in my sources for the first roadways the correspond to our state's highways, or the starting points of their explorations of the topic. Imzadi 1979  03:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Circus Juventas[edit]

Nominator(s): BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about North America's largest youth circus arts school, housed in a permanent big top facility in chilly Saint Paul, Minnesota. Now in its 22nd year, Circus Juventas is a unique Twin Cities institution, producing a grand summer show at their big top each year since it opened in 2001. The article itself is almost 12 years old and its improvement has been a long-running project of mine, with the biggest expansion June-August 2014. It has since undergone GA and peer review, as well as a bunch of other tweaks and updates. This is my first FA nomination and I'm happy to respond to any and all comments (and also requests for text hidden in locked news databases!) Thank much, and may all your days be circus days! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Images are all appropriately licensed with an adequate FUR for the logo. I will note, however, that several of the images are of relatively poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Nikkimaria (and great to see you at both DYK and FAC!) File:CJ bleacher collapse.jpg is definitely the lowest-quality image but it's a consequence of having been taken with a laptop webcam (my only available camera at the time of the collapse)--I hope its irreplaceability outweighs the poor quality. File:Circus Juventas big top interior, August 2014.jpg is also so-so quality but I do wonder whether it's even a valid file to hold onto since it's an interior image with a large (hand-painted) backdrop, for which I do not have the set designer's permission. As for the other images, if it's something like the exterior of the big top, I could attempt to get a better image although it's a little snowy here in Minnesota right now so who knows how that'll turn out. Thanks for taking a look! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 03:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I would suggest removing the interior image. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Passenger pigeon[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 7&6=thirteen () 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most famous bird species to have been exterminated by humans, but it was also notable for being a very unique pigeon when it existed. The last specimen died on September 1, 1914, so we missed the hundredth anniversary, but it is hoped that (if it passes here) the article could have a main page appearance on that date this year instead. This was originally intended to be a co-nomination with Rufous-crowned Sparrow, who worked on the article back in 2013 (giving the article a solid "skeleton"), but has since been absent from Wikipedia; I recently pulled myself together and finished my part of the work, and 7&6=thirteen has also made many additions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

Thanks, sounds good. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

  • Is this written in American English? If so, place the {{American English}} template to the article's talk page
American, added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the lead, change "The male was...The female was...The juvenile was" to "The males were...The females were...The juveniles were"; also do this in the Description section
This is how the sources say it, and is the norm in ornithological literature, which we generally follow. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the lead, change "but hunting became intensified" to "but hunting intensified"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the lead, change "This has been described..." to "It has been described..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Taxonomy section, change "...International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature..." to "...International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There are some American/British English inconsistencies. For example, I see coloration and coloured used.
Fixed that one, see others? FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You there, Dunkleosteus77? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If you're going to use American English, it may be best to use empirical units rather than the metric system (instead of cm to in, in to cm); both are actually used in the article, converting cm to in before the Ecology section and converting cm to in after the Ecology section. Be consistent and if you do fix it, use empirical units since this is written in American English
Can you have look at the unit issues, 7&6=thirteen? I'm not much of a numbers guy. There are also two more such issues listed below. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Trying to ping User:7&6=thirteen another way... Did it work? FunkMonk (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Will take a look. 7&6=thirteen () 11:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Just reversed them. 7&6=thirteen () 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be something that occurs throughout the article, though, would it be possible for you to fix them all? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe I did. I again used FIND to look for "cm" and those all conform. The speed appears twice and is in the right format. So I don't know what else it is you want. Please point me in the right direction. 7&6=thirteen () 14:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, makes sense, because the remaining issues are when the first number uses mm before in. There are also a bunch of places where "acres" are mentioned, but without any conversion following. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Fixed all the mms and inches. Just reversed. I guess we will have to manually do a hectares and acres conversion. Not sure what the template is. 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done 100 square miles ((260 km2) 7&6=thirteen () 17:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, conversion can often be done by just writing an equation into Google... FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This sentence in the Description section "It is a washed brown on the upper parts, wing covert, secondary feathers, and tail (where it would otherwise have been gray), and white on the primary feathers and underparts,[needs a conjunction or period] the normally black spots are brown,[consider putting a period here] and it is pale gray on the head, lower back, and upper-tail covert feathers, yet the iridescence is unaffected" is a run-on
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Description section, change "...to differentiate the bird's osteology from that other pigeons..." to "...to differentiate the bird's osteology from that of other pigeons...
Added "of". FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Description section, wikilink "musculus supracoracoideus"
There's no article, do you want a red link? FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Try to explain it in the article. If you can't, then red link Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 03:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll link it then, I don't think it needs to be explained here past what is already written. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Use either mph to kph or mi/h to km/h when converting units
Yes check.svg Done Just reversed them. 7&6=thirteen () 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Diet section, the fruit of dogwood is called Canadian dwarf cornel, Canadian bunchberry, or crackerberry (same fruit different name)
Specified. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Reproduction section, the sentence "ranging from 120 acres (49 ha) to thousands of hectares in size" is inconsistent with units
Was this done? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Relationship with humans section, wikilink "Seneca"

Comment Didn't do that, as Seneca people is already linked earlier in the article. WP:Overlink? 7&6=thirteen () 11:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • In the Hunting section, change "...that resulted in a large mass of flying, easily hit pigeons" to "...that resulted in a large mass of flying, easily hit, pigeons"
Yes check.svg Done 7&6=thirteen () 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Relationship with humans section, you use the terms "Native Americans" and "American Indians". Pick one (I suggest Native American)
Yes check.svg Done 7&6=thirteen () 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Hunting section, change "...the town of Plattsburg, New York, is..." to "...the town of Plattsburg, New York is..."
Yes check.svg Done 7&6=thirteen () 12:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go through the last points soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This article has been in the review process for nearly a month. Shall I contact the FAC coordinators or let it continue review for a couple more weeks?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty common, though (I've waited far longer), articles are usually not archived "early" when they have a certain amount of comments, supports, and no opposes. Pinging coordinators won't bring more reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Images[edit]

  • change "...illustration of this species (a male)..." to "...illustration of the species (a male)..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

References[edit]

  • For all references that require one to sign into an account (when redirected to the given link), use {{Registration required}}, assuming registration is free, as with ref no. 14 (Johnson and Clayton et al.)
I've removed such URLs instead, they are redundant, since the DOI is already a link. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Added all (many) relevant blue links to references. 7&6=thirteen () 12:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I went through all the citations and added any possible links. 7&6=thirteen () 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I note that when I click on the links in this reference, there is a discrepancy as to the names of the authors.
Hung, C. M.; Shaner, P. J. L.; Zink, R. M.; Liu, W. C.; Chu, T. C.; Huang, W. S.; Li, S. H. (2014). "Drastic population fluctuations explain the rapid extinction of the passenger pigeon". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (29): 10636–10641. Bibcode:2014PNAS..11110636H. doi:10.1073/pnas.1401526111
I do not know why. Nor do I know how to resolve it. 7&6=thirteen () 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the vocalization score
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Map-Ectopistes-migratorius.png: can we be more specific about the source - was this map published, is it held in an archive...?
Added book source to the file page, better? FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Mershon's_The_Passenger_Pigeon_(frontispiece,_crop).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Added — to all page ranges per earlier Peer Review of this article. 7&6=thirteen () 13:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Nice, and on this note, seems the link to that peer review is not working? FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

See above. Added link to earlier Peer Review of this article 7&6=thirteen () 14:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool, is there any reason why the link to that peer review is red on the passenger pigeon talk page? FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Was archived. Probably changed. 7&6=thirteen () 14:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Fixed Sort of. formatting is wrong. Not sure how to deal with the template. 7&6=thirteen () 14:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Better than before, at least. I had never seen that peer review before because the link didn't work... But nice that you made the request for it! FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been editing this article forever. Or so it seems. So I had 'local knowledge.' 7&6=thirteen () 15:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

This is a really comprehensive article with remarkable flawlessness in presentation, language and informativeness. Dunkleosteus77 has already taken care of Lead and the introduction of Taxonomy. I begin from where he/she left off.

Evolution[edit]
  • I find some vagueness at the start of Evolution. It was even suggested that the mourning dove belonged to the genus Ectopistes and was listed by some authors as E. carolinensis. Could we cite any article from those "authors"? Or a reword?
Mentioned one, though I'm not sure who made the recombination originally. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have often found there is trouble when simply names are mentioned without identity. For instance we do not know who Kevin P. Johnson and Fulton are. If you can not identify them then simply write a 2010 or 2012 study. The references already name the authors, so why invite vagueness?
Would something like "American geneticist" or "researcher" be enough? I've removed the first names of those that did not have articles, perhaps it's better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Well we must get the professions correct. Sorry I could not see what changes you have made. Anyway I think the best way would be to say 2010/2012 study as you have done elsewhere. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Removed the two latter names, but kept Beth Shapiro, since she has an article, and because she headed the first ever study... FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • DNA in old museum specimens is often degraded and fragmentary, and passenger pigeon specimens have been used in various studies to discover improved methods of analyzing and assembling genomes from such material. DNA samples are often taken from the toe pads of bird skins in museums, as this can be done without causing significant damage to valuable specimens. This looks like it has more to do with the utility of this species to human beings rather than its evolution.
I can somewhat see what you mean, but I think it is relevant to mention the methods used and the importance of the species, as a "type example" for studies of extinct animal DNA. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Fine, I can not see where else this could fit in! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The bird was able to hybridize with the Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) in captivity, though the offspring was infertile. If you are referring to this as an observation made during some study, and not as if such hybridization was natural and common, then mention when it was observed.
The case in point is Whitman's aviary described at length under "Last survivors". I was concerned I would add too much duplicate information if I explained that at length there, but I have clarified a bit, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess you should put all the info about this under Taxonomy where I think it would be more interesting. So you will also be saved from the duplication issue. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I've added all that seemed relevant there. The hybrids are only mentioned once again in the later section, as part of the explanation of what happened to the last surviving group. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just noticed that all links used in the cladogram are duplicate.
That's common across all FAs I know of, it just makes it easier for the reader to know what all these names in succession refer to. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess Etymology could be made into a different section altogether, what has this got to do with the Taxonomy?
I can understand the concern, though as above, this is also common for FAs, and here the explanation of the scientific name at least is relevant to taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Well I have not seen many FAs then let it be so if that's the style. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Description[edit]
  • "Iridescent" is a duplicate link.
Removed second time. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Like carmine, I think rufous too deserves a link.
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "The plumage of the sexes was similar during their first year." I think "juvenile males show change in plumage after a year" better conveys the fact.
I think that would be an oversimplification, because I don't think the iridescence appeared in either sex until this time, therefore the female changed as well. But this is not clearly stated in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Fine. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Distribution and habitat[edit]
  • Why not link the United States just like the other countries under this section?
Linked at first mention now, which is under evolution. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Ecology and behavior[edit]
  • ...it accounted for between 25 and 40% of the total... I guess here it would be better to write % as percent, adds to the MoS.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Beechnuts" and "chestnuts" are duplicate links in Diet.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The detail about when the bird gained sexual maturity should come before going into the details of mating. At least it should not figure at the very end.
Heh, it is kind of a chicken and the egg situation, where the cycle should begin and where it should end. Now it is mentioned in relation to juveniles leaving the nest, because that part already deals with development to adulthood. I think it makes more sense there, since if it was added to the beginning, it would be a bit disjointed from the rest of that text, which starts somewhat "in medias res" with the adult birds finding nesting grounds... FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I see. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You should state here itself that John James Audubon is a naturalist, not in the following section.
Not sure what is meant (since he is already described as a naturalist at first mention), that I remove the second mention of naturalist? There it is used collectively for Audubon and Wilson, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Where is the first mention? Is it not just above the second quote? Add the naturalist fact wherever it is, and no need to omit the second mention.Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
First mention is before the first quote (right under the Ecology and behavior header)! FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I am really sorry, I have been too inattentive here! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Link incubation.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Relationship with humans[edit]
  • International Union for the Conservation of Nature Add the abbreviation IUCN as you did for ICZN.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Under Last survivors, endling is a duplicate link.
Removed the first time which was an easter egg link. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

General: "Observers", "many observers" are used continuously throughout the article. I am not sure if this should be treated as vague at some places, but if such repetition could be avoided and reworded, I think it would be better. Not much of an issue, though.

Cut some instances. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the impeccable writing and exploring of several details without deviating from the main topic. Also, I noted a positive point about this article, that much caution has been used about what all to link and maintain consistency, for instance linking just the geographical landmarks and not the States, I mean it's a good job! I have noticed only a few small flaws that once resolved should make the article all-perfect. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll go through these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Quick response! Great, FunkMonk! We shall continue with the few things left. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support : All the issues I had raised have been appropriately addressed. So I feel the article should make a perfect FA. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the "last points" were all done. I did not add one link for as it appeared and was linked earlier in the article. That would be a matter of editorial judgment per WP:Overlink. I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. 7&6=thirteen () 16:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

History of York City F.C. (1980–present)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This article details the history of York City Football Club, an association football club based in York, England, from 1980 to the present time. The article follows on from History of York City F.C. (1908–80), which has been a featured article since November 2015. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments I passed this article at GAN and thought it was on track for a crack at FAC. Will offer some more thoughts below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The history of the club from 1980 to the present time covers the period from the 1980–81 season, through their fluctuating fortunes in the 1980s and 1990s and relegation from and return into the Football League, to the current season. - this strikes me as a bit repetitive and laboured, why not something like, "This page covers the period from the 1980–81 season, through their fluctuating fortunes in the 1980s and 1990s and relegation from and return into the Football League, to the current season."
Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
''winning promotion into the newly renamed Second Division, now called this upon the formation of the Premier League. - why not "winning promotion back to the third tier of English football, now renamed as the Second Division."
Reworded to "winning promotion back into the third tier of English football, now renamed as the Second Division." Mattythewhite (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks ok-more later. RL beckons.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • In sum, tentative support though I concede as an enthusiast I might miss some prose tweaks. So consider this pending further supports, though this is a given anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • "the goal coming from a late penalty scored..." -> courtesy of a late penalty
  • "After being unbeaten in the last nine matches..." should be a comma after matches
  • "again drawing 1–1 at home to Liverpool..." comma after Liverpool
  • I would move ref 36 to the end of the sentence, so it comes after punctuation
    • Per MOS:PUNCTFOOT, "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space". Therefore, I've placed references after the text they cite, rather than the nearest punctutation. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • comma before ref 43
  • "Ward's assistant Alan Little..." commas after assistant and Little
    • I feel commas there would break up the flow a little bit. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "They lost only..." I would switch this so it says only lost
  • comma before ref 58
  • "For the second consecutive season..." needs to be a comma after season
  • I know you're trying to reference specific items when you have a ref without punctuation, but I would just move it to the end of the sentence, so it complies with the MOS
  • In mid-December 1997 &By mid-October 1998 need commas after the months. This should apply to other instances as well
  • comma before ref 82
    • I feel this sentence flows better without a comma. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • According to our wikipedia page, the Walkers Stadium wasn't opened until 2001. Does that mean the FA Cup tie, would have been at Filbert Street instead?
    • Good spot, that was me being daft. Added an additional reference for the ground. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "being beaten 2–0 at home..." -> losing 2–0 at home to
  • comma before ref 103
  • "They won none of twenty consecutive matches, gained five more points[115] and finished bottom of the Third Division." I know what you're saying in this sentence, but it's a bit clunky, I would try and make it flow a bit better
    • Reworded to "They won none of their final twenty fixtures, garnering only five more points as they finished bottom of the Third Division". Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • comma before ref 129
  • "being beaten 2–1 on aggregate..." -> losing 2–1 on aggregate
  • You have a problem throughout the article with introductory statements not having a comma. An example is At the start of 2008-09. I would go through the article and check that similar sentences structured like this, all have commas after the introductory part
  • I'm slightly confused by the Evening Press and York Evening Press refs. They go to the same site, so does that not mean they are one and the same?
    • It's the same newspaper, but it has changed name numerous times. I've gone with what the newspaper was called at the time the articles were published, for historical accuracy. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

NapHit (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Happy to support the article now my issues have been addressed. Great work! NapHit (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The 70th Infantry Division was a short-lived British unit (with it's origins in the 6th and 7th Infantry Divisions) that fought during the latter stages of the Siege of Tobruk, before being dispatched to India and broken up to reinforce the Chindits. The article has previously passed it's GA and A-Class reviews, I am hoping the good run continues. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Support I've reviewed all of the changes since its A-class review and believe that the article meets the FA criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "During this fighting, two men – from units attached to the division – were awarded the Victoria Cross.": The Victoria Cross for one of them wasn't gazetted until February the next year, and I'm guessing the other VC wasn't instantaneous, either. It seems unlikely to me the medals were awarded during the fighting, but you may know different. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both your comments. I have amended the references to earning them during the battle, per your observation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments I added about a para or two of material to this article, but I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved to be able to review it. I have the following comments:

  • Given that the article traces the (somewhat torturous!) history of the division back to 1939, the lead (especially the first para) is a bit lacking
    Expanded somewhat.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The material on the division's operations in 1939 is a bit undetailed, and what's meant by "O'Connor had stated "harshness and unnecessary violence on the part of our soldiers" were to be curbed" is unclear as a result: what were the troops doing?
    Added some material, seems the 8th Division (and the SNS) were being somewhat naughty!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "The headquarters was then assigned all troops based there" what did these comprise? (eg, was it basically an infantry division minus a HQ, or something else?)
    I have added brigade info, does this resolve this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    Looks good, especially as there's a full order of battle at the end of the article Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "and its headquarters transformed into the Western Desert Force (WDF)" - perhaps note that this was basically a corps HQ
    I amended the sentence, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful to provide an outline of the 6th Division's order of battle upon formation in 1941 in the text of the article (at least which brigades were in the division). Also, where did its troops and constituent units come from?
  • "he was overruled by London" - it would be preferable to say what individual/organisation in London made this decision Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    The sources used, and others I have just checked out, all agree that Wingate's relationship with Churchill was key; what Wingate wanted, Churchill made sure he got, including the breakup of the division it would seem.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Support My comments are now adressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    I believe I got them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest scaling up the map size. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    I have scaled it up per your comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and review guys, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Look forward to your continued feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Note -- reminder that the article will require a source review for formatting/reliability, you can request at the top of WT:FAC, unless one of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I have followed up on your recommendation and requested a source review. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Serpin[edit]

Nominator(s): T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a protein superfamily that is significant to both fundamental science (protein conformational change and enzyme inhibition) and applied science (mutations cause a wide array of Genetic disorder). It has been a Good Article since 2007, and has been significantly improved since then (particularly images, layout, readability and accessibility to lay audience). There are relatively few high-quality articles on protein superfamilies currently, so it would be good to have an FA example. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from delldot ∇.[edit]

Hi Evo & Evo, looking good so far, although I'm only partway through. Thought I'd leave these comments to let you get started. Mostly minor copy editing stuff:

  • Might it make sense to add into the first sentence or para what organisms they occur in? e.g. "Serpins are a superfamily of proteins with similar structures, found in all kingdoms of organisms, that were first identified for their protease inhibition activity."
Done - Good point, although I've put their occurrence second in the sentence since it seems the subsidiary point of the sentence.
  • I dunno if you can do anything about this, but the first para says "inhibit" so much the word starts to lose its meaning.
Done - I've inhibit managed inhibit to inhibit reduce inhibit the inhibit occurences inhibit a inhibit little. A keen eye could perhaps excise one or two more.
I replaced one with 'acts on', now that's a normal number of 'inhibits'! delldot ∇. 06:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In History, why is this a new para? "Examples of cross-class inhibitory serpins..." My understanding is short paras are discouraged.
Done - (suspect you mean Activity section) I've combined the paragraphs, since they were clearly discussing the same topic.
  • Citations needed: "It is presently unclear whether any mammalian serpins function to inhibit caspases in vivo." "Structural biology has therefore played a central role in the understanding of serpin function and biology." "Around the same time, the first structures were solved..." and "The structures indicated that the inhibitory mechanism involved..."
I'll address these over the next week. Some are easy. A couple I'll have to look up.
Done - The caspase sentence has been removed, since it was an overemphasis on caspases, which held no particular significance in that section. The rest have had references added (or reviews repeated from elsewhere)
  • In Protease inhibition, the last sentence seems like a non sequitur. Could there be transition wording or could it be incorporated elsewhere? "In Caenorhabditis elegans, all serpins lack signal sequences..."
Done - I think it was originally included as an example of intracellular serpins, but it's was simultaneously over-specific and vague so I'v moved it down to the Distribution section.
  • In structure, Reactive Centre Loop is inconsistently capitalized.
Done
  • Why the switch from plural to singular? "Serpins are classed as irreversible inhibitors and a suicide inhibitor"
Done
  • Can you replase one 'basis' with another word? "The understanding of the molecular basis of this interaction formed the basis of the development..."
Done - definite improvement
  • in Latent conformation, does this exist only in proteins that do not have the described in the previous section, or do some proteins do both?
To the best of my knowledge, latency and activation are relatively rare and no serpins have been described that show both. Jcwhizz may know more.
Ah so this is instead, not in addition. Does that go without saying, or should that be indicated? delldot ∇. 06:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Done - Aha, antithrobin can do both (convert to latency, and be allosterically activated by a cofactor). I've therefore updated the section to make clear that both are possible for the same serpin.
  • The section Deficiency is very short. Could it be fleshed out with any examples?
In progress
I'm not a stickler for the cosmetic stuff so I won't object to the two-sentence paragraph, but it would be good to have examples of the conditions that can result, as the other subsections have. delldot ∇. 06:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Done - Whilt looking for more examples it became clear that deficiency almost invariably refers to deficiency due to polymerisation. The few examples of null mutants or less active mutatnts I've now grouped together into a single subsection. I've made clear at the beginning of the Disease section and Polymerisation subsection that polymerisation is the most common mechanism of serpin-caused disease
  • Inconsistent spelling of α-Antitrypsin deficiency.
Done
  • Unclear: "Each monomer of the serpin aggregate in the relaxed conformation (RCL inserted into the A-sheet)."
Done
  • Unnecessary 'in'? "The domain-swapped trimer (of antitrypsin) forms in via the exchange of..."
Done
  • I think 'and / or' is discouraged. Would 'and' work just as well by itself here? "Lung and / or liver transplantation is also used to treat"
Done - Hadn't noticed that one! "And" is definitely sufficient.
  • "gene targeting in induced pluripotent stem cells has successfully been deployed to correct the Z-antitrypsin defect..." This is the only mention of the Z-antitrypsin defect, can it be described or linked?
Done - I think the term can be safely removed and left as the more descriptive "antitrypsin polymerisation defect"

In general I have no major complaints! Well done making this tough-to-comprehend topic understandable! delldot ∇. 04:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the points so far. I've addressed most of them. the ones that require some more reading I'll try to get to over the week. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking good so far! I replied to a couple of your replies. (Oh, BTW, I think the {{done}} template is discouraged on this page, see the blue box up top). I will be back soon with more input. delldot ∇. 06:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A few more:

  • "Antitrypsin augmentation therapy is approved for severe..." Could this sentence be expanded a bit to explain what Antitrypsin augmentation therapy is? Do they just pump a bunch of it into you?
Done - turns out basically yes, not even recombinant currently, jut purified from donor plasma.
  • In Degradation, I think it might help to add a topic sentence up front to help introduce and transition to the new topic. Something like, "once a serpin has successfully formed a complex with its target enzyme, it must be broken down and disposed of."
Done
  • I think the Signalling section needs to be fleshed out a bit. It might also make sense to move it above Degradation, since wouldn't it seem more logical for the latter to come at the end? But do these really need to be separate sections? What if Conformational change in non-inhibitory function were broadened to be, like, Other things that serpins also do? The signalling seems like it could follow that para. Then the whole article might flow better: How they function in cells, why it's bad when they don't, evolution. Not sure if this would work, just an idea.
Done - I added some more information, then realised that it's really two different phenomena that already have logical places to merge. Where signalling is merely due to the cleave of signalling cascade proteases, I've merged the info into the Function section. Where signalling is due to direct binding of the R-conformation, I've merged it into the Conformational change in non-inhibitory functions section. Degradation is now under the normal functioning, before the Disease section.

Gotta sleep, more later! delldot ∇. 07:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Last few:

  • In Human, might it be better to spell out 'about' or 'roughly' rather than a tilde? "analysis of ~500 serpins from 2001".
Done
  • I like the idea of hiding the massive table in a navbox collapsed. Might it look better like this rather than having the column headers showing in the title bar?
Done - I've implemented your formatting and moved PDB codes to the end.
  • In Insect, does 'toll' need to be capitalized? Should this be hyphenated, Toll-mediated? "...which results in Toll mediated signaling..."
Done - lower case is correct, and hyphenated is appropriate
  • In Plant, could "the most well-studied example" be written "the best studied example"? delldot ∇. 01:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Done

Nice job so far! Just one additional comment:

  • "The presence of serpins in plants has long been recognised,[166] indeed, an abundant barley grain serpin (barley protein Z) is one of the major protein components in beer." I think this sentence carries a false implication, that recognising serpins and putting them in beer are linked. I'm picturing like the ancient Egyptians or whoever going "aren't these serpins great? Let's put them in beer!" I think just splitting into two sentences and removing the 'indeed' would fix this.

Anyway, ping me when you're done with all my comments, looks like you're super close! delldot ∇. 07:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work, everything above is addressed. I read it again so of course I now have more comments (don't worry, there's fewer each time!).

  • Is this supposed to be capitalized? "a large Extracellular multiprotein complex" I changed one before noticing this one and being overcome by self-doubt. also, maybe a link for extracellular?
Done - must have been a copy-paste error some time back
  • The Non-inhibitory roles section is smallish. Is there another sentence that could be said about this? "heat shock serpin HSP47 is a chaperone, essential for proper folding of collagen." What role does it play?
Done - elaborated on HSP47 and added in ovalbumin to make the section cover all non-inhibitory serpins with reasonably well-established function
  • Is this correct hyphenation? "In some serpins, the S-to -R transition"
Done
  • "polymers are slowly removed via endoplasmic reticulum associated degradation." Should this be "endoplasmic-reticulum-associated" or "endoplasmic reticulum-associated"?
Done - wording order change improves clarity anyway
  • The ref Acosta 2015 uses semicolons instead of commas between author names. Same with Mushunje 2004 and Walenga 2002 (also names not initials) and Fermi 1984 (and aren't you supposed to fill a parameter for what language the source is if it's not English?) Also some titles capitalize every word (e.g. de Serres 2002 and Egeberg 1965) and most don't.
Are there semi-automated editing help tools? I'll go through the ref formatting manually if not, but it might be more efficiently done by others!

Real minor stuff. It's promotable now, so I'll go ahead and give my support now on the assumption that you'll do whatever's best with these last few. I did some minor copy editing, you may want to double check it though. delldot ∇. 18:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jfdwolff[edit]

I'm impressed by the current state of the article (I created its first version in March 2004...) Well done to Evolution and evolvability (and of course to Jcwhizz who has contributed significantly to the content). This is well outside my professional scope so my comments will be limited. JFW | T@lk 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

  • My main concern is about the decision to use primary sources as support for many statements. For clinical articles we are quite strict about secondary sources, although I am fully aware that this is less of a concern for the basic sciences. Is there any scope for increasing reliance on secondary sources? I am worried that claims about transcortin deficiency "caus[ing] chronic fatigue" might be misinterpreted, and I would suggest that all associations with human disease are supported with WP:MEDRS-compatible secondary source whenever possible.
I see your point (particularly the megatable, which contains almost 50% of the total references). I'm not usually involved in MED articles, but the disease section and table of human serpins definitely fall within the remit of WP:MEDRS, so I'll put that as a priority. For these sections (and much of the rest of the article), there are a half dozen or so extensive reviews cited that can be used to support more of the paragraphs to increase the weighting of secondary sources.
Done (maybe) - I've replaced all lead citations with major secondary sources. I've also made sure that all main points made in the Disease section are supported by a secondary source as well as any primaries. Finjally, I've addeed the two main secondary sources for the megatable in its heading. In fact the megatable has a high degree of overlap with the tables presented in both of those references. If appropriate, I'd prefer to keep the primary refs in the table, mostly so that as new functions are discovered, they can be easily added. I'd particularly value your opinion on the use of the main secondary sources in the column name of the the deficiency column of the megatable.
  • Other point: consistency of capitalisation in the "Decription" column of the "Table of human serpins", and occasionally in "Common name" and "Disease / Effect of deficiency".
Done - I've gone though and made a stack of clarity and consistency edits. I find it easy to miss those sorts of things in tables.
  • In the same table: what is "Angiodemia"?
Done - wow, it's amazing how long a typo can go unrecognised.

Response from T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)[edit]

@Delldot and Jfdwolff: I've gone through all of the comments above! Let me know if you think the responses sufficient, or if you recommend any further changes. The article is already much improved from your suggestions. One final question is what are your opinions of the External links section? Lists of laboratories seem to be common in science articles, but I'm never sure how well they are kept up to date, or weighted by significance. Finally, I've taken the liberty of emailing the lab heads on that list to see if any are willing to cast their eye over the article before it finishes review. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment on lead from Aa77zz[edit]

Why is it considered necessary to have citations in the lead of this article? The usual practice is to include citations only for direct quotations. See WP:LEADCITE. Aa77zz (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I must admit, I was unaware of the WP:LEADCITE policy! The citations are the broadest academic reviews on the topic, a decision based the decision on WP:MCB articles like DNA, gene and enzyme. It seems to be relatively common for science articles to use the lead to place important general references (list of WP:MCB articles of FA-class). However, given this isn;t anything close to official policy, I'm happy to go with consensus of a few editors (delldot, Jfdwolff - any opinions?). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is there is no rule against putting citations in the lead, and you need them if the info is not cited elsewhere in the article, but they're optional as long as it is. I can't think of any reason to keep them out, but I'm not worried either way. delldot ∇. 02:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from User:Seppi333[edit]

  • Support promotion to FA – this is one of the best formatted FA candidates that I've gone through in terms of article layout and text formatting. I've manually checked the article source for MOS:NUMERAL, MOS:NBSP, and MOS:IMAGE (specifically, MOS:ALT and MOS:CAPTION) compliance and made a few minor tweaks. I also used AWB to group named refs together and used 2 scripts to standardize MOS:DATEFORMAT and MOS:DASH formatting. I also made a few minor copyedits to the article text. As far as I can tell, the text/source formatting is fully MOS-compliant at the moment.
Here is a summary of my changes.
I'm not entirely familiar with the subject matter of the article, so I'm not particularly comfortable with doing a thorough review of the article text; however, on a cursory read-through the text does appear coherent and well-written. Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


Comments from User:jcwhizz[edit]

  • Support promotion to FA – I declare a conflict of interest in that I contributed to earlier versions of the serpin page. I work in the serpin field, and I can confirm to the best of my knowledge that the data in the page is a high quality and accurate reflection of the field and is up-to-date. I'd also like to say that as a total non expert in terms of creating and editing wiki pages that I'm incredibly impressed with how the community (and in particular User:Evolution and evolvability) have worked on this page to make it more attractive and accessible! All the best, James Whisstock.

Response 2 from T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)[edit]

Thank you to the recommendations, and edits delldot, Jfdwolff, Aa77zz. I believe that all the major points above have now been resolved (or at least discussed). Please let me know if there are any outstanding points you'd like further addressed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Evolution and evolvability I'm still not very happy with some of the sources. Only secondary ones are suitable for medical associations. The "chronic fatigue" reference is unchanged... JFW | T@lk 21:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jfdwolff: Ah yes, I'd thought that putting the secondary refs up in the header would be sufficient. I might need I've made a few alternative referencing formats of the megatable in a sandbox page:
  1. Version with only secondary sources in header, primaries in cells - new functions easily added when discovered
  2. Version with both primary and secondary source for each cell - messy, but ensures that anyone who looks at the primary source ref is fully aware of the secondary source
  3. version with secondary references in header only - removes temptation to rely on primary sources, but I can imagine new functions being added to the table with no sources at all
Originally, I was keen to retain the primary sources in addition to the secondary and so preferenced #1, but I guess that any 'new functions' should only be added once there's a suitable secondary review of them anyway! Additionally, the wording of functional descriptions could be made more specific, e.g.:
Deficiency may cause chronic fatigueDeficiency-causing mutations associated with chronic fatigue
What do you think of the different table versions and wording suggestion? Thanks for your help! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Evolution and evolvability I don't think we need the primary sources mentioned at all, provided the secondary source provides the serpin-disease association. I am happy to yield to a second opinion, but formally speaking WP:MEDRS applies. Sorry to be such a nuisance! JFW | T@lk 17:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally I agree with the wording change. Association does not prove causation. JFW | T@lk 17:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jfdwolff: Not a nuisance at all, it's important to get it right. I've implemented the secondary source only table in the article I'll store the current version of the table in this talk page for reference in case anyone needs to chase down a primary reference for some reason. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but I really, really disagree - fair enough cite a secondary source for medical condition, but in in a lot of cases the primary citations ARE important and relate to scientific findings where primary sources can and should be cited - the maspin entry for example is now incorrect, and removing valid information that actually is useful to the community simply because one doesn't want to cite a primary source seem odd and non-helpful. User:Jcwhizz - James Whisstock.
OK - I'm not expert enough a user to undo all that has been done to the table without causing utter mayhem! I think it is essential that primary sources in the table are cited for scientific findings - these make reference to valid peer reviewed papers that usually are published in high profile journals. I am happy for secondary sources to be cited for diseases. So we don't get into a game of tennis and prior to attempting to re-reference the table does this seem reasonable to all?. User:Jcwhizz - James Whisstock.
@Jcwhizz and Jfdwolff: I've had a think about this and I have a possible solution. I agree that it would be a shame to sacrifice the utility of the references for the non-medical statements by just citing secondary sources. What's more, the main secondary sources ([1][2]) are from a biochemistry research angle rather than a medical angle, so aren't actually ideal for WP:MEDRS anyway.
What I suggest is to ensure that all medical claims are kept only in a "Human disease" column, and are only kept if good secondary/tertiary sources can be found for them. Mouse models etc should be kept in a different column so that their relevance to humans is clearly distinguished (and primary sources are still permissible). That way the statements that need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant are more clearly delineated within the table. I've implemented what I mean in the article for now, with disease statements removed until I find good sources for each. I'll add them back in as I go. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Evolution and evolvability Thanks, and sorry for the hassle! JFW | T@lk 12:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it's important, and worth it to get it right for an FA. Given that the superfamily has such biochemical and medical relevance, it's actually pretty unique as an FA. I hope that resolving it will set a good precedent for other similar articles in the future. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
OK I have some more thoughts for the ones that you need support for. SERPINB6 - this is pretty clear cut. First of all KO in the mouse results in hearing loss - see PMID: 23669344, so that at least can be cited and mentioned in the table. There are about 4 different studies on various populations that show association of SERPINB6 with human hearing loss - all primary I guess - maybe also cite PMID:20451170 and PMID:25817395 in effect of deficiency section. SERPINB7 was a major discovery and actually very interesting - there are a couple of reviews - PMID: 25029323 and PMID: 24635962. SERPINC1 is antithrombin - heaps and heaps of reviews to choose from here - PMID: 21781239 would be a recent one, but it is one of the best characterised serpins to date. SERPENT (PAI-1) is clearly controversial - think leave this one out in the disease column. SERPINH1 got a cracker here - PMID: 25007323 and PMID: 23145505 - very high profile reviews - again really interesting and unexpected discovery as well. SERPINI1 - very well known if rare disease (FENIB) - see PMID: 12112652 for e.g. or PMID: 19164889. Finally PMID: 25660269 for SERPING1 or PMID: 24125136 - again this should not be controversial - G1 is complement C1 inhibitor - well known in angiodemia. PMID: 17768101 for macular degeneration. By the way I do apologise that I'm simply not adding these things by myself - I just feel that I'm likely to do more formatting harm than good!!!!! As soon as my grant writing season is over I'll try to relearn how to do wiki pages properly. OK - over and out will look at the remainder later. User:Jcwhizz - James Whisstock.


Sexuality after spinal cord injury[edit]

Nominator(s): delldot ∇. 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spinal cord injury has profound implications for sexual function and for sexuality in its broadest sense, affecting relationships, self-esteem, and quality of life. However the effects are different from what most people expect. This article has had a peer review, and two of the experts cited in the article were kind enough to give it detailed reviews as well. I'm excited to hear your thoughts! delldot ∇. 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from soupvector[edit]

Some immediate impressions

  • Images are important, but sparse in this article (not a deal-breaker, I would think, but something to consider).
  • Two of the images may lead some readers to confuse/conflate afferent and efferent pathways (though both are high-quality). The dermatome map is afferent, and the "pathways" figure is efferent. Arrows (pointed from the CNS toward the genitals) might help with the latter. The caption of the former should stipulate prominently that's its a sensory map.

Hope this helps. I'll try to read more fully, but these popped out at me. — soupvector (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments!
  • Yeah, I've thought hard about what images I can add, but not come up with much that would do more than decorate. There's a photo of different personal lubricants I could add, and I've actually thought of taking photos of someone in a wheelchair holding hands with or kissing someone for the lead. Not sure if either or both of those would help, what do you think?
  • I added "sensory" to the dermatomes map. The image I based the reflexogenic and psychogenic image on has both afferent and efferent functions. (erm, click on the first link in this search). e.g. "The pudendal nerves from S2–S4 comprise both motor efferent (neuronal cell bodies in Onuf’s nucleus) and sensory afferent fibers" in the caption. Did I oversimplify this so much it lost meaning? Thanks for the help soupvector! delldot ∇. 01:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I could add arrows downward from the brain for the thoracic segments and bidirectional arrows for the sacral ones. What do you think, soupvector? delldot ∇. 01:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be a big improvement. — soupvector (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
What do you think about this, soupvector? Thanks for the input so far, I'm eager to hear any other thoughts you might add. delldot ∇. 02:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Better, but aren't the efferent arms opposite in effect (you have them colored the same way)? I recall that the thoracic psychogenic arc is sympathetic and inhibitory, whereas the sacral reflexogenic efferent arc is parasympathetic and stimulatory. If that's the case, maybe it's worth making the efferent arrows differ in some way that could be explained in the caption or text? I am not confident that the text conveys this currently, either. — soupvector (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, good point, I tweaked the image and added wording to the caption and text like so. delldot ∇. 03:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I also added an image to the lead per your first comment. What do you think soupvector? delldot ∇. 01:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I think a powerful image is an asset for the lead. My impression is that the image of the two people holding hands in a park evokes friendship more than sexuality, and conflating the two might not be ideal - but I think it's a net positive and someone might find a better one now that there's something to prompt them. — soupvector (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Soupvector: what do you think of this? Also there are several other variations on that image with varying degrees of steaminess. delldot ∇. 05:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's better - less Platonic. — soupvector (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the pathways image - I've tweaked the caption to be a little clearer (since there's no legend regarding the meaning of the blue/red colors). HTH. — soupvector (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic, thank you! delldot ∇. 16:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dodger67[edit]

Just a few initial comments:

  • I couldn't find the two expert reviews mentioned above - please provide links, or even transclusions in the article Talk page if they are not too long. Unless of course I'm simply not seeing obvious links.
  • The sourcing and referencing is very good, no concerns there. You've managed to cite a good mix of strictly MEDRS and more general non-medical sources. I come to this FAC review from a disability rights POV so I really appreciate the non-medical content. All too often the medical world treats PWDs as "lab specimens" rather than complete people who do actually have lives outside of hospitals and doctors' surgeries.
  • The prose appears well written, I haven't gone through it wearing my "grammar nazi" hat yet, but will do so soon.
  • As far as images are concerned I think it's sufficient, there's no need to include "crip porn".
  • (Content comment, not really FAC issue) You've cited the Push Girls tv series in the "Society and culture" section for the women's POV, have you ever seen Murderball? It's a documentary about the US national wheelchair rugby team. It contains quite a bit of "locker room banter" from the male "sports jock" POV as well as a very frank "interview" that includes some discussion of sexuality. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the kind words! The two experts gave me the reviews over email, I failed to ask them if I could post their names or words online. I could ask them for permission, if you think it's best, but I do feel kind of awkward bugging them again after they were already so generous with their time. Would it work for me to forward you their emails? I'm not trying to be sketchy here, I don't know if there's a procedure for this. Here are some of my edits in response to the reviews: [13][14][15]
    • I have seen murderball the sport, but not Murderball the documentary. Let me look for sources and see if there's something that would be good to include. Thanks for all the input here and beforehand! delldot ∇. 20:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how emailed external reviews should be treated but published reviews are handled according to WP:External peer review. You're welcome to contact me through email - there should be a menu item "Email this user" when you're on my user page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Cool, I've emailed them to you. delldot ∇. 21:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Roger, are you planning to check grammar soon? I saw a couple of things that probably need to be adjusted, but nothing major. (It'd probably make more sense just to fix them instead of making a list.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry WhatamIdoing, I've not done it - too much to do, not enough time! I've had an insanely busy few weeks both on and off-Wiki. Please go ahead with the language check if you want to. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I've done the first few sections, and need to take a break. If you or anyone else wants to have a go, then feel free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jfdwolff[edit]

Compliments on this important article. It is very comprehensive and meticulously sourced. A small number of comments in addition to my previous peer review: JFW | T@lk 12:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

  •  Done The choice of section headers and levels is still a little bit unclear. The "Sexuality and identity" starts by summarising normal function, then moves to the situation after SCI. Can the content be integrated into the larger section called "sexual function", with a somewhat clearer distinction between "normal" and "post-SCI"?
    • This resulted from a discussion about sexuality as a broader topic than sexual function (justifying inclusion of topics like relationships, social stigma, self-esteem, etc.) and a concern that 'sexuality' might be confused with sexual orientation. So I thought it was important to have a "what do we mean by sexuality and why is it important" section first, defining the term. If the name of the section is a problem, could rename it to 'Sexuality defined' or 'Definitions' or something. I edited the section to distinguish better between pre- and post-SCI, what do you think? delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
      • The section title is tricky, because IIRC the MOS discourages sections called "introduction" etc. Not a dealbreaker in any form; clearly some definitions are required for the remainder of the article to flow well. JFW | T@lk 09:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done The opening sentence of the section "sexual function" says "Sexual dysfunction usually results from SCI". Would active an form be better?
    • Good call. Done. delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done There is a single red link to American Spinal Injury Association - perhaps a stub could be created as this appears to be a notable professional organisation. (Almost synchronicitically I bumped into the ASIA website this morning when looking at a journal article about spinal examination!)
  •  Done This might be hard, but the images in the subsection "Level of injury" are both colour-coded, but differently. What's the chances of harmonising the colouring?
    • Ooh, I know, this bugged me too. I will work on this but I'm not sure my attempt at images in Inkscape is going to be better than what's there. delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done I found a fair number of links that go through redirects.
Thank you JFW! I'll ping you when I've worked on those images. delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks! JFW | T@lk 09:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Delldot the WP:Graphics Lab can help with improving and editing images. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Ooh, good to know, thanks. I gave the svg image a few more tweaks in inkscape to match the spinal column, so now I'm pretty pleased with it. I'm satisfied with the images if others are! delldot ∇. 21:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Jfdwolff and Dodger67, I think I've addressed all your comments so far. Have any more thoughts to add? Thanks to both of you! delldot ∇. 02:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Not as such. I haven't done the standard checks for consistency in references and the like, but I would support for FA based on the content. JFW | T@lk 15:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks so much! delldot ∇. 23:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments Support from Notecardforfree[edit]

This is a fascinating and well-written article. Although my academic and professional life has little to do with the biomedical sciences, I found the prose easy to understand and very interesting. You have done an excellent job covering many complex aspects of a very important subject. Well done! I only have a few brief comments:

  1. In the section about "sexuality and identity," the article says that SCI "most frequently happens to young people, who are at a peak in their sexual and reproductive lives." Spinal cord injury#Epidemiology appears to provide some conflicting information about this. First, it cites a source that says the average age at the time of injury is 41. Later in the same paragraph, it says that "[m]ost of these injuries occur in men under 30 years of age." Can you verify that the statement in the section about "sexuality and identity" is accurate?
  2. In the section about "complete and incomplete injury," the final sentence of the section says "In both injured and uninjured people, the brain is responsible for the way sensations of climax are perceived." It isn't really clear to me what the implications of this statement may be. It might be helpful to add a sentence that says something like: "Therefore, for people with and without SCI, the qualitative experiences associated with climax are modulated by the brain, rather than a specific area of the body" (and cite to the Courtois article). Of course, I might be totally misreading the source.
  3. At the end of the section titled "Factors in reduced function," the article says, "Feelings of undesirability or worthlessness even lead some to suggest to their partners that they find someone better." Instead of saying "someone better," maybe this should say something like: "someone without SCI"? I wouldn't want the casual reader to think that the article is making a value judgment.
  4. In the final sentence of the section about society and culture, that article says, "SCI may necessitate reappraisal and rejection of assumptions about gender norms ..." Is this referring to society's reappraisal or a reappraisal conducted by the individual with an SCI? Or both?
  5. This probably isn't worth including in this article, but some scholars believe that there is a distinction between the mind and the brain.

Let me know if any of my comments don’t make sense. Thanks again for your incredible work with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review! I'm gonna go through and reply to each thing. I thought I'd note for full disclosure that I've been and am reviewing some articles Notecard has been working on at GAN, not that I think it'll bias either of us. These are good and thoughtful points, thanks again for them! delldot ∇. 02:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. Epidemiology. Sure, I can give more data on that. That SCI happens most in the young is well known. For right now, the Cramp 2015 source says "Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) most commonly occurs in young adults at a point in their lives when sexual activity levels and reproductive capacity are at their peak." But this gives me the idea to put a pie chart in the SCI article with a breakdown by age of injury. I just have to find a source with worldwide data.
    Added some info to the age para in Spinal cord injury#Epidemiology. The reason for the higher-than-expected mean is probably the bump in cases in the elderly (but not at rates as high as for people under 30).
Thanks for adding the extra info. I wonder if these numbers result from the fact that men under 30 years of age are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors that result in spinal cord injuries? Very interesting stuff. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Totally, beyond a doubt. It's 4:1 male to female, too. delldot ∇. 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. brain and sensations of climax. Yes, you understood the gist right, and your suggestion is good. Let me make sure I can back that up with a source and I will add something like it.
    I looked back at the source and I think you read it right. So I just combined the last sentence with the one you suggested.
Thanks for clarifying this. This looks great! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. Someone better. Good point. Changed to 'find someone able bodied'. How is that? Or maybe 'find someone uninjured'?
Thanks for clarifying this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. Reappraisal of gender norms. I suppose both would help, but the source was talking about an individual's path toward acceptance of and adjustment to the injury. From that source, I added, "those who are able to change the way they think about gender roles may have better life satisfaction and outcomes with rehabilitation."
The text looks great. Thanks for clarifying this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. Mind/brain I can see why you'd include it but I can't think where. Perhaps I should emphasize the mind/body difference more in the Changes in sexual practices section in the first para? I recall reading somewhere "the most important sexual organ is the brain."
Yeah, I think a discussion about the mind/brain distinction would be too far outside the scope of this article. Of course, if you really wanted to get philosophical, you could talk about the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of intimacy and lovemaking, but you have done an excellent job keeping this article focused on its subject. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll ping you when I'm done working on the first couple. delldot ∇. 03:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Notecardforfree: I think I've addressed everything you brought up, what do you think? Thank you again for the input! delldot ∇. 08:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Delldot: Thanks so much for taking the time to address my comments. This article looks great! In all respects, it complies with the Featured Article Criteria. It is well-written, comprehensive, well-reserched, neutral, stable, and it complies with relevant style guidelines. I don't see any issues with the media used in this article, and as I mentioned above, you do a nice job keeping things focused without going too far afield with tangential information. I am pleased to offer my support for this excellent article. Well done! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I appreciate your time and well considered thoughts. delldot ∇. 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

I've looked only at the lead. A few points:

  1. Lots of subsetting: include and variants occur seven times in two paragraphs, and there's a "such as", too. Any inline lists that you feel could do without explicit subsetting, do it. I see a few that may be possible.
    Got rid of as many as I thought possible. delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. SCI ... we memorise the abbreviation, but then you spell it out again in the second para.
    Done. delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. At least two "also"s could be zapped.
    Went throughout and zapped many. I hope this works. delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. "Body image issues and other insecurities affect sexual function, and they have profound repercussions on ...". One word could be binned.
    Done? Body image and other insecurities affect sexual function and have... delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. not just ... not just.
    Got rid of one. delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Tony! I'm a fan of your writing tutorials. I have tried to address these throughout the article so you hopefully won't run into them again if you keep going. delldot ∇. 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Bicycle kick[edit]

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 Talk 04:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This is my fourth FAC nomination. The article is about the bicycle kick, which is one of association football's most celebrated skills. It has gone through numerous reviews, including the Guild of Copy Editors (twice) and a couple of GA reviews. I consider that the article covers all major areas of the subject, provides an exceptional narrative about the maneuver and its relevance to association football culture, tactics, and history. A comment in the talk page also pointed out that the article was great at providing the names of various notable figures in the sport's history. The sources are mostly sports books (as this is a sports article). A request has been recently made for a video to be included into the article, but I don't consider that to be a problem for the FAC nomination. In fact, I think this request highlights the high quality of the article (see the version prior to my major work: [16]). I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. I thank in advance all support votes, and kindly request oppose/neutral votes to please provide an opportunity to correct any problems.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment. This is a difficult topic to describe, so you deserve some credit for the attempt and for the clarity of some of the article. I can't support, however, first because the definitions of and delineation of what qualifies as a bicycle kick are not clear. The lead defines it as "a physical move in association football achieved by throwing the body up into the air and making a shearing movement with the legs in order to get one leg in front of the other without resting on the ground." Surely the ball needs to be mentioned! No-one reading that definition would have much chance of copying the action accurately. This needs a rethink. It continues with "the manoeuvre is named after either the cycling motion or the scissor motion that it resembles". Try cycling with the same movement: the legs go in the wrong direction. The Name section is very international, but I'm not convinced that bicycle=overhead=scissors. The Mark Hughes goal against Spain is mentioned later. Watch it on youtube (or elsewhere) – it doesn't resemble the description in Execution or most of the images on the page. At the very least, the article needs more detail on the differences among these three. On a separate point, what happened with the GA reviews? There appeared to be two happening at the same time, one of which was completed successfully. Did you address Alpinu's points from the first review? EddieHugh (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Response
What an interesting comment! Let me respond to what I find to be the major points in your comment:
  • Mentioning the ball is an improvement. I added a mention of it here: [17]. Most of the literature on the topic emphasizes the motion, rather than the ball. Players can perform bicycle kicks without striking the ball, generally to much ridicule (and usually to some minor injury).
  • The second sentence refers to the name, which the body of the article proceeds to explain. Also, I think it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a manual; if the reader wants to become a master of the bicycle kick, the article provides enough sources and external links to help an aspiring Pele reach his or her dreams. The article's lead section is also a summary of the information in the body of the text, so it is unreasonable for a reader to expect being fully capable of executing a bicycle kick (one of association football's most difficult and dangerous moves) from just reading the introduction.
  • About the bicycle kick=overhead=scissors, I added a sentence to further explain what is found in the literature: [18]. The literature on the topic predominantly places all of them as the same, and even those sources that distinguish them (such as Witzig) indicate the only difference is in the angle of the maneuver.
  • Alpinu's GA review was done in bad faith and without following the GA criteria. The user was given over a week to improve their review according to the GA guidelines, but Alpinu refused to do so. You can read more about the problem at the GA archives (see [19]), or you can also ask senior GA participants Cordless Larry and Wugapodes. Moreover, I consider to have addressed all of the points raised by Alpinu, even the one about flipping the alphabetical order of a sentence because he wanted the term chilena to be presented before the term chalaca.
Thanks for the comment, Eddie! Please let me know if you have any further thoughts.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to give a brief overview of the GA reviews for those wondering. It's uncommon but not unheard of for a reviewer to do a review out of line with the GA criteria (that's why WP:What the Good article criteria are not exists). Marshal raised their concerns on the GA talk page and they were discussed. The general feeling of participants was that the review was unfair, so Marshal would be best off closing and resubmitting. Not wanting it to languish longer because of a bad review (it can take well over a month for a GA review to start), I offered to do a new one immediately. This isn't uncommon, as there's no minimum wait period to resubmit, and a new review is generally faster than reviewing an unfair decision. I hope that answers some questions, and best of luck to you Marshal! Wugapodes (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wugapodes. Thank you for taking the time to write this explanation. I appreciate it a ton! Happy New Year!--MarshalN20 Talk 01:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

I was pleased to see an article about this iconic move here at FAC. I had the football bible The ball is round within arm's length when I saw your nomination. Thank you for bringing it here, as a result I've spent a good ole time on youtube watching the greatest overhead kicks. As for my comments, my main concerns are twofold:

1: I like the content but not the organisation of it. I found it puzzling and think it makes the whole article come across as rambling on. For example, the whole article is basically about multiple claims to invention, so why end with a subsection called Controversy? Another example, .. is in Invention but the similar sentence is in the Diffusion section, and another similar sentence is in Acclaim. I am not 100% sure how to fix it, but something needs to be done. Maybe list all claims, ordering them by time/country. And then round it off with various conclusions from sport historians who investigated the matter.

2: The actual move needs a better description. In the lead it says "throwing the body up into the air and making a shearing movement with the legs in order to get one leg in front of the other without resting on the ground." This doesn't capture the essence for me. It misses out that the foot is higher than the head when it hits the ball, and misses out the ball goes over the head, kicking it behind the player. See for instance Gardner book p. 144. In the Execution section, it doesn't even mention what is in the lead. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that go through the move step by step.

Detailed comments:

  • I am fairly new here at FAC, so more experienced reviewers are better judges, but in my interpretation of the style rules it is only needed to add references in the lead if the content is controversial. I admit there are a few statements that are somewhat controversial, but not to the extent that lawsuits are imminent, and even so, why so many citations in the lead, even for the uncontroversial statement about successful performance [5]? And surely the footnotes can wait till the body of the text? I would not use any citations in the lead.
  • "Bicycle kicks are used when players find the acrobatic manoeuvre their best resource." Not sure where in the text this is backed up. I don't agree with it as a statement either, as I have seen the odd case of showboating.
  • Why describe defensive before offensive? I would think that they occur more often in attack, although I have no evidence for this. (Actually, with all the stats collected these days, is there nothing published on frequency? I checked The Numbers Game by Anderson & Sally, but nothing sadly.)
  • The turn of the 20th century is too ambiguous, see turn of the century. Maybe say "beginning of"
  • I think the Diego Costa image is not as good as lead image as the Ruben Mendoza one. Costa's move is partly obscured. Mendoza's move is clear. Plus it being in black and white signals instantly that this is not a modern invention.
  • "sculptures, films, and literature" It features in commercials as well, which I think should be mentioned. I'm sure you can find sources. There are many, but Rooney's ad is described [[20]] for instance.
  • "through a cross" I would say 'from a cross'
  • "enough space to perform it—Peruvian defender César González would allow the ball to pass him" I am not sure I get the connection: how does letting it pass make enough space?
  • The caption "British football was the foundation for a uniquely South American style of football, especially in the Río de la Plata region.[24]" this text should be in the body. As a caption it is misleading, because it seems this is a 1895 painting between 2 English clubs. I like the image, but I'm not convinced it is appropriate in this article.
  • Perhaps it is possible to reduce the number of parentheses, especially in the Invention section, some don't seem necessary.
  • "stevedores" probably deserves to be linked
  • "Peruvians and Chileans during these years" It's not clear to me which years these are, better to spell it out
  • "first performed the bicycle kick outside Western South America in matches in Argentina and Spain" Again, when was this?
  • "During the first editions of the South American Championship" Again, which year?
  • "It was also around this time that, in Brazil, .. " This whole paragraph here puzzles me. It's not clear why this is in the Diffusion section, as it starts with a Brazilian with local fame and ends with yet another claimed inventor.
  • "received numerous Argentine, Uruguayan, and Brazilian footballers" Is received the right word?
  • "During this time, one of the first notable" Again, which years?
  • "despite his appearance" is unnecessarily mysterious if you don't elaborate in what way his appearance was at odds with being fine instinctive. It may be better not to mention this at all
  • any reason why tiro de chalaca is in italics but "a la Piora" in quotes?
  • I would make all of Leônidas da Silva a link
  • The source [21] says that Leonidas said himself at the end of his life he was not the inventor. That is significant info I think.
  • "The majority of the goals" is at odds with the earlier statement that he only scored 2 or 3 times with a bicycle kick
  • "Italy won the 1938 World Cup, according to sports historian David Goldblatt's, with a nucleus of Argentine-born players.[56] The influx of South American footballers ended before the Second World War" This seems out of place, should be with the previous paragraph about Italy. Although one could argue it is not needed at all in an article about the bicycle kick.
  • "Doug Ellis, President Emeritus of English club Aston Villa, claims" should be claimed
  • "Due to the lack of new developments in British football at the time, this last claim is unlikely to be true" First of all, by saying this one is not true, you are inferring all the others are true. Secondly, the logic seems a bit odd to me, somehow it is a fact that there are no new developments and thus the bicycle kick could not have been invented?
  • I am not sure why the 1st paragraph of Acclaim is in the Acclaim section and not in one of the earlier sections
  • Goal of the Century: maybe add that that goal was a long solo, to ensure it isn't thought to be a bicycle kick
  • "match between Argentina and England" Argentina should be a wikilink the first time mentioned, not here
  • "Sweden and England" England should have been linked earlier. Check other links as well: Only first occurrence should be a link.
  • Rooney: it was significant that the goal was in the Manchester derby
  • "injuries": it should say whose kick it was, Tueart's, it's too generic now, and reader is likely to think it is Lake's
  • Why is Balotelli in the culture section?
  • "best overhead and scissors kicks" why not use bicycle kick?
  • Why are the Huhes and Oblitas kicks in culture section and not with the Sanches, Rooney, etc kicks?
  • "The Uruguayan novelist " I'm not sure why this is part of the same paragraph as the sculptures
  • "Spanish edition " This makes it look as if in the English translation it is different. Is it? Simpson & Hesse don't say so.
  • "According to a FIFA report, bicycle kicks are common in beach soccer" I don't think this sentence adds anything. Just add the source to previous sentence.
  • The "See also" links seem, apart from the history one, rather random. I think the article can easily do without this section. At the very bottom are category links to related articles, those suffice.
  • Footnote A: Gardner also distinguishes between the two, see page 148. I'm not sure the footnote is the right place, I think a case could be made to mention it in the body of the article
  • "HMS Amphion arrived to Callao" maybe at Callao?
  • Footnote F. I think this should be in the maiin text, not footnotes. Especially since these are reports from people not from Peru or Chile.
  • Footnote G. Again, consider lifting it out of the footnotes, as it is quite important info.
  • Bibliography: Freire & Ribeiro 2006 is missing
  • Bibliography : Pele and Fish is 2007 I believe, not 2013
  • Glanville, Brian (2010). No reference pointing to this book
  • reference 62: Pelé 2006, The Beautiful Game. page numbers missing
  • Cunha, Loris Baena (1994 and Rull, Nomdedeu (2004) and a few others could use a translated title
  • Inconsistent ISBN format. Most are ISBN 13 but a few are ISBN 10. Easy to convert them here: http://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter

I hope this is not too daunting to fix. I'd love to see it featured on the home page one day. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Response
Hi Edwin! Thank you for the thorough review of the article. One of the reasons I love the FAC process is reading input from other researchers/writers/editors. I am genuinely grateful for all of the time you put into helping improve the article!
I'll respond to the major comments first and then to the specific ones:
1. The subsection on controversy highlights the popular culture aspect of it in South America. The perspectives provided there include that of aficionados, researchers, football administrators, and even football players. The current organization of the article follows a narrative structure that is better than a list. The article itself isn't about claims to invention, rather it is about the spread of the bicycle kick, the public's fascination with it, and the relative obscurity of the move that (even in the second half of the twentieth century) led to people claiming certain players as "inventors" (which is more of an honorific title than a reality); I purposely mentioned those in the article to show how the public reacted to the display of the maneuver.
I think mass media has helped make the move more visible. When writing the article, I placed myself in the eyes of these viewers seeing the bicycle kick for the first time. I think it is the same experience moviegoers had when they saw Pele do it in Escape to Victory.
2. Here is another improvement to the lead sentence based on the suggestions ([22]). Here is another one with the "above head level" suggestion ([23]).
I'll comment on the rest later on.
Thanks again for the suggestions! Happy New Year!--MarshalN20 Talk 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Further response
  • Execution description: Improved. [24]
  • Best resource: Removed. [25]
  • Defensive/Offensive: Does it really matter which one goes first? I also can't find stats on it; I've seen it used a lot in South American football as a defensive move (mainly for showboating, but still a defensive move).
  • Turn of the century. Changed. [26]
  • Title image switch: Done. [27]
  • Commercial ads: Done. [28]
  • Enough space. The Gonzales example was not translating correctly, so I just made it more straightforward. [29]
  • British football image. Image improved (more relevant to the text) [30]
  • Reducing parentheses. Done. [31]
  • Wikilinking stevedores. Done. [32]
  • Clarification on dates. Done. [33]
  • Is received the right word? I don't know. If you have a better alternative, please let me know.
  • Piola's apperance. Fixed. [34]
  • A la piola quote consistency Done. [35]
  • Leonidas not inventor. That's not the point. Leonidas, Piola, Parola, Pele, etc. are not the inventors of the bicycle kick. That's why the invention section is separated from the rest of the narrative. The attribution of invention is more of an honor than a reality in these other cases.
  • Pele goals. It's not that he actually only scored 2 or 3 times with a bicycle kick. He's just trying to say that the amount of times were few compared to the other goals he scored. Fixed. [36]
  • Italy 1938. Fixed. [37]
  • Doug Ellis. I blame the confusion and odd logic on Wilson. It should be fixed now. I think his point is that British football had yet to adapt many of the developments made in other parts of the football world. [38]
  • Acclaim first paragraph. The prior section ends with the South American players ending their migration. The acclaim section focuses on the story since then.
  • Argentina and England. Argentina's national football team is first mentioned here.
  • Sweden and England. Fixed. [39]
  • Manchester derby. Mentioned. [40]
  • Best bicycle kicks: Moved and fixed. [41]
  • Tueart: Added. [42]
  • Balotelli: Clarified that this was during his youth years. [43]
  • Beach soccer: Improved. [44]
  • Sculpture and writings: I associate the two as works of art, so I placed them in the same paragraph. Yes, it seems that Vargas Llosa only mentions this in the Spanish edition (unless I missed it when reading the English version, which is unlikely).
  • Footnote A: Done. [45]
  • Footnote F & G: These work best as footnotes. There's no reason to overwhelm the readers with these details in the main text. They also would detract from the narrative flow.
  • At Callao: Done. [46]
  • Freire & Ribeiro: Fixed. [47]
  • Pele Fish 2007: Fixed. [48]
  • Pele 2006: Page numbers not included, so next-best alternative is the chapter title.
  • Glanville 2010: Fixed. [49]
  • Translating titles: Done. [50]
  • ISBN 13 standardizing: Done. [51]

@Edwininlondon: I've fixed nearly everything that you pointed out, but did disagree with a few suggestions. I hope the minor disagreements are not considered a challenge or a cause for dispute, because I do wholeheartedly consider the article now looks and reads much, much better thanks to your suggestions. Please let me know your thoughts. Again, thanks for the improvements; you're the best!--MarshalN20 Talk 04:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Kareldorado[edit]

I will go over the entire text, sentence by sentence, and at the end I will try to give feedback about the article as a whole.

Intro:

  1. I would split the first sentence in two: "... physical move in association football achieved by throwing ... " -> "... physical move in association football. It is achieved by throwing ..."

Section Name:

  1. Instead of "three names: the bicycle kick, the overhead kick, and the scissors kick" rather "three names: bicycle kick, overhead kick, and scissors kick"
  2. At the sentence "The manoeuvre is also called an "overhead kick", which (according to football instructors Klaus Bischops and Heinz-Willi Gerards) refers to.. " I would either drop the ( ) symbols, either everything within the ( ).

Section Execution:

  1. Instead of "Not only does the performer need to maintain good form when executing the move, but must simultaneously exhibit exceptional accuracy and precision when striking the ball." I would suggest "... when executing the move; he must simultaneously ..."
  2. At "... when a player facing his side's goal uses the action to clear the ball in the direction opposite his side's goalmouth ...", I think it is clear enough when you say "opposite direction" instead of "direction opposite his side's goalmouth"

History, subsect Invention:

  1. For more concise writing in " ...they find that separating fact from fiction is possible when searching available records and that truth is more satisfying than legend." I would suggest "they think reconstructing the true history is possible, and that it is to be preferred over the legend."
  2. Perhaps "." instead of ";" to split this long sentence: "According to Chilean journalist Luis Osses Guíñez (author of Talcahuano's football history), Unzaga's first recorded bicycle kick occurred in 1918, as documented by a civil law notary report filed after a heated match between Talcahuano and neighbouring Concepción turned violent; Unzaga, described by Osses Guíñez as a hot-tempered Basque, got into a fistfight with a referee who called a foul on the player's bicycle kick."

... to be continued ...

Kareldorado (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Karel! Thank you for the improvement suggestions. I applied most of them (see [52]). The sentences in the execution section were heavily worked on by copy-editors, and I would prefer to leave them as they are at the moment.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Monroe Edwards[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a forger, slave smuggler and general all around scoundrel. He came to my attention from George Wilkes, who is probably the author of the contemporary but highly-sensationalized account of Edwards' "exploits" in the mid-1800s. We've polished the prose, dug into every source that we could find, and then polished again. Initial polishing was done by Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), but John (talk · contribs) has helped a bunch also, along with assists from Karanacs (talk · contribs) for the background of Texas history. I present to you Monroe Edwards, another bad-boy, but this time a bad-boy American and not a bishop. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Source review All sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited, and I note the following things:

  • I would add OCLC numbers for books where ISBN is not available.
  • In the Wilson citation, "Bartleby" should probably be in single quotes rather than double.
  • Welcome back and Happy New Year. I'll try to get back and do a full review but timing is uncertain.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Acdixon[edit]

Comments OK, a Kentuckian. I'm game. Lead:

  • I don't love the wording "who was the subject of a famous trial in 1842". First, "famous" is a bit subjective. I think "well-publicized" could be better. However, the whole phrase could probably be rewritten. Just saying he was the subject of the trial kind of makes the reader wonder if he was convicted or not. Also, the publicity derived, at least in part, from an all-star defense team, but that isn't mentioned here.
    • I've added "well-publicized trial and conviction" in place of "famous trial". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The word "swindle" is used pretty often in the lead. Maybe consider alternatives, since swindling isn't a specific crime like, say, embezzlement.
    • Varied.
  • "Convicted partly because of his good looks". I think this needs to be reworded. Maybe "Convicted partly because his distinctive good looks made him memorable and easily recognizable", or something like that. As worded, at almost reads as though the good looks were criminal or at least an aggravating circumstance to a crime! :)
    • took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Early life

  • "Edwards was born in 1808 in Danville, Kentucky." Note that Ms. Chapman Coleman's biography of John J. Crittenden says "Monroe Edwards was a Kentuckian, his parents were from Logan County, where he [Edwards] was born, and where Mr. Crittenden commenced the practice of law." (p. 97) I realize that, with few details of his early life, this will be hard to verify, but this could be an important detail, as Coleman says Crittenden agreed to defend Edwards because of his friendship with Edwards' parents, presumably formed during their mutual time in Logan County, which is, incidentally, a long way from Danville.
    • I wouldn't use Coleman's biography as a source for Crittenden's article, so I would also not use it here. To be honest, that's from 1873 - and outdated. If there was not other information on his birth location from more recent scholarship (i.e. the American Dictionary of National Biography article) then I might consider something from 1873 - but given the much more recent treatment that disregards Coleman's information, I am good with ignoring an 1873 biography. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, if the more recent scholarship is definitive on the subject, I guess I'm OK with ignoring this. BTW, I did use Coleman's biography as a source in Crittenden's article, which is a featured article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "Around 1822, Edwards was sent to New Orleans" By his parents, presumably?
    • None of the sources say who sent him. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "to learn business from a Mr. Morgan, a merchant there". Simplify to "a merchant there named Mr. Morgan".
    • Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "but in 1823 Edwards' father moved to Galveston Island" Not sure how these thoughts are connected. If the younger Edwards was already away from home in New Orleans, why does this move by his father matter?
    • It was in the source but I agree it's not useful. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "By the late 1820s Morgan set up a trading post on San Jacinto Bay near Galveston." Which Edwards? Father or son?
    • Son. this should be clearer now that we've excised the mention of the father in the previous sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "Edwards was arrested in 1832 as part of the Anahuac Disturbances". Maybe add a descriptive phrase about these events, for those who are unfamiliar and do not click through.
    • Now reads "was briefly imprisoned along with others during the uprising against the Mexican government which ruled Texas."

Slave trading and forgery

  • How is the explanatory information about slave traders and indentured servants relevant to Edwards? The Mexican crackdown on long indentures happened in 1832 and Dart and Edwards' activities appear not to have occurred until 1835.
    • It was requested by a previous reviewer as background for people unfamiliar with the situation. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I find it a little distracting, since it didn't have any material impact on Edwards' schemes. I'm going to leave this to see what others think. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm confused about the plot to discredit Dart and Texas. What was the nature of the plot? We know he obtained money under false pretenses, but what did he actually intend to do with it? Were the exploits in England also intended to gain money for this as-yet-unstated purpose, or were they not connected?
    • It's not clear why he did the efforts - it's just not given in the sources. Edwards is still a bit of a mystery in some respects. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • That's disappointing, as it would be interesting to know what he was up to, but it's understandable that it isn't in the sources. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is the amount extracted from Lord Spencer given in pounds, but the amount of Edwards' defrauding of a Liverpool company in the next sentence given in (presumably) American dollars?
    • That's what my source used. Rather than try to convert I stuck with what the source gave as the amount. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Is there an accepted way to convert one to the other, accounting for the economics of Edwards' day versus ours? If so, it might be worth at least a footnote. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't know of one - I had conversions in the article but was told that they weren't accurate for capital sums - so I'd be hesitant to convert this either. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Final scheme

  • "Unluckily for Edwards" Is this editorial comment necessary?
    • NOt really but it's not like it's egregiously awful here either. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • OK, I typically wouldn't use something like this, but I won't quibble about it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I can't think of a good way to bridge between this sentence and the preceeding one without some sort of comment on the utter bad luck he had with this being caught - suggestions on better wording? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Trial

  • "media marvel" Is this the best term we can find?
    • I'm open to other suggestions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Is this a term in one of the sources, or one you chose? If the latter, in what respect are you considering it "marvelous"? That might help find a better descriptor. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I honestly can't remember if it came verbatim from the source, if I paraphrased it from the source, or if this wording is from one of the copyeditors along the way. I got the source through ILL so I'm not sure I can easily get a hold of it again. I probably copied the relevant sections (that's my usual practice) but we're packing to move and I have no idea where those photocopies might be lurking. The trial was very well covered in the newspapers - think of an early-day O. J. Simpson trial and that's the general idea you get from the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Understand about ILL. I run into that all the time. I think "media sensation" might sound better to my ears, but that's a style thing. Your call. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Sensation works for me also - changed to that. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "while it took place" Shouldn't this be assumed?
  • Maybe mention the Edwards' family's connection to Crittenden here.
    • None of the recent sources mention such a connection - if a recent biography of Crittenden does, then yeah, I'm good with it, but I don't trust a 1873 biography that isn't corroborated by more recent scholarship. (I'm a hobbyist genealogist and I'm well aware how often authors from the Victorian period got facts wrong.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, the best modern biography of Crittenden (of which I'm aware) is Kirwan's John J. Crittenden: The Struggle for the Union, which doesn't mention the Edwards incident at all. (This in itself is a bit strange to me.) Still, Coleman's assertion seems to be at least plausible. Otherwise, what would motivate a sitting U.S. Senator – especially one of Crittenden's stature – to defend someone who seems to have been pretty obviously guilty? Also, Crittenden mentored Marshall, which would explain how he got involved. Finally, Coleman attributes the connection to William Evarts, another member of Edwards' defense team. Isn't all that worthy of at least a footnote? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Again, this comes back to not using an 1873 biography when there are more recent biographies available for Crittenden. If they don't mention Edwards' connection to Crittenden - we shouldn't use such an old source. Coleman is Crittenden's daughter but the information she's relaying about Edwards is related in regards to events over 20 years before and it's not clear where she got the information. She may be speculating on why her father took the case - and making up some sort of early connection. The fact that modern accounts of Edwards give a completely different county for his origin make Coleman's account much more suspect - Logan County is along the border with TN in the western part of Kentucky and Danville's up in Boyle County in the center of the state near the bluegrass. It's not a case of neighboring counties ... it's quite a distance. One thing I've noticed with Edwards' life - there is little family mentioned in connection with him - even the name of his father is unclear. It comes down to ... yes, if you wanted to use Coleman for color in Crittenden's biography, that makes sense - the daughter is going to have some comments on his character/appearance/etc that are relevant. But that doesn't make her not a problematic source for other people (I guess I should have said I wouldn't use her for a biography of Evarts - since I'm hoping you used her with Crittenden mainly as a daughter, and not as a historian.). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
          • OK, I'm trained in computer science, not history, so I'll defer to your judgment here, I guess, although if it were an article I were composing, I'd probably at least include it as a footnote, qualified with the appropriate reservations about Coleman as a source. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the mentions of Crittenden and Marshall's absence from Congress immediately follow mention of their presence on the defense team? Why interpose mention of Evarts?
    • Rearranged as suggested. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "absented themselves" Is it common to use "absent" as a verb?

Legacy

  • "Melville has a character refer to Edwards and ask Bartleby, then imprisoned in the Tombs, if Bartleby is a "gentleman forger" like Edwards." I think "has" is a weak verb here. Maybe rewrite as "One of Melville's characters asks Bartleby, the imprisoned in the Tombs, if he is a "gentleman forger" like Edwards".
    • Yeah, that's a better wording, changed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "The account, which was probably written by George Wilkes, is the fullest account of Edwards' life, but mingles fact with fiction to the extent that it has been listed in bibliographies of American fiction." Who opines that the work was written by Wilkes, and are there contrary opinions? Who lists the book as fiction? Does anyone list it as nonfiction?
    • I've not run across a person who disagrees with Wilkes' having written it - including several Wilkes' biographers. The other bit is from the ADNB and it isn't qualified by numbers - just a statement that it has been listed, not how many do so. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • If we're not aware of any dissenting opinions, is it necessary to qualify Wilkes' authorship? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, the authorship was listed as not by him and I'm not aware that he ever did claim to have written it (and given it's rather ... sensationalist tone, I'd have wanted to avoid claiming authorship too!). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
          • OK, I wasn't aware of the nature of the piece, so that makes sense. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • " a slave who loved Edwards and rescued him and followed him throughout his life" Rescued him when? How?
    • Not stated, as this is one of those legendary elements introduced into the story that has been disproven by historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • If the legend has been disproven, why isn't that mentioned (and cited) in the article? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • The best way to describe this is Thompson's entry in the ADNB when discussing the whole work "The fullest account of Edwards's life is Life and Adventures of the Accomplished Forger and Swindler, Colonel Monroe Edwards (1848), written by an editor of the National Police Gazette, presumably George Wilkes. Its account of Edwards's criminal career is largely verifiable, but other aspects of the book led it to be included in Lyle Wright's standard bibliography of American fiction. It is the chief source for the romantic story of Kitty Clover, a beautiful slave who rescued Edwards from arrest in Texas and followed him devotedly through his later hardships and successes, until his arrest." I've read bits and pieces of "LIfe and Adventures" but it's ... wow. Very very early Victorian and very very much a pot-boiler with heavy romance elements thrown in. Kinda like a version of Uncle Tom's Cabin but with a forger as the hero instead. Since Thompson only mentions Kitty in the bottom where he discusses the Life and Adventures - and the Handbook of Texas doesn't mention her at all, I don't think it merits any mention beyond what's there. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
          • So no one says it is explicitly disproven; you're just making that inference based on its absence from more reliable scholarship? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Yeah, I make that inference here - I don't in the article, you'll notice. The statement about Kitty Clover is bare bones and reflects the secondary scholarship's mention of her (which is the mention I described above from the ADNB). She's not mentioned in any of the other secondary sources, which is why I don't think we need to go into the details of Kitty's story - the secondary sources don't. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I know information is scarce, and some of these issues might not be resolvable. Just food for thought. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I"ve attempted to address most of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
And ... I hope I haven't tread too badly on your Kentucky toes! It was a very strange subject for me to get interested in but .. interested I got. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. Just making some comments for thought. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Calutron[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the calutron, a spiffy gizmo for magnetic isotope separation. The article has passed GA and A class reviews, which have included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • "His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm..." Snakelike sentence. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Ling, I broke it into three sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 2 January 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) 15:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


Comments from Grapple X
  • Consider the use of alt text for any images used, so they can be interpreted by screenreaders.
    Added ALT text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The costs table could be better formatted for the same reason; use !scope="col" and !scope="row" in to define where columns and rows begin. Here is a diff of an example of how to do so.
    Not sure what the benefit it is - it looks the same as before - but done anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    The benefit is, again, for screenreaders, as the definitions allow them to read the table coherently. It means visually-impaired visitors can still benefit from the information in it. GRAPPLE X 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there a particular reason why we have inch-to-millimetre conversions? It just seems unusual to see thousands of millimetres given for measurements.
    For some reason, millimetres is the default conversion. It seemed appropriate where we were talking about fractions of an inch, so retained there. Switched to cm for the 184-inch (470 cm) cyclotron. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Overall this is a very high-quality piece, would be happy to support given the above is addressed. GRAPPLE X 10:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your review! All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
In that case I'm happy to support this one. GRAPPLE X 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from delldot ∇.[edit]

A beautiful article, I have no major complaints, so I had to resort to lots of very minor prose nitpicks:

  • Too many California's in this sentence: "Its name was derived from California University Cyclotron, in tribute to Lawrence's institution, the University of California in Berkeley, California, where it was invented." Couldn't the reader infer that the University of California in Berkeley is in fact in California?
    Removed. Just had to make sure there was one mention that it was in Berkeley before referring to it that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Should this be in American English since it's mainly about California and Tennessee? "6 August 1945", "25 June 1942", etc. If not, should the measurements use metric first with inches or whatever in parentheses?
    Per WP:STRONGNAT, articles about the 20th century US military use this format. It happens to be thje one the Manhattan Project used consistently. Measurements are in United States customary units. Note however that the US customary unit for fissile materials is metric. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "...the heavier isotopes are bent less by the magnetic field..." not the isotopes themselves, but their paths? Beams? Streams? Or not bent but deflected?
    Used "deflected", which is probably the term used in the original source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "...he theorized that it was the uranium-235 isotope and not the more abundant uranium-238 that was primarily responsible for fission with thermal neutrons." Does 'primarily' mean that some 238 is also responsible? Or other isotopes too?
    Yes. Natural uranium is 99.275% uranium-238, 0.72% uranium-235 and 0.005% uranium-234. According to the Wikipedia, the thermal neutron cross section for fission of uranium-238 is around 0.00002 barns, while that of uranium-235 is 583 barns. So in layman's terms, you get some, but not a lot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "This made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated..." Why does it follow from the finding that U-235 is responsible that a chain reaction could happen? This seems stilted without more of an explanation. I understand not wanting to get into the nitty gritty so early, but is there a way this could flow better?
    Changed to: Leo Szilard and Walter Zinn soon confirmed that more than one neutron was released per fission, which made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    Brilliant. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Uranium-235 makes up only about 0.72% of natural uranium,[14] so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 1250 to produce 90% uranium-235 from natural uranium." These numbers don't mean anything to a lay reader, do we need the specific numbers? The words 'separation factor' make sense in context, but I don't actually know what they mean. If it were like "Uranium-235 makes up only about 1% of natural uranium, and they need it to be 90%, so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 900", I could kind of see where the numbers are coming from and the specificity would make sense. But as is the math makes no sense so it's kind of distracting.
    Yes, but think of the kids who are trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. By giving exact dates and numbers, we give them plenty of room to maneuver. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "...which results in the beam scattering." I prefer the active voice to this noun + -ing construction: "which causes the beam to scatter." Same with "resulting in reasonably good beams being produced in September 1942."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "In December Lawrence received a $400,000 grant from the S-1 Uranium Committee." Is this a military or government committee? Might it help to give a link or a parenthetical about what this group is?
    There is a link to its article, up above when it first appeals. It was a committee of the NDRC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Replace one instance of 'work' here to reduce repetitiveness: "the process had been demonstrated to work, considerable work was still required"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I know the template does this, but "about 3 feet (0.91 m)" would be more sensible as "about 3 feet (0.9 m)" or "about 3 feet (1 m)" given that the 3 ft is an estimate in the first place, so you don't want to be too exact with the conversion.
    It sure does. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Lawrence's leadership style. His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm were contagious." Hmm, that's one way of putting it, I heard he was a tyrant!
    That too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Transition wording needed to switch from talking about TN to CA: "...training of workers to operate the production facilities at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. By the middle of 1944, there were nearly 1,200 people working at the Radiation Laboratory."
    We're not talking about Tennessee. The Radiation Laboratory remained in Berkeley. It's still there today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    Ohhh, they were being trained in Berkeley to work in Oak Ridge later. I misunderstood. It seems perfectly clear now that I reread it. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Typo? " a second stage on enrichment."
    Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "special procedures were instituted for handling the silver. Holes were drilled into the silver over paper so that the filings could be collected." This is confusing, I think it means "when they wanted to drill holes, they did it over paper", rather than what it kind of sounds like, that they went out of their way to drill holes.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "handfuls of rust were found inside. Moisture was also a problem" Maybe "also a problem in its own right" or something? It's just that the 'also' sounds redundant because moisture causes rust.
    This is true. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That's all I got for now! More in a few days. Sorry to be a total brat about the minutiae. Very nice work! delldot ∇. 04:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review ∇! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Great, everything's addressed! Back with more in a couple days. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple more for right now:

  • This sentence switched to hyphens from n dashes: "Alpha process buildings, 9201-4 and 9201-5, another Beta, 9204-2". Same with "The two Alpha I buildings, 9201-1 and 9201-2".
    Got rid of the ndashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't you think the paras beginning "Groves authorized Alpha II in September 1943" should be a table instead? It's TMI to integrate as prose, too hard to follow all the numbers, and repetitive. Anything that's not building, start date, or finish date could be kept as prose.
    It is prose in both the sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    Sure, but they've got a whole book to fill up, right? I don't know that that means we should follow suit. It's up to you, I'm not going to make a big deal of it, but the prose does feel kind of word salady: a jumble of building numbers and dates. I think a table would be a lot more readable. delldot ∇. 01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That noun -ing construction again (also I have a personal vendetta against 'with' as a conjunction with the present participle): "with S-50 product being fed into K-25 instead."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Back with more soon! delldot ∇. 07:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Last set:

  • Too much 'used in': "Enriched uranium from the calutrons would be used in the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945." you could say 'went into the Little Boy atomic bomb' or something.
    Re-worded to Enriched uranium from the calutrons provided the fissile component of the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "By May 1946, studies suggested that the gaseous diffusion plants could fully enrich the uranium by themselves without accidentally creating a critical mass" This is the first mention that there was a danger of this during production. You might just change it to something like "unlike the racetracks, which had a danger of accidentally creating a critical mass [that could explode?], May 1946 studies suggested that the gaseous diffusion plants could fully enrich the uranium by themselves without this danger" Or something much better written than that.
    No, the racetracks had very little danger of creating a critical mass, because you can just flick the switch on them if too much uranium-235 starts to build up. The gaseous diffusion plants were rather more complex. Care had to be taken with product though. A bad incident occurred at Oak Ridge on June 16, 1958. Product did not explode, because it didn't come together fast enough, but it irradiated the vicinity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • For the table "Manhattan Project – Electromagnetic project costs", I think all the figures should be carried out to the same number of significant figures, and either millions or billions should be used, not both. (e.g. 3.69 billion changed to 3690 million) Currently it uses $19.6 million and $6.63 million, I think it would be better either rounding up or using 0's to carry it to the same number of decimals.
    The magic is all in the FormatPrice template. I assume it conforms to the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Dangling modifier: "In 1945, the British atomic bomb project built a 180° calutron similar in design to an American Beta calutron at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, Oxfordshire." Could just put the phrase 'similar in design to an American Beta calutron' in parentheses.
    Added commas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there anywhere else in the article that the single sentence under Calutron patents could be integrated? It would seem more logical to end the article with the discussion of the more modern-day applications, and this single-sentence section brings us back in time.
    Moved to the Research section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I expected more info on how a calutron works. The one diagram is small so you can't really see the separate parts or read the labels, maybe it could be cropped or enlarged in the article? (although I know some people don't like the latter).
    I tried to describe it as best I could. I have enlarged the diagram. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, that's it from me! Excellent work overall. delldot ∇. 01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Rejoined[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC), Miyagawa

This episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine features one of the first televised lesbian kisses, and was pretty controversial back in its day. Article has gone through a pretty thorough GAN and PR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

Generally a good read. Just some things that I noticed scanning through, as well as looking through the references.

  • Tim Ryan and James Noah are red links. This needs fixing: either find their articles are their current locations or remove the links.
  • I've removed those redlinks. I just did a double check to see if there was any obvious information out there which would mean that an article could be created in the future and apart from the stubbiest of stubs (a short filmography from each which even then wouldn't be simple to cite) I don't think that an article could be realistically created. So I've removed the links rather than create a stub for each. Miyagawa (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "...where joined hosts never met anyone that they didn't already know." - Replace "didn't" with "did not" per MOS.
  • Fixed. Sorry, bad habit I'm trying to get out of. Shame we can't get Data to proof read these! ;) Miyagawa (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Who is Ira Steven Behr in the context of this show's production? Never heard of them.
  • I've now linked showrunner immediately prior to his first mention, as while it was stated there, it wasn't linked. Behr was the executive producer in charge of the series (the showrunner). Miyagawa (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "...saying that "Star Trek stood for" making statements such as seen in "Rejoined"." - The quote in this sentence seems very short. Could you explain this?
  • It is a snippet from a much larger quote from Moore regarding the clearance processes they had to go through to get a same sex romance on the show, specifically following the negative fan reaction to TNG's "The Host". The full quote is "They questioned us closely about our intentions, and why we were doing it, and how it would work in the story, and how far we were going to go, they saw that we were sincere, that it was a good story, that we could say something with the show, that it was what Star Trek stood for and that it was actually something to be proud of. They went for it." So as you can see, it is mostly a long run on sentence. But possibly we could extend the quote to be add that Moore also said that the storyline was "something to be proud of" as well. Miyagawa (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A general thing, but it would be best to archive all online references where possible.
  • I've archived the two that were missing. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 13's url needs updating.
  • I just double checked and it is linking to the right spot - the url for the clipping shouldn't link directly to the newspaper page itself, as if the indexing system is changed then it'll become a dead url. Whereas by linking to the clipping page (containing the link to the page) it'll be safer in the long term. Miyagawa (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 6 has a "subscription required" message attached to it. Can this be resolved?
  • I just checked at the Washington Post website to see if there was a direct link that could be used instead, but there isn't. Miyagawa (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably have a second look through once these issues have been addressed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Second Pass
  • The entire "alien kiss" paragraph switches from "LGBT" to using the term "queer". Is there a special reason for this outside the one quote featuring the word?
    • It uses queer because that's what most academic sources use (it's also purposefully a bit more broad than the LGBT definition, especially how the number of letters tends to be growing). If you think it's an issue, it doesn't seem like it should be hard to reword the LGBT mentions to queer for consistency. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
      • That's alright. Now that it's been explained, it can remain as is.
  • "In using the scene in isolation, alien kisses, Bruce argues, "strips away..." - The phrasing seems a little awkward here. Maybe rephrase as "In using the scene in isolation, Bruce argues that alien kisses "strips away..."

That's all I saw this time around. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I don't see anything that stands out anymore. I'll willingly Support this article's upgrade to FA status. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "that a group of Trill scientists will be arriving soon at Deep Space Nine" - Deep Space Nine doesn't need to be italicised if it's referring to the space station.
  • "Jadzia is the eighth host of the symbiont Dax" - minor, but I'd rearrange this as the Dax symbiont, as it's referred that way in the show. Super minor point though (isn't that what FACs are for?)
  • "He added that it was an extraordinary story about losing someone you love and having that person restored to you some time afterwards" - a part of this sounds like it's from a direct quote. Can a small part of it be in quotations?
  • "two The Next Generation episodes; "The Next Phase" and Frame of Mind" - "Frame of Mind" missing quotations
  • "Instead, the symbiont was placed in a new female host called Ezri, but the prejudice against re-association first highlighted in "Rejoined" was mentioned in the seventh season episodes" - I remember reading from somewhere that they needed a female host because they didn't want Nana Visitor to be the only female main cast member. If possible, could this be mentioned? It seems relevant
  • "Visual Effect Supervisors Gary Hutzel and Glenn Neufeld" - does 'Visual Effect Supervisors' have to be capitalised? Same with Visual Effects Co-ordinator. I'm not sure, I could be wrong
  • "as it meant he did not have to attempt re-create the detail already seen in the Bajoran wormhole" - as it meant that he did not have to attempt re-create the detail already seen in the Bajoran wormhole
  • "there was a strong negative reaction from some viewers" - negative reaction from viewers isn't mentioned in the lead
  • "one channel in the Southern United States took the step of editing out" - link Southern United States for accessibility

Those were all of the prose nitpickings I could find upon my initial readthrough. The references all seem good, so I couldn't find any issues there. Once all of the above are addressed I'll take another look. JAGUAR  13:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review, those should all be addressed now. Mind you, I'm going to have to go through the DS9 Good Articles I've done and remove the italics now! (Already fixed the space station article itself). Thanks for raising that, I'd never noticed that stations (even if in space!) weren't in italics. Miyagawa (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for addressing them! Even more worrying is that Memory Alpha calls the station Deep Space 9, not 'nine'. I don't know if it's official or if they named it differently to disambiguate it from the show. I know that ships like Defiant are italicised but I knew the station wasn't! Anyway, with all of the comments out of the way, I'll be happy to lend a support. JAGUAR  12:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It must be to differentiate between the station and the series. I just double checked The Making of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens as well as the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion and they both use "Nine" in relation to both the station and the series. Just to note since I mentioned it, the Making book has been checked for anything helpful to this article, but since it mostly relates to first season info, there wasn't anything to add. Thanks for the support! Miyagawa (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Z105space[edit]

I enjoyed reading this. Here is a few points I noticed during my read.

  • You should say who Michael Piller is in terms of the show's production.
  • It is not compulsory, but you may want to use alt text for all images per WP:ALT.
  • "The episode was directed by main cast member Avery Brooks, who played Benjamin Sisko in the series. He later said that "Rejoined" was his favourite out of the episodes he directed. He said that the episode was about love, and the choices that result from that. He added that it was an extraordinary story about losing someone you love and having that person restored to you some time afterwards." – I feel the word "he" should be used less in this section.
  • "as the producers didn't want Kira Nerys to be the only female main character." replace the word "didn't" with "did not".

I will give my support once the above issues have been rectified. Z105space (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review, those should all be dealt with now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • They have been indeed. I can now give my Support for this article to achieve FAC status. Z105space (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Baron Munchausen[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemuellio (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Behold the Baron! The brainchild of an 18th-century con artist who fled his country with a price on his head, the unbelievable Baron Munchausen flourished as an international pop-culture hero from the 1780s onward … much to the frustration of the real-life nobleman who inspired the character in the first place. This article is a GA and has been peer-reviewed. To the best of my knowledge, it's the most comprehensive introduction to the Baron available anywhere, but I look forward to any suggestions for improvement. Lemuellio (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Happy to take a look through. I actually looked at this article the other day for "research" purposes after coming across Nietzsche's mention of him and wondering what was going on.

  • You say that "Most ensuing English-language editions, including even the major editions produced by Thomas Seccombe in 1895 and F. J. Harvey Darton in 1930, reproduce one of the rewritten Kearsley versions rather than Raspe's original text." and then immediately say "Raspe's English version of the Munchausen stories became the core text for almost all later versions, not only in England but also in Continental Europe." I'm struggling with this.
    • Yes, that is a bit weird. I've removed that confusingly worded second sentence.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "an original German sequel was published in 1789" Title and translated title?
    • Fixed. This info was in the collapsible table of translations and sequels.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "which circulated widely soon after the book was published" Which? The original German translation?
  • I'm all for tying the various Wikimedia wikis together, but is a link to the German Wiktionary really all that? How about knocking together an entry for the English Wiktionary and linking to that instead?
    • Now that you mention it, a link to anything seems like overkill here, since the word is clearly defined in the paragraph. I've unlinked it.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • What's an "academician"?
  • "a film version was made in 1980" The version you're linking to is apparently 1979? The same film is mentioned further down, again with the 1980 claim.
  • "was the second most popular series on the air" In the US, I assume? I must confess that the article occasionally seems to have a slight US-centric tone.
    • Good point! Please point out any other American-centric wordings so I can fix them.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "as a modern-day descendant of the Baron" Hardly- "modern-day" to those 75 years ago, I'm guessing!
    • Fixed. Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this article, and I'll be "back for more" in the coming days. I've made a few copyedits. I want to pre-emptively defend my redlinks; per WP:REDLINK (and see also my Signpost piece on the subject) redlinks are not something to be scared of; while I see the value of interwiki links, they are of minimal interest to the large number of readers who are unable to read German/French/Russian/Italian/etc. We can have both a redlink and an interwiki link if we make use of the template I've added. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Josh, good to see you at FAC, I've been a fan of your work for a long time. To start off, I've reverted your addition of a link to de.wp in running text when we had a perfectly good page here (on the 2012 film) ... I can't think of a single case where putting such a link in the text itself has been okay at FAC, but maybe others know more than I do about that, since I don't focus on link issues. I also reverted your addition of the {{ill}} template, based on the discussion we already had about this at PR, I'll reproduce it here: - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
"His cousin, Gerlach Adolph von Münchhausen (de)": The {{ill}} template is fine while an article is being developed, but it's not fine at WP:FAC (and I would argue, not at PR or GAN either), because non-Wikipedians are unlikely to know what "(de)" means, and even if they know, it won't help them unless they read German. It would be better to write a stub on en.wp and link to that; the stub can then link to de.wp.
@Dank: Thanks so much! I'll polish up the article.
One question: can you give me a source for your assertion that the {{ill}} template is "not fine at WP:FAC"? I can't find anything in the MOS to discourage it, and indeed H:ILL seems to encourage it.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I remember seeing it rejected once, and rarely brought up in the first place, but that's not much of a source. It doesn't seem like a hard call to me, for two reasons: 1. The purpose and effect of the template is a big "under construction" sign, in the hope that someone will notice that there's work that needs to be done here, and get to it. FAC is for articles where the work that obviously needs to be done already has been done. 2. I don't always keep up with new trends so I could be wrong, but it looks like a honking big Humpty-Dumptyism to me. Do you know of any professionally copyedited print text that uses "(de)" to mean "better information can be found for the thing immediately preceding, if you follow this note or reference, in German"? If not, then let's have a look at where it's used on the web, and see if the tone is suitably encyclopedic. - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Good points. I'll remove the template from the page. Thanks again!--Lemuellio (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • End of quoted text. I'll stop there for now, I just wanted to jump on this to see if we can get everyone on the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry- it did occur to me that the interwiki template might cause a bit of controversy. I don't like the idea of interwiki links dropped into the text in the place of links to enwp (red or blue), but I know that some people are frustrated at the thought that we redlink when there are perfectly good articles on other language Wikipedias. The template offers a degree of compromise between the two, but I agree that it's not ideal for many of the same reasons you're concerned about it. That said, you are wrong that we have a perfectly good article on the 2012 film, unless I misunderstand the claim- there's an article on dewp, but not here on enwp. If we have to make a choice between an interwiki link (useless to most readers, who cannot read all of these languages) and a redlink (actively encouraged by our guidelines) then it's an easy choice- we should be redlinking, or, if we're really opposed to redlinks (an attitude contrary to our guidelines!), creating stubs. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, I thought I remembered an article on the film, must have been hallucinating. I think the bottom line is: at FAC, we can and regularly do ask people to create stubs, for all kinds of reasons, this is just one more reason. It's not a problem for me if the stubs link prominently to de.wp. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    For now, I have replaced them with simple redlinks; I of course have no objection to people creating stubs, and hope that someone (at some point) will! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Sure, not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Continuing.
  • Regarding the collapsed tables, see MOS:DONTHIDE at WP:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Since the tables merely provide further details of a bibliographic history already covered in summary form by the article text, it seems to me that this sentence from MOS:DONTHIDE addresses the situation: "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text." It sounds like the two of us are reading this MOS section differently.--Lemuellio (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The table contains information not already present in the main text, so it doesn't "consolidate information covered in the main text". "sections or cells ... in tables" can't mean "the whole table". This subsection of MOS has AFAIK had a consistent interpretation since the beginning of the style guide. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'll uncollapse the tables.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Corinne[edit]

  • However, Münchhausen was considered an honest man, rather than a liar.
I recommend reversing the order of the parts of this sentence:
  • However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man.
Putting "rather than being considered a liar" first creates a link to the previous sentence, and putting "was seen as an honest man" second creates a link to the next sentence. If you feel that the phrase is too long, then it could be shortened to:
  • However, rather than a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. (or)
  • However, instead of a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. Corinne (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I like your first suggestion. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment By trying to be "about [both] the literary character and his historical namesake", this article becomes confusing. It's as if the Jerry Seinfeld (character) article had all the Jerry Seinfeld stuff as well. As I see it this article is basically the character article; but unlike in the Seinfeld case the real person's article doesn't need to exist as he isn't notable.

You should therefore treat this article as a straightforward fictional biography, with the real guy's info there only to provide background to the character. In effect though, none of the content will drastically change, just remove the WP:MOSBIO elements: the real guy's infobox, the bolding of his name in the lead, and his birth/death dates (move them to Historical figure). And start the article with "Baron Munchausen is a fictional German nobleman in literature and film, created by the writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in 1785". That'll make it crystal clear what this is article is about.—indopug (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I, too, am sympathetic to this approach, and was thinking about it as I read through the article. On the other hand, I suspect that the real-world Munchausen is notable. Perhaps the shift in focus suggested by Indopug along with the creation of a short article (there's easily enough here for a good start class, and that'd give you somewhere to put the infobox/categories, which don't really belong here) would be the best way forward. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the namesake is notable by WP standards; since inspiring the fictional character is the reason he's remembered and written about, he strikes me as a pretty clear case of WP:BIO1E. On the other hand, that's exactly what makes this article's focus a bit tricky to pin down: in order to explain the fictional character sufficiently, the historical storyteller has to be given good coverage as well. The fiction/reality overlap seems unavoidable. As one of the writers quoted in the article says, "These two barons are the same and they are not the same…"
I'd be glad to hear others' opinions on how to handle this. If removing the second infobox and unbolding Hieronymus's name will make this article less confusing, I'm happy to oblige.--Lemuellio (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Almost all barons are "notable by WP standrds", certainly this one. But I think the existing approach is correct, though a little clarification at the start of lead would help. I too was briefly unsure of the subject here, but it did not last long. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I suppose, for the purposes of this review, that we needn't decide whether the real-world baron is notable. That said, a slight shift in focus to make sure that we're clear that this is an article about the character (so, debold the real name in the lead, remove the infobox but keep the image, remove the categories added for the person) is likely appropriate either way. If someone chooses to create an article on the baron, it can be linked as appropriate (or taken to AfD if we/someone is of the view that he is not notable, though I remain fairly sure that he is). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and shift the focus, and see what happens. Thanks.--Lemuellio (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I think this is an improvement; I am leaning towards supporting, and will take another look through in the coming days. (Shout at me if I haven't said anything in a week...) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Leaning support. I think the article is very good, but there may be elements I have missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Struck due to the reintroduction of the topic ambiguity. This needs to be sorted before this can be promoted to FA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I think I've successfully undone the ambiguity; please do let me know what you think of the article as it now stands. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, agreed- I'm happy to support on the condition it stays as-is in that regard. Sorry for running you around a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Dore-munchausen-illustration.jpg: source link is dead, and should use original rather than upload date
    • Thank you for this image review! I've done my best to remove the problem on the Commons page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Rudolf_Erich_Raspe.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:G_a_buerger_sw.jpeg, File:Gottfried_Franz_-_Munchhausen_Underwater.jpg
  • File:Stamps_of_Germany_(BRD)_1970,_MiNr_623.jpg is tagged as being non-free
    • Thank you for catching this. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Muenchhausen-1lats.jpg: the given tag states that Latvian coins no longer circulating by 2004 are PD, but this coin is dated 2005
    • According to the tag: "Per 2004 amendments of Latvian copyright law … reproductions are allowed … [if] criteria for reproduction set by issuing national bank or country are met. … [T]he criteria limit reproduction of coins as actual objects (i.e. tokens, medals etc.), which could be mistaken for genuine coins, but have no requirements for images that are flat (i.e. drawings, paintings, photographs, etc)." So, unless I'm misreading the tag, it would appear that any photograph of any Latvian coin is free for use as long the photograph itself is freely licensed.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • File:BaronM.jpg: freedom of panorama in Russia does not extend to sculpture, so we need a licensing tag for the statue itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • The sculpture is by Andrey Orlov (b. 1961) and was unveiled in 2004, so it most likely cannot be used here. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Never do an FAC too close to Christmmas though! Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • "However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man." What does the "however" relate to? The preceding sentence does not seem to indicate anyone considered him a liar. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The sentence beginning "However" is to clarify that despite the unusual nature of Münchhausen's performances (he told long outlandish stories about things he claimed happened to himself, and told them as casually as if they had really happened and were not at all astonishing), his contemporaries were able to recognize that what he was doing was storytelling rather than lying.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I think "rather" would be enough to make that point (seems a bit like a pleonasm now), but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a bit of a potentially confusing issue, in that the original German books use the exact same name for the fictional character as the real person, while only the English translations use a slightly different name. I've listed some resulting issues below.
    • On the contrary, "Munchausen" is the original name of the fictional character (see the Fictionalization section). It was only in translation into other languages, including German, that the spelling shifted to "Münchhausen" to match the real-life man's name.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the issue was that the German version is identical to that of the real life person, unlike the English version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Raspe, probably for fear of a libel suit from the real-life Baron von Münchhausen" But was the real person actually a Baron? It seems "Baron" is considered a type of "Freiherr" in Germany, according to the German Wikipedia. Yet it seems the real life person was never referred to specifically as a Baron there? If "Baron" simply substituted "Freiherr" in English translations, this should probably be stated somewhere, and the real life person should perhaps not be referred to as one.
    • The German WP says that the honorific "Baron" can be applied to a Freiherr (bisweilen mit der Höflichkeitsformel „Baron“ angesprochen). So, to the best of my knowledge, the real-life person can accurately be called "Baron von Münchhausen". Raspe, at the very least, seems to have considered "Freiherr" and "Baron" equivalent.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Is "von" used in the name of the fictional character as well? If only in translations, this could be noted, as the lack of umlaut is noted too.
    • I've never seen the "von" used in versions of the English original; only in German translations.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the full name (or the words "real life") should be added to the caption of the image that shows the real life person ("Münchhausen circa 1740 as a Cuirassier in Riga, by G. Bruckner"), to differentiate the two.
  • Could dates be mentioned in relation to the various reviews under "Critical and popular reception"? Now it is unclear whether commentary is contemporary or from much later.
    • I'm not sure how necessary that is, since the commentators are all wikilinked and so their time periods can be easily checked. (There's a year given for the one unlinked exception, Sarah Tindal Kareem.) I can definitely add a few words to clarify that the review in The English Review is contemporary, though.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure what others think about this, but I think it would be helpful to add date after the name of the artists in the captions of the illustrations.
    • I'm not sure either, but I'd be happy to do so if there's a consensus in that direction. So I'd value a second/third/fourth opinion on this.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Pearl's popularity gradually declined between 1933 and 1937, though he staged several comebacks before ending his last radio series in 1951.[9]" I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the subject of the article?
    • It seems like a good way of establishing how long the Baron-as-radio-phenomenon lasted, so I would recommend keeping it in.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but as is, the reader wouldn't know that the two issues (Baron's/Pearl's popularity) are connected, since you don't mention whether Pearl used the Baron as a character until the end. If he didn't, there isn't much relevance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Good point; I'll fix it. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Since a lot of text is devoted to von Münchhausen's telling his stories, an image like this[53] that is used on the German Wikipedia might be fitting to illustrate that.
    • For a while, that very image was indeed used to illustrate this article. However, it's unclear when exactly that image was made—and, therefore, whether or not it's fallen into public domain—so it was eventually removed.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, since the artist died in 1934 (more than 70 years ago), and the images were published before then, those images are definitely in the public domain. Where was this concern raised? FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The Herrfurth images are definitely PD in their country of origin, but WP has to follow USA copyright laws, which (alas!) are considerably weirder; see WP:PD. In brief, for these images to be in PD in the USA, there needs to be proof they were published before 1923. I can't track down the publication date, so the copyright status remains a mystery to me.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
In that case, the images would also need to be nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. I'll do that[54], and the resulting discussion will decide what will happen. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The image was kept by an administrator[55], so it should be safe to include. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It's in. Thanks so much for looking into this!--Lemuellio (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "The character is loosely based on a real baron, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen" Perhaps bold this name in the intro, as it is also a subject of the article?
    • For a long time, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen was in bold on this page; then, during this FAC discussion, there was some conversation about whether or not the real-life man really counted as a subject of the article, and eventually the name was unbolded. I could go either way on it; please don't be afraid to reopen the conversation above. And thank you for all your comments!--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Since the real life person doesn't have an article, and has a substantial amount of text devoted to him here, I'd say he's a subject, but well, I guess it's a matter of taste. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree - me, I'd re-bold. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
At the moment there's a 2-2 tie, so I'll take a stand myself now. I'll be bold and re-bold (pardon the rhyme).--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hehe, makes sense, also since the article has categories about the real life person as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Reverted per LEAD. One of the burdens of FAC (for better and worse) is MOS compliance. Bolding is for synonyms of the title. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back, Dank! I think the "To bold or not to bold" problem stems from the ambiguity, already raised on this page, about what the article's subject is. If the subject is the fictional Baron, full stop, then clearly Hieronymus's name should not be in bold. But if the subject is both Barons—in other words, if the article is for all intents and purposes a joint biography—then both names should be in bold, as is done on all the rest of Wikipedia's many joint biography articles.
Me, I'd argue that the joint-biography approach makes a whole lot of sense; it would be ridiculous for (to take a random example) Maud and Miska Petersham each to have their own biography, since they're notable specifically for the work they did together. The same logic seems to be applicable here; without the fictional character Hieronymus comes dangerously close to being a WP:1E, and without the historical personage the fictional Baron has no context whatsoever.
Of course, I don't own the article, so I'm happy to go whatever way a strong consensus leans.--Lemuellio (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with this, once again. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The categories for the real life person were also removed at one point; perhaps they've been added back now. I think the best solution would be to create an article for the real baron; given the amount of information about him in this one, it probably wouldn't be too difficult. The worst solution, I think, is this ambiguous "two subject" article. I note that this isn't really a joint biography at all, but an article about a real person and a fictional version of that real person, and we have plenty of precedent for separating them. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against separation. But I think as long as the real life person redirects here, he is certainly a subject of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The redirect guidelines allow that a redirect can be appropriate for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article"- this case seems to be an example of that. If we're not having a separate article, this should be treated as a subtopic rather than as a second main subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess the main problem here is that we don't seem to have a clear precedent, so that it becomes a matter of taste/opinion. I'd go with a split (with a summary about the real person, of course). The real life person seems to be notable enough. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
A split is fine by me, as long as the real-life Münchhausen really is notable on his own; that's the point that seems unclear at the moment. That he was adapted against his will into a pop-culture icon is remarkable, but it's only one event. It's true that he was born into a noble family, but to the best of my knowledge, nobility doesn't automatically imply notability.
This is where the article differs from, say, Jerry Seinfeld (character); the real Jerry Seinfeld has a public life separate from his fictional persona. Münchhausen was so much more private an individual that it seems difficult to pad his biography out any further without steering dangerously close to WP:PSEUDO.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I think more info about him could be found in German sources, if one really wanted to be comprehensive. And considering that we have articles about the spouses and parents of various US presidents, who aren't notable past being just that, I think this case is notable enough as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand your position, but please note WP:INVALIDBIO: "relationships do not confer notability". (See also the essays "Other stuff exists" and "Inclusion is not an indicator of notability".) That more info could be found in German sources is probably true, but seems to fall under the category of arguments described in the essay "But there must be sources!".
Again, I have no personal reasons to oppose a split, but since several reviewers have indicated support of the article as it stands, it looks to me as we need a strong policy-based reason to leap the one-event hurdle and split the article.--Lemuellio (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that 1E applies. If tomorrow J. K. Rowling was to reveal that Harry Potter was based on Harold Lotter, a schoolfriend who is now an assistant manager in a shoe shop, the creation of an article on Lotter could be opposed on those grounds. The real Baron has significance as the source of the fictional character, but also as a member of the nobility, a minor celebrity of days gone by, a military man with connections to other notable people, a part of a somewhat-notable family and perhaps for other reasons. I suspect there would be sources available, and I'd be inclined to say that there's easily enough material in the current article/its history to create a decent enough start- or C-class article. If, on the other hand, you're of the view that he's not notable, surely that's all more the reason to clarify that the current article is very much not about him. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty close to supporting, but I'd like to see this issue resolved somehow... As Josh points out, the Baron seems to be historically notable in his own right. You could argue that he has of course been overshadowed by the fictional character, but that does not take away from his own achievements and significance. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like the best compromise, at least for the moment, is simply to make it unambiguous that our focus in this article is the fictional character. I've re-removed "and his historical namesake" from the hatnote, as well as the categories describing the historical figure.--Lemuellio (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - The new image layout looks good. I'll just go ahead and support this, as the remaining issues don't hold it back for me. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from delldot ∇.[edit]

This is an excellent article, I have no major complaints. I do prefer it with the real baron covered in this article, it is an important part of the story with their similarities and differences, and his feelings on the coverage. I think it would lose a lot if he were split out. A few nitpicks:

  • "with each of the three trying to outdo one other" one another?
Good catch! Fixed.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "some of his most well-known stories" best-known?
Very good. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In the para beginning, "In the first published illustrations, which may have been drawn by Raspe himself..." wouldn't it be great to have examples of each type of illustration accompanying the para?
One of the images attributed to Raspe appears under "Fictionalization"; illustrations by the 1792 artist, Cruikshank, and Doré can all be found in the gallery "Illustrations for the stories".--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense to arrange these next to the paragraph that discusses them to illustrate the changes that take place? This is a minor thing and up to you, but it does seem like the perfect time for images. delldot ∇. 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Good thought. I've moved the Raspe image into the gallery, which appears just above the two paragraphs discussing illustrations; now the whole evolutionary process can be seen together. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "The relationship between the real and fictional Barons is a complex one." Would it change the meaning if we cut out wording just to say, "The relationship between the real and fictional Barons is complex"?
Good idea!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Really great work! delldot ∇. 01:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Support, everything looks great. delldot ∇. 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Support, although I should disclose that I have made a number of prose edits, both to improve article clarity and to ensure that all sections of the article are properly summarised within the lede as per WP: Lede. Well done to the primary authors of this article! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Coordinator note - Lemuellio, this will need a source review and, as this seems to be your first time at FAC, a source audit for close paraphrasing/copyvio. Unless I have missed them somewhere, please request at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Westminster Assembly[edit]

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a committee of theologians called by the Long Parliament to reform the Church of England during the Civil War. The Westminster Assembly created documents which are part of the constitution of virtually every Presbyterian church in the world. Tim riley recently promoted the article to GA. JFH (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments The start: "The Westminster Assembly of Divines was a council of theologians (or "divines") and members of the English Parliament appointed to restructure the Church of England beginning in 1643. It was formed during the lead up to the First English Civil War by the Long Parliament." is rather misleading, as the committee did not actually sit until the war was well under way, and would not have sat at all without the war.
  • The legacy section seems rather short, and does not make clear the legal position in England of those continuing to uphold the WA positions after the Restoration.
  • Should not the quite long Westminster Confession of Faith get a "see also" link, as well as the standards?
  • The article hardly mentions the virulent anti-Catholicism which is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the assembly and its product.

Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod, for your helpful comments. I think I've addressed them all. The issue of anti-Catholicism was a bit difficult, as I didn't find a lot written on the anti-Catholic attitudes of the Assembly itself (though I agree it was very anti-Catholic). I did manage to add a bit on Puritans anti-Catholicism to the background section and a paragraph on the Assembly's theological opponents (Catholics and radicals) to the theology section. --JFH (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Support – One feels shy about commenting after real experts like Johnbod, but I found the text well sourced and constructed when I reviewed it at GA and have no hesitation in supporting its promotion to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I am particularly impressed that after yet another reading for this review I have no idea where the nominator's sympathy lies in this protracted punch-up. A fine example of impartiality. Tim riley talk 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Too kind, Tim, but really, I'm well out of my area here! Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • "several others of the Assembly documents" Several other documents, or several other confessions? Seems it must be the former, but wording unclear. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Done.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "The divines were even more strongly opposed to Catholicism than to William Laud and his followers. They associated both with Arminianism and persecution." Here "both" == Catholicism and William Laud, or Arminianism and persecution? Different meaning. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Lingzhi, I think I've cleared this up. --JFH (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "The House of Commons approved both catechisms, but the Lords only approved the Shorter Catechism" Out of curiosity, is it worth noting either of two things: first, why they didn't approve the Larger, and second, whether this rejection had any real later impact? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
My source doesn't comment either way, so I'm not sure what to do. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I've cut this out as unnecessary detail. It matters very little that Parliament approved of the catechisms at all.--JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "conceded to the Scots on prudential grounds" as in "prudent" or "advisory; superintending or executive"? Please use somewhat more high-frequency vocabulary, whenever such options are available... And is this a direct quote? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I might remove this whole episode per your comments regarding too much detail.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "but Parliament may have nominated them to lend greater legitimacy to the Assembly and not have expected them to attend" Why not? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Clarified.--JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I really think the count of divines should be mentioned prominently in the lede. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Done.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Assembly's documents became influential worldwide through missionary expansion" This happened during the 17th century? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Some; New England is mentioned earlier in the paragraph. I suppose that's an immigration rather than missionary effort so I edited the sentence. But most missionary activity is going to be later. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • * Neither this article nor the one on the Root and Branch petition seems to spell out clearly what were the "perceived abuses by bishops". This is a critical oversight, IMHO, although I'm not sure which article should detail this info. perhaps this one can at least add 7 or 8 words to list the main one or two...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I decided this was not a great description of the petition anyway. The abuses would have been the aforementioned changes in worship practices and silencing of Puritans. Calling these abuses is probably not neutral. I did try to make it clear early on that Puritans opposed episcopacy because of its relationship to Catholicism. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: After reading and rereading, my biggest nagging concern about this article is that seems to have a "can't see the forest for the trees" problem. As just one example, the article closes by calling the Assembly's Confession "by far the most influential doctrinal symbol in American Protestant history", but never says why or how. The focus of the article seems too firmly set on details and not nearly enough on big picture issues that an outsider, who has no familiarity with anything Presbyterian or Episcopalian or anything even vaguely similar, needs shoved up to the lede and spelled out in flashing letters. Why should anyone care about this Assembly? How is its impact still felt today? Why is it important? It almost seems as though it was written by people so deeply imbued in those realities that the biggest facts are unconsciously assumed to be understood. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I have to agree. Some of it is probably from trying too hard to be neutral and just get the facts out. But of course the article needs to answer the questions you pose and doesn't need to get into minutiae. I'm going to have to think about how to fix it. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I've expanded the Aftermath, now Legacy, section to better explain the Assembly's lasting importance. I've incorporated this into the lead and moved it toward the top of the lead. I've trimmed some detail, especially dates which are not particularly important. --JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Nicaea_icon.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Done.--JFH (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The Oceanides[edit]

Nominator(s): Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about The Oceanides, written by the Finnish composer Jean Sibelius in 1914; indeed, it stands as his second to last tone poem and is widely considered to be one of his most underappreciated (and underplayed) masterpieces. If you have never heard it, do yourself a favor and give it a listen: the wave-crash climax near the end of the piece is perhaps the most epic and onomatopoetic 'water music' ever written, serving as a worthy comparison to Debussy's ubiquitous La Mer. While I did not create the original article, I am the editor responsible for having dramatically expanded the content and for having brought it up to GA status (with the tireless effort and sage council of Ipigott, Gerda Arendt, and Tim riley providing essential wind in my sails). I want to be clear that The Oceanides was not only my first GAN, but also marks my first FAC. In addition, I see it as but one part, however important, of a larger project of mine: bringing as many of the Sibelius tone poem stub pages as possible to GA or FA status. I have also tackled or begun to tackle The Wood Nymph, User:Sgvrfjs/Ensaga, and User:Sgvrfjs/Pohjolasdaughter. I really look forward to the editing community's comments and questions! Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Support by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Support contingent on references check (which I am probably too busy to do)

Thanks for giving the piece a read through, Lingzhi. I am presently out of town but rest assured that I will soon be able to attend to the issues you have raised. Just did not want you to think you were posting in a vacuum. Thanks again! Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Hepokoski and Dahlström. Harv error: link from #CITEREFHepokoski_and_Dahlstr.C3.B6m doesn't point to any citation. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
PENDING Thanks for pointing this mistake out. I have added the source for Hepokoski and Dahlström; however, I am having some trouble with the edit. The reference still, upon being clicked, does not jump to the Hepokoski and Dahlström source. And, additionally, the Grove Music Online is a service for which one has to pay to access; the access URL I have is through my university, Vanderbilt. But clearly, this won't work for readers. What is the Wikipedia solution for this issue? Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
For the linking issue, see Template:Sfn#Citation_has_multiple_authors_and_no_date. On the URL, the problem is that you are sending the reader through the Vanderbilt proxy - to fix this, removed ".proxy.vanderbilt.edu" and it should work. Personally I would suggest taking out the question mark and everything that follows as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
DONE Thanks for the assist on this; everything seems to work well know. The reference in the footnote now links appropriately to the source. I did, however, have to switch to using harvid rather than the sfn I have used throughout the article. Is this inconsistency a problem? Sgvrfjs (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
No, but switching the reference from {{cite web}} to {{citation}} is - cite web will work so long as you include |ref=harv. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Is the term "convergent evolution" explicitly used in Hurwitz 2007? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
PENDING Convergent evolution is my term, but one which clearly captures the meaning of Hurwitz's view. Initially, I had block-quoted the entirety of this interesting (and important) Hurwitz passage, but during the GAN review, Tim riley (talk · contribs) suggested that I cut down the number of instances of block quote. Thus, when reworking the Hurwitz quote into an adequate paraphrase, I settled on condensing his wording with the term convergent evolution, which is shorted but retains his meaning. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Since it's a formal term in academic literature, using it unattributed kinda smacks of WP:OR, at least in my book. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE I see your point and agree. I reworked the sentences on Hurwitz to eliminate the term convergent evolution. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Aallottaret ("It must be so".), this instance is awkward. It almost appears as though Aallottaret should be translated as "It must be so." The punctuation is awkward as well. Please make it clear that "It must be so" was Sibelius's opinion on a related question. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE Agreed; deleted "It must be so", which in retrospect seems like an unnecessary quotation that contains little additional information. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • A small point, "(movement No. 1 lost)" in the lede is the only mention of having lost it before this fact is taken as given in the Bard section. readers may have forgotten that brief mention by this point in the text, so I would suggest a slight rewording of the Bard section to begin the sentence by restating that the movement was lost... and while I'm here, how do we know one movement was lost, and if we do know one was lost, how do we know it came first? I need to reread I suppose. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE I have added a brief recapitulation of the point to begin this section. I should add, however, that the subsection 'Initial and intermediate versions' does contain the sentence, "Today, three versions of the work survive. Initially in 1913, Sibelius conceived of the commission as a three movement suite for orchestra in E-flat major, of which only No. 2 (Tempo moderato) and No. 3 (Allegro) are extant", so there is already a mention for readers about this point post-lede. That said, I agree with you that by the time the reader gets to the subsection on relation to The Bard, they may be liable to need a refresher. Hope this fix works. As for how we know only one movement was lost and that the lost movement preceded the Tempo moderato and the Allegro, I believe the answer is this: the pages of the manuscript are numbered, and the numbering of the Tempo moderato begins on 27, or something like that. Thus, the first 26 numbered pages are missing; thus the assumption is that the first movement was 25 pages (not counting 1 page for the title page), which is about the length of the original copy of The Bard. Likely, 25 pages is too few too encompass more than one movement. This is the best answer I can provide, and to my knowledge the numerous sources I have read do not really detail the point beyond this. Barnett is that author who deals with the original suite most extensively. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is critic Cecil Gray, writing in 1931, "modern day", while Wilhelm Peterson-Berger (1923) is not? Where do we draw the line on "modern day"? Is it post-WWII, or is there some qualitative distinction that can be drawn between the two groups? If not, then it's possible that the easiest solution would be just to delete the (potentially unnecessary) term "modern day"... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE I moved Gray up to be with the older commentary, such as that by Peterson-Berger and others, and edited the descriptive phrase 'modern day commentators' to be 'more recent commentators'. The reason I see these two groups as distinct is because the latter group would have had knowledge of the reception of The Oceanides by the former group. But, you are right that Gray is best considered part of the earlier group. Hope this edit addresses your concerns. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally I'm not too keen on the internal link "translated to English" in the very first sentence of the lede. It seems to me to have a subtle aroma of WP:EASTEREGG, but perhaps I'm being too picky. I would suggest simply deleting the link rather than rewording, but others' opinions may differ. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE Agreed; I deleted the piped link you mentioned above, as well as the one about the Jäger Movement, which likely followed the same logic. I did, however, keep the piped link on 'extant' that page jumps to the subsection on 'Relation to The Bard'. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "His response was to isolate", but "isolate" is a transitive verb. If you stick in "himself" as the object, the sentence does begin to show early signs of awkwardness. Dozens of ways to fix, but must be done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE I understand your point and am fine with the solution you found. I would just like to add that, originally, this passage read: "His response was to self-isolate." However, it was suggested during the GAN review that this should be truncated to just "isolate". Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "consists of two subjects Sibelius gradually develops in three informal stages: first, a placid ocean; second, a gathering storm; and third, a thunderous wave-crash climax" This passage is apt to be confusing, because apparently "subjects" has some sort of formal definition (A and B, lively and majestic), but an uninitiated reader would almost certainly look within surrounding lede text and conclude that the two subjects are... wind and water or water and storm or similar. I suggest mentioning A/B lively/majestic... And is there an article on tone poem subjects we can wikilink? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
PENDING Hmmm...I see your point, but don't necessarily know what the fix is. I think mentioning A and B in the lede is not really that informative. As for whether we have an source we can link to to discuss the meaning of 'subject' in tone poems, I am at a loss. I think on this point, I might defer for the time being and wait for comments from other editors. Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: Hey. I was just curious if you had any other thoughts on this 'pending' issue. Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "arguably the work's most stunning section " according to Barnett, on cited page? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE Deleted; I cannot find where I read this, but it does not appear to be Barnett. Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "magnificent yet subtle" paraphrase or direct quote? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
PENDING Paraphrase; the exact quote from Rickards is, "The Oceanides is an extraordinary score, the subtlest, most magnificent evocation of the sea ever penned … The Oceanides, for all that it reflects the variability in mood of the sea, is music suffused by light". (Rickards, p. 118). Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: Hey. I was just curious if you had any other thoughts on this 'pending' issue. Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The bit about the national anthem and "Finland thanks you" is fluff, but it serves as an aesthetic pad after the extended direct quote.. but then, looking at the sources, they are three in a row from Stoeckel 1971. Are we in danger of close paraphrase here? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE My solution is to footnote Sibelius' reaction to the orchestra's playing of the anthem, while retaining in the main body the content that explains the pieces (including the anthem) that joined The Oceanides on the June 4 program. As such, the aesthetic pad is shortened, but maintained; hopefully, the fluff is gone. If this edit was unnecessary in your mind, please feel free to revert it. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm currently struggling with a temptation to Oppose. I'm still reading from whatever sources I can find. I see many bits of relevant vocabulary on the page, but am not sure at all that it presents an accurate description. Suggest requesting expert input... know anyone? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Lingzhi, for the update. Would you mind telling me which words in particular (e.g., "subjects") you find worrisome? Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. I don't have my thoughts in order, and unfortunately will soon hit a very busy period in my life. But I can throw out a few impressions (pun intended):
  • First, I think the fact that this work is "strikingly different" from his other works (see "Gray, who calls the" in article's text) is more important than how often it was reworked, and thus belongs in the lede, whereas the number of revisions may or may not.
  • Second, an explanation of this difference is in order.. perhaps along the line of bits of this quote from Inventing Finnish Music by Kimmo Korhonen "The Fourth Symphony (1911) is an extreme example of Classical simplification. Its severity and tonal ambivalence link it to Expressionism. Around this time, Sibelius wrote other introvert works, and it was not until the tone poem Aallottaret (The Oceanides, 1914) that he made a departure towards a brighter Impressionist tone." essentially I'm wondering if this is the only piece in his oeuvre that has been discussed as Impressionistic, and if so, what term (if any... perhaps Expressionism? Tim Page seems to suggest that Sibelius generally defies classification but occasionally leans to Romanticism; if he defies classification, then the whole "If this is the only Impressionist thing then what is everything else" line of inquiry hits a problem...) more nearly characterizes his other work. IN SHORT: Where does Oceanides stand in comparison to his other works (if definable), and where does Sibelius stand in relation to other composers (if definable). Note that some critics call Sibelius a "nationalist-romantic", but others say that label is true insofar as it goes but is a major underestimation of his work.... if that helps. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Third, in my mind at least there seems to be overlap between the "reception" and "analysis" sections. Admittedly that may be unavoidable, but I think that we should at least consider whether some bits should be moved. (I won't cause a fuss if you say "no, they can't", but I hope you will think about it.)
  • Fourth, what is this discussion of Sibelius as progressive, what does it mean.... and why do I see mentions of it in discussions of Oceanides etc.; is it something characteristic of Sibelius, or was Oceanides notably more or notably less progressive than his other works, or... what? I have no understanding of music, but I'm sure these things can be considered... Perhaps more points later, but as I mentioned, I am hitting my busy season... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Lingzhi, for your attention to detail. I am going to try to take each of these points individually:
  1. Definition of a "subject": I am not formally educated in music and music theory, and so, I am clearly not the most qualified person to answer this question. When faced with a question over a definition in music, I often turn to one or two books I have on my shelf: The New Everyman Dictionary of Music by Eric Blom (revised edition, 1988) and The Harvard Dictionary of Music by Don Michael Randel (4th edition, 2003). According to these resources, the definition of subject is as follows: per Everyman, "A theme used as a principal feature in a composition, esp. in a Fugue, where it is brought in a number of times, voice by voice, or in a Rondo, where it is a recurrent main theme returning after a series of episodes. In sonata form 1st and 2nd subjects are the main structural features, but there they are thematic groups more often than single themes"; and, per Harvard, "A melody or melodic fragment on which a composition or a major portion of one is based. The term, which has been used since the 16h century, implies that the material in question is developed or treated in some special way. It is not used principally with respect to the fugue and other imitative forms such as the ricercar and with respect to sonata form (where it may be synonymous with theme)". In my mind, when I use the word subject in my writing, I have theme in mind (per Everyman: a musical idea, generally melodic, sufficiently striking to be memorable and capable of being developed or varied in the course of a comp. A theme is generally complete in itself, whereas a motive is a figure which contributes something to a larger conception; but a precise distinction between the two is impossible"; and, per Harvard: "A musical idea, usually a melody, that forms the basis or starting point for a composition or a major section of one. Although the terms theme and subject are sometimes used interchangeably, as in the context of sonata form, theme often (though only since the 19th century) implies something slightly longer and more self-contained that subject".). So, with these four definitions from two respected sources in mind, here's where I think I stand: 1) the search for a clean distinction between various musical terms (e.g., subject, theme, motive, etc.) is particularly fraught, and indeed, common usage appears to have, more or less, eroded the distinctiveness between these terms that may have existed at an earlier time; 2) notice that Hurwitz sees The Oceanides as "sonata form without development" and Layton sees it as "something of a free rondo"; as the above definitions indicate, the use of subject is applicable here (or, at a minimum, not out of the ordinary), because the A and B subjects/themes do recure, are developed, and do form the basis (in terms of structure) of the composition in question; 3) the dean of Sibelius biographers, Erik Tawaststjerna (as translated by Layton), uses the term subjects and theme interchangeably in his writing.
  2. Overlap between RECEPTION and ANALYSIS: I can see your point; after all, the very people quoted in the Analysis section are individuals who reviewed the work upon its various performances. What I have attempted to do here and in other pieces I have written or am writing about the tone poems, is to make the Reception section focus solely upon the positive/negative evaluation of the compositions (e.g., so-and-so didn't like it, whereas so-and-so thought it was sublime!), while the Analysis section seeks to hone in on one or more (in this case, two) substantive discussions about the piece. I, personally, like this distinction/division, because it allows the reader to focus on different aspects of the all-encompassing "discussion" in smaller, bit-size pieces. I also think it works better conceptually. Perhaps this explanation is not convincing, and I will think a bit more about a different combined section route, but I am glad to hear that you won't oppose the candidacy on these grounds! :)
  • My section is getting long, isn't it? I apologize; you see, I am learning as I go. I want to repeat my muted wish that we could get someone with formal musical training in here to comment, BUT having said that, I feel a great deal of hope that my additions to the lede will accurately (that is the key concern, of course) resolve my earlier uneasiness about three points all in one blow: theme, subject, and what art school this piece should be considered within (if any). It also ameliorates the lack of discussion of the piece's relationship to Impressionism, which topic has its own section in body text and therefore is usually worthy of mention in the lede. I also appreciate your explanation of the difference between RECEPTION and ANALYSIS. I will continue to consider all these things, but I am feeling better about my earlier concerns on many fronts... I'm hoping this leaves only the issue of whether or not we need to discuss whether Oceanides is or isn't "progressive". Perhaps that topic is inside baseball; I dunno. I will consider Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Am prepared to drop the issue of whether or not the piece is "progressive". This may be a topic for the Jean Sibelius page (I suspect it is), or maybe be entirely inside baseball and not grist for discussion in an encyclopedia. Either way, I'm dropping it for this article. I have stricken through relevant comments above. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Also have requested a source check, as for example, what makes [Kalafut WP:RS. (I think that one can be safely deleted anyhow; it's backup)... I suppose I should get over my allergy to doing such checks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I eliminated the Kalafut reference. All others seem to me to come from reputable sources, primarily books and journals. Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Image review

PENDING Thank you for your help, Nikkimaria. As I noted before, this is my first FAC and I'm not exactly sure what it is I am supposed to do with respect to the images. Should they just be deleted because they were flagged? Or is there some sleuthing expected of me? Thanks! Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Some of these will be fairly easy to fix, some will take a bit more sleuthing. If you are able to resolve an issue, do; if not, ask; if no one can, then the affected image should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's the email: "The Norfolk Chamber Music Festival is very happy to give you permission to use the images you list below. To the best of the our knowledge the images are in the public domain, and we would like to be credited as the holders institution. Thank you for adding "courtesy of the the Norfolk Chamber Music Festival, Yale School of Music". Good luck with the Article. If possible, when it is completed we would be very interested in a copy for our music library. Kindest regards, Deanne Chin Associate Manager Norfolk Chamber Music Festival - Yale School of Music." Sgvrfjs (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Both of these are currently tagged with PD-USGov - you'll want to replace that with a tag explaining why the images are in the public domain, if it isn't because they're government works. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems someone else has already added OTRS templates to these, so I guess they are done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Per above, we need to verify that

the paintings were published or publicly displayed before 1923, not just created at that point. If they came from a private collection, it's not certain this would be the case. The Norfolk Chamber Music Festival images still say they are government works, but above it appears that that is not the case. And File:Sibelius_à_Ainola_1907.gif is a problem: if the author is unknown and the work was created this century, we can't say that the author died 70 years ago, and it doesn't appear we can verify date of first publication either. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • If we have OTRS tags, doesn't that mean I can just remove the "government works" data on those photos? [Still may need to track down one author?] Plus I swapped out one image with no provenance for another with provenance showing previous displays: File:Les Oceanides Les Naiades de la mer.jpg, see provenance at Peter Nahum At The Leicester Galleries. As for all other paintings: how many images do FACs need these days? I seem to recall they were considered "not strictly required, but highly advisable" back in the day. I think some of these images are just gonna get removed from the article. Tks for your attention. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • An OTRS tag is supposed to tell you that there's an email somewhere confirming a license - it isn't in itself a licensing tag. I don't know what this particular OTRS email says so I can't tell you what the tag should be.
  • As to how many images are needed, there's no minimum or maximum number, it's generally what makes sense to support the article content. I have no objection to removing some. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • For the exterior of the Music Shed, I may have a two-part answer, and I want to verify before I upload. So there's a postcard on the same Press Photos page where Sgvrfjs found the other photos ("A publicity post card prior to the 1940s"). That's part one. Then I found the identical postcard postmarked 1922 Apr-22 on this website. Do those bits of info fit the bill for uploading and including without recourse to email requests? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, that looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I put the postcard in the article (see above); I deleted a couple images; I have a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License image of sheet music that could replace another image if that license is OK. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Remaining issues:

  • Parker image, per above
  • File:Max_Jensen_Großes_Marinestück.jpg needs a US PD tag
    • What tag is the "Dude's been dead over a hundred years" tag? And if it's the case that we need to establish public display for each and every individual painting separately, then I assume we'll have to rip through Commons and delete nearly everything, because it simply cannot be done. That's often true for the world-class painters, and certainly true for a minor afterthought like Max Jensen. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
      • {{PD-old-100}}. And usually it's not complicated - most often either "dude's been dead over a hundred years", or for more recent images there's decent documentation, or the painting was published at some point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the prompt and very helpful reply. I have a question: is there some online reference that lists the display history of nearly every work by nearly every reasonably well-known painter? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
          • I've seen those for individual artists or museums, but I'm not aware of a more comprehensive online reference, unfortunately. (If you happen to find one, I'd love to take a look!). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • File:CarlEllenStoeckel_NCMFYale.jpg, File:Shed1906interior_NCMFYale.jpg: need to sort out what the licensing actually is, per above
  • File:Sibelius_-_The_Oceanides,_Op.73_(trans._Gärtner_-_piano).png: licensing doesn't make sense. The music itself would have been under Sibelius' copyright, and this particular edition has a copyright notice
    • Well it's six of one and half dozen of another. On the source page for the image of the sheet music, the image has a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License very clearly displayed. I was just buying in to their licensing statement. While doing so, I was assuming that this was a case of transformation of format, similar to the case in which a PD written text in one language ceases to be PD when it is translated, as the translator holds licensing rights. But if we can't follow their clear licensing statement, then perhaps we could go Fair Use, since it's just one page of music from a large work. Meanwhile, the source page seems to have a PD license for the music itself. IANAL, YANAL. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
      • IMSLP's PDFs are mostly user uploaded - like Commons or Wikipedia, we can't always take the tag at face value. In this case, the original edition would more likely be PD as a pre-1923 publication, plus or minus additional licensing for the arrangement - not necessarily fair use, but definitely a need to revise the licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
        • The arrangement was done at time of creation; I can link to a book if you'd like. I'm gonna change it to PD-1923, then, if that seems reasonable. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
          • In that case yes, that would be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Ainola image, per above

SupportComments by Tim riley[edit]

Leaning to support – 3,500 words are are lot for a piece lasting 10 minutes, but there's no padding, no excessive detail here, though it might be worth hiving off the discography to its own article. A little fine-tuning is needed.

COMMENT I am well-aware of the padding concerns, and have fought to footnote all that I think is fluff but relevant (per your GAN review suggestions and using your reference style for Ravel). I should add, though, that there is perhaps one final bit in the main body that could be footnoted (or deleted), and that is Kajanus' speech on Sibelius' 50th b-day. Not exactly relevant to The Oceanides, even if it is beautiful; perhaps something better placed in the Jean Sibelius main page? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE the Kajanus quote was excised from the article. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A decision needs to be made and followed about whether to use English or American style for possessives ending in "s". At present we have both Sibelius's and Sibelius'.
PENDING Agreed; I have decided in all of the Sibelius articles I write to use the American Sibelius' rather than the English Sibelius's. I find 25 Sibelius possessives in the article, of which 24 are Sibelius' and 1 is Sibelius's; the latter, however, appears in a direct quote of Layton: "Its growth from the opening bars onward is profoundly organic", Layton writes. "And its apparent independence from the rest of Sibelius's work is manifest only at a superficial level". Please kindly advise me: should I edit the Layton quote to read "Its growth from the opening bars onward is profoundly organic", Layton writes. "And its apparent independence from the rest of [Sibelius'] work is manifest only at a superficial level". Or merely leave it as is? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Good point. The Manual of Style gives you licence to leave as punctuated in the original or to standardise on the punctuation as used elsewhere in the article. On reflection I'd be inclined to leave Layton's quote intact, but it's up to you. Tim riley talk 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE Okay; I'll keep Layton as it. Sgvrfjs (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It is customary, as well as civil, to give people their titles, and you should afford Boult, Beecham, Gibson, both Davises and Elder theirs – and no lazy "Sir Thomas Beechams", please: it's worth doing the job properly as "Sir Thomas Beecham", etc. Rattle should probably not be given a title here, as he was not knighted at the time of the recording and its first release.
PENDING Agreed, and sorry to inadvertently deny the English their honors. :) I have fixed the Adrian Boult reference in text, but am struggling to figure out how to add 'Sir' to the names you described in the discography table without messing up the sortname function Gerda did for me. {sortname| Sir Adrian|Boult} would seem to work, but I don't know if this is a fix or work-around befitting a FAC! In fact, when I did it, it broke the links for Gibson and A. Davis. Thoughts? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah. I'm not clever with tables, and I take the liberty of asking @SchroCat:, who is a wizz, for a steer on this. Tim riley talk 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
PENDING Okay, thanks; I'll message him. Sgvrfjs (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll try and remember to pop round shortly, but if I forget, could you remind me? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
DONE thanks to, @SchroCat:, for your help! Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • We are inconsistent about whether to use words or symbols for flats.
DONE Agreed; edited to make everything the symbols. Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing very earth-shaking there, and I look forward to supporting. Not directly relevant to this review, but if one types "Oceanides" in the search box one ends up here. Well worth adding a hatnote there or otherwise disambiguating. Tim riley talk 13:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
DONE thanks to, @Lingzhi:, for taking care of this! Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Support – a fine page, and I look forward to further additions to the series Sgvrfjs has in mind. It would, nonetheless, be no bad thing if future articles were a touch more concise than this one. Tim riley talk 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tim, for your support and I am pleased to hear that your are a believer in the larger 'project' I have planned. As for the concerns you have over length, I concede that I am an editor who aims for writing a comprehensive article, and this goal does mean that the pieces are somewhat long-ish; I simply do not want to leave out details or pieces of the historical record that are important or noteworthy and in the analysis sections, I aim to let each side of the various 'debates' have their say. I do, however, work hard on the ledes because I recognize that not everyone wants to read all the detail of the main body and thus, the former's concision is an advantage. One final point: I see The Oceanides as a middle-of-the-pack tone poem in terms of anticipated article length; others, like En saga, Tapiola, Finlandia, and Lemminkaäinen would be longer; some, like Pohjola's Daughter and Luonnotar would be the same length; and, finally, most others would be much shorter, such as The Bard, The Dryad, Spring Song, The Wood Nymph, Nightride and Sunrise, and Pan and Echo. These lengths in my mind are a function of 1) historical significance/importance; 2) how much has been written by others (commentators, critics, academics); and 3) the story they have to tell (in terms of a laborious composition process, an important program, etc.). I have already written The Wood Nymph, which is shorter, and am at work with En saga, which is longer. I should add that I am starting a process, but probably will never complete the whole 13 tone poems. I see myself doing 4 of 5 (The Wood Nymph, The Oceanides, En saga, Pohjola's Daughter, and Lemminkäinen) in detail and then moving on! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda[edit]

I am sorry to not have time yet for in-depth looks, but have a few comments already.

  • Image placement: try to have people look "into" the article, for example Stenhammar, looking right, should be right, Debussy should be left.
DONE for Stenhammar, but there seems to be no good way to get Debussy to look into the article because of the blockquote from Gray. The Debussy image being placed on the left would disrupt the aesthetic of the indention pattern necessary for blockquotes relative to paragraphs. Maybe I can find a different Debussy image? Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Image captions: make the connection to context, explaining why the image is there.
  • Avoid pushing a header to the right by a left image, as the Moran sunset.
DONE Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Consider to separate books, journals, online in the refs.
DONE Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dank[edit]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank, for your support, as well as for having taken a look at the prose. The majority of your edits I support, but since your disclaimer gives me a little wiggle-room, I made two important changes: 1) I returned the original apostrophes around 'placid ocean', 'gathering storm', etc. because these are my paraphrases of Grimely's rather verbose explanations. Thus, in my mind, the quotation marks may not be appropriate, because it then makes it appear as though I/we are directly quoting the author; and, 2) I returned the words "Sibelius too" to the sentence that describes the second 1915 Sweden concert arrangements falling through, because the edit you made left it unclear as to who (Sibelius or Stenhammar) was the guilty party. Other than that, looks good. Thanks for your attention to detail! Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
We need to take WT:MOS#double vs. single quotes into account, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Short version: MOS doesn't like the single quotes, and MOS compliance is part of the burden of FAC. If you'd rather not have double quotes because you're concerned that readers won't understand that the material isn't quoted, then find a way to rewrite it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
DONE I eliminated the single quotes, but opted not to rewrite, since the phrases I used already are a paraphrase or rewrite of the Grimley original. The document should be single quotes free now! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Laser brain[edit]

  • Page ranges in the References section are not presented consistently. I see a mixture of "pp" and "p".
    • I think these have been fixed. Will double check. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Kilpeläinen isn't really a web site, right? I mean, you're citing a document, not a web site.
  • Books: please provide linked ISBNs. --Laser brain (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @Laser brain: I have a few general questions. Some older works listed here at least seem to have no ISBNs (or I can't find them), but have been reprinted extensively, resulting in newer editions that do have ISBNs. So: If ISBNs are unavailable, are ASINs or OCLCs preferable? [The Wikipedia Way would generally be to say, "Neither, but be consistent." But I am just double-checking.] And if newer editions (which are presumably MUCH easier for interested readers to obtain, which makes listing them a small service to our readers) are available, link to those, and change the year in the cites/refs? Would we be worried about page numbers being off between editions, forex? Not sure. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
      • You've been rock-solid, Lingzhi. Thanks for getting the ball rolling again on what I had thought was a more or less dead FAC. But it may still die due to the image review that I don't know how to handle. Sgvrfjs (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Boring point on possessive[edit]

This is an excellent article which seems to me to meet all the FA attributes. I only have one nit-picking point. At various places in the article [Sibelius possessive] is represented as [Sibelius']. I believe the accredited usage should be [Sibelius's], the form I have always used in similar cases in my articles and which has never been queried. I have been unable to turn up the WP guidelines on this, but sources which I have found (see e.g. here) confirm this. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

See MOS:POSS Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I stand corrected (as far as WP is concerned :-}). Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I think the normal pronunciation is indeed "Sibeliusses" (as in Sibelius's works), in which case it would be incorrect to use Sibelius'. Maybe that is not the case in American English?--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Pretty standard in American English to not include the additional s, and we have certainly litigated this before during the GA and FAC. Then again, the Sibelius bio uses Sibelius's. I have already adopted European dates and punctuation for you guys; why not European possessives, too! :) I hereby renounce my American citizenship. Or, perhaps let's just de-Latinize Sibelius's name to the family original of Sibbe. Our problem (and Sibbe's) would be solved. But I joke. Let's make the change, and I'll do so to my other Sibelius articles (and under construction Madetoja bio) as well. Sgvrfjs (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

@Nikkimaria and Laser brain: Just confirming, should I take it that we now have clean image and source reviews? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not quite there yet on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hex Enduction Hour[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Mark E Smith's finest moment and maybe one of the most enduring and influential early 1980s Post-Punk albums. Smith has always been instantly quotable and an engaging, acerbic subject. Note he tends to swear in that Manchester way, if I ever get hauled to arbcom for this. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Media review - I would argue for a more extensive FUR for each of the audio excerpts, indicating why these particular clips are needed for reader understanding. Also, the current FUR for File:Hex_Enduction_Hour_by_THE_FALL.jpg is incorrect - it's File:Hex_Enduction_Hour.jpg that's used in the infobox. Why are both needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, removed the promo artwork and one of the clips...working on FU for the remaining two. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Support I have only a few issues. Interesting choice of subject by the way.
"Vocalist and Fall leader" maybe "frontman" for leader?
  • "touring rock groups" maybe "bands" for "groups"?
  • "laval-walled" lava-walled?
  • "who apparently often posed him loaded questions" I would drop the apparently and just say who is saying this.
  • "He later said that what was going through his mind with Rough Trade was "Fuck off", while Kamera's attitude was "Yeah! Get on with it" This is saying, as I read it, that Smith's attitude was "Fuck off". Given that the second part is about what Kamera's attitude, I'd expect the first part to be about Rough Trade's.
  • "memorably claimed" says who?
  • "The track has been compared to dub "if it had been invented in a drizzly motorway ..." I'm not sure I understand what is being said here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
All done, except the last, which is a reference to Northern bleakness ie the surreal while also kitchen sink. It seems clear to me, but obviously need to figure this one out. Anyway, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Great record, and nice to see the mighty Fall getting some Wiki attention at long last. A couple of things jump out at me:
  • The album is referred to simply as Hex in the lead, whereas the full title is used in the body of the article. Should this be consistent throughout, since it's not a particularly long title anyway?
  • In the final sentence of the 'Re-issues' section, the title is formatted as "Hex Enduction Hour" - I think this should be Hex Enduction Hour, per this guideline.
Thanks :) — sparklism hey! 08:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
A couple more from me:
*In the 'Background' section, Rough Trade should be linked, and possibly briefly described
  • The same section talks about the "post Iceland recordings", but this is the first time that Iceland has been mentioned in the body of the article (it's mentioned in the lead and the next section) — sparklism hey! 20:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sparklism, now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I still think the "post Iceland recordings" part isn't quite right - it appears before the mention of the band recording in Iceland. — sparklism hey! 08:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Addressed now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I've had another look at this one:
*Smith is described as "Fall frontman Mark E. Smith" in the lead, but simply as "Smith" in the first mention of him in the main body of the article - I think he needs 'introducing' properly here
By linking again? I disagree 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you've had a go at this :) — sparklism hey! 07:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
*"According to critic John Doran this unease s