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 prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Bootham Crescent[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Bootham Crescent has been the home ground of York City Football Club since 1932, and is expected to be knocked down in two years time, when the club moves to an out-of-town multi-purpose stadium. The article has held GA status since January 2008, and forms part of the York City F.C. featured topic. I have worked on getting the article up to the required standard, and believe it now meets the criteria. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Image review

  • Infographic could stand to be larger
Expanded. LittleJerry (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Field_Museum_Apatosaurus_mount,_1909.jpg: when/where was this first published?
Removed. Seems to high quality to be from 1909. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The source is the Field museums own Flickr page[1], so shouldn't be a problem. But we do have a newer photo of the mount:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Dinosaur_National_Monument_quarry_map.png: has this permission been recorded via OTRS? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The owner of the blog got permission, see under the permission field, and in the source link. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Carpenter has reponded on Commons:[3] Seems it would have to be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): JAGUAR  20:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC) and ♦ Dr. Blofeld

After a complete overhaul of the sources by me, We hope and Dr. Blofeld, and with all of the source checks clarified on Bentworth's talk page, I believe that this once again meets the FA criteria. Significant additions/reductions include the removal of the poorly sourced climate paragraph (arguments for this raises the question of whether a village needs its own climate section, but surprisingly this was the only article in the region to have its own climate information), removal of all other unsourced or missing information, an entire re-work of the sources with the addition of harv-style references and a bibliography section, and finally various tweaks of most of the prose so that now the article is 100% reliant on its sources.

This article gained seven supports in its last FAC, and I'm confident that the quality of the prose remains at the optimal level. If anyone has any comments regarding the new changes, I'll be happy to address them. If not, I hope you find the new changes to your satisfaction. JAGUAR  20:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Really just a drive-by observation at this time, but there are some problems with the referencing. There are quite a few references that point to Bibliography entries which do not exist, and vice versa. Some of them may be easily corrected, but some I'm at a loss about, especially the "Page 1011" reference (#43). Grab one of the tools that highlights harvref errors and you'll quickly see what I mean. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Squeamish Ossifrage. I've deleted ref 43 and replaced it with the existing ref for Burkham House. No idea what happened there - it was fine before the conversions made to harvrefs. Which tool did you mean? I'm going to go over them manually first but it would be useful for automated help. JAGUAR  19:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The one I use involves dropping "importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');" in your common.js. There may be others. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I know that this article had a troubled history with sourcing. There's certainly a lot of reference-formatting problems remaining, many of which arise from trusting the Google Books capsule description of older works and bound journal collections. I won't say those are always wrong, but ... okay, I will. They're always wrong.

  • In general, books that weren't assingned IsBNs should have OCLC numbers (or some suitably equivalent identifier). In some cases, determining which version was consulted (and, thus, which OCLC number is correct) may be challenging.
  • Consider moving volume numbers of multivolume works to |volume.
  • The A & C Black source is so incomplete as to be imprecise. The Google Books link is, as many are for older works, significantly defective. There are a bunch of these Who Was Who books for different time periods, several of which were published in 1967. Among other problems, this makes identifying the OCLC number impossible.
  • The Bigg-Wither source is a mess. It's cited as a self-published 1907 work (with an incomplete author name, I suspect), but linked to a 2007 self-publsihed work on Google Books. In any case, I can't determine precisely what material it's being used to support; there may be WP:SPS problems here. If you're actually using the 2007 work, it has a listed ISBN; if you're using the 1907 archival material, then there are other issues (wrong link, wrong title format, etc.).
  • You appear to be citing 1858 and 1925 editions of Burke? Is some information not included in the newer source?
  • I'm not sure the "Bentworth Historical data" source is titled properly. Is there any more bibliographical information available? I couldn't find the link to it from the Hampshire County Council page. In any case, many of their resources are authored by "Hampshire County Council" and not "County of Hampshire", which will need confirmation.
  • The source credited to Jenny French is not listed correctly. First, based on examination of the source, I believe the title should be styled "Bentworth Parish Plan 2008". Second, French is not the sole author; "This document was researched, written, and prepared on behalf of Bentworth Parish Council by an appointed sub-committee comprising: Jenny French..., Colin Brooks, Tony Loch, 'Fred' Moir, Carole Barlow, Debbie Rhodes, Dave Robinson". Similarly, I think that suggests the publisher should be "Bentworth Parish Council", rather than Bentworth Civil Parish, although my lack of understanding of local UK governance may be a barrier here.
  • I suspect that Galfridius needs to be in title case, and Sumptibus capitalized.
  • I believe Who's Who in British Finance was assigned an ISBN; I'm less certain about the author attribution here.
  • The Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society source has insufficent (and incorrect) bibliographical information. Google Books is not trustworthy for older works. This should be citing:
Shore, T. W. (1905). "Bentworth and its Historical Associations". Papers and Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 4: 1–15. 
  • The Transactions source is incompletely cited. It doesn't help that the scan of this one is incomplete. However, page iii still includes the full table of contents, permitting:
Smith, F. J. (1899). "The Working of the Light Railways Act, 1896". Transactions 31: 263–310. 

I probably missed some things, as I was skimming after midway through. I did not examine the sources in the References section, only the Bibliography at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by SagaciousPhil[edit]

Like Squeamish Ossifrage above, this is a bit of a drive-by rather than an in-depth review at present. I have fixed a DAB for Valentinian (please check this is correct). I have also attempted quick fixes to some of the cite ref errors he mentions above; there are still some remaining. To address these I would suggest that refs to, for instance, "County of Hampshire" (currently ref # 7), "Government of Hampshire" (ref # 11) and others like it are re-formatted as the problem is caused because no author name is available. Likewise the ref to "A & C Black" needs to be re-formatted as A & C Black are the publishers? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your fixes and comments, SagaciousPhil! The dab for Valentinian is correct. I would prefer "County of Hampshire" over "government" as I've never heard of the latter before, so I've changed that in both the bibliography and its refs. A & C Black is an old publisher, like a lot of the refs in this article, some are missing authors because the books are so old. JAGUAR  19:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • If alt text is used it should follow WP:ALT
  • Done in the previous FAC JAGUAR  19:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Not quite - you have the alts in place but they could use improvement. For example, you've got some alts that are pretty much the same as the caption, which is discouraged by ALT. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Bentworth_Telegraph_office_c_1905.JPG: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Bentworth_-_Ivalls_cott_from_the_Star_1900.jpg
  • File:Bentworth_CP_2012b.jpg: what is the source for this image?
  • Added JAGUAR  19:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Bentworth_Hall_about_1905.jpg: any more details on the source?
  • File:GCIves.jpg: if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Support - The article looks in much better shape than its previous FAC and I must commend yourself, Dr. Blofeld and We hope for the efforts in overhauling the article by checking all the sources for which I had great interesting of watching over. Only one minor issue that I found while reading the article:

  • Manor and Hall sub-section: "As of 2010, the lodge originally at the entrance to Bentworth Hall is no longer considered part of the property." It this still the case as of 2015?
  • I also found no dead links in the references section. Z105space (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We're trying to (eventually) get all the constellations up to Featured Status. So far 25 have attained FA status in the past 3 years or so. Here is number 26. It's had an astronomer take a look at it, and I have been mindful of suggestions he's had for the past few nominations so hopefully there are fewer issues each time. I promise to address issues promptly, cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Tyrone Garland[edit]

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

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

Comments by Jaguar[edit]

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

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

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

Satoru Iwata[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A brilliant man who needs no introduction in the gaming world, Satoru Iwata is widely regarded as one of the main (if not, the main) people who brought video games to the general public en masse. His background as a programmer gave him invaluable knowledge that propelled him to the top of the world's largest game company by the age of 42. His name became synonymous with Nintendo as he frequently appeared in the Iwata Asks and Nintendo Direct series or on social media to bring information "directly to you". During his 15 years at Nintendo (13 as president), Iwata turned the struggling company around and propelled it to incredible heights by pushing for more accessible gaming. This included production and release of blockbuster consoles such as the Nintendo DS and Wii, both of which are among the best-selling video game consoles. His tragic death at the age of 55 shook the entire gaming community and is seen as a tremendous loss for the industry. Iwata is beloved for his cheerful, humorous, and inquisitive personality as well as passion to produce quality video games for everyone.

It's been an absolute pleasure to write and improve this article over the past month and a half since Iwata's passing. I believe this to be the most comprehensive account of his life's work around. It goes without saying that as the years go by, more information about Iwata's life will emerge and when the time comes I will be more than happy to include such information. This was my time writing first biographic article so I have some uncertainties over how I've put it together, but I hope you all enjoy reading (and critiquing) this as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to help Cyclonebiskit with any issues that might come up since I helped improved this at news of his death. Cyclone's improves have been very good. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments From Indrian

This is a very good article, but I don't think its quite there yet. It may be possible to whip it into shape during the nomination period, but it will take a little work. Right now the biggest source hole is Nintendo Magic: Winning the Video Game Wars which was written by a Japanese analyst and translated into English. This book contains interviews with Iwata, Miyamoto, Takeda, and even Hiroshi Yamauchi and provides additional background on Iwata and the creation of the DS and the Wii. Without incorporating this high quality source, the article cannot pass well-researched criteria. A few more specific thoughts:

  • "where his father was a municipal mayor" Iwata's father was a civil servant all his life, but he only became a mayor when Iwata was already in college.
  • More info on his early programming exploits would be nice. This translated book excerpt at Shmuplations gives more information on Iwata's first encounter with computers, and Nintendo Magic provides more detail on his calculator games.
  • Nintendo Magic also clarifies his early HAL involvement a little bit. The company was actually established as a hardware company, and Iwata was their only software guy in the beginning. He fell in with the HAL crowd because he would bring his programs in to a local department store to show them off.
  • "Iwata's heavy involvement in the development with Kirby's Dream Land is credited as one of the main reasons that the series was able to take off." This is overreach. The source only says that he was heavily involved in creating the first game and that it may not have been finished without him. It does not credit his input with being crucial to the success of the game or the launch of the series. According to Nintendo Magic Miyamoto deserves as much credit as anyone because he told HAL the originally planned game -- which did not star Kirby and was going to be published through HAL -- could be much better and not only gave them more time to finish it, but decided to have Nintendo publish it to give it a higher profile.
  • "Martin Robinson suggests that Yamauchi saw similar traits in Iwata that he did in Gunpei Yokoi, who brought Nintendo into the video game market" This claim in the source is not really supported by evidence. At this stage in his career, Iwata was not creating the kind of "games for everyone" products that typified his early tenure as president of Nintendo, nor was he involved in hardware products created with the "lateral thinking" philosophy that Yokoi employed to create the Game & Watch and Nintendo later used to create the Wii. According to Nintendo Magic, the shift to "games for everyone" occurred at Nintendo in the early 2000s due to the sharp decline in the Japanese video game market in the late 1990s. Also, in Nintendo Magic Yamauchi said that he chose Iwata as his successor because he was a "software person," i.e. someone who understood that technology only got you so far and game experiences were more important. As Iwata was the only founding member of HAL that was software rather than hardware focused, this probably accounts for why Yamauchi insisted on his appointment as HAL president as well. The statement by Robinson comparing Iwata to Yokoi is a narrative convention to make his story more interesting rather than an actual scholarly argument.
  • So, a few things about Iwata's promotion to President. First, he did not have the same amount of power as his predecessor. Yamauchi basically was Nintendo and behaved autocratically according to most accounts, which is contrary to the typical Japanese consensus management style. When Iwata became president, the company also raised four other executives to the title of representative director and created an executive committe. Miyamoto and Takeda were both on this committee and assumed greater power over software and hardware development respectively, and there were a couple of more financially and business oriented guys. Sources for this should be readily available online. Second, there should be more info about how he changed the company culture by engaging with employees at all levels of the company. Iwata Asks was part of that, but he also encouraged employees of all levels to submit creative ideas, again very atypical in Japan, and tried to encourage cross-pollination between departments. Nintendo Magic goes into all of that. Finally, the Miyamoto quote about stuffiness and ventilation originally comes from Nintendo Magic, so it should really be sourced there rather than to the Firestone book.
  • "At the time of Iwata's promotion, Nintendo was not performing as well as other console makers" I think this lacks a little nuance. Nintendo was a profitable company during this entire period because they owned handheld, were able to make a small profit on each Gamecube sold, and made a mint on Gamecube software sales. Obviously, however, they lagged way behind Sony in hardware sales and were edged out by Mircosoft as well (a more devastating defeat in the West than it appears based on raw numbers alone since Microsoft managed to outsell them while selling essentially nothing in Japan). Nintendo performed well financially, but lacked console marketshare. There is nothing technically wrong with your statement; I just worry about painting a picture of a company in deep trouble when it was highly profitable.
  • I think the article may over credit Iwata for the DS. It was Yamauchi that wanted two screens and Miyamoto that came up with the touch screen concept. Also, while it is fair to say that Iwata played a key role in leading the company towards "games for everyone," less intimidating control schemes, and ignoring the technological arms race, Nintendo Magic emphasizes that these strategies were developed in collaboration and the groundwork was laid before Iwata was president (though after he was already active in corporate planning). On the other hand, there is no mention at all about the DSi, which was built around the concept of "one system for every person" as a way to grow the DS market after it appeared to be saturated due to nearly every household in Japan owning one. This strategy appears to have originated from Iwata.
  • Again, the article slightly overstates Iwata's influence on the Wii. Once again, there is no doubt that his leadership at the top influenced the overall strategy of a less intimidating console that did not try to achieve cutting edge grahpics, but reading both Nintendo Magic and various Iwata Asks interviews it was Takeda and Miyamoto that shaped most of its key features, including motion control. Iwata set the tone, but the success of the system was due to the creative talent.
  • The 2010-2015 section is lacking in size and scope. The earlier sections are quick to credit Iwata for success with the Wii and the DS, but this section does not discuss his role in Nintendo's failures. There have been heaps of criticism written about Nintendo's "walled garden" online strategy, its refusal to consider the lucrative mobile market, the strange focus Iwata placed from time to time on "lifestyle" games and accessories that never went anywhere, and the company's failure to adapt quickly to the greater demands of HD development. With the Wii and DS, Nintendo placed itself at the head of the casual market, but it misread that market with the 3DS and Wii U, which led to the first losses at the company in thirty years. This should not be glossed over.

That's all for now. I know its a lot, but I really do feel the article is on the right track. Good luck! Indrian (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Indrian! Once I have Nintendo Magic at my disposal I'll start cracking on the related comments. Should be able to look into the "walled garden" aspect you mentioned sooner, though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Indrian: – If you have any suggestions as to which of the Iwata Asks interviews to look through I'd greatly appreciate it (with over 200 of them, reading through them all with a fine-toothed comb would be overwhelming). Already compiled multiple references to add more information to the 2010–15 section and still going...honestly, I'm a bit embarrassed that I overlooked this much information. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit:Wow, this is really coming along! If you can source a copy of Nintendo Magic, I am fairly confident we can get this whipped into shape. As for Iwata Asks, its been too long since I've read most of them to know exactly which may have the best info pertaining to Iwata himself. I would definitely check out any related to hardware products though, because that is where the general company philosophy stuff tends to shine through. As I stated before, I get the sense he was particularly involved with formulating the strategy for the DSi. I look forward to your continued progress. Indrian (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment—sorry to overwhelm you, Cyclonebiskit, but I feel one other thing that the article is missing is a conclusive Influence or Legacy section to end the article. Concluding by talking about Iwata's death makes chronological sense, but it leaves you without an overall afterthought about how his life impacted the video game industry. Even if short, a section discussing this would touch off the article very nicely. Are there any sources that cover Iwata's overall importance and influence in the world (eg. posthumous honours, comments from biographers, game critics, or even criticism about his overall involvement in Nintendo, etc.) that could be compiled to compose this section? The Wikipedian Penguin 20:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There are some bits here and there within the article already that can be reworked into a section like that, yeah. Probably can pull together a paragraph or two. The scope might be relatively limited, and as I've seen some reports say, we likely won't understand the full scale of his influence for several years. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point, the information will come with time, yes. But even, as you say, a paragraph or two would go a long way toward giving the article that final touch. The Wikipedian Penguin 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Wikipedian Penguin: – Gave the section an initial go: Satoru Iwata#Influence and legacy. Is this the gist of what was needed? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
This is definitely what you should be aiming for, content-wise. I'd bring the tone down a little, as in certain parts, it sounds like a eulogy. I think the quote is unnecessary and I'd pay particular attention to avoiding weasel words. Some expressions such as "pushing" unconventional ideas, "whole new" genre and "break down a wall" are somewhat journalistic and promotional and should be redrawn. And if there was criticism of Iwata to balance the section out, do consider including it. Overall, this is just what is needed to finish the article. The Wikipedian Penguin 01:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! Still trying to get used to writing in a different style...hurricanes seldom have POV issues (mostly just factual type writing) so it's not an area I'm familiar with handling. As for the quote, I felt it was an appropriate addition to bounce off his "legacy" by emphasizing his view on video games which shaped his entire career. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It was brave of you to venture from hurricane articles into this, so well done! Once the updating is complete, I'd be glad to give the article another go, a Nintendo fan myself. The Wikipedian Penguin 12:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Commenting on images (as I am involved with the article), I will point out the following:
As such, I'm not seeing any immediate issues with the images but again, I'm involved and a second check would help. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a World War II half-track that was a self-propelled gun. It was designed as an interim vehicle until a better one with tracks came out. It served through the war in the European a possibly the Pacific theaters. It later served with the French during the First Indochina War. I believe this should be featured because it is a comprehensive article on the subjects and meets all criteria. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In Our Time (short story collection)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

Both. I've clarified by porting in Reynold's full quote, which conveys it better than I can. Thanks for the help on the lead, the copyedits, and the leaning support. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Have spent another two hours reading, on top of watching this dev. Support - Comprehensive, highest standards of sourcing,and given the particular writer - economically written. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

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

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

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

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

Oviri (Gauguin)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Modernist, C1cada

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

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

Driveby comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

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

Image review

  • Per WP:IMGSIZE, should generally use image scaling rather than fixed pixel size
  • File:Agostini_-_Tahiti,_plate_page_0080.png needs a US PD tag
  • File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Oviri_-_Watercolor_monotype_F_30.jpg: if I'm reading the history correctly this was first exhibited in 1945 - how does the current tag apply? Was it published prior to that? Same with File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Oviri_-_Watercolor_monotype_F_31.jpg
  • File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Soyez_amoureuses_vous_serez_heureses_MFAB_57.582.jpg: need to account for the copyright on the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the U.S. District Court decision on American Indian treaty fishing rights in the state of Washington. Although a lower court decision, it is a landmark case that has been litigated for decades. I think that the article has been improved to feature status. GregJackP Boomer! 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Drip fed and at a snail's pace I'm afraid because of RL.

History of tribal fishing
  • There seems to be a bit of over linking with Great Britain and New York. I would think it reasonable to assume most people visiting the page would've heard of these.
  • "Other treaties with area tribes included the Treaty of Medicine Creek, the Treaty of Point Elliott, the Treaty of Neah Bay, and the Treaty of Point No Point. All of the treaties had similar language on the rights of the Indians to fish outside of the reservation. While the tribes were willing to part with their land, but all of the tribes insisted on protecting their fishing rights throughout Washington and Oregon." -- Wow, that's a lot of use of the word "treaty". Would it not be better to pipe the links which would make for some smoother reading?
Post-treaty history
  • "The whites also began to use new techniques that prevented the majority of the salmon from reaching the tribal fishing areas." -- we use "majority" which would suggest we would know to the dot how many fish there were; do we? If not, maybe use "a lot" or an intensifier of some kind.
  • "In 1889, when Washington Territory, became a state, the legislature began to pass "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries." -- we wrap the "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries" in inverted commas, but omit to say who said this or who we are quoting?
  • "Within ten years, another case arose, this one dealing with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location." → "Within ten years, another case arose, which dealt with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location."
  • "These wheels prevented any significant number of salmon to pass the location." → "The wheels prevented a significant number of salmon to pass the location."
  • As nice as the images are, the text is very much sandwiched between the two. Can one be moved beneath the other?
  • "The local U.S. Attorney then filed suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe." → "The local U.S. Attorney then filed a suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe."
State attempts to regulate Indian fishing
  • "The United States immediately filed for a writ of habeas corpus" → We've said it was the Supreme Court now, so I'd stick to that rather than use "Untied States".
  • "Justice William Douglas delivered the opinion which said that the treaty did not prevent state..." If it's "the opinion", whose opinion was it? I'd say: "Justice William Douglas delivered his opinion that the treaty did not prevent state..."
  • "Again, Justice Douglas wrote the opinion..." → Was it usual to write an opinion rather than give it? Also, "the". Whose opinion?
U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
  • "...the states continued to arrest Indians for violations of state law... ." The states being United States? I would think a capitalisation is needed here if so. Also, seeing as it is a new section, I'd give the full name of the country.

I don't see any further issues; this, despite being a subject I know very little about, was very interesting. CassiantoTalk 18:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

More soonest... CassiantoTalk 18:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to Cassianto[edit]
History of tribal fishing
  • There seems to be a bit of over linking with Great Britain and New York. I would think it reasonable to assume most people visiting the page would've heard of these.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Other treaties with area tribes included the Treaty of Medicine Creek, the Treaty of Point Elliott, the Treaty of Neah Bay, and the Treaty of Point No Point. All of the treaties had similar language on the rights of the Indians to fish outside of the reservation. While the tribes were willing to part with their land, but all of the tribes insisted on protecting their fishing rights throughout Washington and Oregon." -- Wow, that's a lot of use of the word "treaty". Would it not be better to pipe the links which would make for some smoother reading?
Done. Reworded, but take a look please, sometimes I don't get it right on reworking it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Much better, but I removed the definite articles which, I hope you agree, reads better. --CassiantoTalk 18:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. GregJackP Boomer! 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Post-treaty history
  • "The whites also began to use new techniques that prevented the majority of the salmon from reaching the tribal fishing areas." -- we use "majority" which would suggest we would know to the dot how many fish there were; do we? If not, maybe use "a lot" or an intensifier of some kind.
Done. Added parenthetical quote to cite. GregJackP Boomer! 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1889, when Washington Territory, became a state, the legislature began to pass "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries." -- we wrap the "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries" in inverted commas, but omit to say who said this or who we are quoting?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Within ten years, another case arose, this one dealing with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location." → "Within ten years, another case arose, which dealt with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "These wheels prevented any significant number of salmon to pass the location." → "The wheels prevented a significant number of salmon to pass the location."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As nice as the images are, the text is very much sandwiched between the two. Can one be moved beneath the other?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The local U.S. Attorney then filed suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe." → "The local U.S. Attorney then filed a suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
State attempts to regulate Indian fishing
  • "The United States immediately filed for a writ of habeas corpus" → We've said it was the Supreme Court now, so I'd stick to that rather than use "Untied States".
Not done. The United States government, as a party to the litigation, filed for the habeas. Clarified the language some, but left it as United States. GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Justice William Douglas delivered the opinion which said that the treaty did not prevent state..." If it's "the opinion", whose opinion was it? I'd say: "Justice William Douglas delivered his opinion that the treaty did not prevent state..."
Not done. "Opinion" is a term of art, meaning the opinion of the Court as a whole. Clarified. GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Clarification is better, thanks. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Again, Justice Douglas wrote the opinion..." → Was it usual to write an opinion rather than give it? Also, "the". Whose opinion?
Clarified as the Court's opinion. GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
  • "...the states continued to arrest Indians for violations of state law... ." The states being United States? I would think a capitalisation is needed here if so. Also, seeing as it is a new section, I'd give the full name of the country.
No, the states being Oregon and Washington. Clarified. GregJackP Boomer! 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, I think that addresses all of your issues. Thank you for reviewing the article and let me know if I missed something. GregJackP Boomer! 15:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Support nomination to FA. Counter arguments are satisfactory and not enough to oppose. A nice article. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ceradon[edit]

I'll review this, but likely not before tomorrow. --ceradon 20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • "On July 2, 1979, the Supreme Court largely endorsed the decision in Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, which was a collateral attack on the decision." -- I have no idea what this is meant to say. It seems a bit contradictory. Could you clarify please?
Done, wikilinked collateral attack, explanatory footnote added, reworded prose. GregJackP Boomer! 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
History of tribal fishing
  • The tensage in this section alternates quite freely. "The American Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest have long depended" -- "have" or "had"; "which allowed" -- "allowed" or "allows" (if it is "allows" the rest of the sentence would also need tweaking); "The salmon harvest for the Columbia River basin is estimated" -- "is estimated" or "was estimated"; "not only provided" -- "provided" or "provides"? See if I missed any.
Done, fixed, I think. GregJackP Boomer! 18:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
United States v. Taylor
  • "Frank Taylor" -- who is Frank Taylor? Preferably, something more than just "plaintiff" or "defendant".
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "in common with" as the United States described it to the Tribes" -- I don't quite understand this. If "as the United States described it" is an appositive phrase, than I should be able to remove in with the remaining parts of the sentence making sense, but: "in common with" to the Tribes" makes no sense. Am I missing an important legal term or am I just way off. Please clarify.
Done. Wikilinked to tenancy in common section of Concurrent estate article, added explanatory footnote.GregJackP Boomer! 18:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Direct appeals
  • I moved fn 76 to the end of the sentence rather than leave it mid-sentence, with no cite at the end of the sentence. See if this is okay.
OK with me. GregJackP Boomer! 18:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Public response
  • "The decision caused an immediate reaction from the public." -- this is quite vague and could be tidied up, methinks. Was the immediate reaction positive or negative? Does "the public" constitute only citizens of Washington, or the entire country?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Tribal developments
  • "but within ten years (1984)" -- I think this is unneededly repetitive. I think either: "but by 1984" or "but within ten years" should do.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@GregJackP: would love to support this once the above are addressed. This should make a fine FA. One thing though, the MOS requires logical quotation punctuation, rather than American or British punctuation, to be used, in quotes. I corrected a few instances, but I think another search for ," and ." should be done to make sure none have slipped through. Cheers! --ceradon 02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ceradon, I think everything has been addressed. Let me know if I missed something. I appreciate the review. GregJackP Boomer! 18:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support promotion. My concerns have been addressed. Good work, Cassianto. --ceradon 22:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Sportsguy17[edit]

Same thing as Ceradon, but hopefully, I should be able to review this starting tomorrow. Sportsguy17 (TC) 03:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Notecardforfree[edit]

Overall, this is an excellent article! I have no doubt that it is well on its way to achieving FA status. I went ahead and made a few copy edits to the article, and I have included some comments and suggestions here, most of which are fairly minor:

Citations to Case Names
  • Starting with the section for Tulee v. Washington, you include a footnote after the first mention of a case’s name in the article text. However, you don’t do this earlier in the article. In the section for United States v. Winans, for example, you write “another case arose, which dealt with . . .” and you don’t include a full citation after the comma. I would be consistent and always include a full citation to the case after the first mention of it in the article, even if you just call the case “another case” or if you write “the United States sued again.” I believe the Bluebook convention is to always include a full citation to a case name after it is first mentioned, so I would be sure to do that here as well.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You write, “cases provided the Indians a right of easement through private property . . . .” In property law, we usually just say “provided an easement” rather than “provided a right of easement.” Therefore, I would change the sentence to say something like: “cases provided the Indians an easement through private property . . . .” or “cases provided the Indians a right of access through private property . . . .”
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I would increase the size of images in this article (it looks like they are all set as “thumbs” right now). It is particularly difficult to discern the detail in the map of Washington State in the beginning of the article. MOS:IMAGES says that "Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart) may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable." Some of the other images (e.g. the picture of the fish wheel) have details that could be identified more easily if the pictures were larger.
Done. Increased to 300px. GregJackP Boomer! 21:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks – the pictures look great! How would you feel about making the map of Washington a little bigger? I don't have the best eyesight, but it's hard for me to make out the details in the map. But you have definitely done a great job finding images that give the reader a good feel for the issued involved in the case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Post-treaty history
  • You write, “as more and more white settlers came into the area, things began to change.” The phrase “things began to change” strikes me as a bit vague. Maybe you can say something like: “as more and more white settlers came into the area, the settlers began to infringe upon the fishing rights of the native tribes.”
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 22:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Tulee v. Washington
  • When discussing the writ of habeas corpus, you said it was denied “on procedural grounds until Tulee had been tried in state court and exhausted his appeals.” However, I think it would be more accurate to say the writ was denied “because” (rather than “until”) he did not exhaust his state court remedies.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 22:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The Puyallup cases
  • When you write out the case names in the text of the article, you need to spell out “department” in the case titles. Per BB R10.2, you only use T6 abbreviations in citation sentences or footnotes. Also, for your discussion of the third case (Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington), I added a few details about why the case came about in the first place.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
  • You say the court heard “about fifty witnesses.” Do we know exactly how many? Also, in the section about the holding, can you include one more sentence that describes the formula Judge Boldt used to allocate 43% of the harvest (the “equitable adjustment”)? A reader who is unfamiliar with the opinion will likely be surprised to see the tribes didn’t receive 50% of the harvest.
I don't know exactly how many witnesses were heard and could not find any source that stated the number, other than the vague "about fifty" comment. I could probably find out if I did research on the records, but I'm not really inclined to do so due to time and costs involved. I added an explanatory footnote on the formula. GregJackP Boomer! 21:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. My hope was that the information would be easily accessible, but it's not worth going through so much trouble to find the answer to such an esoteric question. It's fine as it is written now. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Court Supervision
  • You write, “at least one Coast Guardsman was shot.” Should “Coast Guardsman” be capitalized? You also mention the “Boalt decision.” Do you mean the “Boldt” decision? I would also suggest moving the sentences about scholarly reaction to the following section about “public response.”
Done, reworded to "one member of the Coast Guard. . ." Fixed typo, moved sentences. GregJackP Boomer! 21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions or if any of my comments don't make sense. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Addendum -- Coverage of the Ninth Circuit Opinion
  • As other editors have stated, I think this article should include a section about the Ninth Circuit's opinion. At the moment, you mention in the "subsequent developments" section that there was a direct appeal. However, I think that this article should include an additional section devoted to discussing the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I would also recommend changing the infobox at the top of the article to the infobox for Ninth Circuit opinion, because that was the highest court to rule in this case. If you would like help adding a summary of of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, I am happy to offer assistance. Let me know what I can do! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree on the COA infobox. J. Choy's opinion was important, but the important issues were all decided at the district court level, and the case continued to have the district court to issue orders, as late as May 29th (United States v. Washington, No. C70-9213, Subproceding 89-3-09, 2015 WL 3451316 (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2015). The key in this case was the initial decision by J. Boldt, IMO. I'm willing to go with consensus of course. (I've put a copy of the COA infobox on the talkpage here). GregJackP Boomer! 03:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Anythingyouwant[edit]

I cannot recall offhand any other court decision that is named after the judge (as in "Boldt decision"). Does the Ninth Circuit's decision in this case fall within the title of this Wikipedia article but not within the term "Boldt decision"? See 520 F.2d at 693. If so, then I question whether "Boldt decision" should be in bold. If not, then I question whether it might be better for this article to be about the whole case rather than just the initial trial-stage.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick search of law review articles that cite to this case, and it looks like many scholars refer to the case as "the Boldt decision." See, e.g.:
  • "The tribes were not players until the Boldt decision, and the decisions that followed in its wake." You Win Some, You Lose Some: The Costs and Benefits of Litigation in Fishery Management, 7 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 5, 33 (2001).
  • "In the well known fishing rights litigation commonly known as the 'Boldt decision' (after the U.S. District Judge issuing the initial decision), the District Court for the Western District of Washington held that usual and accustomed fishing places of the tribes signing treaties with the United States in the 1850s were fishing locations where the tribes reserved, and their members currently possessed, the right to take fish." Rob Roy Smith, At a Complex Crossroads: Animal Law in Indian Country, 14 Animal L. 109, 122 (2007).
  • "The famous 'Boldt Decision' of 1974, was a major victory for the treaty tribes of Washington state" Matthew Deisen, State v. Jim: A New Era in Washington's Treatment of the Tribes?, 38 Am. Indian L. Rev. 101, 120 (2013-2014).
The Ninth Circuit also mentioned that the case is "commonly referred to as the "Boldt" decision." Anderson v. Evans, 371 F.3d 475, 499 (9th Cir. 2004). I do think, however, that the article should focus more on the appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Also, it might be worth including a reference in the lead to some of the sources that "commonly refer" to the case as the "Boldt decision." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:Scope, "limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible. Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are to be avoided." So I think this article should be about the whole case, not just the lowest court decision in the case. The cite to the Ninth Circuit decision ought to be right up there in the lead sentence.
Reliable sources often refer to "Kepler's Second Law" but there is not a separate Wikipedia article on that subject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant, I agree that the Ninth Circuit's opinion deserves a more prominent place in this article. In fact, in my most recent comments (above), I suggested changing the infobox to the Ninth Circuit's infobox. Nevertheless, it appears that scholars refer to case (and it's subsequent appeal) as the "Boldt decision." Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the the Ninth Circuit affirmed the "Boldt decision," but I don't there is anything wrong with referring to the case as the "Boldt decision" in the lead. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't object to saying in the lead that the trial court decision is often called the "Boldt decision". But I don't think it should be in bold, because the article ought to be about the whole case, not just about the part of the case at the trial court.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Part of the reason it is bolded is that the article focuses on primarily on the trial level decision, which is where the landmark part of the matter lies. As of Sept. 4, 2015, Westlaw shows a history of 143 decisions in this case, the latest on May 29, 2015. Almost all of those were at the district court level. Almost none of the law reviews focus on the appellate decisions, while they all mention those, they inevitably focus on the actions in J. Boldt's court. This is one of the very few decisions where the district court ruling was much more important than the appellate court rulings, IMO. I will, of course, go with what the consensus decides. GregJackP Boomer! 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "Westlaw shows a history of 143 decisions in this case". You mean that the district court decision was cited in over a hundred other cases? That would not change the fact that this case included both a district court decision and an appeals court decision. Having the scope of this article cover both does not imply that one was more important than the other. Instead, it simply ensures that this Wikipedia article has a broad scope rather than a narrow scope. Feel free to say in the lead that other court cases have cited the district court decision in this case more than the appeals court decision in this case, if in fact that is true and supported by reliable sources. Is it true?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I strongly support changing the infobox at the top of the article to the infobox for Ninth Circuit opinion, because that was the highest court to rule in this case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
There are 143 reported decisions in this one case, according to Westlaw. The original case (384 F.Supp. 312) has been cited by other cases, journals, etc., 979 times. The 143 reported decisions in this one matter is due to the on-going nature of the dispute and the fact that the state of Washington has not been able or willing to fully comply with the court's orders. It is sort of like how the desegregation cases in the south have lasted for decades. The latest decision, on clams, still uses the original cause number.
I'm very aware that the Ninth Circuit was the highest court to rule on this on direct appeal, but their opinion is not cited as often as the district court decision (only 804 times), and is almost always cited as a sidenote, like the SCOTUS declination of cert. in the case.
The notability, where the attention of the sources focus is on the District Court decision, not the COA. Like I said, I'll go with consensus, but this is really the exception to the rule that the important decision is at the COA, not the Dist. Ct. GregJackP Boomer! 04:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Atsme[edit]

The article is well on its way to meeting FA criteria with the adjustments mentioned above and a few more tweaks here and there.

The 3rd para in the lead is a bit confusing: On July 2, 1979, the Supreme Court largely endorsed the decision in Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, which was a collateral attack on the decision. What was the decision? What was a collateral attack and on what decision?
Done. Explanatory footnote added, wikilinked, and reworded. GregJackP Boomer! 03:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The section on the post treaty history could use a bit more information. There actually were conservation efforts in place by the late 1870s prior to Washington achieving statehood. See pg 415, [4]. There were seasonal closures and prohibitions for fishing gear that obstructed the upstream spawning migration of salmon. Weirs which were customarily used by Indians were banned. -- Atsme📞📧 04:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Another suggestion - maybe it's just me, but the terminology but as more and more white settlers came into the area, just doesn't seem as encyclopedic as but with the ever increasing movement of white settlers into the area, or possibly as the numbers of white settlers increased exponentially. Atsme📞📧 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Fine article, but some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • right of easement—link at first occurence
  • half of the fish harvest… All of these had similar language—I don't know if it's an AE thing, but I'd omit "of" in these
  • The American Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest have long depended on the salmon harvest, a resource which allowed these tribes to become the wealthiest North American tribes—Three "tribes" in one sentence, and two more in the next two sentences
  • In one of the first of these enforcement cases—either "first" if it is or "one of the earliest" if not
  • such as Sam Williams—"including", not "such as"
  • on the grounds that the state's sovereignty allowed the state to impose —replace second "state" by"it"
  • the states continued to arrest Indians—which states?
  • Gillneters—"Gillnetters"
  • Some, but not all, of your references have the author or title or both in small caps. I don't think this is consistent in your references or in accordance with MOS
  • right of easement—link at first occurence
Done, verbiage changed to right of access (per comments above) and easement linked at (now) only occurrence. GregJackP Boomer! 04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • half of the fish harvest… All of these had similar language—I don't know if it's an AE thing, but I'd omit "of" in these
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The American Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest have long depended on the salmon harvest, a resource which allowed these tribes to become the wealthiest North American tribes—Three "tribes" in one sentence, and two more in the next two sentences
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In one of the first of these enforcement cases—either "first" if it is or "one of the earliest" if not
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • such as Sam Williams—"including", not "such as"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • on the grounds that the state's sovereignty allowed the state to impose —replace second "state" by"it"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • the states continued to arrest Indians—which states?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Gillneters—"Gillnetters"
Can you clarify? I think that this may have been changed before I got to your comment here. GregJackP Boomer! 04:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Some, but not all, of your references have the author or title or both in small caps. I don't think this is consistent in your references or in accordance with MOS
I went back through the refs to double check, all of the book authors are in smallcaps, per Bluebook B1 and R2.1. The authors of journal articles are in normal case, per the same rules. Book titles are smallcaps, as are periodical titles. Article titles are italicized. Smallcaps are allowed per the MOS, see MOS:SMALLCAPS, next to last bullet, which states Certain citation styles (e.g. that of the Linguistic Society of America or Bluebook) require that certain parts of the citation, such as author names in alphabetical reference sections be written in small caps. If an editor has chosen this style, it should be respected per WP:CITEVAR. Do you have any footnotes that I can address specifically? GregJackP Boomer! 03:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Jimfbleak, with the exception of the one question, I think I have addressed all of your concerns. GregJackP Boomer! 04:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally I think Bluebook style is an abomination, but I understand that it is a US legal standard, so I'm happy to endorse this interesting article, changed to support above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 1880[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a presidential election in the United States. By the popular vote, it was the closest in American history, but by the electoral vote (the one that actually determines the election) the Republican, James A. Garfield, was elected by a comfortable majority. The election was the first after the end of Reconstruction, and reflected what would become a pattern in the U.S. for a generation: the Democrats dominating the South, the Republicans holding most of the North, and a few close states (New York, Indiana, and New Jersey, among others) determining victory. Some of the issues, like immigration, continue to be debated in our own time. Others, like the tariff and the gold standard, have faded from the political scene. I hope you'll find it interesting. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I am a Wikicup competitor, but will probably be eliminated by August 31, so this article is not likely to matter in that competition. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just want to say, I'm waiting this for so long... Only thing is 1880 Republican National Convention is not as good as 1880 Democratic National Convention & 1880 Greenback National Convention (I don't think that one could pass FA today), or else I think this could be another FT. Only one suggestion: I think section "Conventions" should had some short summary first, then goes to sub-section "Republicans", "Democrats", "Others", something like "...each party choose their candidate by national convention...", also the same as "Campaign". Just a thought.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! That's a good idea, I'll work on some language for that introduction to the conventions section. You're right about the RNC. I improved some of the references a few months ago, but the prose could still use some help. I hope to get to it before too long. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I went with this: "The parties agreed on their respective platforms and nominees at conventions, which met in the summer before the election." --Coemgenus (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, good work.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • For some reason the title of the last image is appearing in the caption
    • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. I can't reproduce this problem on Chrome or Internet Explorer. Does still look that way to you? If it persists, I can replace the image and see if that helps. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Still that way in Firefox; full caption is "File:ARTHUR, Chester A-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg Chester Arthur served as President after Garfield's 1881 assassination." Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • By-county map could stand to be larger
  • What is the source for File:ElectoralCollege1880.svg?
    • I don't know what the original uploader used. He hasn't edited since 2009. Would it be improper to attribute it to some source that does match the data there, even if we don't know that the author used that particular source? The data are widely available. I could source to the National Archives website. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • File:1880DemocraticCampaignPoster.png/File:1880DemocraticCampaignPoster.png: what is the creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't know. I think that tag is the wrong one, anyway. I've swapped it for {{PD-US}}. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Moonraker (novel)[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Moonraker was Ian Fleming's third novel, following Casino Royale and Live and Let Die, the latter of which had not been published at the time he wrote this story. A high-quality cast turned up for PR following a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:MoonRakerFirst.jpg: source link appears to be dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria, now replaced. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Support – I was among the peer reviewers, and found very little to quibble about then, and am having even more trouble finding anything now, but here's one: the pictures could do with Alt-text. Perhaps the repetition of "British" in the first line could be avoided by changing "the British author" to "the English author". That's all I can offer. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view. This is shaping up into a formidable series of top-notch articles on the Bond canon. Tim riley talk 10:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim. Your thoughts and comments are much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Support: SchroCat, this article exceeds Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and it is well-researched and well-written overall. I really had to dig deep and grasp at straws to find comments for improvement. With that said, I only had suggestions to offer outside the criteria for Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • May thanks, West Virginian! Your thoughts are very welcome, and much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support -- with just one comment:
  • "Drax was physically abnormal—as many of Bond's later adversaries were[37]—and is..." -- Would it be usual for the citation to come after the punctuation? I honestly am not sure about this because "Drax was physically abnormal—as many of Bond's later adversaries were—[37] and is..." doesn't look quite right either! CassiantoTalk 17:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comments re prose. From the lead
bearing a cover based on Fleming's own concept - bearing is officious; "concept" of what?
  • its a good word, and not officious, but it's a moot point as you've tweaked the wording on this. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Uniquely for a Bond novel, the story is set entirely in Britain. - no explanation
  • An explanation isn't really needed here (mostly because it's pretty self-explanatory), but there is enough to cover the lead, with the remaining detail in the body. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
caught cheating - CC - alliteration
  • Not particularly: for true alliteration it needs to be a first syllable homophone, whereas here the initial sounds of the words are distinctly different. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
destroying London with a nuclear weapon - coy
  • I'm not sure what's coy about that, but it's a moot point as you've tweaked the wording on this. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Suddenly "South African radio in 1956" which is not lead worthy. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It was the first adaptation, so probably deserves a mention up top. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but If you are going to oppose, you do need to give some explanation: what on earth, for example, is" CC"? I also mildly disagree with your edits on the lead so far, and one or two of your comments here, but with such scant justification here, I'm afraid there is little I am prepared to do without you actually explaining the rationale for your opinion. – SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm being perfectly clear; the writing is disjointed and the tone muddled. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to admit Ceoil, I too am puzzled over the briefly written comments. The nominator isn't asking for War and Peace, just a little elaboration. CassiantoTalk 20:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm afraid you're not being at all clear. I have given one clear question for you to explain, but you have refused. I've further questioned the individual points in the hope you can bring some clarity to your thoughts. I'm also going to put back the information you removed from the lead, as I'm not sure your edits were an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
If ye both dont see problems with the passages I have highlighted, then thats the problem, and my oppose stands. Maybe ask for a copyeditor to run through for wording and coheriance. Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
What a shame; I'm an admirer of your work and I expected better. CassiantoTalk 20:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Three experienced editors went through this at PR, and with my writing it works out at about 150 FAs between us. We're not novices at this and not utterly stupid. What I am not, however, is a flaming mind reader! If you do not care to enlighten us with the wisdom of your thoughts, the delegates will take that into account when assessing the article. I'm happy to work with most reviewers, but not those who don't wish to take the rather basic step of explaining specifics. I'll happily work with you to further improve the article, but you do have to explain a little more. – SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think Ceoil's "CC" is meant to indicate that "caught cheating" is an alliteration, though of course it isn't. Ceoil's other comments seem to me inexplicable. I agree with Cassianto that this is disappointing in an editor of whom one has hitherto entertained a good opinion. Tim riley talk 21:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I accept that I'm not being clear and it seams a little cranky and blunt. Thats not fair. Let me read through again, help, and try an articulate the problem I'm seeing - I would like the article to succeed. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That's great - many thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Supporting, given the work since my first reading. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, Ceoil's specific examples are surely confusing, but I see where he is coming from and like most of his edits. (I don't care for paperback release as the third sentence, for example.) Some things I noted:
    • The lead is short, and a bit stuttery. The plot is not summarized so well (at all?) in the lead before we are told that something "was added" to the plot; I am to understand that the first half of the book is about a bridge game. Not sure if that's accurate. The part about being set completely in Britain could be a lead-in to summary of the plot.
  • What don't you think is accurate? - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • the fourth to star Roger Moore although the story for the film was significantly changed from the novel to include excursions into space is rough and "although" is not appropriate
  • It was smoother in the original version, and "although" fitted just fine in there. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • the re-emergence of Nazism, Soviet communism and the "threat from within"—this part reads like a list of three things but "the threat from within" is relative to communism, I assume?, so clearer wording would make the connection between the last two obvious. If they aren't related, then my question is "threat from what?".
  • Not just from communism, no: I'll re-work this shortly, but the 'threat from within' is broader than specifically just the Russians. – SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • for information on the Second World War German resistance force, the Werewolves and German V-2 rockets—basically I'd make the same argument here that I made in the previous entry (The Werevolves are the resistance force, or another thing in a list? A comma could solve that.)
    • to discuss the traits of megalomaniacs; Strauss lent him the book Men of Genius, which provided the link between the condition and childhood thumb-sucking—lack of proper referent: megalomaniacs are people, so what does "the condition" strictly refer to
    • Fleming owned a cottage in St Margaret's at Cliffe, near Dover, and he went to great lengths to get details right, including lending his car to his stepson to time the journey from London to Deal for the car chase passage—I don't know how these two things relate to each other. In general, when I see the word "and" I see an opportunity to provide clearer transitions or to rearrange sentences and clauses for clarity
    • and combination of Boodles and the Portland Club—is an article (the, a) missing here?
    • used further aspects of his private life in the shape of his friends—maybe it's dialect difference but "in the shape of" is confusing where I live
    • She gives Bond the proper coordinates to redirect the gyros—"She" is not clear (enough) and in my area "proper coordinates to redirect the gyros" is easier as "[Brand gives Bond] coordinates that will redirect the gyros"
    • The Scotland Yard superintendent, Ronnie Vallance, made up from that of Ronald Howe,—Vallance is made up from something of Howe?
    • This was largely modelled on Fleming's own lifestyle, although the journalist and writer Matthew Parker sees this as showing a sourness in Fleming's character. Again, "although" does not seem to be contrasting anything, and I don't entirely know what that clause means. It sounds interesting but needs unravelling to mean anything to the average reader. "This" is often an opportunity to re-assert what you are referring to. It's not clear in this example, in context.
    • the perceived reserve shown by Brand to Bond was not down to frigidity, but to her engagement to fellow police officer.—"down to" may be another dialect thing? Obviously I can figure out what it means, but it sounds slangy if I assume it's proper English somewhere. "A" fellow police officer?
    • and for the first time in the series he is shown outside a work setting. It is never explained how he received or could afford his membership at Blades—if Blades is the example of M being portrayed outside work, there is an opportunity for smoother transition. For example, M is another character who is more fully realised than in the previous novels. For the first time he is shown outside a work setting, [doing something] at the Blades club. It is never explained how he received or could afford his membership there, ... This change gets rid of the "and"-avoidance theme I mentioned earlier.
    • on M's salary his membership of the club would have been puzzling, given reference in the 1963 book On Her Majesty's Secret Service it is revealed that M's pay as head of the Secret Service is £6,500 a year—this is very unwieldy to me—my only hope of turning it into a sentence is to assume "given" means "given that", but it turns out that doesn't fix anything.
    • a stylistic point—I don't understand. "A technique"?
    • at the end of chapters to heighten tension and pull the reader into the next—"chapters" ought to be singular since "the next" contrasts with "[the previous] chapter"
    • that leads the uncovering of a greater incident—"leads to"?
    • the card game acts an "introduction ..."
    • As with Le Chiffre in Casino Royale and Mr. Big in Live and Let Die, Moonraker involved the idea of the "traitor within".—Here, Moonraker is a story being compared to two characters
    • Directed by Lewis Gilbert and produced by Albert R. Broccoli; —comma instead?
    • and so Bond "becomes something more than a cardboard figure" than he had been in the previous two novels—doesn't scan—more than [the] cardboard figure" that he had been"?

I largely skipped a section a two... I won't revisit my comments here, but I hope feedback is better than just S/O or silence. I wanted to mention the items, some more significant than others, that interfered with my reading experience. Regards, Riggr Mortis (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your thoughts, most of which are minor typos to be corrected. I'll work through these shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I've covered the relevant points here, although if you could clarify what you don't think is accurate in the lead, I'd be grateful. – SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments[edit]

  • the re-emergence of Nazism, Soviet communism - The collocation implies that Soviet communism would re-emerge, when in fact it was still going strong when the book was written
  • Why include "Commander" in the lead?
  • kills Bond and Brand under a landslide, - "kills Bond and Brand under a landslide" doesn't convey to me that the assassin caused a landslide to kill them.
  • is engaged to be married to a fellow Special Branch officer. - Why not just "is betrothed to a fellow Special Branch officer." or "is engaged to a fellow Special Branch officer."
  • the Werewolves - Why the Easter egg? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
All done, bar the last. I'm not sure this is an EE - it goes to the article about the German operation of which Drax was a fictional part. Do you have a suggestion for a better link? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If the common English name is in German, it should probably be in German in the article (Crisco, signed out) (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Im really bad not sure on what would be the right wording on this, as the term is used as such in the primary source, and (I seem to remember, but haven't checked) in the linked article. Ian Rose, as a military expert who knows the Bond series, what would be your thoughts on this? – SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Admiral Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax - That's a really long name, and a really long link. Any way to abbreviate it somewhat?
  • I've taken the title out of the link, which shortens that part. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The name of the Scotland Yard superintendent, Ronnie Vallance, was made up from that of Ronald Howe, the actual assistant commissioner at the Yard, and Vallance Lodge & Co, Fleming's accountants. - Lots, of, commas, and, clauses, making, the, sentence, hard, to, parse.
  • I've swapped some opf the commas for em dashes. I'm having a further ponder on this, as I think I can make it smoother, but my brain is a little slow this morning. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 30 Assault Unit, itself created by Fleming. - Since we're talking about an author here, I wouldn't use "Created", as it can imply a fictional unit. "Formed" or "established" perhaps. Also, I'd rewrite it as "the Fleming-established 30 Assault Unit" or something to avoid the numerous commas.
  • Amis considers that this is - perhaps "Amis considers this to be"
  • reminding readers of a familiar threat in 1950s Britain in the wake of the war. - I get the feeling this could be reworked. Personally I'd drop one of the two time clarifiers (either "in 1950s Britain" or "in the wake of the war")
  • Dibdin agrees, - with whom? The previous statement was a statement of fact
  • Drache - Why italicize if its his name?
  • Standardize whether you use the literary present or past tense in discussing themes ("the character Marc-Ange Draco's surname is Latin for dragon," vs. "Moonraker involved the idea of the "traitor within".")
  • Fleming's friend—and neighbour in Jamaica—Noël Coward considered Moonraker to be the best thing he had written to that point: - could be read as Moonraker being written by Coward
  • thought that "Fleming is one of the most accomplished of thriller-writers", and thought that Moonraker "is as mercilessly readable as all the rest". - thought ... thought
  • Perhaps "The novel was adapted as a daily comic strip that was published in the Daily Express newspaper and syndicated worldwide. The adaptation was written by Henry Gammidge and illustrated by John McLusky, and ran from 30 March to 8 August 1959." can be "The novel was adapted as a comic strip that was published in the Daily Express newspaper and syndicated worldwide. The adaptation was written by Henry Gammidge and illustrated by John McLusky, and ran daily from 30 March to 8 August 1959." to avoid having two "daily"'s in close succession — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Chris. All covered in the second batch. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Chris - as always your comments and thougts are spot on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments, leaning Support: Just a few issues (most of my concerns were addressed in the peer review):

  • Shouldn't the lead include at least a sentence dealing with the book's reception by critics and public? That strikes me as more important than reference to a radio adaptation in S. Africa or to the Daily ShitExpress comic strip.
  • Also in the lead: trivial, but "The plot came about from..." might be better as "The plot is derived from..."
  • Also: "so as to include" could be just "to include"
  • I reworded the stuff around Ronald Howe and Vallance Lodge into what I considered a clearer format, without the distracting mdashes. Check it out, see if you agree.
  • "diastema": I'm not sure whether the correct usage is "a diastema" or simply "diastema"; you use both forms ("a large head and protruding teeth with a diastema" and "Fleming used this information to give Drax diastema..."). I think you need to be consistent.
  • The publication history might be slightly expanded. Do you know the size of the first impression? ABEbooks mentions 9,900, but there may be a better source. You might mention the number of successive editions and reprints to date, which would give an indication of the book's abiding popularity. I note from ABE that Hodder and Stoughton published it in 1989, Panther in 1979, and that there are loads of Penguin editions, none of ehich are mentioned in your summary. Any idea about foreign language editions? I also see that an inscribed first edition is on sale for £55,000, if you've got a bit of spare cash.
  • I've added the 9,900 from a good source, but there are no good sources that deal with the specific publication details of this novel (I could pick a few details from the British Library's catalogue to highlight a few of the editions, if you think it worth it - although I think that level of detail may be better off as a foot note). There is a reference I have been able to use that says it's never been out of print, which I've added, but the sources tend to discuss the series as a whole, rather than individually. This the translations are described as happening for the whole series, and subsequent good sales, but nothing that I can pin down to Moonraker itself. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of the above should present problems (except maybe the £55,000) and I look forward to full support shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Brian, I've addressed your comments, but if you have any further thoughts or suggestions—particularly relating to the publication history information—I'd be very grateful to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I couldn't see the "never out of print" info – did you add it? You could include a sentence along the lines: "Since its inititial publication the book has been issued in numerous hardback and paperback editions, and has never been out of print", citing the first bit to here. Although I would not cite Goodreads as a reliable source for critical comment, it's OK to use it to establish that editions exist – I have used Amazon and ABE in this way in the past. I'll leave this with you – meanwhile I'm upgrading to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • How odd... I made a couple of changes in one edit to that paragraph, but it doesn't seem to have saved. I've added your suggestion, with an extra bit on translations, as the Worldcat reference I've also added shows a few foreign language editions in there too.
Many thanks for your thoughts and comments, both at the PR and here - both are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 61 needs a subscription tag
  • Inconsistencies in providing publisher locations. Mostly you do, but sometimes you don't.

Otherwise, all sources are of approraite quality/reliability and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, Brian. Both points dealt with, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Here's my assessment of the images:

Very well-composed article overall. My only other concern is how all the images are aligned to the right; it would help to alternate the alignments so it seems less repetitive. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Snuggums. The two photos by Allan Warren photos were donated to us by Warren, who gave us a stack of his images a few years ago, all cleared through OTRS at the time, so they are OK. I'll flick a few over to the left to break it up a little, which I'd overlooked before. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Excellent work, seems an extensive review and input has ironed out anything I might have commented on! Only thing is that you might link Ernst Stavro Blofeld fully as it's currently a redirect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Doc - now tweaked. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

St Denys' Church, Sleaford[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for checking this.

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Triumph of Cleopatra[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ iridescent 23:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

William Etty was one of the most influential artists in English history, was responsible for reunifying the British and European artistic traditions which had diverged during the decades-long wars of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and during his lifetime was considered one of the greatest artists of all time. Nowadays he tends only to be remembered as "the gratuitous nudity guy", and The Triumph of Cleopatra is why. Although tame by later standards, it both shocked and fascinated critics when it was first exhibited, and prompted Etty to spend the next 25 years repeating the "historical pretexts for people to mislay their clothes" formula. It's certainly not the most attractive or technically accomplished of artworks, but even 200 years later is surprisingly striking. (For the last century it's been on display at the Lady Lever Art Gallery; astonishingly, given what a cultural and economic powerhouse the place has been, if promoted this will be only the second Merseyside FA not about either Liverpool F.C. or the Beatles.) ‑ iridescent 23:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Brief comment Article looks very nice, though I most likely won't conduct a detailed review because I am in no way familiar with the arts. However, I have noticed that your ISBN numbers need to be hyphened. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Added hyphens since I have no strong opinions either way, but where has this "ISBN numbers need to be hyphened" idea that has recently started doing the rounds come from? This is not and never has been a requirement of anything—clicking through to Special:BookSources strips the hyphens back out again out in any case. ‑ iridescent 09:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure to be honest.... I have been noticing it a lot myself. I have been told to hyphen mine as well in the past, and I have seen a few editors here suggesting others to hyphen them. If it's not a requirement then my comment should be more of a suggestion. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
As a strong proponent of properly-hyphenated ISBNs, I'll weigh in here. Yes, Special:BookSources strips the hyphenation. No, that doesn't make the hyphenation irrelevant. Each grouping of numbers in an ISBN-13 conveys different information: prefix, registration group, registrant/publisher, title, check digit. It's more or less impossible to do this manually, because most of these components don't contain a fixed number of digits. In any case, it's very simple to pass ISBNs through conversion utilities to restore the proper hyphenation; it is not, strictly speaking, a FACR requirement, but there's very little reason not to implement the standard (and for some people, it can actually be useful). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Support and a few very minor comments:

  • Lead
    • I suppose Port Sunlight is near Liverpool as the crow flies, but to us Scousers the Wirral is a far-off country of which we know nothing. It would feel more comfortable as "the Lady Lever Art Gallery, Merseyside".
      • I don't have any particularly strong opinions either way. I went with the "near Liverpool" formulation as something more likely to be understood by non-British readers—thanks to the Beatles and football, many people have at least a vague knowledge of where Liverpool is, whereas Merseyside or Wirral are likely to be fairly meaningless to the typical American, Australian etc reader. (The LLAG obviously don't object to being described as "Liverpool", given the prominent "Liverpool" branding on their website.) ‑ iridescent 20:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they are part of "National Museums Liverpool", and are really pretty close as the Mondeo drives. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Background
    • "under renowned portrait painter Thomas Lawrence" – clunky false title which can be fixed by the insertion of "the" after "under".
      • Changed ‑ iridescent 19:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • "piano manufacturer Thomas Tomkinson" – as above. (Try The New York Times's "good morning" test: if you can't imagine saying "Good morning, piano manufacturer Tomkinson", the title is false.) The construction is passable in tabloid journalese but is better avoided in good formal writing.
      • We've had this conversation before—I personally think that adding "the" makes it look archaic to American readers while not improving comprehensibility for UK readers (nobody is going to be confused into thinking "Piano Manufacturer" was his formal title)
  • Legacy
    • "(about £23,000 in 2015 terms[16])" – the MoS would have us put the reference after the closing bracket.
      • In that case, the MOS should be changed. Moving the citation outside the bracket makes it unclear whether the citation is for the fact within the brackets or for the sentence as a whole. ‑ iridescent 19:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Notes
    • Note F: I see what you're getting at, but it isn't factually correct to say sans phrase that knighthoods "were only bestowed on presidents of major institutions" – generals, MPs, courtiers and other Establishment figures got knighthoods in cartloads. Inserting "for artists" after "knighthoods" and perhaps then dropping the last eight words would do the trick.
      • Clarified. (The sentence in which this footnote appears already included "for artists", which hopefully made it clear anyway.) I do think this footnote needs to be included in some form to make it clear that Etty's lack of formal honours in England wasn't any kind of snub from the authorities. ‑ iridescent 19:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I am happy to support its elevation. – Tim riley talk 13:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The first image does not appear to have relevance to the section. The caption does, but the image itself is not a reference to the caption being used, it is purely decorative to use the image if it is not linked specifically to the caption. The image used is just an example of the artists flesh tone work. Also many of the images interfere with formatting causing the section titles to severely off on my monitor at 1920x1080. I suggest loosing the first image: Male Nude with Staff (1814–16). " and checking placement for formatting.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Up to the usual high standards. No quibbles except another forlorn protest against false titles, which aren't compulsory even in American, and are not part of correct British English. Also I don't like & don't trust taking RPI or CPI back that far - from the same sources 500gn was almost 10x "Average Annual Nominal Earnings" in 1880, which would give an equivalent value today over £200,000, rather than the £47K given. That would be a more realistic figure I think. Unless my mental arithmatic is wrong. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I did think long and hard about whether CPI was an appropriate measure for this series. My thinking was that yes, it is—I see the key element as "did picture sales provide Etty with enough income to eat?", for which I consider CPI the most relevant of the indices. Once I've used CPI for Etty's own sales, it would look jarring to switch to RPI or average earnings for the later resales. The figures are all intentionally rounded to prevent them being too accurate. (I consider Average Nominal Earnings a meaningless measure when it comes to the early 19th century; Britain contained so many apprentices, indentured servants and sharecroppers who were to all practical purposes unpaid, that "average pay" is a meaningless term. The only other way of giving meaningful relative values while avoiding CPI/RPI is to give the price of comparable things—"£100, the cost of a two-bedroomed house in Manchester" or similar.) ‑ iridescent 20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Another excellent article. I do, however, have a very minor nit-pick that does not deter my support. It may just be me but part of the sentence in the Composition section "... images based on drawings Etty had sketched while outside in London ..." just feels a bit odd. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Feel free to reword it. Basically, he'd spent his idle hours wandering around London sketching children playing and tradesmen at work, and rather than spend money on models for the crowd on the dockside just copied some of his previous sketches and coloured them in. ‑ iridescent 20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support With my usual reservation of disliking this style with every bone in my body. Kish is fine for those who can afford it, but this is a lovely treatment that pulls no punches, and has a fine command of the literature. I am impress. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Mortimer Wheeler[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent British archaeologists of the twentieth century, who specialised in Roman Britain and in the archaeology of the Indian subcontinent. He was also an officer in the British Army and saw action in both the First and Second World Wars. The article has previously received GA status and undergone a peer review in January 2015. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM
  • What are "cruiseline lectures"?
    • Lectures for a public audience on a cruiseliner ship. I'm not sure if there's a better wording for this. Perhaps a link would to cruise ship would clarify things a bit ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
      • That would be helpful- "lectures on a cruise ship" may also work. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
        • "cruise ship lectures" ? I worry that "lectures on a cruise ship" is a tad clunky in the context of this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "of A Battery" I'm no military historian, but I'm not clear what this means.
    • "A Battery" was the name of the particular artillery battery he was in charge of but I appreciate that that isn't particularly relevant to the article so I've simply said "an artillery battery" and added a link instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Throughout, he continued a correspondence with his wife, sister, and parents." a correspondence? Also, which sister?
    • I've gone with "maintained a correspondence", which I think reads well. The alternative would be "he corresponded" but somehow I just don't think that that reads so well in this particular sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I've also stated which sister it was. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
      • What's wrong with "maintained correspondence"? I've never heard the phrase "a correspondence" before. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
        • As per Tim Riley's comments below I've changed this to "correspondences". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I was caught out with this the other day, but "Dr." Wheeler is American English- "Dr" is British English.
    • Oh really ? You learn something new every day. I've altered the prose so that it accords with the British English convention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "his own career prospectives" Why "prospectives" and not "prospects"?
  • L.C. Carr or L.H. Carr? Also, would "X. X. Smith" not be better than "X.X. Smith"? Spelling out the names would likely be better still. (See also A.W.G. Lowther, W.F. Grimes (twice)- you already have B. B. Lal and O. G. S. Crawford spaced my preferred way. You may also need to look at the references. Consistency would be good!)
    • I've added the required spacing, and corrected Carr's initials.
  • "In 1934, the Institute of Archaeology was officially opened, albeit at this point it only existed on paper, with no premises or academic staff" This doesn't read well.
    • I've altered the prose here to "In 1934, the Institute of Archaeology was officially opened, albeit at this point it had no premises or academic staff". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I am not sure "albeit" works here. How about simply "though"? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "he was assigned to raise the 48th Light Anti-Aircraft Battery" What does "raise" mean in this context?
    • I've changed "raise" to "assemble"; does this work better ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I assume the mentioned ship is the RMS Empress of Russia- if so, a link would be nice.
  • "Wheeler became very fond of his students, with one of them, B. B. Lal, commenting that "behind the gruff exterior, Sir Mortimer had a very kind and sympathetic heart."" Presumably that's a retrospective comment, seeing as he hadn't been knighted at this point?
  • What is a "stratigraphy"?
  • What is (an) "amphora"?
  • "He had trouble securing paper" As in, bits of tree, or do you mean securing academic papers?
    • The former. Do you think that there is a way of phrasing this in a better manner to make this clear ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is Petrie Medal worth a redlink?
    • I've added it in, although it won't be a disaster if someone decides to remove it at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you certain the name Falzur Rahman is right? A quick Google is not throwing up the name, but he sounds senior...
    • Ah, no there is a spelling error there; it is Fazlur (see here for instance). There doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia article devoted to him so I've added a red link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is Buried Treasure (or the other TV/radio shows) worth a redlink?
    • I've added a redlink to that television show but don't think it worth doing so for the radio shows, which I presume were far less significant in this period. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "that year that he obtained an agent.[206] That year" Repetition
    • I've changed the second sentence there to "Oxford University Press also published two of his books in 1954" Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Swans appointed him as one of their paid directors, being chairman of their Hellenic Cruise division" This doesn't read well
    • I've replaced this with "Swans appointed him to the position of chairman of their Hellenic Cruise division". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "the British School at Ankara, the British School in Iraq, and the British School at Jerusalem" More possible links? Don't be scared of red!
  • "British financial crisis of 1967" Do we have an article on this?
    • Sadly not (or not that I can find). I spent a while looking for such an article when first writing this article but came up with nothing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "His involvement with the international organisation continued for the rest of his life, for in March 1973 he was invited to a UNESCO conference in Paris." I don't follow
    • I've changed this to "His involvement with UNESCO continued for the rest of his life, and in March 1973 he was invited to the organisation's conference in Paris." Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Category:Deaths from stroke? (The category might be deleted, but while it's there...)
    • I'm not entirely sure if it was the stroke that killed him. He had a stroke, and died after, but I am unsure of the specific cause of death, which I'm not sure has been included in his biography. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It'd be nice if we could have a bit more on his foreign policy politics in the personal life section. It seems some of his views were relevant to his military and educational career
    • I would have added more on his general political attitudes had I found them (I found such things particularly interesting). Unfortunately the sources currently available don't really permit me to do so at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the reception section, be aware of MOS:LQ, and you link Piggott, someone already mentioned several times.
    • I've removed the link and standardized the placement of punctuation there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "However, writing in 2011, Moshenska and Schadla-Hall asserted that Wheeler's reputation has not undergone significant revision among archaeologists, but that instead he had come to be remembered as "a cartoonish and slightly eccentric figure" whom they termed "Naughty Morty"." Not undergone revision?

Very readable. Definitely a worthy topic for a FA. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to do a full source review right now, but if you're committed to using the Daily Mail source (and it's hardly of the caliber of your other sources!) you need an accessdate. Also, your Vasudevan source lacks a location. (And, a recurring comment I know, so ignore it if you prefer: I personally don't see the need to list publishers for academic journals. I can't remember ever having seen it outside of Wikipedia.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I've added a location for Vasudevan and an accessdate for the Dail Mail article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit of a long shot, but remember that if you have any images of him which were published before 1923 (plausible, given the fact that he seems to have been a vaguely prominent figure even back then) they will be PD under {{PD-US}}. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Support. After mulling it over, I'm happy to support this article (with the caveat that I may have missed something). Everything looks very strong to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Support from Ssven2[edit]

Great job on the article, Midnightblueowl. Hope to see it as an FA soon. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Sven. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Commments Support from Hchc2009[edit]

  • Close to a support on an interesting character, but a couple of issues from me...
  • "in his personal life he was often criticised for bullying colleagues and sexually harassing young women" - the material in the main body of the article suggests that this wasn't really strictly a "personal" issue but extended to his professional life: he gave attractive women preferential treatment in the workplace, had many one night stands with his students and was allegedly responsible for groping and bullying his work colleagues. I wasn't sure that the "personal" label here or in the section title was really accurate/appropriate.
    • I've removed "in his personal life" from the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "he re-joined the armed forces " - as a specific armed forces (the British Armed Forces), should this be capitalised?
  • "non-religious wedding ceremony" - I wasn't sure if this meant "secular wedding ceremony" or not
    • Yes, it does. Do you think the use of "secular" is better in this context ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Personally, I think it would be clearer, and a more positive way of defining the event. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "University of London Officer Training Corps" - could this be linked to Officers' Training Corps?
  • "The Wheelers' work for the cause of the museum has been seen as part of a wider "cultural-nationalist movement"" - I couldn't work out who the quote was from: could it be attributed in-line?
    • Good point; I have amended the text accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Wheeler had been expecting and openly hoping for war with Nazi Germany for several years; he believed that the United Kingdom's involvement in the conflict would remedy the shame that he thought had been brought upon the country by its signing of the Munich Agreement in September 1938." - the two halves of the sentence don't quite match, as the Munich agreement was only 12 months before the outbreak of war.
    • I've changed "several years" to "a year prior to the outbreak of the conflict". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "he was recognised as a ruthless disciplinarian" - could this simply be "he was a ruthless disciplinarian"?
    • My concern here would be that concepts such as "ruthlessness" are a little subjective, existing in the eye of the beholder and all that. Stating that he was "recognised" as such takes away the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Could we attribute the recognition then? e.g. "he was recognised by colleagues as a ruthless disciplinarian"? (or "he was considered by colleagues to be a ruthless disciplinarian"?)
  • Consistency of thousands and commas - I thought it looked a bit odd that £5000 had no comma, but £50,000 did; this might just be me though!
    • I've added the recommended commas into the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Worth checking the capitalisation of title in the bibliography - I think the MOS would have "Recasting the Foundations: New approaches to regional..." as "Recasting the Foundations: New Approaches to Regional..." etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, I only had a look at the military parts. Overall, they look quite good to me, but I have a couple of points/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • "...assigned to the Second Division of Julian Byng's Third Army". By convention, military units at divisional level take a numeral, e.g. "2nd Division". Additionally, this should probably be wikilinked to 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom). Armies are presented in words, though;
  • "...Wheeler was moved to the..." ("transferred" is probably a more accurate word here);
  • "promoted to the position of acting major..." --> "promoted to the rank of acting major" (major is not a position, it is a rank. Officer commanding is a position, which a person of the rank of major might fill...);
  • in the lead (and then later in the body also), "rose to the position of brigadier..." as above: "rose to the rank of brigadier";
  • "Volunteering for the armed services, he was assigned to assemble the 48th Light Anti-Aircraft Battery at Enfield..." what rank did he hold at this time? I assume still major?
    • Have you been able to clarify this point? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Not yet; apologies for the delay, but I have to consult the original book (and that means a library trip) in order to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Wheeler's unit was transferred to the 42nd Mobile Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment..." (is transferred right here? Or was it in fact used to form the regiment, along with a couple of other batteries?)
  • "Wheeler and three of his batteries..." this seems to jump without explanation from him commanding one battery to three. So, he had effectively become commander of an artillery you know which one? Could it have been the 42nd as mentioned above? If so, I think it should be clarified that he was in command; I assume also that he had been promoted to lieutenant colonel at this time, so this could probably be said here, too, if your sources say so;
  • "...better understand what it was like to be against an anti-aircraft battery" (this seems a little awkward, perhaps this might be smoother: "...better understand what it was like for aircrew to be fired on by an anti-aircraft battery"?)
  • "12th Brigade..." --> "12th Anti-Aircraft Brigade"?
  • "British 10th Corps" --> "British X Corps"
    • Is this standard ? I would be a bit concerned about many readers not realising that this was a Roman numeral ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I believe its standard for British corps. It's not a warstoper for me, though. The link redirects anyway. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That's it from me. Thanks for your efforts and good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments Rupert! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries, your changes look good to me. Just a couple of points from me remaining, otherwise I'm happy that this meets the standards required of a featured article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Robert_Mortimer_Wheeler_by_Howard_Coster.jpg: should use {{non-free biog-pic}} rather than "unique historic image"
  • File:Aerial_photograph_of_Maiden_Castle_from_the_west,_1937.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I'll be supporting, but a few minor quibbles first:

  • Spelling
    • "As the article is in BrEng, "enroll" (twice) should preferably be "enrol" and "panelist" should be "panellist". (In fact both the current forms are admitted by the OED, but the ones I recommend are more usual in British usage.)
      • If they are both acceptable as forms of British English under the OED's regulations, might it be preferable to incluse the present spellings, lest users familiar with American English think that there has been a spelling mistake ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Childhood: 1890–1907
    • "chief lead writer" – I imagine this means chief leader writer.
      • I'm not entirely sure about this one. I think it best to leave it out lest is misleads the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    • "relocated" – twice in close proximity; the second could perhaps be "moved"
  • First World War: 1914–18
    • "he maintained correspondence" – reads rather oddly. As there was a correspondence with his wife, another correspondence with his sister and a third correspondence with his parents it would probably be best to write "he maintained correspondences".
  • National Museum of Wales: 1919–26
    • We might allow Sir Flinders Petrie his title.
      • Do we have a policy here at Wikipedia governing this sort of thing. Something in the back of my mind is telling me that there is a policy that recommends we do not use such titles in the text, but that may of course be absolute nonsense... Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • London Museum: 1926–33
    • "outside of London" – we could do without the unnecessary pronoun
    • "Corporation of St. Albans" – the WP article on the city doesn't use the full stop, and nor, I think should we do so here.
  • Institute of Archaeology: 1934–39
    • "to convince the University of London … to support the venture" – either persuade to or convince that it should. You can't convince to in BrEng.
    • "100 assistants per season" – on the sound basis of preferring good English to bad Latin, I'd make this "each season" or even "a season"
    • "was be published" – "was published"?
      • Ah, a silly error. Perhaps this was once a "would be" that was only partially converted. Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments Tim! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): — Rod talk 16:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bristol is the largest city in south west England. It has over 1,000 years of history and has become a major centre for trade, business and culture - all of which are reflected in the article. Since its creation in 2002 the article has received over 4,000 edits and four peer reviews and a recent copy edit.

This nomination is eligible for the wikicupRod talk 16:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Leaning oppose at this juncture because of various un-referenced passages throughout the article. I also worry about the quality of many of the references used; the "History of Bristol" section for instance relies on a very wide selection of sources rather than basing its claims squarely on scholarly studies of the city's history. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Could you suggest which passages you consider need further references?— Rod talk 20:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The references to English Heritage need updating to Historic England since the organisation split earlier this year. May be could switch to using {{IoE}} to keep all the references to the web site in one place. Keith D (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Bristol_city_coa.png: what was the creation date of this design?
    • An interesting question - to which I'm having problems finding an answer. According to this page the arms were first granted in 1569. That page also shows a very similar representation in use on a cigarette card before 1906. According to this site variations were identified in 1908. This agrees "Recorded and confirmed 24th August 1569". This page shows a similar design in 1673. I don't think I'm going to be able to find a definitive answer - should the image be removed?— Rod talk 08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No, if the design was in use before 1906 this should be fine even without an exact date.
  • File:Bristol_1873.png needs a US PD tag
    • Added (hope I've done this right?)— Rod talk 08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Banksy-ps.jpg: freedom of panorama in the UK does not extend to graphic works - you'll need to indicate the licensing status of this mural. Also, the image description page appears to have been vandalized.
    • I've removed the vandalism, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "you'll need to indicate the licensing status of this mural". It already includes a CC 3.0. Again - should this image be removed from the article?— Rod talk 08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, but the CC 3.0 is meant to reflect the photographer's copyright, correct? Or does Banksy himself release his works under CC 3.0? If the latter, I'd like to see a source confirming that. The problem is that because this is a 2D graphic work, we can't use photos of it without considering the artist's copyright (whereas for a building or sculpture in the UK we would only consider the photographer). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I have removed the Banksy image.— Rod talk 13:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
          Nikkimaria, the image is freely licensed and is suitable for inclusion. You are quite correct that FoP in the UK does not extend to 2D graphic works, such as murals, however what we have here is graffiti. It is the policy of Commons ( COM:GRAFFITI) that graffiti, as illegally painted works, are not eligible for copyright protection. If you wish to argue this I suggest you take it up on Commons, but this FAC discussion is not the place to do so. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
          • @Mattbuck: It seems that the Commons page you link to has a more nuanced view than just "not eligible for copyright protection". It notes that authorship is sometimes unknown, which isn't the case here; it also states that for post-1978 artworks not covered by freedom of panorama, the non-free grafitti tag should be applied - this tag states that "there is no evidence of this legal theory [of graffiti being ineligible for copyright protect] being tested" and that Commons' precautionary principle applies. Thus, given the information presented here the image is not freely licensed and Commons policy would support its exclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
            • I don't feel qualified to enter this debate, so I'm glad you two are having it (although I have asked for further input from others with specialist knowledge in this area). I'm not sure about the authorship being known as Banksy has not been identified or identified him/herself. Presumably the outcome would relate to many of the images at commons:Banksy and others in the commons category: Graffiti artists from the United Kingdom?— Rod talk 19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
              @Nikkimaria: I understand you have concerns, but again, this is not the place to do it. The image is freely licensed on Commons. If you think this is in error, file a deletion request for all such images on Commons, or discuss it at commons:COM:VP/C. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
              Image licensing is part of the FA criteria, which means that concerns in this area are appropriately discussed at FAC. Of course this issue should also be addressed at Commons, but this article cannot pass FAC with the image as it stands in place, unless someone has more information to demonstrate that it is in fact freely licensed (or unless a fair-use claim can be made). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    Regarding Commons policy on graffiti very specifically references the illegal nature of the act which created the grafitti. The policy states: "Graffiti are essentially murals that have been painted illegally. Photographs of graffiti have long been allowed on Commons. As artistic works, copyright in graffiti will theoretically belong to the original artist. However, in many cases the artist is unknown, proof of authorship of the art is problematic, and, some believe, the artist would have difficulty enforcing their copyright since that would require a court to uphold the validity of an illegal act as the basis for damages or other relief against a third party... For legally-painted artworks, see Murals." Since whoever painted it did not have the owner's permission to do that, this image is not a legally-painted artwork, nor a mural. Thus the image, as with many other graffiti is able to be hosted on Commons. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to start a Deletion Nomination at Commons where all the admins & 'crats can discuss it. Thank you for all your hard work on DYK and Featured article. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    The policy goes on to say "Graffiti may be in the public domain if painted without a copyright notice in the United States before 1978 ... Reproductions may be permitted in a few nations that have freedom of panorama for 2D works... For all other works, use the Template:Non-free graffiti tag". Neither of the former two cases applies here, so the image is non-free. The argument that the creation of the work was illegal has been made, but as the non-free grafitti tag states, "there is no evidence of this legal theory being tested", and Commons' precautionary principle would demand the exclusion of the image regardless of how likely it is that the artist would or would not attempt to claim copyright. Of course Commons should address on a wider scale the practice of hosting non-free images based on untested legal theory, but as mentioned above the question of the licensing of this specific image needs to be resolved here in order for this nom to succeed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    With respect Nikkimaria, you seem to have decided that this image is problematic and are unwilling to accept that, as far as the Commons community is concerned, there is no copyright violation. We have told you why it's freely licensed. Please either accept that the copyright paranoia is awesome community have no trouble with it, or come to Commons and engage us in a discussion about every piece of graffiti in countries where FoP is limited. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    With respect Mattbuck, Commons policy agrees that the image is non-free. The policy you cite doesn't say that "there is no copyright violation"; it says, in essence, that creators are unlikely to sue us. The precautionary principle applies. Further, previous conversations around the COM:GRAFFITI policy have demonstrated why the argument around illegality is problematic (and that the "copyright paranoia is awesome community", as you put it, has a problem with such images being hosted regardless). I'm happy to provide sources if you like - while there have been few test cases, most scholars agree that graffiti can indeed be copyrighted, particularly in this case given the known (if pseudonymous) creator. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I will also note in passing that you should look at making your referencing format more consistent before someone checks that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I will look (again) at the referencing over the next day or two.— Rod talk 08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Coinage Act of 1873[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a seemingly innocuous piece of rather specialized legislation that turned into a major political controversy (think as divisive as say, abortion, today) that divided the nation through much of the rest of the 19th century. I'd like to express my appreciation to Godot13 for supplying wonderful images and to Brianboulton, the peer reviewer.Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:John_Jay_Knox_-_Brady-Handy.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
That's fixed. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


Comments, leaning support.

  • Greenbacks, in Background section is wikilinked to dab page.
External links
  • No bad links.

I'll do more later. GregJackP Boomer! 16:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fixed. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You end the lead at 1900 and the gold standard. I'm not a currency or coinage guy, but haven't we abandoned the gold standard too? That should be addressed if we are going past the 1873 act to the 1900 act, etc.
We have. The reason for going past the 1873 act was to address the controversy it caused. The 1900 act, and McKinley's re-election that year, ended the controversy, politically. I'm hesitant to discuss a century or so of economic history here. It seemed a reasonable end point for context.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe just a comment on the "U.S. abandoned the gold standard in 19xx..." or something? As it stands, it appears that we are still on the gold standard. GregJackP Boomer! 20:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Silver dollar should be wikilinked here, rather than further down in the article.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear on the use of the Cross of Gold speech (1896) in the background section, it seems to me to be better suited later in the article, as the speech was a response to the gold standard of the 1873 act. I would think that it would be more appropriate in the Aftermath section.
I often link it to the Background section of that article, where there's a discussion of monetary standards. That's the purpose in linking it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. GregJackP Boomer! 20:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Half dollar should be wikilinked here, rather than further down in the article.
  • You repeatedly mention the bimetalic standard, but it's not really explained. A couple of lines will help readers, such as myself, who don't understand the difference.
I've added something. The problem is, it's not within people's common experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Transition between the first and second paragraph is rough, seemingly jumping from one subject to another. In addition, they seem to be out of chronological order.
I've reversed those paragraphs.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Consideration and passage
  • Dime and quarter should be wikilinked here, rather than further down in the article.

More later. GregJackP Boomer! 03:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Intent of the bill's authors
  • No comment, other than to reiterate the above comment on bimetalism.
Bureau of the Mint; duties of officers (§§1–12)
  • Awkwardly worded first sentence. "Although there had been a Director of the Mint since its origin, his office was at the Philadelphia Mint, with the other mints and assay offices governed by superintendents subordinate to the Mint Director." Maybe: "The Director of the Mint's office had always been at the Philadelphia Mint, with the other mints and assay offices governed by superintendents subordinate to the Director." Or something. I know I'm not the best wordsmith here, so feel free to change my suggestion.
Adopted with very slight modification.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Coins and deposit of bullion (§§13–39)
  • Is there a reason that the two images of the 2-cent and 3-cent coins do not have a border? All the rest of the images have borders.
Limitations of the image software that won't take several crops in a stack.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Testing and the Assay Commission (§§40–50)
  • No comment.
Criminal offenses and miscellaneous provisions (§§51–67)
  • No comment.

More later. GregJackP Boomer! 19:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Later reaction
  • No comment.
"Crime of '73"
  • No comment.
  • Note "a" needs a period at the end of the sentence.
It's not a sentence, so no period. At least that's how I do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Very well done article. GregJackP Boomer! 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I think I've hit everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Great article, and I've moved to support the promotion to FA. GregJackP Boomer! 16:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks indeed for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I've now added the bit about the gold standard, GregJackP. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

I made some comments at peer review that were resolved there, but I'll give it a second reading and see if anything else jumps out at me. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure you need the hatnote. The explanation here is as good as the one you did at that article.
Axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It might be good to mention that the reason base metal coins aren't hoarded is that, lacking in precious metal, they only had value because the government says so. After so many years of fiat money, many readers may not grasp that point without explanation.
Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the greenbacks sentence, it might help to add that they were needed to finance the war because of the unprecedented outlays required then. That would help readers understand why they became unnecessary at the war's end.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Instead of "pursuant to Gresham's Law", I'd say "as predicted by Gresham's Law".
This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • First sentence of the last paragraph: I think where you say supersede, you might be more accurate to say "repeal". Supersede overlaps with "rewrite" otherwise, doesn't it?
This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Do any of your sources explain why the San Francisco mint didn't coin pennies or nickels? That seems like an odd practice, considering the long-standing shortages there.
They would likely not have been accepted until the turn of the century because of the hard-money prejudice. The mints that weren't Philadelphia were, prior to this, limited by statute to coining silver and gold, since that is really why they were set up, to turn hard-to-deal with bullion into money. Knox in his report and the 1873 act keep the prohibition but go about it a different way: require that the metal for the minor coinage be paid for by an annual appropriation and only give it to Philadelphia. So there was no money to strike minor coinage anyplace else but Philadelphia. The limitation to Philadelphia really isn't discussed in his report, what they are doing is tightening up on the Mint's pursestrings, which were very lax at one time. The bullion fund was the source of repeated complaints by Mint Directors and Congress kept increasing it. They started complaining in the 1890s I think about the limitation to Philadelphia, now that base metal coins were more accepted and there were things like the penny arcade, yet coins had to be shipped across the continent. Congress repealed the limitation in 1906. I think it would be tedious to tell the reader any subset of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Yes, I think that is beyond the scope of this article. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence that starts "Although some, known as Greenbackers..." is kind of awkward. Since greenbacks became a fringe issue after resumption, I'd focus on the silver-gold debate and truncate the first part of that sentence up to the word "support".
This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Crime of '73
  • Instead of "long-lived", "accepted as fact" or "an article of faith" might read better.
This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Everything else looks great, and I look forward to supporting. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I think I've caught everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Great, I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


  • The gold standard was explicitly enacted into law in 1900, and was finally completely abandoned in 1971. - Why "finally"? I don't see what it adds.
  • Having a dollar be defined in terms of two different metals is called bimetallism. - This strikes me as jarring. Perhaps it could be worked into the flow of the article a bit better (also, and this is nitpicking, having the value of any monetary unit determined by two different metals would be bimetallism, rather than just the dollar)
Virtually everyone alive has never experienced anything but some form of fiat money system. It's difficult to describe a standard-based system, and it's difficult to comprehend. I've taken another shot at it.
  • The 1873 act moved his office to Washington, where he supervised the new Bureau of the Mint. - Why use the male pronoun here?
At the time, there had not been a female Mint Director. If you feel some other phrasing would be wiser, feel free to propose it.
Looks fine to me. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The Mint of the United States had originally reported directly to the president but over time legislation had made it subject to control by the Treasury Secretary. - perhaps specify that this is de facto subject to control
Full control in the areas specified by legislation, so it was at least somewhat de jure.
  • an Assayer, a Melter and Refiner, and a Coiner; - if these are used as general nouns, why the capitals?
They are titles of office, and if lower cased, they could lead to confusion.
I've taken another stab at it.
  • (soon to be known as "Silver Dick") - Chuckle — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'll never be able to think about Congressman Bland the same way. Thanks for the review. I will work through your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks again. All done or responded to.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I've tried and failed to find something to grumble at. The best I can manage is to say that in my view "millions of dollars worth of silver bullion" could do with a possessive apostrophe after "dollars", though I know that some grammarians admit the construction without one. Trying even harder, I see both "demonitization" and "demonetization", but the former is within a quotation, and is no doubt what the original author wrote. I'm throwing in the towel and supporting. – Tim riley talk 12:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you indeed. The quotation is accurate, I just checked it. And I think the apostrophe is to be avoided there, personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Urania's Mirror[edit]

Nominator(s): Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Urania's Mirror, considered one of the most attractive sets of star charts from the early nineteenth century boom in such things. I believe it covers all major sources. A peer review was done, but somewhat died out before being that productive. I looked into expanding the lead, but honestly think it covers everything to a detail appropriate for the coverage. Delayed nominating this because I wanted to at least look at the Familiar Treatise that was included with the cards before nominating. I have done so now. To do: create an article on Richard Rouse Bloxam for some spillover information, but I think, honestly, this is an excellent article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well you should tell them that if you want reviews. most, like me, won't be bothered to go and look. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, point. Been a while since I've last done an FAC. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments - Its certainly attractive and an enjoyable read on the publication and technique. It seems short at 1100 words and overly reliant on Ridpath - are there more sources that could be used to expand. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    • I believe I've used all the major ones. Since it's a star atlas, there's a limit to things that can be said. P. D. Hingley is the other big source, there was one other source referenced by Hingley, which I didn't locate, but which I don't think would be likely to have substantially much Hingley did not. Indeed, I passed on some very minor things I discovered to Ridpath while writing this - nothing unsupported, of course, just I was able to find an advertisement that, with a little more research on Ridpath's part, set the initial publication date with a lot more precision than was available before. Nothing unsupported by evidence, of course, but Google keeps digitising old books, so advertisements not readily findable hitherto are, in recent years, locatable easily for the first time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd be surprised is 1100 words covers all that needs to be said about the box-set; though that's easier said than done of course; have *scanned* google books but will look a bit more to see if I can find gaps/areas you might cover. One thing - the "Constellations depicted" section is a bit unweildy and listy for an FA; would spin it out. The gallery is a bit overwhealming; I cant believe I'm saying this, but could their size be reduced and more order and structure brought. Maybe break into sections with accompanying commentery.Ceoil (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ceoil: Well, the order is from the set itself. About the only thing I can think of for commentary is to talk about the material on each in A Familiar Treatise... which may end up being wildly WP:COATRACK-ish, as it's on the constellations, not the art. Unless you have a suggestion? I think this is, unusually for FAs, a more visual article than most. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm between two minds, but not happy with the current. Need to dig more. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll check around too. It's been a year, and it's possible more material is now available. I just don't want to promise anything, as I can't guarantee more sources. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, let's see. I found two possible sources on Google Scholar, but they don't really seem very likely to have much new - [5] will be one of the early sources making a tentative attribution of who the atlas might have been by; it's possible it might have something of incidental use. [6] may have something, but I wouldn't count on it. I don't have access to these, though, to check. The one source that looked somewhat promising but that I never found was
I don't think it will have much the other sources haven't covered. I'll check Google books as well, and review the Hingley paper and its references. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Citations aren't necessary in the lead since those same facts should be cited somewhere in the prose. Disc Wheel (T + C) 00:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think a couple minor facts don't reappear. I'll check and work them in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
If they dont reappear, take out and place below. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure it'd be appropriate. it's some of the basic information, like publishing date - though, that said, there's an obvious place to put that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure the article passes the comprehensive requirement, and knowing that my issue with the "Constellations depicted" sect falls within IDONTLIKEIT re lists; not supporting this time. More variery in use of source material, a more nunanced retelling of the publication history and restrained use of images; would be pleased to revisit. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I suppose my problem is that I've worked quite hard to find sources, and, so far as I'm aware, there's little information that isn't included that I know of, and it's not like anyone's come up with another source that's shown new information. Some subjects are naturally smaller, and I suspect this article is one of them, particularly as, as mentioned above, I actually found sources that hadn't been known to researchers hitherto, which helped clarify the exact time of first publication.
Quite simply, if there's a concrete suggestion, I'm really happy to act, but it's hard to act on vague suggestions.
And I'm not helped by having developed a bad cold, of course. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Suillus luteus[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about yet another pored mushroom...though this one has piggybacked pine plantations around the world and doesn't taste as nice as others. We liked buffing it and have scraped the bottom of the scholarly barrel. Interesting mushroom. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

NB: Is a wikicup nomination for one of us (i.e. me) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments by Edwininlondon[edit]

Impressive bit of research and enjoyable prose. Great choice of illustrations. Just the smallest of possible comments:

  • "The fungus grows in coniferous forests in its native range" feels repetitive; maybe drop the "coniferous forests" a the top, in the second sentence?
yep, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "naturalized, forming symbiotic ectomycorrhizal associations with ..."--> makes it a bit complicated, may I suggest to start a new sentence ("It forms .."
duly split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not keen on the hyphens in "chestnut-, rusty, olive-, or dark brown"
agree we can lose chestnut's hyphen...however removing olives' means we're saying "olive" not "olive-brown" (which is the colour we're trying to convey) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • pleurocystidia and cheilocystidia could benefit from linking
they'd both link to the same place - Cystidium - and we'd be pinged for duplicate linking Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "microscopic examination of mushroom tissues is not possible" --> intriguing. Do you perhaps mean you can't tell them apart looking at them under microscope?
well, not if they are powdered as there are no cells...the sentence starts with "powdered" in it - do you think we need to mention "powdered" here again? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, let me see if I understand you correctly: Because it is powdered, there are no cells anymore, and therefore, yes it is possible to examine powder under a microscope, but you can't tell whether the stuff is from one species or two. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
correct Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In that case, may I suggest you rephrase to something like "a fraudulent practice that is difficult to detect by microscope because the cells are no longer in tact."? Edwininlondon (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
How's this? Sasata (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Clear. Thanks. I changed my status to Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments from JM
  • "The fungus was reclassified in (and became the type species of) the genus Suillus" Is in the right word, here? Reclassified to or reclassified as, perhaps?
  • Changed to "reclassified as". Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Suillus luteus (L.:Fr.) Gray" On my screen, this was on a line-break- perhaps non-breaking spaces would be useful.
  • Added a nowrap template. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't link at your first mention of S. granulatus, but you do at the second mention.
  • Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "were transferred to the family Suillaceae from Boletaceae in 1997" Presumably Suillaceae was created for the genus; "transfer" suggests (though doesn't strictly imply, I admit!) that the target was already there to be transferred to.
  • "In Ecuador, Pinus radiata plantations were planted extensively around Cotopaxi National Park, and Suillus luteus boletes appear in abundance year-round, with a 1985 field study estimating 3000–6000 mushrooms per hectare—unlike the species' seasonal nature elsewhere." This sentence still doesn't quite work for me, but I'm struggling to come up with an alternative phrasing.
  • I've tried an alternate wording ... does it read any better? Sasata (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "the trait to tolerate otherwise toxic levels" I think this should be "a trait to tolerate otherwise toxic levels" or "the trait of tolerance towards otherwise toxic levels"
  • I agree, tweaked. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • " their fungal associates—[54] are" Is there something in MOS about this? Before the dash seems much more natural, and prevents you having to add a space that would not be there otherwise.
  • citation now before the punctuation. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is "pest" a little colloquial? Would "parasite" not be better?
  • It's not "pest" in the colloquial sense ("an annoying thing"), but a standard definition "a destructive insect or other animal that attacks crops, food, livestock, etc." and was used in the source ... see also pest (organism). Sasata (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (I confess that it's a word I hate for various reasons, but...) I wonder whether it's appropriate to bring in this human point of view ("oh, it's damaging our crops!") in what was previously a rather simple explanation of an ecological relationship ("This thing eats this thing"). I'm certainly not going to push the matter, and leave it up to you two. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm worried about introducing a technical meaning not intended by the author. According to our article on parasitism, the host is harmed in some way. If the purpose of a fruit body is to reproduce by making and dropping spores, and insect infestation does not affect that (or at least not according to published studies I'm aware of), then is the relationship truly parasitic? I'm open to alternative wording though. Sasata (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Altered the wording and removed "pest". Sasata (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "and is commonly prepared and eaten in soups and stews. The slime coating, however, may cause indigestion if not removed before eating." From the lead- neither claim seems to be supported in the main article.
  • I've stated and reffed the latter bit explicitly in the article, but the "soups and stews" was already there (Carluccio 2003). Sasata (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I hate to be a stickler, but the lead says that it is commonly made into soups and stews, while the body says that a particular chef recommends using them to make soups and stews. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Some of the older guidebooks elaborate more extensively on how various species are best eaten. I will double check... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Update - how they are cooked is noncontroversial, and apart from some variance of opinion on drying, most of the other is written here and there, so have left out author names as these opinions are not in any way egregious or original Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Support, unless something comes up I've missed. I can't see a source review turning up anything terribly problematic. Note to delegates: I am a WikiCup participant and have worked with Cas and Sasata several times before, including conominations at FAC. I was the GA reviewer of this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support form Jim. Not much left for me to pick at, although nucleotide DNA could do with a link or two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thx. I can link nucleotide easily enough, but should be a better link somewhere... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Labour Party leadership election, 2014[edit]

Nominator(s): This is Paul (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a chapter in the unfortunate history of the decline of the Scottish Labour Party, a once dominant force in Scottish politics. Although Labour had helped to win the argument for keeping Scotland in the United Kingdom at the 2014 independence referendum, the closeness of the result in some Labour strongholds prompted internal party speculation about the future of its leader. When she resigned, accusing the UK Labour Party of treating its Scottish counterpart like "a branch office of London", an election was held to find her successor. But less than six months later the new leader presided over Labour's worst ever election result in Scotland, and was forced to resign himself.

I've written this article from scratch, successfully taking it through the GA process. It has also received an extensive copy edit. Sadly a peer review request was much less fruitless, as often politics articles do not seem to get the attention they deserve at PR. I think this could be close to achieving FAC status though, so am putting it forward for consideration. I look forward to your comments. Do be aware, however, that I may have some difficulties when it comes to issues concerning images, tables, and other graphics, so please be ready to help with such edits if you feel any changes of that type are necessary. Cheers, and happy reading. This is Paul (talk) (disclaimer) 20:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Support. I did the GA review for this article, and my concerns were satisfied there. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:2014_Scottish_Labour_Leadership_Election_Westminster_Nominations.svg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Have checked the article and the image, but nothing is jumping out. Can you be more specific about the link that is dead? This is Paul (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
This one from the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems to be gone. The closest source I can find is this from LabourList that contains the same information. Hopefully this is a reliable enough source, but if that isn't the case then the diagram can go. This is Paul (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, with many thanks to samtar. This is Paul (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Also a Wayback link of the original c/o We hope if the original is preferable. This is Paul (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon Omar[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a power typhoon that most people haven't heard of or care about, but it was interesting to write about! Read about the damage on Guam (which is part of the US) and how people coped from such a big disaster. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jason Rees[edit]

  • It was the 15th tropical depression, the 15th named storm, and the 9th typhoon of the 1992 Pacific typhoon season. – Not a fan of including the tropical depression stage since we are missing JMA TDs from the season and even if you are to include it does TS Ekeka not count as a tropical depression and a named storm of the 1992 season?
  • Does TS Ekeka not count as a named storm of the 1992 WPAC season?.Jason Rees (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm, rather than worrying about that, I removed that sentence entirely. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It formed on August 23 from the monsoon trough across the western Pacific Ocean while several other storms were active – I thought systems formed within the monsoon trough?
  • Basically synonymous. I can change if you want though. 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference 1 does not contain the name Luming and I wonder why its needed since the name Luming is mentioned and referenced below?
  • It does now. And it doesn't hurt to reference an additional name in the lead. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Leads are meant to be either fully cited or not cited at all from memory :P Jason Rees (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The policy says Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. There was a problem recently with one of the WPTC editors questioning about the PAGASA names, so I thought I'd put it up top first and foremost. It was an editor decision. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is Reference 2 a reference and not a note?
  • The first paragraph is either cited back to the JMA BT or not cited at all.
  • You state: The origin of Typhoon Omar was from a tropical disturbance exhibiting persistent thunderstorm activity, that was first noted east of Kiribati on August 20. The JTWC BT available here shows the first position as 6.6N, 173.3E or just east of the Marshall Islands not Kiribati.
  • Although it was fostered in conditions suitable for tropical cyclogenesis, - The word fostered does not sit well with me, would suggest situated.
  • However, the two storms spread farther apart, allowing a ridge to develop between them. – whats a ridge?
  • I think arguably it's a common enough term. I linked it though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it a common enough term for the jo public to understand, thats the approach I was trying to take.Jason Rees (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • At 0600 UTC on August 27, the JTWC designated the system as a typhoon, - I don’t agree that it was designated a typhoon more classified.
  • That's semantics right there, they're both synonymous. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • developing an eye – Random.
  • The positioning of it is random coming just after the upgrades to typhoon.Jason Rees (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Better but normally you would moan at us for not mentioning that the system had an eye before hand.Jason Rees (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You mention JTWC upgrading to a typhoon but not JMA
  • Omar began to rapidly intensify on August 28. – did it really per both JMA and JTWC?
  • Anything in the Darwin Diagnostic statements for Omar in the August and September 1992? And what about the Mariners Weather Log Volume 37 (1993) Issue 1 Pg 40
  • Nothing major about the Darwin statements. The current MH is approachable without being too difficult to understand, and I feel anything that's not there from the Darwin statement is gonna make it more confusing. I don't have access to the Mariners Weather Log, but I doubt it would have much extra. That's mostly useful when a storm becomes extratropical and it affects Alaska. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Two days later, the storm came close enough to the Philippines to warrant monitoring activities from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration, who assigned the storm with the local name Lusing – I do not like the wording you use here and would prefer something along the lines of PAGASA named the storm Lusing
  • Why? What's wrong with it? It's simpler what we have here for the layman. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If it is simpler for the layman then we would just put PAGASA rather than the full name.Jason Rees (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Over land, Omar quickly degenerated into a tropical depression before turning to the west-southwest. It moved through southern China as a weak system, dissipating entirely on September 9 over northern Vietnam – Can you not combine these sentences since the JMA classified it as a tropical depression right up till dissipation.
  • What do you mean? It says it dissipated on the 9th, and it's true that it moved through southern China. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Your references need some consistency in particular
  • Reference 3 and 4 the author of both is the RSMC Tokyo – Typhoon Center, you state 1 was published in February 2001 and the other was published on 1992-12-25. For Reference 4, I would prefer you to be specific and cite exactly which system it is that you are referencing or change the date of publication since the BT for 1995 etc was not published before it happened.
  • But Omar's BT was done as of 12-25 in 1992, per the best track. That is useful information to the audience, when the information was actually created. The other is just a generic reference saying JMA is the RSMC that I could've gotten from any time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • References 5 and 6 – Either the author is the Joint Typhoon Warning Centre or the publisher is, while you could state that the website is the National Oceanography Portal I don’t think its worth it.
  • Reference 6 is not JTWC, it is NCDC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You really should of looked at this from my prospective, a few nights ago when i wrote it out before you changed the references around.Jason Rees (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • While im here isn’t Ref 1 and Ref 21 the same and it would be good to see some of the links webcited imo.
  • Agreed, merged refs. What should be webcited in your opinion? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • All should be webcited in my opinon - it saves a lot of time later when trying to find replacmenet links for dead articles.Jason Rees (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 30 looks like it should be a book citation and not a report citation.
  • It wasn't a book though. It was a government report. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note this review was compiled by myself last night before this article was nominated for FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jason Rees: - do you have any more comments about the article? Thanks for the review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not at the moment bar my replies to above.Jason Rees (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon[edit]

Interesting article and readable prose. Just a few things:

  • in the impact session, I'd rather see the information about casulties come sooner. It now comes as an afterthought that 11 people dies in the Philippines. Same for the other countries. People before dollars damage.
  • I totally agree with what you said, only I thought about it in a different way. I put the casualties at the end to cap off the impact section. Typically, with tropical cyclone articles, we begin with meteorological statistics, then move onto their effects. Most meteorology papers are similar, where they save the summary for the end. I moved the Philippine deaths earlier in the paragraph though. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the area, the typhoon destroyed 393 houses and damaged another 145, affecting 171,603 people,[19] leaving 1,965 people homeless" this puzzled me. The 171,603 seems excessively high as a consequence of 538 homes damaged/destroyed.

Edwininlondon (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yea, that's kind of a useless statistic. I'm still not sure exactly what "affected" means when reports say the storm affected X people. Perhaps it's the population across the typhoon's wind field, I'm not sure. Either way, I removed it, to focus more on the damaged/destroyed houses and homeless. Thanks for reviewing, btw :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cyclonebiskit[edit]

Another very well written article, Hink. An engaging read for sure, but I have concerns over some of the content in the meteorological history (which I know was written by TheAustinMan), as well as some other comments. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • General comments – I've made a few tweaks here and there and added alt text to the images. Please double check these to make sure they jive with the article appropriately.
  • General note about the usage of "damages" – Although the root word "damage" implies impact or harm, the plural noun "damages" is generally used in reference to legal compensation. I would have changed it myself, but I notice it often in your writing and felt it best to try and break this habit ;)
  • In the lead you mention the JTWC, written out, and mention the acronym used for it; however, you do the same in the meteorological history alongside adding a note explaining what the agency is. Wouldn't the note better served at the first mention of the agency overall? Additionally, since the acronym is already mentioned, it doesn't need to be written out again in the met. history.
  • Good call, I moved the note to the lead. As for writing it out, I'm not sure - I opted on the side of caution, as it is a pretty important part of the article, and it's possible someone might miss it in the lead. I know I don't always read the lead of an article first (sometimes I skim it). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In lead: On Guam, Omar caused $457 million in damage (1992 USD) and one death. – Is the (1992 USD) necessary given that there's a note immediately following since sentence stating all currencies are in 1992 values? If you opt to keep it, I'd suggest moving it to right after "million".
  • Sure, I moved it after "million". I still wanted to write it out, so the 1992 was visible in prose *somewhere* (and not just in the note). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In the met. history: ...and thus provide favorable atmospheric conditions over the disturbance. – The report doesn't actually indicate that atmospheric conditions were favorable over the disturbance. It states that a "major synoptic pattern readjustment" (p. 80) took place and the disturbance became more organized.
  • In the met. history: Although it was fostered in conditions suitable for tropical cyclogenesis, outflow from nearby Tropical Storm Polly sheared the system and slowed intensification. – The first part of this sentence contradicts the second part and as with the above comment, is not stated in the report. The JTWC report states, "After Omar was upgraded to a tropical storm on the warning at 250000Z, the rate of intensification decreased due to upper tropospheric wind shear from the extensive outflow of Polly (16W), which was also intensifying." It would also be helpful to note what direction Polly was from Omar (west-northwest).
  • Sounds good. I indicated Polly was to the west of the storm. I didn't say WNW, it seemed a bit too specific. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In the met. history: However, the two storms spread farther apart, allowing a ridge to develop between them. – This is not included in Omar's report (which is the citation used to source this statement). I did find it in Polly's report on page 89, however, so a new citation is necessary to accurately source the content.
  • Thanks, added the page number to Polly. The whole ref is cited to the ATCR, not just to Omar's section, although the page numbers had to be adjusted. Minor oversight, I apologize. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In the met. history: At 0600 UTC on August 27, the JTWC designated the system as a typhoon, as the storm developed an eye. – The JTWC Best Track (which oddly is not used throughout the article) shows that Omar reached typhoon intensity at 00:00 UTC. Additionally, the report (p. 80) states, "Gale force sustained winds began to buffet Guam at 272300Z about the time that a visible eye appeared on satellite imagery." This indicates the storm was upgraded before an eye formed, not as it formed. The NCDC citation used to source the eye formation also states, "A small 'eye' was discernible by the evening of the 27th". At best (but breaching WP:OR), this would indicate formation of an eye around 06:00 UTC as Guam is 10 hours ahead of UTC. It's best to clearly state that the upgrade to typhoon came before clear formation of an eye and then add when the eye was noted per the ATCR.
  • Sounds good, I think the sentence should flow better now - Early on August 27, the JTWC designated the system as a typhoon, and an eye began to appear later that day at 23:00 UTC.Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note for met. history: the JTWC report indicates the size of the eye as it passed over Guam on page 84, useful information that should be added into the article.
  • In the met. history: The storm crossed the body of water and made a final landfall near Xiamen, Fujian – Technically not the final landfall according to the JMA (and CMA). The system briefly emerged over the Gulf of Tonkin on September 8 and moved back inland southeast of Hanoi, Vietnam later that day.
  • OK, I changed it to "another landfall". Do you think it's worth adding the Gulf of Tonkin bit? It was a minimal disturbance at that point, and I don't want to extend the MH unnecessarily (the important part was when it dissipated). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Guam section: The highest rainfall was 460 mm (18 in) in Taguac. – The tropical cyclone point maxima list by David Roth indicates a peak of 20.44 inches at the Guam WSMO.
  • Interesting, thanks for that! I wouldn't have thought to check there. Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Elsewhere section: The highest wind gust was 72 km/h (45 mph) on Yonaguni. – The prose reads as if you're referring to the island of Yonaguni but the link directs you to the town of Yonaguni which is on the island. Which one is it?
  • They're the same essentially. Yonaguni is the town on the island of the same name, so I just changed it to the island. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pending on how the above comment is addressed, references to the Japanese islands should either be "[Island Name]-jima" or "[Island name] Island". The articles are haphazard as to whether or not "-jima" is included in their title so it's easy to have this happen by accident.
  • Generally I go by what the wiki article is. -jima seems to be the Japanese name for island. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Aftermath section: After the storm, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) opened up Disaster Assistance Centers... – any particular reason "Disaster Assistance Centers" is capitalized?
  • The only reason is that FEMA usually capitalizes them, which isn't good enough for me. I decapitated it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the beautiful crested and marbled newts, luckily not yet endangered overall, but still diminishing. Their ecology and evolution has been quite extensively studied. The article was peer reviewed, and I got expert input from Ben Wielstra, who worked on the genus over the past years. Looking forward to comments and criticism! Note that I'll be able to respond only sporadically during most of September... Tylototriton (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Triturus_dobrogicus_dunai_tarajosgőte.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Turn of the Screw (2009 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This article covers a 2009 BBC adaptation of Henry James's classic ghost story The Turn of the Screw. Is it just another TV film? Well, yes and no. The BBC's horror films and costume dramas are both well loved, and this is a nice example of both. Also, this holds special interest as a pre-Downton Abbey collaboration between Michelle "Lady Mary" Dockery and Dan "Cousin Matthew" Stevens. Finally, as this is an adaptation of James's novella rather than an original story, it holds interest both for fans of classic literature and for literary theorists. I started writing this in January after catching the film on TV (the article was pretty rudimentary), and I'm pleased with how it's come out. I'd like to thank Eric Corbett for a great GA review back in March- since then, the film has been released on DVD in North America, and so the article has been slightly updated, but it remains mostly as-was. This is a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • "The BBC had previously adapted M. R. James horror stories for Christmas films, with their A Ghost Story for Christmas series" the "A" and "their" clash when used together so I would move "series" to before the introduction: "The BBC had previously adapted M. R. James horror stories for Christmas films, with their series A Ghost Story for Christmas.
  • A personal preference and a normality in BrEng is the use of the definite article. I would adopt it in this article seeing as it is on a BrEng subject: "BBC executive and drama commissioner Ben Stephenson..." → "The BBC executive and drama commissioner Ben Stephenson..."
    • Do you have a source that suggests that my approach is nonstandard? I'm not convinced. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • These prominent authors and linguists say that it is normal in BrEng as do the British Council who call it one of the most used words in the English language. This reliable website compares the definite article use to that of the Americans who seldom ever use it to introduce things. Less reliable, perhaps, is me :). I use it in all of my FA's and I've never had a problem. Tim, I know, uses it a lot too. CassiantoTalk 17:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • See the article False title. The use is common in tabloid papers, but is better avoided in high quality writing. The advice in the NY Times style guide is both amusing and wise. Tim riley talk 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Tim, Cassianto: Thanks, I'm learning a lot already! I'll try to internalise this rule... Fixed that example in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "this framing device is not used in the original novella, but both the novella and the film share a first-person narrator" -- Novella/novella repetition. Is there another word you could use for one of them?
  • Who said "screaming-banshees-and-horrible-corpses style of ghost story"?
  • "The Turn of the Screw was filmed on location in the West Country of England -- "on location" is redundant here.
    • I disagree- it could, for instance, have been filmed at a sound stage in the West Country. On location filming refers to a particular kind of filming (namely, at a "real" location, rather than on a made-for-filming set), not just filming that is at a place. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I bow to your superior knowledge on this. It's a subject I'm quite ignorant on. CassiantoTalk 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The period in Mrs. Sarah Grose is AmEng. Do the BBC use this?
    • Removed (also sorted "Dr."). Clearly something I've been getting wrong for some time... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Up to plot, will continue soon. CassiantoTalk 15:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Support -- Nothing else from me everything else looks to be tip-top. Great work Josh! CassiantoTalk 13:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

I'll look in after a proper reading in the next day or so. Meanwhile, as we seem to be in BrEng, pray consider the spelling (four times) of "sanitarium" for the usual English "sanatorium"; and did the critic in The Times really spell "suppurate" as "supperate"? Tim riley talk 21:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed both. The mistake was mine, not Chater's, and I blame the "sanitarium" spelling on a band I used to follow... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Lead
    • If you agree with Cassianto and me about the false title, you may like to look at "by housekeeper Mrs Grose" in the lead.
    • "significantly less ambiguous" – what does it signify? It is a pity to waste "significantly" as a mere synonym of "considerably" etc unless there is a measurable significance.
  • Production
    • "adapted many times, although not previously by the BBC" – not true: see here. Put not your trust in The Daily Express as a WP:RS.
      • I think Baylis (and, correspondingly, me in the article) specifically meant television/film adaptation. All of the mentions on the BBC listings were either on the radio, versions of the opera or else non-BBC films. I've changed this to "The film is an adaptation of Henry James's 1898 novella The Turn of the Screw. As one of his more popular stories it had already been adapted for films and television many times, although not previously by the BBC." (And I appreciate that The Express isn't exactly a top-quality newspaper, but Baylis is a professional television critic notable in his own right who has also written for much better papers- he's not just some hack.) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • "Ann's father is a pastor" – in England? I don't think I have ever heard an English clergyman called a pastor. It sounds like something out of Ibsen or the Deep South of America.
      • I'm not sure why I wrote that. The source uses "preacher", so I've used that instead. I don't want to be more specific, as it's not clear in the film itself precisely what his job is. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • "Corin Redgrave, who played the professor, is the son" - alas, was the son.
  • Plot
    • "affected by the War" – really necessary to capitalise?
      • I'm using "War" as a proper noun- it's the War, not just the war (that has just passed). Or would you advise against this? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Point taken. I think MoS zealots may purse a lip or two, but to Hell with them. Tim riley talk 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Critical reception
    • "commended the performances of Dockery[9][22][11][12][30][31][32]" – you need to get the refs in numerical order here
      • Done. They were in order when I last checked... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Literary analysis
    • "literary theorist Anna Viola Sborgi" - "Good morning, literary theorist Sborgi"
    • "with regards to both setting and costume" – I think "with regards to" means sending good wishes. What you want here, I suggest, is "with regard to"
    • "For literary theorist Thomas S. Hischak" – a close friend of harpsichordist Yagyonak?

All very minor stuff. I'll read the article once more tomorrow, and then I think I'll be able to add my support. – Tim riley talk 22:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much- I think I've fixed everything/clarified why I haven't. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Good. (Forgive my King Charles's head in re false titles, and thank you for taking my sarcastic comments so graciously.) Having read again this evening I am happy to support. With the exception of Britten's chilling opera I have never run across an adaptation of HJ's original novella that really works, and I note with approval that you scrupulously reflect the balance of critical opinion over this attempt. The article seems to me to cover everything that should be covered, impartially and in most readable prose. In my view it meets all the FA criteria. It almost makes me want to see the film. Tim riley talk 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I've watched the film twice, which is why I did the GA review. I don't think I'd watch it again though, as I was never certain when the events were happening, or whether in fact the governess was mad. But that was of course the point of the film, and which I think is well explained. Eric Corbett 20:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, Tim! For me, the film is very watchable with a great atmosphere, but is by no means perfect (in its own right or as an adaptation). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Henry_James_by_John_Singer_Sargent_cleaned.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I really haven't a clue (and I hate to say this, as someone who spent a lot of time working with images...). I thought the US had a copyright term of the author's life plus 70 years. I've no idea when the painting was first "published", or what that would constitute. It's a 1913 painting, if that helps anything. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • For paintings, display counts as publication - was the artwork publicly displayed, and when? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I couldn't say for sure, so I've switched it to a photograph definitely published in the US prior to 1923. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Iwane Matsui[edit]

Nominator(s): CurtisNaito (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Iwane Matsui, Japanese general and prominent pan-Asianist, noted for his involvement in the notorious Nanking Massacre.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • If you mentioned the Nanking Massacre (and maybe other details) I imagine you'd attract more reviewers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I have expanded the introductory sentence.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Iwane_Matsui.jpg: how does this meet point 2 of the URAA tag?
  • File:Matsui_in_1933.jpg: when was the source published? Same with File:Matsui_and_Bose.jpg, File:Matsui_in_1945.jpg
  • File:Koa_Kannon.JPG: since Japan does not have freedom of panorama for sculptural works, you'll need to indicate the licensing of the statue as well as the image
  • File:Iwane_Matui_and_Asakanomiya_on_Parade_of_Nanking.jpg: can you please translate the description and source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "File:Iwane_Matsui.jpg", the copyright of the photograph has expired in Japan and there is no evidence that it was ever copyrighted in the United States. Concerning "File:Matsui_in_1933.jpg", "File:Matsui_and_Bose.jpg", and "File:Matsui_in_1945.jpg", I admit the source in which I found the photos does not appear to give an explicit date of publication, but all the photos are dated to when they were taken so presumably they were published around the same time they were taken. I added a note to the file "File:Koa_Kannon.JPG" explaining that the statue was created in 1940. The copyright ought to be expired by now.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The URAA tag you are using indicates under what circumstances it can be used - I don't think these have been met
  • We can't assume they were published around the same time they were taken - they may have been archival photos, for example.
  • We'll need a licensing tag for the statue as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed the photographs and added a licensing tag to the statue.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Driveby comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I probably won't do a proper review, but I have some comments:
    • Yasukuni. The article gives us no context on the significance of this event, or how it was gone about: how it was done secretively, how it didn't become public until 1979, the controversy it raised, etc. Also—six war criminals? There were 14 Class A war criminals alone, along with 1054 Class B and C. Is this supposed to mean six war criminals were enshrined at one ceremony? Were they all Class A? Of course, the Yasukuni article should deal with the fine details, but we need more context here.
    • "the Hitler of Japan": That's quite the hyperbole—who called him this? How widespread is it? I have to wonder if quoting it is perhaps WP:UNDUE—or at least should be better contextualized.
    • There's a mix of MONTH-DAY-YEAR and DAY-MONTH-YEAR dat formats—you'll have to settle on one style. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I fixed all these issues. I think the confusion about the war criminals was caused by another editor who accidentally introduced some ambiguity while copyediting the article. Among the war criminals enshrined in 1978 were all seven war criminals executed by the IMTFE (including Matsui). Matsui was the only one of them who was not convicted of Class A war crimes.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
So, he was convicted and executed, but not as a Class A? What class was he, then? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This issue is mentioned in the article in this section, [7]. Class A war crimes means "crimes against peace"(plotting aggressive war in other words), whereas Class B/C means conventional war crimes/crimes against humanity(like mistreatment of POWs or civilians). Matsui was charged with Class A war crimes as well as Class B/C war crimes. The IMTFE was mainly convened to deal with Class A war criminals, but some suspected Class A war criminals like Matsui were also accused of Class B/C war crimes at the same time. Ultimately, Matsui was convicted of only one count, Count 55. Count 55 meant failure to uphold the laws of war, not plotting to start a war. In other words, Matsui was convicted of Class B/C war crimes. The Japanese language sources that I consulted including the book by Masataka Matsuura noted that fact that Count 55 was unrelated to Class A war crimes.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
But if he was convicted of only one count, that count would be either B or C, not both, right? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
They are usually called Class B/C war crimes. On paper the Allies initially meant them to be two distinct categories of war crimes, but in actual practice it was impossible to tell the difference between them and so even at the time they were often referred to Class B/C war crimes. I guess I really should research an article for Wikipedia on Class B/C war crimes because it's a complicated topic to understand.
Class A war crimes are clear enough. Class A war crimes means plotting to start an aggressive war. I have read in other books that Class B was supposed to be for the mistreatment of prisoners or civilians in violation of pre-existing laws of war, whereas Class C was for any general massacres and persecutions on occupied territories not necessarily directly related to a specific law of war. However, most of the contemporary sources and most of the recent books that I consulted just call them Class B/C.
I did read at least one book, "The Politics of Nanjing" by Minoru Kitamura, which does explicitly say that Count 55 was Class B. However, the source also notes that "at the IMTFE, Class C War Crimes (Crimes against Humanity) did not constitute an independent category." I could cite Kitamura and say that Count 55 was Class B, but I figured I might as well go with standard practice and just call it Class B/C.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a footnote would be helpful, as the general reader (the target reader) can't be expected to know that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
A footnote has been added.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, thanks for your efforts on this article. Not a topic I know much about, unfortunately, so I only have a few superficial comments/suggestions. I hope they help in some way:

  • in the first sentence of the lead, the dates probably need commas: e.g. "July 27 1878 – December 23 1948" (commas to separate the day and year);
  • year ranges such as "1906–1931" should be changed to "1906–31" per WP:DATERANGE;
  • be careful of duplicate links. The duplicate link script reports a few examples of possible overlink, e.g: Imperial Japanese Army General Staff Office; Kwantung Army; French Indochina; Sugamo Prison; Tokushi Kasahara; Communist Party of China;
  • inconsistent presentation: "in the Army" and "in the army"; I think here they are being used to refer to a specific army (i.e. the Japanese Army), so they should probably be capitalised
  • "flagship the Yura..." by convention, ship title's are usually presented in italics;
  • " city massacred POWs": I don't think this abbreviation has been formally introduced;
  • I think some of the sentences could be improved with the addition of introductory commas;
  • "participated in an conspiracy.." --> "participated in a conspiracy"
  • this doesn't quite seem to flow to me: "...US Army took away his ashes to prevent a memorial from being created. Actually, the..." Perhaps it might work better as: "...US Army ordered his ashes be taken away to prevent a memorial from being created. Nevertheless, the..."?
  • " the International Military Tribunal for the Far East": probably best to add the abbreviation IMTFE in brackets here after the full presentation;
  • "were officially shrined in Yasukuni Shrine..." --> "were officially enshrined in Yasukuni Shrine..."?
  • "until the next year..." --> "until the following year";
  • in the "Later assessments and historical perception" section, the first paragraph probably should end with a citation (it would probably just be possible to move Citation # 67);
  • Anyway, that's it from me. Good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
All these changes have been implemented.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, I support promotion to FA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A lively, readable account of a notorious general. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrestle Kingdom 9[edit]

Nominator(s): starship.paint and リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) 01:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a Japanese professional wrestling show in 2015 that was also broadcast in English in the United States. The premier annual event of the NJPW company, this show was well received by critics, displaying the quality of puroresu. In the last four months, Ribbon Salminen and I have started, DYK-ed and GA-ed the article. This is the first FAC of co-nominator Ribbon Salminen, and my second FAC. My first FAC was not very popular, so I'm willing to exchange reviews for anyone I haven't already given help to. starship.paint ~ KO 01:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking over this page, it looks comprehensive enough. The images are appropriately licensed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus - keen eye and nimble fingers to spot and respond thus. Would you be able to fully review / support or oppose the FAC in the near future? starship.paint ~ KO 14:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Prolly yes, but I have another long worklist to work down beforehand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: understood. I'll hit you up in the latter stages of this discussion, then. Good luck with your work! starship.paint ~ KO 09:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
One preliminary thing I notice: "(although some previous shows have had other names)" does not appear in the source, it seems to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean on the actual Feature Article review? I normally do not comment on wrestling articles there since it is an interest of conflict in my eyes. But if you need a third party to something on the PW standards i would be happy to give input on that.  MPJ-US  12:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @MPJ-DK: - this is the actual Feature Article review. Personally, I don't think there's any conflict of interest because you are not a major contributor to the article. In fact, it would be beneficial for you to comment, because you can provide an "expert" point-of-view, especially on the depth of coverage, since you are familiar with PW. Other Wikipedia editors (most of them?) who are not familiar with the PW field provide the "layman" point-of-view. It would be useful to hear from both types of editors would be useful for this Feature Article review. starship.paint ~ KO 09:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I will be able to give some comments but not until the weekend at least.--WillC 21:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sara Northrup Hollister[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been a Good Article for some time; I've recently significantly expanded it further. The individual that it covers is noteworthy in two aspects, first as an occult practitioner and latterly as the second wife of L. Ron Hubbard. Her life story has since been (purposefully) obscured - quite literally airbrushed out of history, as the article describes. I've sought to recover it from a variety of sources, some published only in the last few years, where it appears in a fragmentary form alongside the more widely known life story of her husband and the occultist Jack Parsons. As far as I know this is the first time that anyone's put together a complete biography of Sara Northrup Hollister's life. I think it would make a good featured article; it's an interesting story and I think it would have wide appeal, despite the relatively obscure subject matter. Anyway, here it is for consideration. Prioryman (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • You're quite right - the picture has been there for a long time. I've taken it out. Prioryman (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Looking only at references and reference formatting:

  • As you're linking authors on first appearance in the references, you should probably link Tony Ortega in ref#26.
  • The two taped Hubbard lectures probably require more bibliographic information than is provided. Are these lectures published? If so, we need that publication information. If not (that is to say, it's a private or unpublished recording of the lecture), then the source is problematic on verifiability grounds.
  • Actually only one of them is a lecture. I've expanded its reference to give more bibliographic info. I'd mistakenly called the other a lecture; it's not, it's a published booklet for which I've added the bibliographic data. No page numbers. Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a brief follow-up on that booklet source. The correct abbreviation for Kansas is KS, not KA. Because reasons, I guess? Also, this is normally where I'd complain that book/booklet sources without assigned ISBNs should have OCLC numbers where possible. But, instead, I'll be helpful: Dianetics: Axioms is OCLC 14677877. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Missed that, done now. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "KS" is just the postal code, not the state abbreviation. Kans. is the official abbreviation for the state.[8] Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You link Hubbard in ref#74; you should probably (only) link at first appearance (ref#73) instead.
  • Ref#81 (Hubbard, cited in Wright) isn't formatted to the same standard as other references and needs re-examination.
  • I've reformatted it. Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm having some trouble with the UPI source. Are you citing this as published in a specific newspaper? I cannot locate it in the UPI Archives, although their search engine admittedly leaves a lot to be desired.
  • As an aside, I note that the text this reference supports opens "To this day," which is problematic phrasing for Wikipedia articles in general, but even more so here, where the source is 23 years old.
  • It's from a Lexis Nexis search. The header info is as follows:
May  21, 1982, Friday, BC cycle
SECTION: Regional News
DISTRIBUTION: Arizona-Nevada, California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington
LENGTH: 576 words
No headline is given and it does not indicate which newspapers it ran in - it's evidently a raw newswire release. I take your point about "To this day", so I've reworded that line. Prioryman (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And this is why I have a personal loathing for Lexis Nexis. If that's all it gives us, and that's all we have, I suppose I'll be satisfied, but I don't have to like it. Especially as it was distributed with no headline and we have no idea which papers carried it, trying to find a source that published it is ... challenging. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Does it matter which papers carried it? It's quite possible that none of them did, but that doesn't matter. Being published on the UPI newswire is still publication. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not at all convinced that Ortega's The Underground Bunker is a reliable source (which is what ref#88 is citing, even if it doesn't say so).
  • I don't think the claims being sourced here are directly impacted by WP:BLP, so the absolute exception at WP:SPS isn't triggered, and I'll concede he probably counts as a recognized expert (albeit one with an established point of view on the issues). In any case, the reference needs to include The Underground Bunker (probably as |work). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • ISBNs should be formatted as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. Use this tool as necessary.
  • In the Atack source, "New York" is sufficient for the publisher location (that is, do not style it "New York, NY"). New York is one of the shortlist of cities well-known enough to need no clarification. You have this correct in the other sources (London is also correct as is, in the Lamont source).
  • You wikilink only one publisher. These are optional (and I don't offer them myself, generally), but you should be consistent in linking (on first appearance in the references, anyway) those publishers for which we have articles, if you choose to do so.
  • The two television broadcasts are not properly formatted. In addition, while I'm less familiar with the expectation for broadcast mateiral than I am with print sources, I do not believe that sufficient bibliographic information has been provided here to satisfy our standards for source citation.
  • I've done my best to shoehorn them into Template:Cite AV media, which I believe is the one to use for this sort of thing. I don't know what other bibliographic material you need, though. We have the broadcaster and date of broadcast; what else is needed? Prioryman (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll let someone else with more experience with the FAC expectations for television sources weigh in on this, I think, but at the very least, the entire entries appear to be italicized, which needs correction. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Something in the template is causing the italicisation. I can't work it out myself, I'm afraid - I'll ask at the village pump for advice. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like the problem is the bracketed <cite> tags. You should be able to fix this by using |ref to name the source entries and then linking to them from the actual inline citation with {{sfn}} or your preferred equivalent solution. At least, I think that's what's wrong! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, that was the problem. It all seems to be fixed now - thanks for the help. Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The Urban source needs to be styled in title case.

Lean oppose on the sourcing and source styling grounds. I'm concerned about the insufficient bibliographic information for the taped lectures and the television broadcasts. That UPI source, and the use thereof, is also a matter of some concern. No opinion with regard to prose at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Squeamish Ossifrage: Just a ping to notify you that all of your comments have been addressed - awaiting your response. Prioryman (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Couple of outstanding issues. Struck opposition, but no replacement opinion for now. I'm going to be busier this week than I'd like to be, but ideally I'll get a chance to examine the prose at some point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've tackled (most of) the rest of the issues that you've raised and will see if I can get someone to help with fixing the AV template problem. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Little Annie Fanny[edit]

Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the innocent and alluring Little Annie Fanny and her comics creator, Harvey Kurtzman, one of the greatest cartoonists of the twentieth century. The comics series was unique for many reasons: It didn't look like a typical comic strip (it was fully painted in lush colors, no ink was used), it was the first strip to appear in a major American magazine (comics had a bad reputation at the time and were not showcased in this way), and its writing was genius satire of the American sexual revolution. However, as you will see, not everyone praised this comic. I hope you enjoy reading it. It is a Good Article, it has been given a virtual stamp of approval by a comics expert/respected member of the Wikipedia community, and it has been copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors. Prhartcom (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ceradon[edit]

  • I'll make some notes below. --ceradon (talkedits) 14:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Kurtzman created the series at the culmination of his career" -- you should probably mention that he was a cartoonist, just to be sure.
    • You are so right; everyone else is introduced in this article by their profession. I have changed it to "Kurtzman, a cartoonist and editor, created the series ..." Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Hairsplitting, but I might drop "editor" as it's irrelevant to the context. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This section could profitably be rename "Conception" rather than "Creation"
    • I like it; I have made that change. Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "place in his empire" -- a bit much. "Enterprise" might do well.
    • I was wondering about that (especially being only a couple of years into his business venture), so I absolutely agree. I have made this change. Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Little Annie Fanny began as a male character." -- this sentence seems a bit stranded. Please move it to a place where it is more relevant to the sentences after it. (Maybe, though, after reading the entire section, you should leave this sentence out entirely)
    • Crisco made the same comment. I have axed it (sadly). Please see my comments to him below, and feel free to reply either here or there with the question I brought up. Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There's something I don't understand; if Hefner offered Kurtzman a job, what was it? Is/was Trump owned by Hefner. If so, you should make that clear. If not, what did Kurtzman do for Hefner?
    • You're correct, it was Trump owned by Hefner, and you're right that it shouldn't take two long sentences before that is clear. I have changed it to: "Hefner offered Kurtzman an opportunity to conceive a new humor magazine for his enterprise, which the cartoonist accepted when he left Mad in 1956 in an ownership dispute. Kurtzman took most of the Mad artists with him, including frequent collaborator Will Elder, to create the adult-oriented humor magazine Trump." Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "It failed to find an audience" -- I wouldn't say something failed to find an audience. If two people go to a show, that's an audience. Whether they liked the show or not is a different matter entirely. The sentence is, in my opinion, too vague. Perhaps: "Humbug failed to gain a significant following," or something like that.
    • Agreed; I have changed it to "It failed to gain a significant following". Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "and a dejected Kurtzman began pitching feature proposals to Playboy, all of which were rejected. However, he received a note from Hefner: "I bow to no one in my appreciation for H. Kurtzman." -- I think this can be tightened up a bit, and I don't think we need the quote. Perhaps: "and a dejected Kurtzman began pitching feature proposals to Playboy. His pitches were rejected, but Hefner expressed his continued faith in Kurtzman in a note to him."
    • I had been laboring under the misconception that quotes provide authenticity and an ideal storytelling vehicle, which I thought should be used wherever possible. I see now that, while there is some truth to that, mostly this technique should be saved for the most powerful quotes and I had been overusing it. I certainly appreciate your note that sentences should be tightened; I fully agree. I checked, though, and your replacement text is almost no tighter than what is already there. I decided to keep the full stop after "all of which were rejected" as I like the chord it sounds. I kept Hefner's short quote of encouragement at the end as I think his own words could not be improved and they are short and tight, where your words are longer. Please re-read the paragraph and tell me if this reads well or if it still needs tightening. Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Encouraged, Kurtzman met with publisher Ian Ballantine" -- Perhaps: "Hefner's praise encouraged Kurtzman to meet with publisher Ian Ballantine, with who he created Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book (1959)." I think you can stop the sentence there as well, and continue with: "The book featured the innocent and idealistic Goodman Beaver, a male character who continued to appear—with artwork by Elder—in Kurtzman's Help! (1960).
    • "with who he created"? Slight problem: It may not be encyclopedic to say the book "featured" Goodman Beaver, as Jungle Book is four stories and only one of them features Goodman. How about "introduced" instead? I like the rest of your suggestion. I changed this to the following two sentences: "Hefner's praise encouraged Kurtzman to meet with publisher Ian Ballantine and create Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book (1959). This introduced the innocent and idealistic Goodman Beaver, a male character who continued to appear—with artwork by Elder—in Kurtzman's Help! (1960)." Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "and enjoyed "Goodman Goes Playboy"," -- you should probably begin a new sentence here with: "Hefner especially enjoyed..."
    • Agreed. This is the way I had it before the Guild changed it. I have separated into two sentences. Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Kurtzman replied, "Goodman Beaver's reason for being is ... a character who could be foolish and at the same time wise ... naive yet moral. He innocently partakes of the bad while espousing the good. That way, I can simultaneously treat foibles and ideals. He's a lovable, good-natured, philosophical idiot. He's restless. He wanders and can show up anywhere. He's young and can get involved in sexy situations. (That last sentence was for you.)" -- This quote is incredibly long. According to MOS:QUOTE, quotes with over 40 words should be put in a {{blockquote}} or a {{quotebox}}. You may also fancy paraphrasing though. Here's my whack at that: "Kurtzman replied that Goodman Beaver "could be foolish and at the same time wise," and that he "innocently partakes of the bad while espousing the good." He further stated that Beaver's innocent, restive and charming nature allotted him especial creative freedom."
    • Brilliant work; I could not say it better! I see what you mean: We must translate some of these quotes for the reader rather than burden them with the task of figuring them out (unless the quote says it better than than anything we could paraphrase). I have replaced the text with this sentence exactly the way you wrote it. Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The next sentence might be: "Kurtzman suggested a female character of a similar calibre for Playboy. Hefner called the idea a "bullseye," and stated that they can publish the strip in "every issue."
    • I see what you mean, but here is my thought: I prefer the sentence ending with Hefner's bull's eye quote, which I think provides a surge of excitement to the reader and has a climactic ring to it that I don't think we should lose. His quote is not too long; please re-read this paragraph and tell me if you agree? Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You said that Kurtzman collaborated with Will Elder often, but don't introduce him to the reader into this particular collaboration. Perhaps: "Kurtzman recruited his [long-time friend/colleague/long-time collaborator/whatever] Will Elder to work on the strip's illustrations. He suggested to Elder an "outlineless", painted style, but later thought the strip would be better suited by an India-inked, outlined comic book style with flat color behind it would be."
    • You are absolutely right; I had not properly introduced the reader to their collaboration for this project; great observation. The wording of your suggestion is a much better way to open the section. I have changed the text to be exactly what you suggest (leaving out the last two words; not sure what they are). Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • link "India-inked"
    • Yep. Crisco fixed that omission for me. Both of you: Good observation. Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "They sat on Kurtzman's back porch for hours, while he acted out every detail" -- this is extraneously detailed, and can be reduced to "Kurtzman acted out every detail of the strip"
  • "holes in Kurtzman's layout" -- do you mean literal holes, or something else?
    • Ah, I see that I should be clearer. I have changed it to "background gags worked into blank areas of Kurtzman's layout" Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "a three-ply illustration board. The white board works as white paint. With oils you can pile things on; you can pile the light colors on top of the dark colors. In watercolor, you leave the white board alone and you hit the dark spots first ... This was always a job of painting." -- Quote is too long. You can either paraphrase it or use a {{blockquote}} or a {{quotebox}}.
    • You're right, and it is not important enough to blockquote; paraphrasing is in order. I also returned to the source to ensure I was capturing the magic of Elder's explanation. The passage now reads, "Elder explained he would 'pile on' his tempera paint, light colors over dark colors, but with his watercolors he would allow the white illustration board to work as white paint. 'The colors were like gems to me,' he said. 'I worked very hard to give them iridescence.'" Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Deadlines were tight" -- could you expound on what this means?
    • It means the deadlines were drunk. Just kidding, I know you are pointing out the importance of writing in clear, encyclopedic style. I have changed this to: "The work was labor intensive and deadlines were often difficult to meet" Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Little Annie Fannie was the most unique, lavishly produced cartoon cum illustration feature ever. Each panel was a miniature masterpiece that Willie glazed and re-glazed in brilliant watercolor until he reached the level of 3-D-like translucence that he wanted. I know from first-hand experience what went into this project." Again, quote is too long.
    • Okay, I know it is, but I really like this quote. It sums up in just a few sentences how we should appreciate Elder's artwork. Can I leave it? Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Overall, it looks good; more to come soon. --ceradon (talkedits) 16:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank-you so much for your detailed examination of this article, Ceradon! As you say, there is more of the article that still needs your review; I greatly look forward to it! Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's go...

  • "Like any young woman appearing in a Playboy pictorial, Annie is beautiful and often unclothed." -- a bit rhetorical. Try this: "Similar to other young women in Playboy pictorials, Annie is beautiful, and often finds herself unclothed."
    • I see what you mean and I agree. I have fixed it. I think the rhetorical problem was "like any". Inspired by your suggestion, I have changed it to "like other". The other words you suggest changing are wordier for no good reason; remember we need to keep the simple dichotomy so we can compare Annie to the other young women. And we can't have the redundancy of a comma followed by an "and". Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Annie is a morally upstanding character like Goodman Beaver; she was conceived as a modern Candide and is above the story's corruptions and temptations. Unlike Goodman, however, Annie is never shocked or offended; she remains blithe." -- Perhaps: "Like her forebear Goodman Beaver, Annie was conceived as a modern Candide, above the story's corruptions and temptations. Unlike Goodman, however, Annie remains blithe in the face of normally shocking or offensive happenings."
    • Your first new sentence is a terrific improvement; thank-you, I have made that change (other editors and I have been fiddling with that sentence and yours is the first to get it right). I don't see how your second sentence makes any improvement, though: "normally"? "happenings"? I believe it strikes more of a chord to end with the word "blithe". Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to the authors of Icons of the American Comic Book, Annie "glides through a changing world with an untiring optimism, despite the base desires of many of her admirers ... she remains untainted; a buxom blonde whose own good-natured lack of desire insulates her from the pitfalls of others." Quote too long. I'll try my hand at paraphrasing: "Annie approaches the carnal nature of those around her with unremitting cheer, and remains thoroughly pure, as the authors of Icons of the American Comic Book state. "A buxom blonde whose own good-natured lack of desire insulates her from the pitfalls of others.""
    • As I have learned, you are right, it is too long. Yet we don't want to lose parts of the quote succinctly said better than anything we could arrive at; as well we want to keep the best vocabulary, such as their word "glides"—beautifully evocative, "changing world"—well-said important reminder, "untiring optimism", and even "base desires", although your "carnal nature" is a good replacement. We are going to steal the word "insulate". We are going to move "buxom" to her description earlier and we must live without the word "blonde". We can lose the redundant words "untainted" and "admirers"; certainly we can lose my words "According to". I realize we can also segue into the next few sentences one sentence earlier, as you correctly observed I am trying to do; hopefully the segue is now clearer; as well, I am introducing the next several characters. I have changed this to: "The authors of Icons of the American Comic Book say Annie 'glides through a changing world with an untiring optimism' and a 'good-natured lack of desire'. She is insulated from the carnal nature of those around her, who explain the new rules of society to her each episode."
  • "These others explain society's new rules, which are introduced each episode." -- I'm not sure what you mean. I think this was meant to be a segue into the next few sentences. Nonetheless, I think it could be made clearer. (see next point before actioning this)
  • "Sugardaddy Bigbucks, Annie's surrogate father and a powerful, manipulative capitalist, derives from the Daddy Warbucks character in Gray's Little Orphan Annie; Bigbucks' mysterious assistant, the Asp, becomes the Wasp in the Playboy strip and bodyguard Punjab becomes Punchjab." -- This is confusing me. Perhaps you mean: "A number of the other characters in Little Annie Fanny are derived from Gray's Little Orphan Annie. Sugardaddy Bigbucks, Annie's surrogate father and a powerful, manipulative capitalist, is based on Daddy Warbucks; Bigbucks' mysterious assistant, the Wasp, derives from the Asp character in Little Orphan Annie, and Punchjab, Bigbucks' bodyguard, comes from the character Punjab." In fact, I think that could replace, "These others explain society's new rules..." as a segue.
    • The description of these characters would not replace the segue in any way whatsoever. I really like how you devote a sentence to introducing the characters coming from the Orphan Annie strip. I appreciate you telling me about the link to Warbucks. I have replaced the text with almost your exact wording here, making just a few improvements. I also moved this just a little lower in the section and even added a paragraph break before it. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ralphie Towzer, Annie's nerdy-but-hip do-gooder boyfriend, combines actors Mickey Rooney and Robert Morse and the look of Goodman Beaver (with playwright Arthur Miller's eyeglasses and pipe), as straight-laced as ever." -- this really tells me next to nothing about Towzer. Could you clarify please?
    • Thank-you for the constructive feedback. I'd like to keep the hyphenated, parasynthetic phrase and the appearance comparison to Goodman Beaver and Arthur Miller but jettison the unhelpful comparison to Rooney and Morse. I also returned to the source. I have changed it to: "Ralphie Towzer, Annie's nerdy-but-hip do-gooder boyfriend, has the look of Goodman Beaver (but with playwright Arthur Miller's eyeglasses and pipe) and the temperament of a straight-laced, chastising prude." Please note that, considering your "tells me nothing about them" advice, I went back and added "mother hen" to the description of Annie's roommate Ruthie. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "ad man" -- I think "advertiser" is better. "Ad man" just seems off.
    • This doesn't sound constructive, as I just found several uses in the written English language of the term "ad man" (here is only one). It evokes a 60's male with this occupation much more than "advertiser", a word that conjures up more of a corporation. Anecdotally, my dad was one. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "ad rival Huck Buxton" -- Perhaps: "and Battbarton's rival Huck Buxton". I don't know if that's correct, but...
    • It's correct, you have fixed it, I'm using it. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could take some of the bracketed text out of the bracket. Maybe: "(his name taken..." -> "whose name is taken..."; "resembling" -> "who resembles" and so on. Also, I think you should use semi-colons instead of commas.
    • I have made the two improvements you suggest. I agree they are an improvement but I'm not sure why you said this takes some of the bracketed text out, as it adds additional text in. I don't see a need to replace the punctuation marks of a comma-delimited list with semicolons. Prhartcom (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "latest hip" -- Perhaps: "latest popular"?
    • Done. I think I was getting caught up in the 60's lingo. Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "edgy politics, or society headline" -- Maybe: "or political or social headline"
    • I'd like to keep the items in the list autonomous entities. You're right for pointing out "edgy"; it is not an encyclopedic adjective; I have changed it to "national". Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "who have eyes for Annie" -- what does this mean?
    • I landed there when wrestling how to neutrally describe how they lust for Annie (without her noticing, of course). I think I'll just say that. I even returned to the source and found those exact words: They "lust for Annie". Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "poking fun at miniskirts, LSD, free love, and bra burning." -- I think this can be split into a new sentence. "Throughout its run, the strip pokes fun at miniskirts, LSD, free love, and bra burning"
    • Well, it sounds like you haven't read further to see that the structure of the section is to describe each decade, not describe what happened throughout its run. However I understand you feel the sentence has run its course and needs a full stop there, which is good advice. It would apply to the descriptions of the other decades as well. I have made this change. Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "prissy-but-powerful" -- I think you can delete this.
    • Without a good reason? It's in the sentence is because this is exactly the way this personality is portrayed in that episode of the strip, which was a bold move by the creators. Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • link "shock rocker"
  • "and Little Annie Fanny achieved at least the latter." -- I'm not exactly sure what this means. Please clarify.
    • "The latter" means the the second of the two items. So the quoted source mentions "storytelling but also production values", then refers solely to the production values. It used to say "the latter of these" but the copy editor struck the last two words; maybe I should put them back to help clarify we are talking about "these"? Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Comics historian ... comics commentators, etc." -- Should really be "comic historian", "comic commentators", etc.
    • No, "comics" (an uncountable noun here used as a noun adjunct) refers to the medium, and "comic" can be confused with "comedic". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The way it was explained to me, which helped, is it's "comics" when referring to the medium, "comic" when referring to a single manifestation of the medium. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to cartoonist Art Spiegelman, the more interesting Goodman Beaver "devolved into Little Annie Fanny" -- there is really no need for a quote here; just: "Cartoonist Art Spiegelman called Little Annie Fanny a devolution from the more interesting Goodman Beaver."
    • Okay, no quotes, and I like how you reversed it like that, but I'll say "said [it] devolved from" instead of "called [it] a devolution from". Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Underground cartoonist" -- no idea what that means Face-smile.svg.
    • Should link to underground comix—"underground" has a fairly well-defined meaning in a comics context. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Linked. Crumb is the definitive underground cartoonist. I'm glad you pointed out that this term is not well-known. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Underground cartoonist Robert Crumb, whose career Kurtzman helped launch, scorned Playboy and Annie." -- why?
  • "who handles Kurtzman and Eisner's estates" -- shouldn't this be "handled"?
  • "who "was often a punctilious taskmaster with a heavy red pen who often had very different ideas about what was funny or satiric" -- regardless of whether his is a quote or not, it's too not-neutral to be stating it so directly. Perhaps: "Kitchen placed the onus on Kurtzman's employer Hefner, whom he called "a punctilious taskmaster with a heavy red pen"." Next sentence might be: "Kitchen further ridicules what he saw as Hefner's overemphasis on nudity."
    • I'm not sure I understand you. This gets to the heart of why the dissenters agree that Kurtzman's Annie is not brilliant work. The fact that it's a quote makes it all the more authentic. The point is made succinctly and the quote itself isn't too long. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Other media
  • "The December 1978 issue of Playboy mentioned a "world-wide search for the actress" who would "portray Little Annie Fanny in a live-action movie". In 2000, Playboy TV approached Mainframe Entertainment to create a CGI animated television series based on Little Annie Fanny." -- mention should be made of why/how these attempts became unsuccessful.
    • I do not know. I used to explicitly say that these attempts were ultimately unsuccessful, but without a source I now just trail off feebly. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Dark Horse Comics collected all episodes of the series in two volumes, with annotations by Denis Kitchen and others, which were published in 2000 and 2001." -- the sentence structure here is a bit odd. Perhaps: "Dark Horse Comics collected all episodes of the series, and published them in two volumes, one in 2000 and another a year later, both with annotations by Denis Kitchen and others." Not sure if that changes the meaning. Modify as you see fit.
    • Thank-you for this observation; you got the meaning right. I changed the years to a parenthetical aside "(2001 and 2001)" but otherwise I have changed it according to your suggestion. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's about it. Good work, Prhartcom. --ceradon (talkedits) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for the wonderfully detailed review, Ceradon! I really appreciate your kind attention. I await any responses and your ultimate decision. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your work and your responses, Prhartcom. I support promotion. --ceradon (talkedits) 22:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco[edit]

  • It appeared in 107 issues of Playboy magazine from October 1962 to September 1988, - Ambiguous (107 printed issues per month, with the rest Fanny-less, or 107 months worth of issues). Should be reworded.
    • If I follow you, you are saying it needs to be clearer that some of the monthly issues contain Little Annie Fanny and some do not. That's a good point; the article clarifies this further down. I have inserted the phrase "one to eleven times per year". Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • How about "It appeared 107 two- to seven-page episodes in Playboy magazine from October 1962 to September 1988."
        • Done. So much better and clearer. Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The series was collected in two volumes in 2000 and 2001 by Dark Horse Comics. - Not sure this deserves the prominent position it's given. Reissues (in my experience) have tended to be included later on.
    • Oh, okay. The cover of the reissue appears immediately to the right of those words, and the reissue is the only way any of us could possibly read the comic, so I was thinking the reissue is important. (Each Tintin article has the same statement prominently located in their leads, and I thought those were correct.) I have deleted that sentence from the lede per your observation; it remains in the last sentence of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd keep it in the lead, but not in the third sentence. Towards the end of the second paragraph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • What a relief; sorry about misunderstanding; I have replaced it as the last sentence of the lead to match the last sentence of the article Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
          • A fundamental difference between the Dark Horse collections and the Tintin collections is that the Tintin books were designed to be stand-alone volumes, the permanent receptacles via which Tintin was to be consumed. The Annie Fanny collections were never conceived that way: they're not standalone books, and they appeared years after Kurtzman died (which was years after the series finished) and were marketed to collectors rather than the millions who read Playboy or any other general audience. They're more akin to a Penguin Complete O. Henry collection than to a Tintin album. I question whether the collections merit mention in the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
            • That's a good analysis their comparison. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Little Annie Fanny began as a male character. - this comes out of nowhere, and the rest of the paragraph doesn't seem to follow it; I think it can safely be nixed. Also, isn't her name Annie Fanny?
    • Ceradon made the same observation (above). My intention was to start the section off with an interesting statement that is resolved by the end of the section, and I thought doing so would be considered good writing (I got the idea from one of the sources that did the same thing). But now you both have convinced me that this opening sentence must be deleted, and I can agree that the section will not suffer greatly because of it. I have one minor concern; may I ask advice from (both of) you: This explicitly stated fact about Kurtzman starting Annie as a male character was the hook of the DYK (see the article talk page). Do you think deleting the sentence and leaving the fact just implicitly stated would not be good in that case? Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It's already explained that Annie was based on Goodman Beaver, a male character, so that wouldn't be an issue. Also, sometimes DYK hook facts are removed after the fact. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Good, thanks for that. The out-of-nowhere opening sentence has been deleted. Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph of "Creation" uses the word "Playboy" six times. Might want to reduce that number.
    • Good point. It is now down to an irreducible three; this is much better. Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The cartoonist began submitting story ideas for the multi-page comic strip to Hefner for approval and was allowed (with Playboy‍‍ '​‍s substantial budget) to travel for research, photography, and sketching. He followed this with a preliminary script for Hefner, who always revised it. - Seems to shift from "How it began" to "How it always was" in the same sentence. Worth reworking?
    • This is a good observation, and in fact I had been aware that this transition needed to be skillfully handled, and I see that the Guild's copy edit to combine two sentences may have undermined this challenge. I have changed it to the following, what do you think? "The cartoonist began submitting story ideas for the multi-page comic strip to Hefner for approval. [The transition happens here.] He was allowed (with Playboy‍‍'​‍s substantial budget) to travel for research, photography, and sketching. He followed this with a preliminary script for Hefner, who revised it. Kurtzman then worked out the story's composition ..." Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Perhaps add a time clarifier, similar to "Over the twenty-six years he wrote the character, he was allowed (with Playboy‍‍'​‍s substantial budget) to travel for research, photography, and sketching. He would follow this with a preliminary script for Hefner, who revised it; Kurtzman then worked out the story's composition." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Good. This is now done exactly the way you suggest. Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Annie is the morally upstanding Goodman Beaver character, conceived as a modern Candide and above the story's corruptions and temptations. - Better not say she "is" the character in Wikipedia's voice. Should be reworked.
    • I see what you mean; for the encyclopedia to use the word "is" means this is an irrefutable fact. However, I can honestly say that the sources demonstrate how the one character became the other and (I thought) this was reflected in the article, and so I thought saying "is" here would be appropriate. But you don't think so? I suppose we could instead say, "Annie may be ..." What do you think? Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • "Is" could imply "Annie exists as / is the same character"; though she has similar characteristics, she is a different character, and as such "is" feels like a metaphor. "Annie, a morally upstanding character like Goodman Beaver, was conceived as a modern Candide and is above the story's corruptions and temptations." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, now I see what you mean; thanks for clarifying that. I have changed it to: "Annie is a morally upstanding character like Goodman Beaver; she was conceived as a modern Candide and is above the story's corruptions and temptations." I really like it; it is finally very clear. Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Bigbucks' mysterious assistant, the Asp, becomes the Wasp in the Playboy strip and bodyguard Punjab becomes Punchjab. Wanda Homefree, Annie's wild and shapely best friend, first appears in an episode-10 beauty contest as Miss Greenwich Village and is seen at Annie's side throughout the remainder of the series. - Shifts between talking about Orphan Annie as the subject and Annie Fanny; might be worth reworking, as the "Wanda Homefree, Annie's wild and shapely best friend" could also be (mis)understood as Orphan Annie's best friend.
    • Good one, I hadn't noticed that. Do you think it would solve it to, just before the "Bigbucks' mysterious assistant ...", change from a full stop to a semicolon? Then one big sentence talks about Little Orphan Annie, but all the other sentences are normal character discussions. Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd use "Annie Fanny" instead of just Annie — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Well duh, we could do that too. It is now: "Annie Fanny's wild and shapely best friend" Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Humble Oil's "Put a Tiger in Your Tank" ad campaign - Per WP:EASTEREGG and to standardize how you mention homages to real-life companies, we should probably nix the link and add a parenthetical about Exxon.
    • I see what you mean; I had felt good about it because the Exxon article mentions Humble Oil before the end of its second sentence. I have changed it to "and the "Put a Tiger in Your Tank" ad campaign of Humble Oil (which became Exxon).". Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • We can link to Humble Oil as well, assuming it was still extant at the time of publication. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes of course it was, Kurtzman was satirizing its existance. Done; Humble Oil is now linked. Much better mentioning both and linking to both. Prhartcom (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "reads today as an amusing look at the evolving mores of the sexual revolution". - does anyone discuss exactly what those mores were, as presented by the comics?
    • Do you mean, do any of the sources discuss it? Yes, and the article cites Duncan & Smith further down when it talks about "society's new rules, which are introduced each episode" and the synopsis gives several examples. Please allow me to continue this discussion in your last note below. Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • but no film was made. - is this also in the source? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm busted; no it does not. It states that a search for an actress for the upcoming movie is underway. Today, it is clear from the absence of evidence that the movie never came out, but I checked again and there are zero sources that say it never came out. My intention was to comprehensively report on the adaptations of the comic. What is your advice? Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It's very difficult to do short of a statement from a reliable source. I don't doubt it's true, but right now it's not in the citation given, and perhaps not in any citations. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I figured out what to do: I moved the citation from after "but no film was made" to before, so that it cites only the actress search statement. Prhartcom (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, no, the statement that no film was made needs a citation—the big problem here, though, is your source. You're using Playboy's search ad itself as a source, which I'm afraid is WP:OR. The fact that no film was made (in fact, the fact that they were searching for an actress) is not cited in an accptable WP:RS. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I think WP:ABOUTSELF allows the use of Playboy for the search. Agree that we still need to find a ref for them not finding anyone. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
            • I have removed the offending phrases. Please check the paragraph and see if it makes any sense; I have my doubts. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
              • "Two unsuccessful attempts" is still implicitly unreferenced. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Jstor has 15 results for "Little Annie Fanny" in their archive; have you checked these for useful information?
    • I'm checking right now, thanks for that. (I have not used JSTOR before but I just acquired a JPASS just now.) I do indeed want to ensure this article is comprehensive. Prhartcom (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I checked, and am disappointed but not surprised to report that there is no good information in these 15 citations. Most are mere passing references to the title of the strip while discussing some other subject (one in Spanish), one is a Kurtzman obituary, one is a review of one of my already-in-use sources. Only one has possible encyclopedic content, it is a review of a Kurtzman interview in which he states, "It takes a month of man hours to do a single page and the research is a hell of a lot of fun", but I think I already cover the research and the difficulty of the effort. I now have more confidence that the books and other citations I currently reference provide comprehensive coverage of this subject. Prhartcom (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The month of man hours is a good concrete piece of information, assuming he meant it literally. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
        • On the surface it sounds like good information but I really don't think he meant it literally, considering the fact that the four- or five-page Annie was coming out about five times a year. Here is the source; I just can't see using it: A typewritten newsletter that has a two-sentence review of a lost interview. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You mention in the article that Annie "innocently finds herself nude in every episode"; do any of your sources mention how?
    • Yes, in the Reception section, we quote a source saying that each episode has to include Annie disrobing and another quote states how this was occasionally done awkwardly. Elsewhere we say that this was required because of the magazine's editorial style. Perhaps I should add a sentence or a phrase to the Synopsis section, which allows primary sources, that gives one or two examples how. For example, Annie once tried on see-through clothing (that was all the rage at the time), another time she won the Boston marathon—not by a nose but by a nipple, and on another day she was paid by an adult toy manufacturer to impersonate a naked sex doll (see the image illustrating the article). What do you think? Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • That would be useful, yes. Even just a sentence, so that readers can see (not be told) how "forced" or "natural" the nudity was. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I understand now what you are asking and, and I especially understand how this could illustrate the answer to what you are asking in your last note below. This could really help the article. I will get back to you. Prhartcom (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Overall, I'm not getting a very clear impression of the narrative style of the comics, except for the fact that they were episodic. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You are making me concerned that the article isn't clearly stating that the narrative style of each episode of Little Annie Fanny was to hold society's latest hot topic up for ridicule by having other characters in the comic introduce it to Annie and allow her to experience it in her innocent way. I thought the article says this, but if it does not, can you please offer a suggestion where and how I can make an improvement? Thank-you very much for your review, Chris, it is an honor to work with you! Prhartcom (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • There is that, but, and this is my concern, how this satire was done (its "satirical style" as it were) isn't clear to me after reading the article. The satire of, say, Bored of the Rings is very different than what we'd find in The Onion or even Mad; the same goes for comics. She watches A Clockwork Orange, for instance, in her innocence. How does this serve as satire? Is it satirizing the moral outrage over the violence of such films (maybe she gets upset that someone would dare depict such acts on film), the human "car crash gawker" mentality which makes us take pleasure in this violence (maybe she finds a strange pleasure in it), or even both, or...? I'm not saying that all such references need explanation, but it would be good to know the manner in which they satirized things, and the position which they took (assuming this is discussed). It's like the question of "the evolving mores of the sexual revolution"; the artists and writers certainly presented their own POV regarding the mores, but what this POV was (pro-, anti-, guarded, etc.) isn't clear. If there is discussion available in the sources, something about their views, the themes permeating the comics, should be included.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I see now what you're asking me to do. To answer your question off the record, it is closer to "she gets upset that someone would dare depict such acts on film" while her friends are more accepting of it. As both Kurtzman and Playboy leaned liberal (vs conservative), there was no shocked condemnation but more progressive acceptance. I now agree that, if this is discussed in the sources, it must be included in the article. I will check the sources and get back to you. This is a really, really good note Chris, one that could really improve this article and make it FA worthy; thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Kurtzman critics have dissected his storytelling techniques in detail (like the essay in The Comics Journal on "The Big If" which is longer than the strip itself). By the time they get to Annie a lot of this is taken for granted, so I think it'll be harder to find a lot of detail on storytelling techniques in the strip—the focus is rather on how Annie differs (the painted art, the boobies). I wonder if it would be WP:SYNTH to throw in a paragraph talking about Kurtzman's general approach (his storytelling approach is pretty consistent throughout his career). Kitchen & Buhle would be a good source for that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
            • In a paragraph introducing Kurtzman, quite possible. I've done it with September Morn before. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Ha. You said "boobies". Still checking. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Still checking (and getting some real life done; aplogies for the delay). Prhartcom (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Banded sugar ant[edit]

Nominator(s): Burklemore1 (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a common ant that is found throughout Australia, which was recently promoted to GA status in June 2015. I note that this is my first FA nomination, so I may not be completely familiar with the FA process. However, I have had a discussion prior to this nomination about FA and I was given useful feedback on the article, of which I have performed a couple of edits to further improve the article. I look forward to my first full on experience with this. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Brief comment: Hi, Burklemore, this looks like a neat and tidy job which our biology readers will enjoy. I'm sure that a knowledgeable reviewer will soon pick it up; meanwhile, may I point out that the sentence: "If a nest is attacked, however, hundreds of ants will attack in force" is at present without a reference, and one should be added. Brianboulton (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey Brian, thanks for the comment. I'll look around for a source which supports this claim now. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
During my vigorous search, I was unable to track a source. I have decided to remove the sentence.
  • Comments taking a look now - will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
In the para 2 of the lead, you've mentioned workers and soldiers in sentence 1, and then major workers (also known as soldiers), and minor workers in sentence 2. It would be good to somehow merge these. I had to pause to wonder whether we were talking 3 groups - soldiers, major workers and minor workers - or 2....
I have worked on the sentence and merged the two. Since soldiers and major workers are exactly the same, is it necessary to even mention that they are commonly known as soldiers to the general public? Burklemore1 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point - not sure..possibly, I think many readers who know a little about ants would expect some clarification of soldiers as they might be familiar with them....from Antz for instance...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it may be relevant to keep the clarification so readers know what major workers are. Some readers would probably assume that there are two worker castes and a separate soldier caste instead. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Banded sugar ants can be found at elevations ranging from 170 – 853 metres - looks funny, I'd align it with source better by saying, "Banded sugar ants have been recorded from elevations ranging from 170 to 853 metres"


The two sets of units at the end of Distribution and habitat need imperial conversions


Sugar ants may also invade meat ant nests if they are overshadowed, since the health of the colony may deteriorate - this leaves me a little mystified, any elaboration on the shade and health would be good here.

I have read the source I cited but it doesn't go into great depth, though it does cite two sources which discuss this topic. I'll track them down now so I can see what I can use from them.

Added some detail. I have also added an extra sentence of what meat ants do when the colony is declining and what the banded sugar ants do when they invade. The source doesn't explicitly mention anything about their health unfortunately.

Support Otherwise looking pretty tight and comprehensive...I think we're in striking distance of FA status....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! :) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Comments from jonkerz - Very well-written and well-referenced article. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around the 'Life cycle and reproduction' section and the terminology around poly-/mono-/-gyne/-gynous/-andry. Here is my understanding:
monogyne (adj. monogynous) = nest contains a single queen
polygyne (adj. polygynous) = multiple queens in the same nest
monandry = queen/queens mate only once
polyandry = queen/queens mate more than once
From the article (the bolded numbers are mine): "1) Although most banded sugar ant colonies are monogynous, some have been found to be polygynous, 2) where the queens will only mate with a single male ... 3) Banded sugar ant colonies do not have multiple queens, and will only have a single queen."
To me this reads like: "1) Most colonies have a single queen (they are monogynous), but some have multiple queens (they are polygynous), 2) polygyny means that the queens will only mate with a single male ... 3) Banded sugar ant colonies are not polygynous (they never have more than one queen), they are monogynous (always a single queen)."
2) could also be interpreted as "in the nests with multiple queens, the queens will only mate with a single male", but I could not find this in the reference (the Fraser article however states that queens in monogynous colonies mate once). Can you see my confusion? jonkerztalk 19:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. I may have misinterpreted the text and meanings (these terms do get quite confusing). I read the source again and *hopefully* corrected and fixed up the issue you have raised. Can you double check? Burklemore1 (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. The issue has been resolved. jonkerztalk 02:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Something is off in the listing of subspecies: "Several subspecies have been described: C. consobrinus perthianus, C. nigriceps, C. nigriceps obniger and C. nigriceps lividipes." The second is a species, the third and fourth are subspecies of C. nigriceps.

C. nigriceps was classified as a subspecies by Wheeler in 1933, but Clark raised it as a full species a year later. This is the same case with the subspecies of C. nigriceps. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is a list of taxa that was once classified as subspecies of the banded sugar ant, which makes sense, why is Camponotus consobrinus perthianus (a junior synonym of Camponotus nigriceps) listed using its original name, Camponotus nigriceps obniger (a junior synonym of Camponotus consobrinus) listed neither under its original or current name, and C. nigriceps (that was once classified as a subspecies) listed under its currently valid name? jonkerztalk 14:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, but I am a bit confused with the question. If I recall Camponotus consobrinus perthianus has always been the only name for this taxon, and this is the same for Camponotus nigriceps obniger. C. nigriceps was also listed under its current name when Wheeler classified it as a subspecies. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
So, there are currently no valid subspecies of Camponotus consobrinus -- they have all been synonymized, elevated to species or reclassified as subspecies of another species. In a list of subspecies, I'd expect to find only subspecies-names, or at least names used in a consistent manner:
  • A) the name that was used when taxon was classified as a valid subspecies of the banded sugar ant
  • B) the current name of what once a subspecies of the banded sugar ant
It doesn't really make sense to use:
  • C) other (neither a currently valid name nor the name that once was a valid subspecies of the banded sugar ant)
The current list is a mix of all these. From first to last: A, B, C, B, while I think the list should read: A, A, A, A. Agree?
"C. nigriceps was later revived as a full species in 1934", a taxa that was already at the rank of species was elevated to a species? "C. nigriceps lividipes was classified as a subspecies of [C. nigriceps].", but doesn't the trinomial name indicate exactly this already? To me this sounds like "the C. nigriceps subspecies C. nigriceps lividipes was reclassified as a subspecies of C. nigriceps, now given the name C. nigriceps lividipes". Perhaps someone watching this review can take a stab at this, just to make sure I'm not alone in this. jonkerztalk 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, C. nigriceps lividipes went through the following:
  • 1887: Subspecies of C. nigriceps
  • 1933: Camponotus consobrinus subsp. lividipes Subspecies of C. consobrinus
  • 1934: Synonym of C. consobrinus
  • 1985: Subspecies of C. nigriceps Taylor & Brown, D.R. 1985

Well... that is some news. I may have gotten that wrong in the article which will need changing (thank you for pointing this out, btw). For C. nigriceps:

  • 1933: Camponotus consobrinus subsp. nigriceps (Smith) Subspecies of C. consobrinus

Does that answer your question by any chance? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be precise, would it make sense by incorporating those names instead of the original taxons, a long with a slight corrected update? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
So what I am seeing, is that C. nigriceps lividipes should be C. consobrinus lividipes and C. nigriceps should be C. consobrinus nigriceps. Camponotus consobrinus var. perthianus was erected by Wheeler in 1933 in the same paper where the other taxons were classified as subspecies of C. consobrinus, though I think he treated it as a variant, not a subspecies. Camponotus nigriceps obniger was also treated as a variety as Camponotus consobrinus var. obniger.

Would this sentence make more sense:

"In 1933, American entomologist William Morton Wheeler described some subspecies and variants of the banded sugar ant. These subspecies were C. consobrinus lividipes and C. consobrinus nigriceps, while the variants were C. consobrinus var. obniger and C. consobrinus var. perthianus. Some of these classifications were short lived; C. consobrinus nigriceps was later revived as a full species in 1934 as C. nigriceps, while C. consobrinus lividipes was synonymised with C. consobrinus. C. consobrinus lividipes was treated as a subspecies for C. nigriceps in 1985, now known as C. nigriceps lividipes. In 1996 C. consobrinus perthianus was synonymised with C. nigriceps, and C. consobrinus var. obniger was synonymised with C. consobrinus."

Much better! This is what I was looking for. I consider this issue to be resolved. jonkerztalk 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, I have incorporated the info (please correct anything if there is any issue with the prose.) Burklemore1 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Banded sugar ants are polymorphic and sexually dimorphic, meaning that colonies have two types of workers, minor workers and major workers that have different size ranges." Sexual dimorphism = minor workers and major workers? For someone new to ants, this could be misinterpreted as "minor workers = female, major workers = male". Perhaps it is easier to leave out the part about sexual dimorphism since all ants are sexually dimorphic. jonkerztalk 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed "sexual dimorphism".

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

In general this article is looking good. A few points that struck me: -

  • "Workers prey on insects, killing them with a spray of formic acid. It is preyed upon by other ants, echidnas, and birds."- You can't say "it" when the previous sentence had a plural subject.


  • "The brood of this species were also consumed by Australian Aborigines." - I would argue that "brood" is a singular word.

I realised that in the "interaction with humans section" that it says eggs instead of brood. Would that mark this issue as solved if I change it to that?

I just meant that I would have said "The brood of this species was also consumed by Australian Aborigines." Also, I think brood means young, in this case larvae I presume, rather than eggs, which I would have thought were a bit small to be worth eating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I read the source, and apparently the eggs of this species and several other ants were delicacies. I'm not sure if the author counted the larvae as eggs, because the eggs as you just said would be too small to be worth eating. Burklemore1 (talk 18:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll actually just change it to brood instead, it would mean the same thing and they most likely did consume larvae anyway. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The specific name is derived from the Latin word consobrina, meaning "cousin".[9] This is in reference to its similarity with the species C. herculeanus.[8]" - This seems like a non-sequitur to me.

Is this non-sequitur for only the two sentences?

  • First you state "Banded sugar ants come in a variety of colours," then you go on to describe the colouring in great detail. Can both these statements be correct?

Fixed up.

  • "the amount of malpighian tubules known based on two workers is 21." -This sentence is confusing, and anyway you mean "number" rather than "amount".

Changed to amount. What is your suggestion to make the sentence not confusing?

Your changes to the sentence are satisfactory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "They are found in urban areas, ..." - The previous part of the paragraph has been in the singular so you can't just say "they".


  • "... by the similar looking Camponotus nigriceps" - this is duplication of information in the previous paragraph.

Chopped it down a bit.

  • "170 to 853 metres (557 to 2,798 ft)" this conversion factor is too precise.

This conflicts with other editors suggestions, as does the other conversation suggestion. A discussion may need to take place and see what consensus can be reached.

Took this the wrong way, changed.
  • "Nests are regularly found in a variety of sites" - Why does this happen regularly?

Removed "regularly".

  • " Instead, nests have vertical shafts at their entrance, which is smooth in appearance." - This sentence is confusing.


  • "20 to 30 millimetres (0.79 to 1.18 in) in length with an arched roof that is 10 millimetres (0.39 in)." - More conversion figures that are much too precise.

See above.

"20 to 30 millimetres" is definitely an approximation, so "0.8 to 1.2 inches" is needed here in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I must have misinterpreted your comment. If this is the case, is it best to round the other conversion as 560 to 2,800 ft?
Yes, that is what I suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "but are more active during the night. These ants are more active during the warmer seasons, especially summer." - Too many "more actives".


  • "Banded sugar ants may also invade meat ant nests if they are encroached by trees or other shade, since the health of the colony may deteriorate." - neads clarification.

@Cwmhiraeth: I have rewritten the sentence and further explained that the colony deteriorates from overshadowing. Is that what you were asking for, or is there anything else that needs addressing? Also, I have some comments in relation to the interaction with humans, adoption of larvae and the etymology. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • "... a symbiotic relationship between them, but the results showed that these banded sugar ants attacked the leafhoppers, suggesting that there was no symbiotic relationship between the two." - Needs to be differently expressed to avoid repetition of "symbiotic relationship".


  • "Workers retrieve the honeydew from the aphid by excreting it through the anus of the aphid." No!

Changed, I guess?

  • "as the ants protect the aphid from predation and the aphid provides a nutritious liquid to the ants." - Sounds like multiple ants badgering away at one poor aphid.

Changed to aphid*s* since it would refer to many of them instead of a single aphid.

  • "Banded sugar ants are known to "rob" Hemiptera food sources consumed by meat ants at night, where meat ants will feed on these sources during the day." - This sentence is confusing.


  • Be consistent on whether you refer to Blindsnakes or Blind snakes.


  • "Nematodes are a parasite to banded sugar ant larvae, as several mermithergate larvae were described." - This needs more explanation for the uninitiated.


  • "... where the alates will begin to swarm" - This sentence is confusing as you have not previously been talking about a location.


  • "The black carpenter ant (Camponotus pennsylvanicus) is known to adopt larvae and pupae from banded sugar ant colonies." - This needs more explanation for the uninitiated.

There isn't much more that can be expanded with this, unless we can explain the fact that other related Camponotus brood are adopted. See page 203, first paragraph top left.

I know that in some ant species, ants raid other ant colonies and steal the brood, which then serves as slaves to the captors. Does this happen to the banded sugar ant?
No sources suggest that either these ants raid colonies or their get colonies get raided (other than invading meat ant colonies, but they do not take any brood). Myrmecia nigrocincta is the only plausible ant I can think of that *may* enslave banded sugar ants based on their geographical distribution, but there has been zero studies if this happens. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of the "Life cycle and reproduction" section is confusing. If females only mate once, how are there many patrilines, and what are these "distinct developmental pathways"?

I have removed most of the paragraph as a) it is way too confusing for myself to even understand, and b), I just realised that paragraph was most likely not talking about the banded sugar ant.

  • The "Interaction with humans" section is a bit disjointed.

May you extend your reason as to how it is a bit disjointed, and what is your suggestion to fix whatever is wrong? Content removal is not an option if there is any suggestion of that.

Read the paragraph through. It consists of about seven sentences which are bald statements, factoids about the ants. It is not ordered in a logical fashion and does not flow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I have reduced the amount of sentences a bit, but I'll be doing further improvements to the section shortly.
Rewritten, but feel free to correct any possible mistakes I may have left.
That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! I must note however I will be busy with irl things for the upcoming days so my responses may be slower than usual. This won't mean I'll completely forget about the FAC, but I just won't be able to address your comments (and other comments in the future) in a quick manner. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems I have addressed, or attempted to address, most of the points you have raised. I may need a comment in regards to the etymology part and/or to others parts that you feel may need a bit more work before you are happy with the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with the improvements made to the article and now Support it on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the thorough review! :) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • All images are licensed under CC or GFDL with sufficient source and author information - OK.
  • Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the image check! Burklemore1 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Opisthocoelicaudia is an interesting long-necked dinosaur from Mongolia, and a recent effort of the WP:WikiProject Dinosaurs. It contains everything that has been published on the topic. Looking forward to your comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Resolved referencing comments removed to the Talk page

So, referencing looks a lot better, and I promised a prose review, because dinosaurs.

A second look it is, then! In general, I think this article is much-improved. I have a handful of remaining quibbles after a second pass:

  • "digit bones (phalanges)": Still not fond of parenthetical glossing. Your mileage may vary.
  • done
  • "Foot skeletons of titanosaurs are rarely found.": I realize that this introduces the following sentences, but it's jarring to read, because, until you get to those sentences, it comes across as a non sequiteur. Perhaps there's a way to reword this without the full stop? I don't have an immediate suggestion.
  • done
  • Pipe a link for "derived" to derived trait, near the end of Description (you link it in the lead, but lead links don't count against body links for link duplication, and it's probably nice to have here; this section will be dense to a lay reader).
  • done
  • "Osteoderms have been found with 10 of the over 40 known titanosaur genera, bony plates covering the bodies of these animals.": Dangling modifier. Move the gloss adjacent to the term being glossed. Also, the word osteoderms appears four times in three sentences.
  • done
  • "10th and 23 June, 1965": Mismatched date formats.
  • done
  • I'd pipe a link to Valid name (zoology), probably from the first use of "invalid" at the top of Classifaction.
  • done
  • I'm still not happy with the "probably synonym" phrase as currently used in the Footprints section. I think a more robust rewording word help, making it clear that we're reporting on the researchers' opinion of synonymy here; it's far to easy to read that phrase in the encyclopedia's voice (basically, as reminder text, rather than attribution). Also, while I'm at it, "Currie and colleagues" is used twice in a paragraph, so there's probably a better way to format that in general.
  • done, reworded
  • I'm dubious about citing the pronunciation to a Youtube video. The IPA for most, if not all, FA-level dinosaur articles is uncited, so that's clearly been taken as acceptable. And the source provided doesn't appear to satisfy WP:RS.
  • done, moved it to "external links" (for the readers not familiar with IPA)

Moving to conditional support. I have full confidence that this will be ready for the bronze star by final evaluation time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all your comments, and your support! All fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

Well-written interesting article. Just a few comments:

  • Taphonomy is only mentioned as a header, and linking headers is bad, but I bet we leave the average reader wondering what this means. Anything that can be done in the first sentence?
  • Done
  • "Footprints were unknown from the Nemegt Formation until 2003," may I suggest -> "Footprints were unknown until 2003,"
  • Done
  • Image selection is great. Ideally an image of the footprints to conclude. If they exist and have no rights issues.

Edwininlondon (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Edwininlondon! When we started with the article a year ago, we barely had any images at all, so we were quite lucky to get that many! We asked Commons user Adrian Grycuk to visit the museum to take pictures of the mount, and he did a fantastic job. FunkMonk drew a high-quality life reconstruction and found an additional pic on the internet. IJReid got OTRS permission for the professional skeletal drawing. And I did the posture diagram. We unfortunately cannot use images of the footprints because of copyright. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I contacted professor Currie and he kindly sent me some of his own photos and granted permission to put in the public domain. I just uploaded the best one. If you like it, use it. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks, this is a really great addition to the article! I just added it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

... the possession of a neck of medium length of roughly five meters - any reason why this is not written abbreviated with imperial unit conversion?
  • done
I tweaked some stuff, just check if you're ok with it (rationales in edit summaries)
  • Great, thank you!

looking on-target. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cas Liber, thanks for taking a look, let me know if you have any more comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I am supporting now on comprehensivenessa and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Images check: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The footprint image uploaded by Edwininlondon would need an OTRS[9] permission, though... FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Pitfour estate[edit]

Nominator(s): Eric Corbett, SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In its hey-day, the Pitfour estate stretched across 50 square miles of northeast Aberdeenshire and was described by the architectural historian Charles McKean as “The Blenheim of the North”. Features included a racecourse, an observatory, a replica Theseus temple and much more. At one time said to be valued at £30 million, what remains of it today? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from edwininlondon[edit]

Happy with revisions. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Interesting article. Generally good prose and good illustrations. A few comments:

  • With the estate section coming after the lairds section, there is a case of jumbled up chronology. When I first read it I had questions about the estate that I didn't know were going to be answered later. In these articles the reader expects to start with the early history. I appreciate the desire to separate the estate and lairds information, but if so, I think the estate comes first, and a section about its owners could follow.
    This suggestion hasn't been raised previously despite being reviewed as a GA and shortly after being subjected to a GA check; I have given it some thought but I disagree as I feel the Lairds section gives the reader a brief explanatory overview of the family. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    I think there were two parallel chronologies, one for the lairds and one for the estate, which we've now attempted to merge. See what you think now. Eric Corbett 17:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The Lairds section reads better if each laird gets its own paragraph.
    I think this would make the paragraphs too short and choppy. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    We've done some reorganisation, which I think addresses this issue. Eric Corbett 17:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, better. I would move the death year of the Admiral to his own section though.Edwininlondon (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "In normal circumstances his brother Patrick would have been his heir, but he died in battle in October 1780." Not keen on this sentence, as the circumstances sets up something special, whereas the brother had simply died years earlier.
    I'm afraid I don't quite follow your point here? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The estate was then inherited by George Fergusson": relationship? how did he end up being the one inheriting the estate?
    Clarified. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "To cover his substantial gambling debts, he began to sell parcels of land, and upon inheriting the estate he began selling furniture, .." confusing what the land refers to, land of the estate or not?
    Tweaked a little bit. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "George Arthur, the sixth laird was posted to Canada" Already mentioned he is the 6th and actually when posted he wasn't quite yet, according to the following text. Better would be something along the lines of "In 186x he was posted to Canada,"
    Tweaked a bit and changed to refer to him as Captain Ferguson. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sixth laird: Anything known about buyers of the estate?
    I've added a little bit to it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Mansion house section: "When the fourth laird, George (the Governor), died.." this bit is confusing as it goes back to 4th after the 6th, and then next paragraph starts with the fifth again. Maybe better to do it chronologically.
    Shuffled it around a bit. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The Theseus temple: the image that goes with it is the observatory according to the caption. I guess the image should move to the Observatory section. An image of the temple would be good.
    I moved the image of the Observatory. Regarding an image for the temple: it would be nice but recent images are all shrouded in scaffolding as the structure has been unsafe for years; any old images seem to be held in private collections and I believe are copyrighted. Hopefully once restoration work is eventually undertaken an image can be added - I think we're looking at years rather than months though. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "according to Historic Scotland, it was built "probably circa 1835"." this bit is better off at the beginning of the paragraph, right after "Local historian Alex Buchan attributes it to James, the third laird"
    Tweaked and shuffled. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Observatory and racecourse section should start with the Observatory in line with sub-header
    The racecourse was established before the observatory was built so I've swapped the header. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is nothing known about usage of the racecourse?
    Not that I can find and Buchan doesn't give much detail about it either. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The rest of the estate is seldom used or even known about by local residents however." may I suggest a rewrite to "However, the rest of the estate is seldom used by local residents, many of whom do not even know about it." Edwininlondon (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    I've altered that but completely dropped the "However". SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Support An excellent article which meets FA criteria. Just some minor points:

  • "The racecourse is now forested" -perhaps mention the year it became forested in the lede if you can?
    I will double check to see if I can find a date for it; I believe some of the forestry is dated to the late 1920s. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    I've added a brief note with the only information I've been able to find. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    Added year of forestation to the lead as I've now been able to confirm it was 1926. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "James Ferguson—known as the Sheriff, which reflects the post he held," meh, why not just saying "In 1700, the local sheriff James Ferguson bought the estate after selling the lands of Badifurrow."?
    It seemed the easiest way to introduce them being referred to by their professions, the Sheriff, the Member, the Governor, etc. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "He too continued to expand and improve the estate; he constructed a lake and a canal, and built the new mansion." -date?
    As there is such a variety of dates, and it couldn't even be done by at the turn of the century or some such, I left the fuller explanation under the relevant sections. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The estate was then inherited" -best to avoid "then" to start a paragraph I think. If you have a date say In xxx it was inherited.
    Tweaked. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Link St Fergus to New Pitsligo in estate.
    Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "by architectural historian "-British English, the architectural historian?
    Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • natural son of -the natural son of?
    Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Same with "Local historian Alex Buchan" -I know Cassianto and Tim riley would agree with me on using the definite article.
  • hipped roof -link?
    Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • finial and domed -links?
    Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Mmm, Twentieth-century section. I'd be tempted to merge Lairds, Estate and that and recent times into a History section, but you and Eric might disagree.

Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for looking at this, Dr. Blofeld, it's much appreciated. I've done some of the very quick fixes and will look at the others tomorrow. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Pitfour_House,_side_view.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Given the date of the photo it is quite possible they did not. Same with File:Pitfour_House,_Aberdeenshire,_side_view_-_the_'Blenheim_of_the_North'.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for checking these, Nikkimaria, I've had a go at tweaking them. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Gateway Protection Programme[edit]

Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a refugee resettlement scheme operated by the British government since 2004. A longstanding good article, I first (unsuccessfully) nominated it for FA status some five and a half years ago. After a long break from editing, I returned to Wikipedia recently and saw that the article was in need of updating. New source material had also been published in the meantime, and I was able to use it to update and expand the article. The article is extremely stable (mainly because few other editors have bothered to edit it, leaving me as almost the sole author, which may be a problem - I don't know). I hope that it now covers the topic in sufficient depth and is well written enough to be promoted. I recently nominated it for FA status again and addressed some helpful comments left by Nikkimaria and Jimfbleak, but ultimately it didn't attract enough comments and was archived. Following discussion with Ian Rose, I am renominating it and will actively seek out reviewers so that it gets a proper review this time. The article is very topical in the current climate regarding migration to the UK, and it would be good to get this to FA status. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I've checked the changes since the last FAC, and there is nothing that needs fixing. I've an idea that we don't require linking to entities as well known as countries, but not a big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting read and very little reported on it. Only comment would be to clarify that North West England and Yorkshire and Humberside are regions. Keith D (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Keith D. I'm glad you found the article interesting. Does this edit address your comment about the regions? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
      • That makes it clearer. Thanks Keith D (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support. A few usage and content issues:

  • Three instances of the form "... by the then British Home Secretary ..." The 'the then' is unnecessary – it is always assumed in historical writing that all positions were as of the time being written about – when writing about World War II you don't say 'the then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill'.
  • Why is "'Lisbon Speech'" in quotes? Is it well-known, and I'm just not knowing it? If it isn't, just say speech in Lisbon perhaps?
  • "The legal basis for the programme's funding ..." ends up being a really run-on sentence. Make the House of Lords part be a separate sentence without a parenthetical.
  • No statistics for the tables later than 2012? It's noticeable because the text next to the first table is giving related figures for 2013.
    • The Home Office hasn't published statistics on the scheme that regularly. The tables are based on an evaluation document in which statistics up to 2012 were presented. I haven't been able to find comparable statistics for 2013 and 2014.
  • Why does the second table have "Congolese (DRC)" while the accompanying text just has "Congolese"? If anything the text should have the additional explanations, as it does for "Burmese".
    • "DRC" added to text. Is there a better way to distinguish between the two Congos?
  • "... the original 15 Congolese families in Norwich in 2006" seems to refer back to some earlier history that I can't find. And the reason for including the motorway crash needs to be clearer – was it linked to their status as refugees? or just an ironic commentary on notions of safety?
    • It's not meant to refer back. Does this wording work better? There's no particular reason for including the crash, other than that it made the news at a time when not much was written about the programme. Should I remove it?
  • What is the "English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision"? Is this some specific programme in the UK? The link is to a generic English as a second language article.
  • The "Evaluations" section doesn't have any findings after 2011. Have any been made?
  • You say the programme enjoys cross-party support. Has the UKIP said anything about it?
    • Not that I know of. Should I clarify that this means major parties?
      • This piece sort of implies that the UKIP is against the programme, but doesn't explicitly state it. But yes, you should clarify which parties you mean. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the cites, most of the publishers have links (at least on first usage), but some don't, including The Daily Telegraph and Sheffield Telegraph. Any reason?
  • An old GAN comment: Still no dates on the Mandate Refugee Scheme. Even a rough idea would help.
    • I've not found any sources that state when this scheme started, but I'll keep looking.
  • Sort of another old GAN comment: I'm still not clear on the public reaction to the programme, or is it sufficiently obscure that most of the public are not aware of it? You say in your nomination above that "The article is very topical in the current climate regarding migration to the UK" but the article doesn't reflect that it's getting a lot of public attention.
    • No, the Gateway Protection Programme is still not very well known. I think my point in the nomination was that resettlement in general is being discussed, in the context of Syria especially, but most of that discussion doesn't mention this programme.

Comments notwithstanding, this is a very good effort – FAC closers, keep it open a while longer – Wasted Time R (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the very useful comments, Wasted Time R. I'll make some edits to the article in response to them over the next day or so. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've fixed a few minor issues and have a few queries above if you're willing to respond, Wasted Time R (or anyone else). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Question from nominator: A few of the sources are referenced multiple times. Where these source have multiple pages (e.g. reference 1), do I need to employ a system to reference specific page numbers on each occasion that the source is cited? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've now done this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This citing change looks good to me and my last couple of comments above have been resolved, so changing to 'Support'. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review -- the sole image appears appropriately licensed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, Ian. There are some good images on Flickr that would be excellent for the article, but sadly none of them are available under an appropriate licence. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What remains outstanding before this review is complete? Is a source check required? Is anyone willing and able to do that? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the mayfly, an insect that spends almost its whole life as an aquatic nymph, and a brief time (sometimes only a few minutes) as a winged adult. The article achieved Good Article status in July 2015 and we hope you will think it is also up to FA standard. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. This is a WikiCup nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Do we have any information about its diversity in other continents instead of North America, and are they sometimes regarded as pests or do they usually avoid urban areas due to their aquatic lifestyle? Burklemore1 (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have added a couple of sentences on their worldwide distribution. I wouldn't say they were pests at all; they are like butterflies, pretty and innocuous, and seen more in rural areas than urban ones. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, the change looks good. I'll give the article another read to see if I can pick up anything else. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I was surprised there was not any information in regards to parasitism, but I have found a few sources that discuss this topic. You may find these sources useful: 1 2 3 4 5
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any link for the term "hypopharynx"? This may not be clear for readers. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The link for ref no. 33 and the external link for "Bibliography of Ephemeroptera" are dead (for me that is).
Removed the dead links; the ref itself is ok. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't much to say about the article now that my comments have been addressed. I will happily support this article as an FA. However, those who are more in depth than I am will need to give their thoughts on the article. Good job guys on yet another excellent article. Do you two have any further plans on promoting other insect articles to GA and FA (other than the two you currently have nominated for GA)? Currently I have just started to work on Termite in one of my sandboxes, since that needs immediate attention. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, while I am still supporting this article for FA, I have some more comments and suggestions:

  • What exactly is a thoracic shield?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Page is needed for ref. no 31 Burklemore1 (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, the article definitely has my support now. I do not see anymore problems, so that is all from me. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Mayflies_in_Sunset_Dance_Gilbert_White_Natural_History_of_Selborne.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Same with File:BowlkersArtofAnglingFrontpiece_Mayflies.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Philip Henry Gosse died in 1888 and Charles Bowlker in 1779. I have added the information to the image files. Thanks Nikkimaria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Excellent article and very comprehensive. Even my usual parasite nitpick was addressed before I got here. Two things before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • First sentence: The mayfly... which also contains the dragonfly and damselfly—whythe singulars when there are hundreds of each of these groups? Looks like the hunter's singular "we hunted lion, elephant and mayfly". It's particularly weird because you use plurals throughout the rest of the article, next para begins Mayflies are relatively primitive insects...
Recast using plural. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • swarms a few metres (yards)—how is this a meaningful conversion? Drop the imperial.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Coemgenus[edit]

On first reading, there's very little to criticize. One thing I noticed is that in "Ecology," you wrote that fish are "probably" the main predators. Is the issue in doubt? I'll do a second reading and see if anything else comes up, but I'm leaning support so far. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

They are certainly "among" the main predators, so have said that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. On second reading... I've got nothing. This is a well-written and interesting article, and I'm happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review

Cite 3: Some problems; 1. "The head is heavily sclerotinised" is an exact copy. 2. I can't find mention of the antennae being slender though that may be an obvious feature. 3. I can't find mention of the claw being absent in some species. 4. The source mentions that the female dips her abdomen in the water intermittently rather than sometimes. 5. I can't find mention of the length of the nymphal stage. 6. The page range should be extended since the information goes beyond page 20.
I have sorted these points, apart from the length of the nymphal stage, which you may have missed in the source, - the bit about voltinism. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
All good, I suppose "sometimes" and "intermittently could mean the same. LittleJerry (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Cite 28: Good
Cite 62: Doesn't mention mid-June. LittleJerry (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Removed, the date was mentioned in another source. Thanks, LittleJerry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Good. LittleJerry (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Romney Literary Society[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a literary society that shaped the cultural development of a rural region of Virginia (and later West Virginia) during the 19th century. This is the most comprehensive article in existence illustrating the society's activities and history. Any guidance and feedback that would allow me to further improve this article to FA status would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to provide your comments and questions. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

  • "The nine men at the society's first meeting were Thomas Blair, David Gibson, James P. Jack, Samuel Kercheval, Jr., Nathaniel Kuykendall, Charles T. Magill, James M. Stephens, John Temple, and William C. Wodrow" — A small question: Isn't there any link to any of them?
  • I will be working on forthcoming articles for David Gibson (a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and builder of Sycamore Dale), Samuel Kercheval, Jr. (the son of noted historian Samuel Kercheval), and Nathaniel Kuykendall (affiliated with the Nathaniel and Isaac Kuykendall House). In the meantime, however, I've left them un-linked until their articles are completed, although I am not opposed to red-linking them if need be. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "the remaining funds were to be used for the purchase of books for the library" — "the remaining funds were to be used in purchasing books for the library".
  • This is a much better reconstruction of the sentence for flow, and I have incorporated in this form. Thank you for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to historian Hu Maxwell, these men elected Kuykendall as chairman and Magill as secretary" and "The society's first elected officers were Charles T. Magill as president, William C. Wodrow as secretary, and John Temple as treasurer" — Just a clartification on who was secretary of the committee.
  • I've changed the sentence to read as: "According to historian Hu Maxwell, these men elected Kuykendall as chairman and Magill as secretary of a committee which was charged with the drafting of a constitution for the society." Magill was secretary of the constitutional committee, but following its organization, Wodrow was named the secretary of the society. Let me know if this needs to be made clearer in the prose. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The affirmative won the debate" — Can you clearly specify as to which side won it? Maybe try "The debate ended under the decision that a system of banking was advantageous."
  • Thank you for the suggestion! I've incorporated "The debate ended under the decision that a system of banking was advantageous" into the text. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much all from me. Excellent work on the article, West Virginian. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ssven2, thank you for taking the time to provide your suggestions and guidance. I've responded to your first comment and I've incorporated your other suggestions. Please take another look and let me know if I need to address any further issues. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
West Virginian, thank you for resolving my comments. I now hereby give my support. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Plutarch.gif needs a US PD tag
  • File:Confederate_Memorial_Romney_WV_2015_06_08_01.jpg: since the US does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a licensing tag for the work itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, thank you for engaging in an image review for this article. I've removed the periods from the image captions, and I've gone a step further by adding alt captions without periods as well. I've also added the "PD-US" template to the image of Plutarch and added the "FoP-US" template to the image of the Confederate Memorial. The memorial was completed in 1867, and is therefore not covered under the under United States copyright law (17 USC 120(a)), which states that architectural works completed after December 1, 1990 are protected. Thank you again for the image review, and please let me know if you find anything else that needs to be corrected or adjusted in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • FoP-US is an appropriate tag for architectural works like buildings - I think this particular work is much closer in character to a sculptural work, and thus a different tag would be more appropriate. Given the dates, probably the pre-1923 tag would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, as there is no "FoP-1923" template or license, I've kept the "FoP-US" and added "PD-1923." I couldn't find any other licenses or templates that would apply outside of those two. Please let me know if this works. If not, I will remove this image from the template until a resolution can be found. Thanks again for the image review! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I wasn't clear: FoP-US does not apply to this image and should not be used - PD-1923 is fine for the monument along with the licensing tag for the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, thank you again! I've removed FoP-US and have just left the original CC license with PD-1923. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Neutralhomer[edit]

Excellent work. No issues with Checklinks, great use of sources and the almost sole use of print sources (which I love). Prose and grammar is excellent, no run-ons or any other kind of problem. Nice use of current and historic photos as well.

There was one image that I moved from the "West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind" section to the "Final years" section as it was squishing the text in the middle. This isn't a big issue, but I know some editors frown on squished text.

Other than that, you have done a great job. Well done. This article has my full support. - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Neutralhomer, thank you for taking the time to engage in a thorough review of this article and for relocating the image! Your suggestions and guidance are always appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sisters at Heart[edit]

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a Christmas episode of Bewitched that was written by 22 African-American high school students on the subject of racism. The article has received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors and has since been promoted to good status. Neelix (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jaguar[edit]

  • "Asher also expressed pleasure with the program's success, and recommended that other white businesspeople" - I don't think there's a need for white people to be linked here, even if "white" isn't linked in the lead
  • "Sargent considered Saunders the main reason for the success of the program. "She was interested in innovative forms of teaching," he said." - I might be wrong, but I feel that this should be paraphrased a little so that the sentence doesn't begin with a direct quote
  • "One of the high school students was granted the role of assistant director, and at one point screamed "Quiet on the set!", a memory that Sargent later recalled fondly" - was it the high school student that screamed "quiet on the set" or the real director?
  • "CBS erased all episodes of The Merv Griffin Show produced between 1969 and 1972 after Griffin left the network" - I don't understand how they could erase episodes of a show, was it cancelled?
  • " As an introduction and conclusion to the episode, brief videos aired of Montgomery alone looking at the camera and speaking about the episode" - was this introduction only shown in the episode's 1971 re-run?
  • " a role that he says Samantha also fills in "Samantha at the Keyboard," another Bewitched episode" - can this episode be linked?
  • I think that the lead could summarise the article better, in accordance with WP:LEAD. I don't know any other similarly-themed sitcom FAs to compare this with, but either a little more on production could be mentioned. For example, how many students at Jefferson High School were illiterate, or the legacy/impact this episode has had on the civil movement. I know that the movement was mainly between 1954 and 1968, but if you think about it, 1970 isn't that far off!
  • The reception section is looking quite short and void of critic's opinions. Comprehensiveness and detail are a major factor of the FA criteria, are there any online reviews or more critics that had a say about this episode?

That's all from me for now. I'll come back and have another read through of this article later, but those are the initial structure/prose issues I could bring up. Nice article overall! JAGUAR  16:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Jaguar! I have removed the link to White people, resituated the Sargent quotation, reworded to avoid the confusion about who screamed "Quiet on the set!", linked Wiping and reworded to clarify what happened to the episodes of The Merv Griffin Show, switched the sentence order to avoid the confusion about when the introduction was shown, and added two production-related sentences to the lead. I have not linked "Samantha at the Keyboard" because there is no Wikipedia article for this episode and I haven't been able to find enough sources to justify creating one. At present, "Sisters at Heart" is the only episode of Bewitched that has a Wikipedia article. I know of at least one other episode that is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, but there may be only one other; certainly, most Bewitched episodes are not independently notable. Thank you for recommending that I look for more online reviews of "Sisters at Heart"! I managed to find two more and have added them to the "Reception" section. I have also created an "External links" section. I was able to find other reviews of the episode online, but none that exhibited editorial oversight. Please let me know if you have any remaining concerns. Neelix (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and I must apologise for the long delay; there has recently been a flood here and it has caused my internet to return to pre-1999 "dial-up" speed! I didn't know that this was the only Bewitched article on Wikipedia, usually TV programmes are well covered! I don't think I can do a full source review as I don't have access to any of the offline sources, so I'm about to go through the four online sources to see if anything needs paraphrasing. JAGUAR  12:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I could only access two references because an online subscription is required for the others, but nevertheless I found no issues with content or paraphrasing. After looking through the article again, I don't think I have any other concerns to make, therefore I'll support this article on the basis of it being well written, comprehensive (especially for a 1970 episode) and well referenced. I'm sure somebody else might have access to the offline references, but I'm happy with how the article how it is. JAGUAR  12:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from Cliftonian[edit]

It seems I share a surname with the director of this episode—not something that happens to me a lot. I don't think we're related, but you never know. I'll have a look through and jot note any thoughts I have as I go through.

I'm glad you enjoyed the review, John! I appreciate you undertaking it. I have implemented most of your recommendations with the following exceptions. Thank you for picking up on the problem with the tense of "cast". I have reworded to "has cast" instead of "casts" because I think the present perfect is most appropriate here. I removed all the links you recommended that I remove except African American and white American, which I think too central to the episode to leave unlinked. I retained the phrase "white American" in order to mirror the phrasing of "African American". I retained the phrase "When Mr. Brockway arrives" rather than switching to "When he arrives" because the most recently mentioned person to whom "he" could refer is Darrin. I retained the phrase "help the students with the rewrite" rather than switching to "help with the rewrite" because I am concerned that readers will think that Asher was undertaking the rewrite and was asking Avedon to help him. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns or if I haven't sufficiently addressed any of your concerns above. I always appreciate your comments. Neelix (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply David. I won't quibble about the links on African-American or white American, or the other prose points you mention. I'm now happy to support and cap my comments above. Well done David; very good job on this one. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Only three small points. First, is "Governors Award" really given without a possessive apostrophe? Secondly, in the alt text for the picture in the Reception section I'd replace "poofy hats" with "medieval costume"; I don't know what "poofy" means where you are, but here it is a derogatory slang term meaning "swishily gay". Thirdly, in the bibliography the ISBNs are in unhyphenated 10-digit form rather than the hyphenated 13-digit form requested, on what authority I know not, at Wikipedia:ISBN; I don't feel very strongly about this point, and at any rate you are consistent – the list is not a mish-mash of the two forms – but I just mention it. If you feel like following it up there is a handy tool here. The text appears balanced and comprehensive, and is in very good prose. The article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 08:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review and support, Tim! I have checked the Primetime Emmy Awards official website and the apostrophe is indeed absent, although I don't know why. In my experience, "poofy" has meant "filled with air"; I was unaware of the alternate derogatory definition and have reworded the text accordingly. I have also switched the 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digit ones. Thank you for notifying me of the ISBN converter! That made the job much easier. Neelix (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review from Cliftonian


  • Bibliography and citation notes are all consistently laid out so far as I can see.
  • Ref 26: Isn't Allmovie a work, rather than a publisher?


  • Reference 5 [Pilato (2012), p. 212.]: the book mentions "twenty-four African-American children", not 22. I appreciate that reference 4 specifically says there were 22 of them. Perhaps remove references to the number where only reference is used, or add reference 4 as well, or perhaps add a footnote mentioning that the book says 24 while the article says 22. Otherwise reference 5 checks out.
  • Reference 11 [Crump (2001), p. 38.]: checks out.
  • Reference 13 [Erickson (1971), p. 37.]: checks out.
  • Reference 14 [Metz (2007), p. 65.]: checks out.
  • Reference 22 [McCann (2009), p. 229.]: checks out.

I'll assume good faith on the rest. Looks generally fine, just a couple of minor points. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the source review, John! I have switched Allmovie from a publisher to a work and added a footnote mentioning the numerical discrepancy between the Pilato and Jet sources. Neelix (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the emu from Australia, the second largest bird in the world after the ostrich. It is a former featured article, but this status was revoked after a FAR in 2011. I think I have addressed all the issues raised at that time, added further information, removed some information, added citations, polished up the prose and tried to make the article as presentable as possible. Its an interesting bird (there was even an Emu War at one time) and I look forward to your comments and criticisms. This is a WikiCup nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

This article still needs work. A book published in 2002 might be useful: Davies, S.J.J.F. (2002). Ratites and Tinamous: Tinamidae, Rheidae, Dromaiidae, Casuariidae, Apterygidae, Struthionidae (Bird Families of the World). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198549963. 

  • "; three subspecies are recognised." Not closely related to first part of sentence and the text below states that only two subspecies are now recognised.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "batches of eggs" clutches?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "but have been known to go for weeks without food." repetition of food - "without eating"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Emus can live between ten and twenty years in the wild..." but text below has "In captivity, emus can live for upward of ten years."
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The bird features prominently in Indigenous Australian mythology and the word "emu" occurs in hundreds of place names." - two ideas in same sentence implies that they are linked - but the word "emu" and places are not based on Indigenous names.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • " in Arthur Phillip's Voyage to Botany Bay, published in 1789." it would be nice to also cite the Phillips description itself which includes a picture: Philip, Authur (1789). The voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay. London: Printed by John Stockdale. pp. 271–272. 
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • etymology Ref 9 Boles - source is unsuitable
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The below cladogram is from their study." Their? The authors haven't been mentioned.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "after which the disoriented emus were easy to catch after they had drunk the water." repetition.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "and weigh between 700 and 900 grams (1.5 and 2.0 lb)," This is sourced to a Reader's Digest book. A more scholarly source should be used. Also, the weight seems too large - HBW has 450–650 g.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "They stand about 12 centimetres (5 in) tall at first, weigh 0.5 kg" Why spell out centimetres and abbreviate kg?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "seven months, defending them...the young emus are defended by their father" repetition
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "catching emus in nets," catching 'them' in nets
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "some wild populations are at risk of local extinction due to the small size of their populations." repetition
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • NSW spell out
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why are a few articles placed in the References section? Only Eastman 1969 needs to be there. Howarth is only 3 pages.
Others removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Stiglec et al is listed but not cited.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 1 Patterson: provide link to BHL
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 7 Gould: needs page numbers pp. 200-203
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 9 Boles: this is an unsuitable source. Boles cites Marchant and Higgins which would be better.
This is the Australian Museum and Boles is a published author, see Ref 13. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 10 Publisher? What makes this a reliable source?
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 15 Mitchell: don't link titles that aren't open access - doi suffices
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 30 Bruce: needs a {{subscription required}}
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 39 Barker: needs a year - worldcat suggest 1989/90
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 41 Powel: needs full title "Leaf and branch : trees and tall shrubs of Perth" and place of publication. Why is a quote included for this cite only?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 44 Prickly pear: title linked but not free access. A version dated 2015 is available from here
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 50 Reader's Digest: Better sources are available. Title shouldn't be linked to wiki article, year and place of publication? Worldcat has 1977/8.
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 53 Taylor: volume should be after journal title and need doi=10.1007/s002650050677
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 67 Nicholls: this is a book with an isbn=0-642-57869-9 - see worldcat
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 70 Saravanan: missing period after initial
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref Eastman: title shouldn't be linked to google book when not open access
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Aa77zz (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will work my way through them. Cwmhiraeth (talk)

I notice that many of the citations were added before the involvement of the nominating editor. Although I have access to many scientific publications through my institution, these don't include most of the sources cited by the article. I would like reassurance that the nominator has access to the main sources and has been able to check the contents of the article against them. Particularly important are the book by Eastman 1969 and the chapter by Davies 2003 (ref 3).

I do not have access to these books. As with most Wikipedia articles, I rely on the good faith of earlier Wikipedia editors to provide accurate information from these reliable sources. Eastman was first cited back in September 2010 and Davies in January 2009, both by editors who are no longer active. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

In my review above I challenged the value given for the weight of an egg. In response the source was changed to a web page of the San Diego Zoo. Although probably reliable I would have been happier with a specialised book or article - such as Eastman or Davies mentioned above. There are two articles on emu eggs that may provide values for the weight: Physical and physiological measurements of Emu eggs and chicks and A study of the egg shells of ratite birds. Aa77zz (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not have access to the full length versions of either of these articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps request them at the resource request?[10] FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I left a note for the original article-improver. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I added a new source for the weight of the egg, and I really don't feel it necessary to quote a peer-reviewed journal article on this point. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Emu_caller.jpg: suggest adding FoP-Australia tag on Commons
  • File:Feeding_farmed_Emu.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Baudin_emus.jpg
  • File:Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png: suggest adding the PD-1996 tag. Same with File:Australianstamp_1505.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thank you Nikkimaria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, the vocalising emu video was filmed by me in Denmark (Odsherred Zoo[11]), not in Australia. In any case not sure why FOP is relevant, it is a living animal (not copyrightable), not an artwork? FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Though I've added a little bit of text about extinct emus here a long time ago, there should be no COI in me reviewing this. It'll probably a bit drawn out, though, and I'd also like to see if Aa77zz is satisfied with the fixes above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • One thing that struck me is that the intro is very long, probably bloated over the years. Could probably be cut by one third without problem, and be sure that it has no information not found in the article body.
Thank you. I have pruned the lead somewhat. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is D. novaehollandiae woodwardi considered valid by anyone today? Based on a comment below, it would seemnot to be the case, but you could maybe have a small paragraph in taxonomy about previously proposed subspecies.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it make sense to have the history section as part of taxonomy? It essentially deals with discovery and naming.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "named by ornithologist John Latham on a specimen" Based on a specimen?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "have come from an Arabic word for large bird" What word?
I don't know. I could remove the statement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Nah, better to just keep it as is then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The largest can reach up to 1.5 to 1.9 m (4.9–6.2 ft) in height" Maybe make clear that this is head height?
I think the height implies the total height, ie the top of the head. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "1 to 1.3 m (3.3–4.3 ft) at the shoulder" Does the source really say shoulder, not back or hip? The shoulder of a bird is not necessarily the highest point, that remeasure is usually for quadrupedal animals.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Minor thing, but the white space after cultural references irks me a bit, could one of the three images perhaps be removed to prevent this? Whatever one you find least significant (I'd say the stamp).
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You use two different ways of quoting text (one under history, another under economic value), should probably be consistent.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the text under description seems like it would make more sense under behaviour.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Likewise with some of the text under conservation, looks more like it belongs under relationship with humans (ways of hunting, etc.)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the "listen to this article" link under References is perhaps redundant, as there is already a link at the top right of the article?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems the first long paragraph under Behaviour and ecology could perhaps be split off into a "distribution and habitat" section?
If I did that, you would say "Some of this section should be in the Behaviour and ecology section"! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I did read it thoroughly, and I think most of it is directly relevant to distribution/habitat, including migration. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Pebbles and stones are swallowed to assist in the digestion of the plant material." Link to gastrolith?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • When I wrote the King Island emu article, sources stated this subspecies developed a brood patch. I'd assume the same was the case for the mainland emu, but it is not mentioned?
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "develop a capacity for thermoregulation. During incubation, the embryos are ectothermic but need to develop endothermic behaviour" Could need links and parenthesis explanations for these terms.
Rewritten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Newly hatched chicks are active and can leave the nest within a few days of hatching." Link Precocial?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems juvenile emus are much darker than adults when they lose their stripes?
Added in the Description section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Always make sure no info or term is unique to the intro, some examples:
  • "to Australia where it is the largest native bird" Only mentioned in intro.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is the second-largest living bird in the world" Only mentioned in intro.
Added elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "They are opportunistically nomadic" Term nomadic not used under behaviour, only intro.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "economical trot" Only stated as such in intro.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "and are not monogamous"
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "during this process he fasts"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - all my issues addressed, and I trust that the source issues above will be sorted out. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Great that you've taken this on, just a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • HBW doesn't recognise D. novaehollandiae woodwardi, so I think you should make it clear that it isn't a definite ssp. I can give you the relevant HBW text and online ref if needed
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You should know by now that I'll look for a parasites section! There's plenty out there for you to add something on this
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • its name is Latin for "fast-footed New Hollander"— we normally give the relevant Latin words for etymology. I can provide Jobling's entries and formatted refs if you need them
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I have dealt with those points and added a section on parasites. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review

Citation 10: All good expect c (does not mention population number). I also added another cite.
Sorted. Source may have been rewritten and now no longer supports the fact. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Citation 20: Good.
Citation 27: Good.
Citation 31: Mostly good expect it does not seem to mention "loose-packed".
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Citation 50: Fully supported for b, partially supported for a. I'm assuming 34 supports the other half in the case of a.
It does. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Citation 70: Mostly good expect it doesn't mention cholesterol.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Citation 71: Does not say that "and are slaughtered at 50 to 70 weeks of age" but that their market age is 15-18 months. I'm not sure if they mean the same.
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Citation 73: Good.
Citation 81: Good.

LittleJerry (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review. I have made amendments where necessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now:

Need to rejig the lead -

The emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) is endemic to Australia where it is the largest native bird and the only extant member of the genus Dromaius. It is the second-largest living bird in the world by height, after its ratite relative, the ostrich. --> "The emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) is the second-largest living bird in the world by height, after its ratite relative, the ostrich. The only extant member of the genus Dromaius, it is most closely related to the cassowaries." It endemic to Australia where it is the largest native bird."

you wanna say what it is before where it is...

Changed round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Emus were first reported as having been seen by Europeans when explorers visited the western coast of Australia in 1696 - whoa...any further info on this to add?
Added a little. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I meant about the siting really...if there is anything to add...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems very obscure. It might have been at 115°50 east at an island the explorers called "Fog Island" or "Dung Island", but otherwise I am in the fog here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
largest individuals can reach up to 1.5 to 1.9 m (4.9 to 6.2 ft) - I think I'd change these to cm to align with measurements that follow....
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd link albumen, incubation (at first instance)....
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Sainsf[edit]

As many reviewers have already pointed out several imperfections and made practicable suggestions, I feel this article has inched significantly closer to success. I have the following comments to make after a thorough scrutiny of the whole article:

  • General: Please confirm that the article consistently uses either American or British English. From an earlier review I remember it is preferable to use that form which is used in the native region.


  • The species was named by ornithologist John Latham based on a specimen... The taxobox mentions this event to have occurred in 1790, could we include this in the main text as well?
  • In his original 1816 description of the emu, the French ornithologist Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot used two generic names; first Dromiceius, then Dromaius a few pages later Though I am not sure, is it really necessary to add the "few pages later" phrase? Unless it is necessary for us to guide the readers through the original papers the ornithologist published!
  • The population of these birds varies from decade to decade, largely being dependent on rainfall; current estimates range from 630,000 to 725,000 birds It is best to define what you mean by "current", when was the estimate made?
  • I find some confusion in "Systematics". Please read all points before proceeding to action.
  • I came across an online copy of the Novitates Zoologicae (Vol. XVIII, No. 3) of January 1912. In pages 175 and 176, Gregory M. Mathews clearly names 3 extant subspecies : D. n. novaehollandiae, D. n. woodwardi and D. n. rothschildi. I think you could systematically cite this source and mention these three subspecies, followed by discussions regarding disputes.
  • You can use the nomenclature details (when and by whom the name was given) of all three subspecies from Avibase entries 1, 2, 3
  • In the present form, the article mentions only the first two of the above subspecies; and while the HBW source objects to the last two subspecies, the article seems to suggest that the HBW entry opposes the first two.
  • Therefore, I think this paragraph (following the one about the ranges and populations of various emus) needs a complete rewrite. I would suggest that you give all the three ssp. names citing the article by Mathews, this can help remove the "some authorities" vagueness. Then you can add something like "the HBW entry argues that ..." (this removes the "other authorities" vagueness) to show the possible invalidity of the latter two subspecies. Finally the bit that D. n. rothschildi, coined in 1912, is considered dubious today.
  • Note: I am not sure whether you should include the common names like Southeast emu for the subspecies, as there is a lot of variation among sources regarding that. Better give just the scientific names or follow only one good source consistently.


  • Emus flap their wings when running; it is believed that... a reword to remove the vagueness in the latter part?
  • I suggest linking pelvic and tracheal.

Behaviour and ecology

  • I think you should give a better start to this section. The first para seems just to be picking up a few traits of the bird, and does not look a helpful introduction. Rather, you should make this the 2nd paragraph (after the presently 2nd para). If possible, the first line Inquisitive birds, emus are known to approach humans... observe people and The bird's legs are among the strongest ... tear down metal fencing could be placed in "Relationship with humans".
  • Emus sleep during the night, and begin to settle down at sunset. You should mention sunset before night.
  • You should mention a bit of their diurnal activity too in the para about the sleep schedule. It should look like a short summary of its whole day. I think they forage in the day (as said in Diet).
  • I suggest linking homeothermic, thermoneutral zone, bleaching effect (Breeding) and parasite.
  • Emus drink infrequently, but ingest large amounts when they do so. and They typically drink once per day but can drink several times if the supply is abundant. these two sentences from "Diet" can be merged. I also suggest that if the reason for sudden ingestion of large amounts of water is abundance in water sources at times, state it clearly in "Diet" as well as Lead (this could better reword "when the opportunity arises").
  • In "Breeding", the fifth paragraph appears to be a continuation of the third (behaviour of the interested male is continued), but the fourth seems an unnecessary barrier between the two. Better swap the 4th with the 5th.

Relationship with humans

  • "Oil" is linked twice under "Economic value".
  • Why link "Central Australia" when other Australian regions have not been linked elsewhere? Similarly, why link Peru if other countries have not been linked elsewhere?
  • I suggest linking antioxidant.

Status and conservation

  • The IUCN considers their population trend to be stable and assesses their conservation status as being of least concern You can add "As of 2012...".
  • ...predation of the eggs and young by foxes, feral and domestic dogs, and feral pigs. Should the dogs and pigs not be mentioned among the predators in "Behaviour and ecology"?

This is all from my side. Awaiting replies, Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Menkauhor Kaiu[edit]

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Menkauhor Kaiu, the seventh ruler of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, ruling in the late 25th century BC. The present article includes absolutely all that is known of this relatively shadowy pharaoh, covering every aspects of the king's reign and its legacy (activities, monuments, surviving artefacts, historical sources, family, funerary cult etc.). I thank the Egyptologist Filip Coppens for helping with the article by providing the latest published material on the subject. Article passed GA on the 17th of July and received a thorough peer review after that. Menkauhor Kaiu is part of a series of GA and FA articles on the 5th Dynasty (see Unas, Shepseskare, Sahure, Pyramid of Userkaf) in view of a future Featured Topic. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK license-wise (PD, CC) - 1 minor point

  • I have improved some of the license tags and added an archive for a dead PDF-link - OK.
  • File:Map pyramid Lepsius XXIX.jpg should have a reference to verify the map. Assuming the original uncropped map was re-drawn from a book, a citation to that book (or any reliable book where such a map is shown) should be added to the image description page. GermanJoe (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
GermanJoe Done! I just added a reference for the map in both the article and on wikicommons from J. Berlandini's article showing the location of the pyramid Lepsius XXIX in the wider Saqqara plateau. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, point updated above. GermanJoe (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed the article at GAN and commented at PR. It has been no hardship at all to read it again for FAC, and the polished work presented here seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 15:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks again for your help! Iry-Hor (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

I'm afraid I'll have to do this in chunks as RL is a little hectic at present.

  • I'm not terribly fussed on this point, but I,thought we were supposed to eschew BC in favour of CE?
No. According to WP:ERA, either style is acceptable as long as it stays consistent within the article. In some topic areas, like Judaism, there may be a loose consensus to use only BCE/CE, but WikiProject Ancient Egypt has never chosen one style or the other. A. Parrot (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That's fine - I prefer the old style anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You have Fifth dynasty and Fifth Dynasty – best to make this consistent.
Done it should be "Fifth Dynasty" everywhere now, thanks for pointing this out! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

More to follow... – SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • "reigning for 9 years" -> nine
Fixed! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The false titles (;Name) are a no-no: either scrap them or use level three headings
Ok I changed them to level three headings
  • "between 8 and 9 years" -> eight and nine
Fixed! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "are known to us": you can lose the last two words
Fixed! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sun temple
  • "We know of its existence" -> "Its existence is known..."
Fixed! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

More to follow anon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I am looking forward to it! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Final batch for you:


  • "the Headless Pyramid was the Pyramid of Merikare, a pyramid dating": I think we can lose at least one of these with structure, building, etc!
Fixed. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "indicating that a burial did take place": "took place" would work slightly better
Fixed. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


  • FNs 27, 48 59 should be pp., not p.
Fixed 27 and 59. For the num. 48, there is only one page specified, the number "59" being the beginning of the section title in the book, i.e. the ref 48 is p. 136, paragraph "59. Inscription of ...." Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 99 should be p., not pp.
Fixed. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 89 is probably better expressed as pp. 292, 299, 381, 390, 394, 400 & 412.
Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

An interesting read – many thanks for getting it into such good shape, and for dealing with the previous comments so promptly. – SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat thanks for your help! Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent read and very informative. Meets the FA criteria in my not opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - just a rephrase suggestion and some nitpicks, not preventing support for this well-written article:

  • Lead - "Menkauhor Kaiu (also known as Ikauhor and in Greek as Mencherês) was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh, the seventh ruler of the Fifth Dynasty at the end of the 25th century BC or early in the 24th century BC, during the Old Kingdom period." ==> Consider a slight rephrasing: "Menkauhor Kaiu (also known as Ikauhor and in Greek as Mencherês) was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh of the Old Kingdom period. He was the seventh ruler of the Fifth Dynasty at the end of the 25th century BC or early in the 24th century BC.", bringing the most basic information up first and splitting the lengthy dynastic information in digestible portions.
Ok I did it. I found the previous version more agreable to read though but I understand the hierachy of information here. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "following king Nyuserre Ini [on throne]" ==> "on throne" sounds redundant in context - it's clear that rulers are listed in order
You are right, done! Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Historical - "and it is known [to us] only through later" ==> redundant
Fixed. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Contemporaneous - note 3, ref 29 <-> ref 31, note 4 ==> "note first" or "refs first", order should be consistent (not sure if there is a preferred variant), please check throughout
Fixed throughout, I chose to put notes first. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Filiation - "ref 40, 38" ==> refs should be listed in ascending order, please check throughout.
Fixed throughout. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I did not perform an in-depth source check, but referencing appears to be thorough and based on academic sources. GermanJoe (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support All my concerns were dealt with at the peer review, and having read it over again this morning I can say that it's even tighter now than it was a few days ago. Nicely done! RO(talk) 17:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Iry-Hor (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Has there been a source review for formatting and reliability? If not, please request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. --Laser brain (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Laser_brain Ok I have asked for it. Note that this was done when the article became GA and I believe also during the peer review. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Support on sourcing. I've looked over the sources and spot-checked a couple of references. Most of the sources are impeccably reliable: Egyptologists, most of whose names I recognize, writing in journals and books from academic presses. A handful aren't quite on that level, but they are all unobjectionable. The Seipel source seems to be a PhD thesis, though it's significant enough to be cited in Kanawati's book. The Lepsius, Mariette, Petrie, and Murray sources are very old, but they're all simply listing and reproducing cartouches and don't make any outdated interpretations of evidence. Kratovac and Wright are both based on Hawass' press release. I'm not the best at spotting inconsistencies in ref formatting, but they all look consistent and neatly organized to me.

The only significant snag is that the Kratovac source is a dead link, but I found the same AP story reproduced on ABC News' website: Because I'm not familiar with the use of news sources, I'm not sure if you would attribute it to ABC News or the Associated Press. It's really not necessary to include Kratovac at all, though, as the story by Wright supports the same text. A. Parrot (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok so I have removed the Kratovac reference as proposed by A. Parrot. Thanks for the review! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslav monitor Vardar[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Yugoslav monitor Vardar was an Austro-Hungarian river monitor that served under two names in the Danube Flotilla during World War I, during which she fought the the Serbian Army, the Romanian Navy and Army, and the French Army. After the war she was transferred to the the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), and renamed. During the German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, she laid mines in the Danube near the Romanian border, and fought off several attacks by the Luftwaffe, but was forced to withdraw to Belgrade. Due to high river levels and low bridges, her navigation was difficult, and she was scuttled by her crew on 11 April. Passed Milhist A-Class review in March this year, and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Yugoslav_monitor_Vardar.jpg: when/where was this first published? If the given source was the first then the tags would be incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry Nikki, I completely forgot to add that JFSOWW2 is a reprint of the 1946/47 Jane's. The pic was in the original, have added that detail to the image description. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but this still presents an issue with regards to licensing - the current tagging requires that the image be first published in Yugoslavia, but Jane's is British. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, bit slow on the uptake today. Of course, I'll have another look. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Assuming that was indeed the first publication, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I reckon it was in an earlier edition of Jane's too. I'll check at the library. I'll ping you when I have checked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily...if the 1942 Jane's was the first publication, this would be PD in the UK and fine for Commons. However, if this was published at any point before that outside of the UK, we'd need to re-evaluate and might only be able to host locally. Either way you'll need to include a licensing tag to indicate why it's free in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've found it as early as 1933, but it still doesn't seem to have been published in the US, and I can't see any applicable PD-US tag. It seems to me that I'll need to re-upload it on WP with the UK-unknown tag and a NFR. Does the fact that it appears to have been an official Yugoslav photo help in any way, Nikkimaria? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe Yugoslavia had any provision to make government works PD automatically, so not unless it was published there. UK first publication would have UK law apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I believe that the law on succession issues means that official governmental works (such as official photographs of naval vessels) are PD, and that a {{PD-Yugoslavia}} and {{PD-SerbiaGov}} will cover it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry this has dragged on so much, Nikkimaria, but I think I have adequately covered the licensing of this image now using the Yugoslav laws of succession and PD-SerbiaGov. Could you have another look? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We'll need a US PD tag of some sort as well. With that this could work, although I'm not entirely sure "1933 Photo Official" is enough to determine that SerbiaGov applies...Chris, care to weigh in? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Short of evidence otherwise, it strikes me as a reasonable assumption, as a Navy photograph would still be created by the government. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, then SerbiaGov + a US tag should be good. Nikkimaria (talk)
Done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: Overall, this looks quite polished. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • "support of the resulting bridgehead, Temes provided close support" (seems a bit repetitious). Perhaps substitute the first instance of "support"
  • in the interwar period, there appears to be a gap of about 21 years in terms of coverage. While I understand that the sources probably don't go into too much detail about this, is it possible to include maybe even just a short sentence about what the ship did over this period?
  • "larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo by 14 April when they were obliged to surrender..." (is it possible to say why? I assume it was because of encirclement by German and or Italian troops, or something similar). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day AustralianRupert. Thanks for the review! First and third points addressed. Re: second point, there is a general observation by the British naval attache in 1932 about lack of training and exercises due to budgetary constraints (which I've added), but there is nothing else I have been able to find, even in Yugoslav sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day, no worries. Your changes look good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ceradon[edit]

  • I'll jot some notes below. Hope to support. --ceradon 01:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
World War I
  • "The position of Romania was uncertain" -- could you clarify what position you mean. When I saw that, I immediately thought that you were referring to the geographical position of Romania, which I don't think makes any sense. Thus, judging by the rest of the sentence, I suppose you mean "geopolitical situation"?

That's the only quibble I have. Happy to support promotion. Thank you, --ceradon 04:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • No problem. --ceradon 07:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Kalidas (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Tamil cinema's first sound film, which also happens to be the first sound film in South India. After it successfully passed its GA nomination (nominated by me) and went through many copyedits, especially by GOCE veteran Bafflegab, it should be fine for FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala[edit]

I checked, they actually work in my server. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
They are showing accesing issues. I hope you can rectify them. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC) DESiegel at Teahouse called it a side effect of the Wayback Machine. Thus, i find it not a concern as the links are working. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • All the three Images require Alt text.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Imperial Movi-Tone does not have an article. Can you please explain why a redlink exists?
Done. Unlinked. Actually, it was Bafflegab who added it, and I thought an article could be created on it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Prasad also acted in Alam Ara and Bhakta Prahlada—the first Telugu sound film—earning the distinction of appearing in three of the first sound films in India — This is more relevant in Prasad's article. Here, it sounds a bit trivial.
Done. Instead written that Kalidas was his second film following Alam Ara. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For all the content the section has, it is relevant to rename the section "Release" to "Release and reception"
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Kalidas was the only Tamil film to be produced and released in 1931. No print or gramophone record of the film is known to have survived, making it a lost film. The time of the film's loss has not been documented, although The Indian Express stated in 2014 that the film "turned to dust" long before the National Film Archive of India was established in 1964." — These sentences should start the section, preceding the existing sentences.
Like how? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Like this. "Kalidas was the only Tamil film to be produced and released.......before the National Film Archive of India was established in 1964" should be the first paragraph. "Kalidas became a trendsetter for sound films in Tamil cinema.......the end should be the second paragraph. This is because, we have to mention about the film first and its influence on others later. That ensures a better flow for the readers. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Kannada remake should have been mentioned in the lead.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I expect the nominator to either rectify them or give an explanation regarding them here if required within a reasonable period of time. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I found no other issues from my perspective in the meantime. Thus, i lend my support. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

  • "it features P. G. Venkatesan as the central male character" — "it features P. G. Venkatesan as the titular character".
Written as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Kalidas was released amid much hype on 31 October 1931—Diwali." — "Kalidas was released amidst high expectations on 31 October 1931, coinciding with Diwali."
Written as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "she was "the automatic choice to play the heroine."" — According to who?
Randor Guy. Written that. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. I lend my support. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

  • Support - All my comments have been addressed now. Did not check sources or image rights. Great to have another Indian topic as FA. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support -- Note: I have conducted a dozen or so edits on this article prior to my support here. Those edits have been minor prose fixes only and I have not added anything substantial. Thus I don't consider my support to be in anyway bias. This is a very nice article and tells an interesting story about one of India's first films. I believe it meets all FA criteria. CassiantoTalk 07:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Well-written and very informative. Plus, there are no major issues.—Prashant 07:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The USD values given for the INR are incorrect. According to these figures, the exchange rate seems 62.5; however, in 1931 the INR-USD exchange rate was definitely not 62.5. You need to use the 1931 exchange rate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the amount based on a new source. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Since it's a lost film, the plot summary must be cited to reliable sources (because it can't be verified by watching the film). If possible you should mention how even this much of the plot is known.—indopug (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Done as you asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • Support – the comments I had added have all been resolved. -- Frankie talk 09:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Reviewed this earlier. Considering it's a 1931 non Hindi film I think it's very impressive that you've managed to write all that about it. A nice little article which meets FA criteria in my opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly gets my vote. First Class! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from RO[edit]

  • It is most notable for being the first Tamil-language sound film, and the first sound film to be made in South India.
I'd drop "It is most notable", as it's kinds self-explanatory.
Changed it to simply "it is noted". — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • the minister finds an illiterate cowherd
Although one can figure this out by the context, I was unfamiliar with the term "cowherd". Is there a good Wikilink we could use here?
@Rationalobserver: Linked it to Cowman (profession) if that's alright. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This section needs a citation.
DoneSsven2 Speak 2 me 00:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • according to different sources.[11][d] According to film historian Film News Anandan
I'd copyedit so we aren't using "according to" twice in this part.
Done Changed the first "according to" to "as per" if that's alright. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • the film was produced in a "hurry",
Copyedit/paraphrase this to avoid this one-word quote.
DoneSsven2 Speak 2 me 00:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • According to
I recently had to break this habit, but I think it would be nice to remove as many of these "according to"s as you can.
DoneSsven2 Speak 2 me 00:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Conclusion

This is an especially well-written article, and I only found a few very minor quibbles, which I've listed above. I'm happy to support on the prose, which is quite enjoyable and well presented. Nicely done. Keep up the great work! RO(talk) 15:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Has there been a source review? If not, please request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. --Laser brain (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • There has been no source review, not even image reviews. I suggest that someone do them ASAP. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Sorry for coming late to this. I have read through the article and since the above comments relate to the prose side of things, I'm happy enough that the article is comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. Well done on this. JAGUAR  16:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Photographs and cinematographic works become PD in India 60 years after publication; all images in this article are from 1931, so they are fine. As for US copyright, the images were PD in their home country before 1996, so they should be fine there as well. There is some text on some of the images though, and I'm a bit unsure if it is covered by the cited laws. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
An image is an image, and it should comply with the laws. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that would depend on the jurisdiction, whether there is freedom of panorama in India or not (there isn't[12]). But I assume the text is covered under "other works", so I guess it is alright. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Reading though now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Yves Thoraval book needs an ISBN, as do 43 other books in Bibliography section (and don't forget hyphens)
  • Newpaper articles generally have authors - some appear to be missing.
Some articles just don't have credited authors and are published anonymously, like the following:
  • this (which reads Express News Service, should I add it though?)
  • this
  • this
  • this (although the agency is United News of India, which I have already written)
  • this. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't need allcaps in an title of a reference.

Otherwise look ok. I will do some spot checking shortly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, going by this version of the page to ensure correlation of soruces.

  • Ref 14, used four times. Article faithful to source.
  • Ref 16, used twice. Article faithful to source.
  • Ref 30, used twice. Article faithful to source.
  • Ref 38, used twice. Article faithful to source.

Earwig's has one issue but I think it is the WP text exported that is coming up as a false positive.

So spot checking looking ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

History of Roman and Byzantine domes[edit]

Nominator(s): AmateurEditor (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is a comprehensive history of one of the most distinctive aspects of Roman architecture. Roman/Byzantine domes were built throughout a millennium and a half of very dynamic history and gradually developed in form, materials, and use over that period. No other ancient architecture is as well studied, although lots of questions remain and I have tried to respect any ambiguities that are found in the sources. The Pantheon is perhaps the most famous dome in the world, but existed in a larger context and as part of a continuous tradition from the Roman Republic to the fall of Constantinople. I learned all sorts of interesting details and I hope I've done the topic justice. The article has received a peer review, achieved Good Article status (where it was suggested for a Featured Article nomination by the reviewer if the lead was improved), and was recently featured on the main page with a DYK, all of which were new experiences for me. This is my first Feature Article nomination and I will be available to address comments and make changes for a few hours each day for the foreseeable future. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

I visited all four of the domes in the "overview" section's photographs a couple of years ago (without intentionally going on a dome-themed tour of southern Europe!), so can hopefully provide a useful assessment of this article. Here are my comments:

  • Can anything be said about the development of engineering knowledge which underpinned the dome construction? - at present the article describes the notable domes and their construction techniques, but only mentions evolution in design processes in passing.
The sources I have found tend not to focus very deeply on that, but I agree such information is valuable. Where such statements were associated with a particular time, they were included in that part of the chronology; where they were more general and not time-specific in the source, they were added to the overview section. I believe that I have incorporated all that I found in the existing cited sources, but it may be worth trying to find engineering texts to cite in this regard, rather than sources with architectural history focus. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The first sentence is confusing: "The domes of the Roman Empire were an important element in their architecture " - "their" isn't correct here
I agree. I have changed it to "its". AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Pendentives provided support for domes over square rooms and there are early examples from the 1st century in the palace of Domitian and from 2nd century funerary monuments, although they would only become common in the Byzantine period." - early examples of what? Domes or pendentives?
Pendentives. I have changed the sentence to hopefully make this clear. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead doesn't really capture the material in the "wider influence" section - especially the adoption of this style of domes in mosques worldwide
Yes, the lead only mentions that there was in fact wider influence (in the first sentence) and this was because I was concerned about the length of the lead and adding a fifth paragraph. I will look at adding this after finding and incorporating additional material/examples in the "Wider influence" section, as suggested below. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The tense changes halfway through the first para of the "Overview" section - I'd suggest standardising on past tense (especially as almost all of the domes would have been destroyed by now)
I agree. I have changed to past tense (except in the one instance where it is clearly referring to the present). AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The captions of the photos in the overview section could also be expanded to explain to readers the features of each of these examples
I agree. I added such information in those captions. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Domes reached monumental size in the Roman Imperial period" - give the dates here
The source doesn't give dates! It mentions "early Imperial times" and that "age" but I don't think we have precision on exactly when this change happened. The source just gives examples of small bath domes at Pompeii from the first and second centuries BC and the first known example of a large bath dome from "the Augustan age", both of which are included in the article. This may be because of the total loss of physical evidence of the large wooden domes that are known only from a literary source. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "This is the earliest existing example" - should this be "This is the earliest known example"?
I went to the source to check on that and page 42 is not part of the preview at this time. But I think that is safer language, so I made the change. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The only intact example from the reign of Emperor Domitian" - what this is an example of isn't clear
Reworded to clarify that it was an example of a dome from his reign.AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • " today the church of Santa Maria della Rotunda" - not sure what the rules are, but I think that an en-Wiki red link would be preferable to an it-Wiki blue link (our coverage of ancient buildings in Rome is surprisingly limited, and red links help to encourage people to fill this gap)
I read up a bit on this, and you're right that red links are thought helpful. I like the interlanguage links because of Chrome's convenient translation feature. I have changed out the interlanguage links to show redlinks with the interlanguage link as a trailing abbreviation in parentheses. Should an English version ever be created, the trailing interlanguage link should disappear automatically. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Domes were also very common over polygonal garden pavilions" - given that all the other projects noted here are imperial constructions, is this an example of the elite also adopting domes? (and not being able to afford larger ones?)
I wish I knew; the source just mentions it in passing. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "During the reign of Emperor Trajan, domes and semi-domes over exedras were standard elements of Roman architecture" - this seems an overstatement: "During the reign of Emperor Trajan, domes and semi-domes over exedras were standard elements of monumental Roman architecture" perhaps?
Perhaps, but I suspect that the small bath domes that pre-dated any monumental examples continued to be built as needed. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "possibly due to the efforts of Apollodorus of Damascus" - the role of this person isn't clear: did he do more than "just" the Pantheon?
I don't think it is clear to anyone, honestly. Apollodorus is known to have built epic scale constructions, like Trajan's Column and his celebrated bridge over the Danube, and Trajan's Baths with their large half-domes, but lots of details about him are missing, as far as I can tell. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "temple to Asklepios Soter" - as above, a red link may be preferable here Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
changed with the interlanguage template to show a redlink with small trailing parenthesis link. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the 4th century, Roman domes proliferated due to changes in the way domes were constructed, including advances in centering techniques and the use of brick ribbing." - why this helped to encourage the construction of domes could be made clearer - I presume it's because they became easier/cheaper to build?
That is my understanding as well. You would basically have to build the dome twice, with the first time in wood for the centering, so less centering was a big cost saving. Ribbing reduced the amount of centering needed (centering was needed just for the ribs, basically) and also allowed the material between the ribs to be thinner, which allowed buttressing to be smaller, so there was also a significant material savings in the "second" or permanent dome. Unfortunately, that page is not available in the Googlebooks preview, so I will not be able to try to expand on it until I can get hold of a physical copy at a library (or find an alternate source online). AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I have not been able to find a nearby copy of "Concrete Vaulted Construction in Imperial Rome", but I have added an explanation of the expensive nature of formwork to the overview section from another source. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Dedicated two years after the Council of Nicea to "Harmony, the divine power that unites Universe, Church, and Empire," it may have been both the cathedral of Antioch as well as the court church of Constantine, and the precedent for the later octagonal plan churches near palaces of Saints Sergius and Bacchus and Hagia Sophia by Justinian and Aachen Cathedral by Charlemagne." - I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences
Agreed. I split the sentence. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The first para of the "Sixth century" section feels out of place - it's about a single church, and not a broader trend like the other sections start with. Could it be swapped with the second para of this section?
I would prefer to start with a general statement about the sixth century, but chose not to use the one in the second paragraph because it is really just about Justinian, rather than the century as a whole. That church was finished just before Justinian's reign, and since it mentions the church from the end of the preceding section, I thought the segue/chronology was more important. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I've gone back and added a general 6th century lead-in sentence from Krautheimer to the first paragraph and moved a bit from the second paragraph up that refers to 4th and 5th century dome usage. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "6th century church building by the Emperor Justinian " - add the dates of his reign
Is it permissible to add in specific dates like that without a specific citation? I re-checked the cited source and, while it does mention the 6th century as a turning point consistent with how the sentence was written in the article, it later on the same page (203) mentions the "second third of the sixth century", which a close analogue to Justinian's reign of 527 to 565. Is that good enough? AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think so - it's highly likely he was referring to Justinian's reign given how neatly the dates match up Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Could the first para of the "wider influence" section have a clearer lead sentence? (eg, noting that there is a relationship, rather than the nature of this being unclear)
Not from the source cited, unfortunately. I will try to find additional sources as part of the expansion of that section requested below. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Molfetta Cathedral" - I'd suggest red linking this as above
changed with the interlanguage template to show a redlink with small trailing parenthesis link. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Moscow emerged as the most important center following the fall of Constantinople in 1453" - what was Moscow the most important centre of?
Of architecture; added that word. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The last para of the "Wider influence" section seems under-developed given that this is the main way which Roman and Byzantine-inspired domes survive today, and are continuing to be built. This section would also benefit from a photo or two. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both points. I will try to expand this section and add examples and images over the next few days. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I have expanded the "Wider influence" section significantly and added images in two sets of four. I am not sure how or whether to try to summarize it in the lead, however. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Nick-D, I decided to mention styles of influenced architecture in the lead, rather than specific examples of domes/buildings so as not to distract with too much attention or mislead the casual reader/skimmer. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt review, Nick-D! I fixed what I could immediately, and have a bit of work to do to address the other points. Of the domes pictured in the overview section, I've only been to the Pantheon, and it was a while ago. I would definitely appreciate it more today! AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Support My above comments are now met. This is an excellent article, and I really enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RoyGoldsmith[edit]

Continuing the second comment made by Nick-D above:

  • The use of "their" vs. "its" (in "The domes of the Roman Empire were an important element in their/its architecture...") is depended on which noun the “important element” refers to. Grammatically the subject of the sentence is "domes" and therefore "their", being plural, is correct. The only way to distinguish between domes and Roman Empire is to repeat a condensed version of the object. (I’d also substitute the word of for in.) Something like this: The domes of the Roman Empire were an important element of the empire’s architecture and had a widespread influence on contemporary and later styles.
I have no problem with this. I've changed it as you suggest. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • However, I’m more worried about the inexact word "element". Wouldn’t it be more precise to say "important venues" or "important examples"? Or did you have a more specific definition of element in mind?
I had in mind something like "component", as in Category:Architectural elements. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"element" is certainly better than either of the words proposed. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I would go with component. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think element is the more common term in this context. It was also specifically used in one of the references I just added, "An Introduction to Shell Structures: The Art and Science of Vaulting", pg 35. That there is a Wikipedia category for architectural elements speaks to this, but I am sure you are not the only one to wonder about that word. It would be nice if we had an Elements of architecture article we could link to, but right now it redirects to Architectural style. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, please take to look at List of Roman domes. Don’t you want to say something in your lead about the history of architecture and the potential of domes for large and well-defined interior spaces?
I like List of Roman domes, but the primary source for that article (and the one cited for the lead sentence you reference, by Jürgen Rasch) is in a language I do not read! AmateurEditor (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And, being a candidate for FA, anything in the lead section must have an inline citation, either right after it or in the body of the article. If I challenged you for an incite pertaining to "The domes of the Roman Empire were important examples of the empire’s architecture" or that they "had a widespread influence on contemporary and later styles", what would you say?
After quickly checking WP:WHYCITE, I would say that I don't consider either of those statements to be particularly controversial but, since you have challenged them I will look for sourcing to incorporate. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Please look at WP:LEADCITE as well. Also, I'm not "challenging" your phraseology. But it seems to me that, when striving for an FA, the powers that be will certainly insist that you follow the guidelines, more-or-less exactly. I just didn't want anybody peppering your lead sentence with ATWs. For example, "The domes of the Roman Empire were an important[according to whom?] element of the empire’s architecture and had a widespread[according to whom?] influence on contemporary and later styles." I know this is in contention with FAC criterion 1a (see here), which requires text to be "engaging, even brilliant" but you have to balance. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No, this is good. I agree about high standards here. I've found and incorporated into the overview section and influences section sourced sentences that I think justify that lead sentence now. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, RoyGoldsmith! I have some work to do on the article, which will involve at least one trip to a library to reference a text I used that isn't available to me online. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the main problem with the lead is that it doesn't define your subject. How 'bout this:

The History of Roman and Byzantine domes traces the architecture of domes throughout the ancient Roman empire and its successor, the Byzantine empire. The domes of this period were an important...

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine, too, but I am a little paranoid now about others objecting to something without specific citations to back it up. The use of the word "successor" to describe the Byzantine Empire, for example, is a known point of contention (there was an argument about that at the List of Roman Emperors article not too long ago). AmateurEditor (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Being bold, I added my definition, substituting the word "continuation" (in the 1st sentence of Byzantine empire) for "successor". I also changed what is now the second sentence, making it clear that the Roman and the Byzantine empires could be considered separate. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have found and added a source and material speaking to this issue in the overview section of the article and modified your sentences just enough to agree, RoyGoldsmith. Thanks for the help! AmateurEditor (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK[edit]

  • All images are CC or PD, and have sufficient source and author info - OK. (including 8 new images as of 10 August 2015)
  • Infobox image verified via OTRS - OK.
  • Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
  • 3 images (in the gallery) lack EXIF-data, but upload histories show no signs of problems - OK.
  • File:Mausoleo_di_galla_placidia,_int.,_volta_con_tetramorfo.JPG and File:Basilica di San Vitale cupola 2.jpg have a special Italian authorization tag as part of "Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2013". I have never seen that tag before (and couldn't find any documentation /sigh), but image usage should be OK nonetheless (images are hosted on Commons as part of a larger event) - OK.
  • Please let me know, if any later changed images need checking during the nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
GermanJoe, I have added 8 images to the Wider influence section. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. All new images are OK with valid CC licenses and information. Flickr-images and images without EXIF-data show no signs of problems. GermanJoe (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Ghirla[edit]

The article is incomplete. I find no explanation of the color symbolism of Orthodox domes. Onion domes are not mentioned, as are other church designs listed in the Russian church architecture (e.g., kokoshniki). In the "Influence" section, a link to Neo-Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire and a picture of the Kronstadt Naval Cathedral would be helpful. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree about the influences section and I am working to fill that out right now. I am not sure what you mean by color symbolism of Orthodox domes. If you are referring to non-Byzantine Orthodox domes, I think that is a bit too detailed for such a high-level summary section and will fit better in an article about Orthodox or Russian domes themselves. The only color symbolism I am aware of in the Byzantine domes themselves was the use of gold to represent heaven; is that what you meant? I don't think there were any Byzantine onion domes, so I assume you mean non-Byzantine Orthodox domes there, as well. I might be able to find a source that mentions them in the context of Byzantine influence, but I suspect that those were an original development that sources will not specifically tie to this subject. I can only add what I find in reliable sources, after all, so we'll see if there is mention of those or of "Neo Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire" (which sounds awfully narrow and specific - the odds are better at finding mention of general Byzantine Revival architecture). We'll see what turns up. Beautiful cathedral, by the way. I wasn't aware of that one. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Ghirla, I have expanded the "Wider influence" section to include early Eastern European domes that were influenced by Byzantine architecture before those traditions developed in their own directions. I did find a source mentioning Neo-Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire and there is a link in the section to that now, and onion domes are mentioned as well (although not as examples of Byzantine architecture). I looked for a source on Google Books linking Kronstadt Naval Cathedral to the Byzantine domes but did not find anything usable. It was surprisingly difficult to find anything in Google Books on Eastern European Neo-Byzantine domes, but I did what I could. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Taking a look now - Evad37 [talk] 08:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Spotchecks not done; footnote (FN) numbering is as of this revision (04:48, 28 July 2015 UTC).


  • FNs 1, 9, 73, 75, 86, 88, 90, 97, 114, 121, 125, 135, 148, 165: page range should use a proper dash (–), not a hyphen (-)
  • FNs 9, 68, 73, 75, 86, 88, 90, 97, 101, 112, 114, 121, 125, 128, 135, 148: Use pp. for multiple pages (not p.)
  • FNs 30, 55, 116, 160: Page number(s)?
  • FNs 48, 108: Use p. for a single page (not pp.)
I think I got all the dashes replaced and the single/multiple p's corrected, but I may have missed something, I'm not sure. If you found these with an automated tool of some kind, I would appreciate a second pass to check (and if you found them manually, bravo!). I also happened to stop at a library today that had two of the four books that the article is missing page numbers for, so there should just be two of those left. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I used CTRL+F to highlight hyphens; other than that, I just went through the list manually, jotting down any issues I saw. Anyway, p's and dashes look good now (there was one left which I fixed) - Evad37 [talk]
Thanks, Evad37. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Getting page numbers for the remaining two sources without them (now FNs 58 and 120) will be difficult. I believe they were originally Googlebooks sources, but they do not have Googlebooks previews available now. My nearby libraries don't have copies. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


  • The various elements of a citation (author, date, title, publisher, etc) should either be separated by a period or by a comma (The Cite xyz templates typically use a peroid, while {{citation}} uses a comma). It doesn't really matter which style you use, as long as it is used consistently within an article.
Changed the citation templates to cite templates. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Arce, Ignacio (2006) – (conference paper) shouldn't be part of the linked title (consider using {{cite conference}}?)
Used cite conference template. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Bayet, Charles (2014) – "translation by" immediately follows a period, so should begin with a capital T
Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Beckwith, John (1993) – "(2 ed.)" would look better as (2nd ed.)
same goes for Johnson... (2009); Kleiner... (2010); Krautheimer... (1986); Mainstone... (2013); Rosser... (2011)
Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Conti ... (2009) – The location and date (Cottbus, May 2009) should be separate from the title
    • Similarly for Ousterhout, Robert G. (1998)
Removed. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Fichtenau, Heinrich
link is pointing to The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome
Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
reprints should be indicated by citing both the original publication date as well as the date of the re-publication – see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Reprints of older publications
Fixed, I think. It as originally published in 1957, then this reprint was based upon a 1968 printing. But the most recent reprinting was in 2000? I used 1957 and 2000. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
same (regarding reprints) goes for MacDonald... (2002); Mark... (1994); Milburn... (1988)
I used the 1976 copyright date as the original date for MacDonald, the 2010 digitization date as the current date for Mark (?), and could not find a date other than 1988 for Milburn. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P. (1987) – there is an extra colon and space between the location and publisher
Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Jones, Mark Wilson (2003) – architecture should be capitalised (to match other citations using title case)
Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Mark, Robert (1994) – publisher location missing
Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Moffett, Marian; Fazio, Michael W.; Wodehouse, Lawrence (2003) – only the city is specified as the location here – in other citations it's place, country or place, state (and the next citation uses London, England)
Fixed. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pisa, Nick (September 30, 2009) – other citations use title case rather than sentence case
Fixed, I think. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wittkower, Rudolf (1963) – the language the source is in and a translation of the title into English should be provided (you can use language= and trans-title parameters in the template)
I'm confused here. The source is in English. I see that the chapter was translated from Italian and republished in this English version, but surely I just reference the version I used, right? Should I be replacing the English title with the Italian one? AmateurEditor (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right – I must have been scanning through a bit too quickly at the end that I saw "S. Maria della Salute:" and mistook the chapter title as being in a foreign language. Sorry - Evad37 [talk] 01:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ok. No problem. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No obvious issues with source reliability. - Evad37 [talk] 10:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good – all source review issues are now resolved, apart from the two FNs missing page numbers. I don't think that's enough to hold up an FAC, though perhaps one of the @WP:FAC coordinators: can comment. - Evad37 [talk] 13:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by nominator[edit]

Is there anything else I need to do here, or is it just a matter of waiting at this point? AmateurEditor (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

2012 Daytona 500[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2012 Daytona 500, the first stock car race of the 2012 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. The race is well known for driver Juan Pablo Montoya losing control of his car and hitting a jet dryer, which overshadowed the success of race winner Matt Kenseth. The event was also the second most watched 500 in history and the most viewed on the Fox TV network. Furthermore, it was delayed from February 26 to February 27 because of rain and the race was the first to be broadcast in prime time. This article underwent a copy-edit from the GOCE and I welcome all feedback received. Z105space (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Support pending response on a couple of minor points regarding laps led. 1) I don't think the "led" parameter is really necessary here, mainly for consistency's sake with the other race reports of good and/or featured quality (though perhaps that's a different discussion that you and I should have elsewhere. 2) In 2006 UAW-Ford 500, my current FAC, I was asked to add a note regarding how drivers earn bonus points, which is, of course, through leading laps. I'd suggest adding something similar to what I've done there to this article. Fantastic work overall, though; hard to believe it's taken nearly a month to get a single response. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bentvfan54321: I have taken in your points and have implemented them into the article. Additionally, I added a note on those who were not awarded points that they were not eligible for points in the Sprint Cup Series and a note that the race winner earned three bonus points for winning the race. Thank you for the support! Z105space (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

2006 UAW-Ford 500[edit]

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, a NASCAR race held at Talladega Superspeedway. I've brought this here twice before, and while the article partly failed due to lack of response, it also was suggested that the prose be revisited. After a copyedit by the GoCE, I'm hoping third time's the charm. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey, Mike Christie, Laser brain, and Ian Rose: I'm not sure if NASCAR just isn't as popular at FAC or what, but it appears even articles that were nominated more recently than this have drawn far more attention than this one. Since you all reviewed 2010 Sylvania 300, if you are free, I'd greatly appreciate you all taking a look at this article (no sweat if you're busy, of course, just don't want this to get archived due to a lack of response again). Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

In my case it's not a lack of interest in the topic; I'm just not very active at the moment, though I am going to try to review a little. If this gets down to the "Older nominations" section with less than two supports, ping me again and I'll take a look at that point, if I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: It's in the older nominations section, still with only one support, though a second editor has just announced plans to review. If you don't mind, I'd greatly appreciate you taking another look here if time permits. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have been busy lately, and haven't been doing much at Wikipedia aside from driveby fixes in recent weeks. I can promise you're not alone in feeling the lack of love—I've had an FAC up for nearly a month now, and it's dying on the vine. Sorry, I won't have time to review this one, either. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - The prose in this article looks in much better shape after the GOCE looked at it. I would hate for this to be archived for a third time just because of a lack of interest in this article. Z105space (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Intention to review: I've got a family do this weekend, but I've just bookmarked this, and if I don't review it in the next few days come pester me. Harrias talk 09:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thanks! The school year is fast approaching and I have some work to do as well, but I greatly appreciate your willingness to review. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Source review
  • Ref #2 uses cite news, but the similar Ref #20 has cite web. I think cite news would be most appropriate for both, but they should be consistent.
  • Refs #13, #23, #24 don't work for me, they are coming up with retrieval errors.
  • Ref #18 needs author details and date of publication details.
Image review

Prose review to follow. Harrias talk 08:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the images, but I'm baffled regarding the dead refs. The links worked fine a few months ago when I was working on the article, and now they seem to have disappeared from the internet archive completely. Should I add a dead link tag or just use a cite news template without any url? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC) doesn't appear to have any of them either. A couple of years ago, dumped Turner Sports as their publisher and all the links from about 2012 on back became dead. When I started work on the article, the internet archive had all of them in their database; it appears some of them no longer work. Otherwise, the image and source issues have been taken care of, just still unsure what to do regarding the retrieval errors. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: Forgive me if I'm pestering too early, but it has been a couple of days. Are you still planning the prose review? And what should I do with the links? Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying; I was (and still am) a little unsure. My personal instinct is that as those were online-only sources, the fact that they are now offline make the content they support unverifiable, which is a problem. @Nikkimaria: should be able to tell us, if she's about? Harrias talk 08:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The applicable guideline is WP:DEADREF: "If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the webpage (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you cannot find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverified if there is no other supporting citation". I would suggest looking for alternative sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well dang the Internet Archive then, I swear on my life savings those links were archived at some point. Okay, time to get to work then, I'll see what I can do. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias and Nikkimaria: Okay, I believe all instances of the refs have been removed. Thanks again for your review and help! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: Looks like I just missed you as you are on holiday, but if there's a chance you have an opening, are you still planning a prose review? Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, I'm happy with the sources and images now; I've printed a copy off that I can run through during my lunch break, and then I'll put up any thoughts when I get a chance! From memory, I doubt it'll be anything too major. Harrias talk 08:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Support. I've read through a couple of times and made some minor copyedits. This looks fairly complete to me, and the prose is at least competent throughout. My only suggestion would be to give readers unfamiliar with NASCAR a way to figure out why the drivers' points table gives some drivers more points than drivers who finished ahead of them. I gather from a conversation on Bentvfan54321's talk page that this is because a driver who leads a lap gets five extra points, and I'm sure NASCAR fans know this, but it's not clear to someone who's not an aficionado. I'd suggest either adding an asterisk after each driver's points total if they received the five extra points, and explaining the asterisk at the bottom of the table, or adding a sentence above the table explaining how the points are awarded. I'm happy to support whether this change is made or not, but I think it would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and try to add a note in somewhere, though I'll be rather busy today, so I'm not sure when I'll have the time. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I added a note regarding the points system. Thanks again for your time! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Clinton Engineer Works[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Clinton Engineer Works, the Manhattan Project's largest facility. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Support, noting that I've reviewed this previously (at ACR I think). One minor point is that I think the capitalisation is off slightly on the bibliography; I think the MOS would have "Oak Ridge National Laboratory: the first fifty years" as " Oak Ridge National Laboratory: The First Fifty Years". Hchc2009 (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed that. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Support and Comment: though I performed a copy edit, I do think the article cries out for further characterization of what life was like to live there both during and after the war. What were the community's secrecy standards? How compartmentalized were jobs and responsibilities? What percentage of workers were professional scientists vs. "worker bees", as well as women and minorities? And the big question: if they didn't know specifically the project they were working on before the atomic blast at Hiroshima, what did they believe they were involved in? And what was their reaction to that? Pride? Concern over radiation effects (hushed up after Hiroshima)? Much is unanswered.

I notice that the adjunct Oak Ridge, Tennessee article gives more space to the racial segregation issue, also to the notion that workers were in the dark before Hiroshima. We also get hints of a more democratic and/or autonomous community spirit arriving after the war. But here it gets short shrift: was there a resident-driven movement to break from socialism and government controls and heavy-handedness? How did these changes come about? Also, what kind of salaries and budgets did these households have, were they "captive spenders" in the government-constructed businesses, beholden to local health authorities, and why was life in general there fulfilling and/or wanting? The education question seems open, more unanswered than answered particularly given that at least some working there were highly-educated scientific types. Above all, I read this article mouth agape at the relatively-crude early nuclear technology, constantly wondering about long-term public health and nuclear contamination issues, wondering if there are statistical references (even anecdotes) which could be cited. The article seems a bit long-winded, particularly on the construction details, in light of these various social omissions—won't other readers have the same questions I do?

My copy edit didn't find big problems, but a couple of sentences seem cumbersome, e.g.: "In September 1942, Compton asked a physicist, Martin D. Whitaker, to form the nucleus of an operating staff for X-10." I'd avoid words like "nucleus" (and "core") to describe such groups, since they seem confusing in light of the overall scientific context.

I DO like the article, and if I sound over-critical it is in fact because I'm thoroughly intrigued. Just wish it were sprinkled with a little more humanity, for lack of a better word: a sense that people lived, worked, and grew up in a very odd and rarefied environment. From the sources, can we generate a little bit more of that? Thanks for all the good work — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review.

  1. I'll see if I can dig up some statistics on the make up of the workplace. I can tell you that the majority were construction workers.
  2. The amount of information that workers had varied greatly, but most knew very little. The WACs at Los Alamos even had a song about it:
    We're on a secret mission / And secret work we do / We're not to tell folks what we know / But I don't know, do you?
    All I can do is give a description of the security, and provide anecdotes. There are some good ones in the article already; I particularly like the girl scout one.
  3. The major safety issues were not radioactivity, but the handling of toxic chemicals and high voltages. The Project actually compiled a good safety record, far in excess of that of private firms of the day. Radioactive hazards were generally taken lightly. Partly this was due to ignorance, but there was also a different concept of risk with a war on. The really scary stuff did not happen until after the war, but this is beyond the scope of the article. The concept of what was acceptable evolved. In the beginning, for example, the scientists assumed that no one would mind if a nuclear power station emitted less radioactivity that an equivalent coal-fired station. This proved to be not the case.
  4. I'm looking for another word beyond "nucleus" and "core". As a military type, "cadre" comes to mind, but I'm not sure how widely understood that is. For the record, "hutment" is used in many articles; the most significant is shanty town.
  5. The adjunct article does devote more space to the racial segregation issue, with some interesting stuff (mostly unsourced). I thought it would be enough to note that the township was segregated, as was customary in this period. I can add some more material.
  6. Finally, as to self-government, if the residents had had their way, Oak Ridge would still be a gated community run at the Federal government's expense. The motivation for forcing self government on Oak ridge, Hanford and Los Alamos was ideological, as it was seen as socialist, which was anathema to many American politicians, and became increasingly so as the Cold War set in. There was also a financial dimension, reducing costs, but this was also ideological in motivation, as vast sums were spent by the AEC through the 1950s.

I'll see what I can do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Vesuvius Dogg: I have tried to address your concerns with new sections on "Personnel" and "The war ends", and have expanded the "post-war" section. Bear in mind that this article is about the installation during World War II, and is not a history of the city. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
VERY happy with that! Your additions deftly reinforce a sense of community and give depth to the social/community contract. That memo, by the way, is fascinating! Good work and many thanks Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added a small section on electric power. I had to remove the bit about 14% of the US's electric power. This comes from Nichol's autobiography (ghost-written), which embarrassed me on the Manhattan Project article. The claim has been refuted by recent scholarship. See [13] and [14]. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Civil_Action_No._429.jpg: source link is dead
    Added a new link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Lie_detector_test.jpg: source does not identify specific author. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Ed Westcott Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the image review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. (Note to self: I'm going to credit myself with a review for Milhist on this one, since there were a lot of additions.) These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you like a co-nominator credit on an article, let me know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Has there been a source review for formatting and reliability? If not, please request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. --Laser brain (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Too Much Too Soon (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the second album by American rock band the New York Dolls. A hard rock and proto-punk album, it was released to poor sales but predated punk rock, received critical acclaim, and became a popular cult rock record. I withdrew the first FAC nomination last August because I had opened another FAC at the same time ([15]). It has since been slightly expanded and copy-edited. Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Support this to FA. It is well researched, nicely written and comprehensive. CassiantoTalk 07:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Fru1tbat[edit]

Track listing
  • On my (wide) screen, the track listings for the two album sides render at very different widths (due to the rating box in the previous section overflowing into this section and limiting the width of the "side one" table). It looks untidy like this - the Writer and Length columns don't line up at all. Can something be done to address this (and maintain portability)?

Nothing else jumped out at me, but I'm not familiar with the subject matter. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes @Fru1tbat:, I added the clear template. Dan56 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Note: spotchecks not done.
  • Be consistent in how you format multi-page refs - FN12 has "p." and two digits omitted, FN53 has "pp." and one
  • Anon 1 has "(New York) (May 11)" but then Anon 4 has "(January 20) (New York)" - check for ordering consistency throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I fixed the first issue. The second has to do with how the citation templates are formatted. For some reason, Template:Cite journal renders a different order than Template:Cite news. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that's by-design, as the |issue= parameter expects an issue number, not a date, but you could ask at Help talk:Citation Style 1 - Evad37 [talk] 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
A thought occurs: putting the full date in the |date=parameter (instead of splitting it between |year= and |issue=) would resolve the formatting discrepancy - Evad37 [talk] 03:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Not all the sources have known month and days, only years, and all the references are author-year. I was kind of advised to do it this way in past FACs, like this one for Misterioso, utilizing the issue field for month/day. Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The order of publisher location and dates are inconsistent – eg Anon. (1974b) has "(New York) (July 13)" while Anon. (1975) has "(January 20) (New York)" noted above already - Evad37 [talk] 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Some locations seem to be missing (e.g. Antonia, Nina (2006); Pilchak, Angela (2005); and more): is this because they are not shown in the source (or already indicated by publisher name/publication title)?
  • "U of Minnesota Press" should probably be expanded to the full name, University of Minnesota Press

No other issues that I can see - Evad37 [talk] 02:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I added locations and expanded the publisher name. Dan56 (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin[edit]

Support—a very well-presented, well-researched account of the album. I did not check sourcing, so a spotcheck should be in order. As for my review, you can leave it, collapse it, move it to the talk page, whatever the FAC coordinators allow. Good luck. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Driveby I think you should call the band just "the Dolls" every now and then. It's pretty much standard practice when writing about bands (as you can see from the various quotes in the article).—indopug (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems kind of informal though for an encyclopedic article. Dan56 (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it's good enough for Encyclopaedia Britannica...—indopug (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

This strikes me as a really well done article. Just a few smaller comments...

  • I think you're missing the mark a bit when you talk about recording demos. The band weren't recording demos, they were recording songs that they had originally produced as demos. The song exists independently of the demo.
I had originally worded it as "re-recorded demos" before one of the reviewers suggested changing it. I'll restore it. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand what you mean by Morton being "hasty"
In a rush; reworded it. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "On the novelty cover songs, Johansen impersonates characters such as the high-stepper in "(There's Gonna Be A) Showdown" and Charlie Chan in "Bad Detective", whose nonsensical narrative is set in China." I'm struggling to understand this sentence
Reworded to "which has lyrics describing a nonsensical narrative..." Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the last paragraph of the "Music and lyrics" section, there seems to be a tense shift- do you want to talk about what the songs feature in the present tense or the past tense?
Corrected. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not keen on your annotations in the see also section.
They were suggested by another reviewer. Would you prefer it if I removed them? Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you expand a little on "Anon. (1985). "All Time Top 100 Albums". Sounds (London)." ? Volume/issue/pages/url? "Willis, Ellen (1974). "Rock, Etc.". The New Yorker 50 (April 1)." is also a little light.
I have no other information on Sounds. I originally got the info from Acclaimed Music, so I've replaced it with that citation instead. The New Yorker article was found through GoogleBooks' archive/snippets and that was all I could muster up. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering if you've got the right issue for The New Yorker. See here, for instance. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@J Milburn: Thanks! I've changed it to "may 20" after typing some of the cited text. Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Three small stylistic comments to have a think on- first, there are a lot of false titles (something I've only just learnt about!), second, there seems to be a tiny bit of inconsistency on whether you capitalise the "The" in band names (see: "The Olympics") and third, I think there is good reason to favour "s's" in the case of belongs-to-singular when the singular word ends in s (so, I would favour " Thunders's " over " Thunders' "). I certainty wouldn't oppose over any of these things, but these are some bits to think about.
I'm in favor of false titles since I'm an American speaker and saying "the" before "American hard rock band the New York Dolls" would sound funny to me lol. I have fixed "the Olympics". I revised it to "Thunders's" Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources are very good. For me, this is an excellent article- a great example of how to write about popular music. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


  • ref 1 (New York Dolls signed to Mercury and poor sales for debut album)–confirmed
  • ref 3 (session with Paul Nelson)–confirmed
  • ref 6–accurate statement
  • ref 14–according to the review
  • ref 19 (The New Yorker)–accurate cite
  • ref 21 (Spin alt guide)–accurate cite
  • ref 29 ("Human Being" lyrics)–confirmed
  • ref 31–accurate quote
  • ref 32 (number 167 on the charts)–correct
  • ref 36 (two festivals they played)–per source
  • ref 42 (Phonograph Record quote)–only found the Contemporary Musicians book (p.106), but it's there
  • ref 44 (Circus)-accurate quote
  • ref 50 (Christgau)–accurate quotes
  • ref 53 (cult album)–confirmed, first paragraph from Allmusic bio
  • ref 54–all in source, but it's slightly unusual how you combined the critic's various descriptions.
  • ref 55 ("instant classic")–confirmed
The article has plenty of quoted text, so I had no problems locating it on Google Books. I see no false sourcing here.--Retrohead (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Russian battleship Potemkin[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The subject of this nomination is famous for a film about a mutiny that took place aboard her in 1905, part of the Russian Revolution of that year. Sergei Eisenstein made his movie twenty years after the mutiny and it has been acclaimed as one of the greatest movies of all time, but the ship itself had an interesting history during World War I in the Black Sea. The article had a MilHist A-class review two years ago and that review pointed out that I needed to expand coverage of the ship in Eisenstein's film. I've finally done that and I've also taken the opportunity to tweak the article in response to comments that I received recently from some informal reviews in preparation for this FAC. But experience has shown me that something is always overlooked and I trust that reviewers will find any such infelicities as well as points that need to be clarified for non specialists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Panteleimon,_1906.jpg: when was this image first published and what is the author's date of death? Same with File:Panteleimon1906-1910.jpg
    • Place and date of publication unknown as is the name of the photographer. In McLaughlin's book the first one is credited to naval historian Boris Lemachko, but he didn't take the photo, just provided it. Will try to hunt down, but have added US tags.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Potemkin_mutiny_le_kniaz_potemkine-tauritchesski_a_constantza.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Given the publication date it is quite possible they did not. Also needs US PD tag
    • Tags updated.
  • File:Vintage_Potemkin.jpg: which of the listed criteria applies to this work? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Published anonymously in 1925 and also more than 70 years since publication.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I reviewed at ACR a few years back and see that quite a bit of work has been done since then. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I suggest cropping a couple of the images to remove the captions from the images themselves: "File:Leader of Potemkin revolt.jpg" and "File:Potemkin mutiny le kniaz potemkine-tauritchesski a constantza.jpg";
  • inconsistent: "She also mounted six 47-millimetre" (body) v. "6 × single 37 mm (1.5 in) guns" (infobox)
  • "On 13 April 1917 the ship was renamed Potemkin-Tavricheski (Russian: Потёмкин-Таврический) and then to Borets za svobodu (Russian: Борец за свободу – Freedom Fighter) on 11 May 1917": do we know why?
  • it looks like the article uses British English variation. As such, "theater" should be "theatre". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    • A couple of good catches there, Rupert, all fixed and captions trimmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Almost forgot, the first name change is attributed by McLaughlin to the February Revolution, but no reason for the second one. Perhaps insufficiently revolutionary?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Added my support as my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments looks pretty good. I wonder about the last section, it's not really the ship's legacy, but the mutiny's, but I guess you have to have it to satisfy the reader.

  • "which later came to be viewed as an initial step towards the Russian Revolution of 1917." I would strike "later". After all, logically, at least 12 years would have had to pass before it could be viewed as such.
  • "shortly after Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire in late 1914 during World War I" All these clauses! Surely they can be compacted. And, I note if you are using British English as set forth in review comments above, it is "the First World War".
  • Not necessarily, the Brits do use WWI, etc. so it's not a national usage thing.
  • " Turkish battlecruiser Yavuz Sultan Selim; Panteleimon" I would change the semicolon to a dash.
  • "before she could inflict any serious damage on the Russian ships" I don't think "on the Russian ships" adds anything.
  • "an improved version of Tri Sviatitelia instead." I had to click to figure out that was a ship's name and a Russian one at that. Could you clue in the reader in-line?
  • Was the output of the engines as stated per engine or for the pair?
  • The pair, that's why I used the phrase "total horsepower"
  • " other four were positioned at a corner of the superstructure" Not the same corner, surely.
  • I think I saw that arrangement in a cartoon once.
  • "citadel" link?
  • " the mutineers refused to land armed sailors that would bolster the striking revolutionaries' attempt to take over the city" perhaps simplify as "the mutineers refused to land armed sailors to help the striking revolutionaries take over the city"
  • The description of Potemkin meeting the other ships doesn't read clearly. For example, the ships turned away. Why? "ordered the ships back to Odessa" which ships? The only ship I am aware of that had been to Odessa recently was Potemkin. The others, it is at least implied, came from elsewhere.
  • No responsibility is assigned in the sources for the first three ships turning away.
  • You are inconsistent in your usage of the funny Romanian t in "Constanta"
WWI (see my comment about British usage)
  • "submarines stationed at Varna." That's three Varnas in a very short span, can this one be changed to "submarines stationed there"?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking this over. I've linked, tweaked and rewritten things in response to your comments. Let me know if any issues remain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - a nice piece of work, with only minor comments from me:

  • "On 27 June 1905, Potemkin was at gunnery practice near Tendra Island off the Ukrainian coast when many enlisted men refused to eat the borscht made from rotten meat partially infested with maggots when it was delivered to the warship by the Potemkin‍ '​s escort, the torpedo boat Ismail (No. 627)." - is there any chance of an extra comma for this sentence - it felt like quite a hard read.
    • Decided that the way that the meat got there really wasn't important.
  • "The battleship was easily refloated, "- who refloated it...?
  • "Ismail‍ '​s crew decided the following morning to return to Sevastopol and turn themselves in. Before the crew disembarked, " - I couldn't work out from this where the crew was disembarking or scuttling the ship (I'd assumed Sevatopol, but then the ship has to be towed there later).
  • "Panteleimon, flagship of the 1st Battleship Brigade, accompanied by the pre-dreadnoughts Evstafi, Ioann Zlatoust, and Tri Sviatitelia, covered the pre-dreadnought Rostislav while she bombarded Trebizond on the morning of 17 November 1914 after Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire. " - quite a long sentence - could it break somewhere in the middle? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Trimmed a few bits, see if the changes work for you. Appreciate you taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • Just watched the film, but wanted to wait until some more history-savvy reviewers had taken a look before I added any comments. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Could a date and location be added to the infobox picture? Likewise, could a date be added to the photo caption under mutiny?
  • "built for the Imperial Russian Navy's" only mentioned in the intro, which should not have unique info.
  • "was a pre-dreadnought battleship" Likewise, should probably be mentioned early in the article outside the intro as well?
  • Wouldn't it make more chronological sense to switch the position of the Panteleimon photo and the one next to the "later service" section?
  • "At some point during the war, her 75 mm guns were also removed." During what war? No war is mentioned until that point. I assume WW1?
  • "and captured Ismail." Which is what? Not presented before this point (seems to be further down, but should be at first mention).
  • "to help the striking revolutionaries take over the city" Until this point, the article (outside the intro) has not mentioned that there was a revolution in Russia outside the mutiny. Could warrant a mention before for context.
  • There generally seems to be very little context for the 1905 mutiny placing it within the wider revolution, is it possible to add a bit more? Especially since there is no separate article about the mutiny, this one should give as much detail about it as possible (by this I mainly mean lacking in context).
  • Constanța is not linked at first mention in the article body, and it is not mentioned what country it is in either. Also, there is inconsistency in whether you spell it Constanța or Constanta.
  • "in what came to be known as the Battle of Cape Sarych" Against who?
  • "and several ships of the Turkish navy raided" Ottoman rather than Turkish by this point? There was no Turkish state.
  • "that destroyed 39 Turkish sailing ships." Likewise.
  • "The ship was renamed Panteleimon" Why, to disassociate it with the mutiny?
  • "the ship was renamed Potemkin-Tavricheski" Why, to re-associate it with the mutiny? And what does the latter part mean?
  • "was scrapped beginning in 1923" Why, was it damaged or obsolete?
  • "The ship was relegated to secondary roles after the first dreadnought battleship entered service in late 1915. She was now obsolete and was reduced to reserve in 1918 in Sevastopol." Little of this detail is mentioned outside the intro.
  • "and cared nothing for Communism" Wording seems a bit too informal.
  • You there, Sturmvogel 66? FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose while waiting for reponses - I think a few of my suggestions are pretty serious, so would like some kind of response before this is passed. I have bolded the most important issues. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Agua Dulce[edit]

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the latest entry in my survey of the battles of the Texas Revolution. It's a mostly forgotten episode that had little actual impact on the war or its outcome, although it has the distinction of having been fought at just about the same hour that leaders in Texas were declaring independence several hundred miles away. There is a bit of drama - ambush! high-speed chase across the countryside! stampeding horses! Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Images - only image is the map, which is appropriately licensed. Are there any other images that could be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There are no images that I can find of the Texian commander, and the only image I've found that purports to be of the Mexican commander I cannot verify. I could put File:Campaigns_of_the_Texas_Revolution.jpg (which was used in the FA Texas Revolution) in the Prelude section, but it's hard to read when it's that small. Images of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Sam Houston, James Fannin, or Frank Johnson could go in the background of prelude sections, but they aren't really that important to this article. Karanacs (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - this is a nice easy read and gives me a sense of the Texas Revolution - a war that I've always found confusing for some reason. I can't remember the exact rules regarding non-breaking spaces, but introduced one in this edit because the number was on a separate line. Otherwise I can't find any nitpicks. Nice work. Victoria (tk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

After reading the comment above I searched google images and found that we have File:JamesWFannin.jpg on en.wp so I took the liberty to add it. I won't be offended if you don't like it and revert. Victoria (tk) 20:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. Comments. The article is in good shape, and I look forward to supporting once these minor points are dealt with.

  • "The resolution thus gave the Mexican Army permission to take no prisoners in the war against the Texians": didn't the Tornel Decree apply only to foreigners? So it would not have given the Mexicans permission to execute someone born in Mexico or Mexican Texas? Green tickY Explanatory footnote added.
  • Suggest linking "fifteen-minute battle" to Battle of San Patricio, or perhaps naming and linking the battle in that sentence. I know it's linked in the infobox, but most readers won't see the connection. Green tickY
  • "rode leisurely": "leisurely" is not an adverb, so this needs rephrasing. Green tickY
  • "historians generally only list 12 Texians as killed. It is likely that historians were not including the Tejanos under Benavides." It's not clear if these are modern historians or 19th century historians. Green tickY
  • Do we need the list of Texas Revolution battles in the "See also" section, given that they're listed in the infobox? Green tickY removed

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

All looks good now. I've switched to support above. Nice work, Karanacs, and thanks, Maile, for helping out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Crisco comments[edit]
  • Overall the lead strikes me as a bit verbose. Symbol question.svg Question: - This lead is the style Karanacs uses. Thats all I know about this. — Maile (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • many of the Texians were shot before they were able to raise their guns. Many Texians - Any way to avoid this repetition? ("many ... many") Green tickY
  • It is likely that historians were not including the Tejanos under Benavides. - I'd give this in-article attribution Green tickY
  • Otherwise nothing to comment on. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments from West Virginian
  • Karanacs, first and foremost I would like to comment you on a job well done on this article. I only have a few quibbles regarding your well-written article. Otherwise, I find that it meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Thank you for all your hard work on this article and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • San Patricio, Texas can probably be rendered as just "San Patricio" in the first paragraph in the lede since at the time it was located in Tamaulipas and not Texas. Green tickY
  • I wonder if there is another way to reword "The Mexican army quickly put down revolts in the Mexican interior..." to avoid repeating Mexican twice in the same sentence. Perhaps consider "The Mexican Army quickly put down revolts throughout the country's interior" or something like it. Green tickY
  • Mexican Congress should probably be wiki-linked to Congress of the Union. Green tickY

Coordinator note: Karanacs hasn't been active in over a month, so this may have to be archived as an abandoned nomination if she doesn't return soon. --Laser brain (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Laser brain, I don't see why this should go to waste. The above comments are just prose quibbles. Can I be allowed to take this one? --ceradon (talkedits) 04:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ceradon: I'm planning to send Karanacs an email if she doesn't surface soon and decide a course of action from there. I'm uneasy having anyone take over a nomination unless they are very familiar with the subject, have been involved in developing the article, and have access to the sources. I hope you understand. --Laser brain (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Laser brain:, very well. It'll be a shame if Karanacs doesn't/can't handle this. --ceradon (talkedits) 06:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Per prodding from @Laser brain:, I have fixed the issues mentioned above. The issue with the Tornel Decree is in the footnote. Please note that Karanacs never used Almonte's Texas in her research. I have linked it where the entire book is online. — Maile (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Note - I did nothing about the "verbose" lead. That's the style of Karanacs, as far as I know. I don't think I should be the one to re-edit it. — Maile (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I'm not clear on what the last paragraph before Aftermath is saying. I see the complaint about the lead above; I made a couple of edits, but I don't see a copyediting problem. (If there's a problem with the choice of what to include, that's not something I would normally tackle in a copyediting role.) These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Support - If the lead is going to be trimmed, alright. If not, no worries. This is a good article, and I'm not going to block it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

comments - I was/am happy with the lead, FWIW. I will take a look at the referencing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Formatting of references internally consistent. Nil issues. (well, just formatted 2 page ranges)
  • Graham source supports the underrepresentation of Tejano involvement - material faithful to and does not copy source. so ok.
  • Jackson/Wheat supports the text, though one segment from a different page and added.
  • Earwig's copyvio tool looks fine

In summary, all material examined looks good, but much is offline only. Leaving it to the delegates on this one....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thunderbirds (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

My second Featured Article nomination after five years, for a programme that is 50 years old this year. Promoted to Good Article status in December, it has since been copy-edited several times and provides – in my opinion, at least – a comprehensive treatment of the subject's main elements (particularly its production) and appropriate summary treatment of its sub-elements. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

Image review
File:Thunderbirds logo.jpg is a non-free image, and seems to have a correct rationale. File:Hood and Scott Tracy puppets from Thunderbirds.jpg seems to be fine; the photo failed to include the full right puppet, but it's a minor detail and can not be fixed. File:Lorne Greene - 1969.jpg seems to be fine. File:Sean Connery 1964.png uses the "no copyright notice" license for a TV screenshot, which seems a bit innapropiate. File:Robert Reed 1971.JPG seems to be fine. File:Adam Faith headshot.jpg seems to be fine. File:Charlton Heston - 1953.jpg seems to be fine. File:AnthonyPerkins.jpg uses a license that goes from 1923 to 1963, so we need the exact date to know if the image is covered by it or not ("the 1960s" is not good enough, because it may a moment between 1964 and 1969). File:Stourhead House (8349738431).jpg seems to be fine (it lacked a FOP license, but I added one). File:RP1357 p8 Soyuz Rocket.svg needs more information: as detailed in the license, the NASA host images of the Soviet program, which may not be in the public domain. File:ThunderbirdsFAB (Cropped).jpg seems to be fine. Cambalachero (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe that better-licensed alternatives for Connery and Perkins are available, although I note your comment below regarding the use of this gallery in general. The source of the Soyuz image is a large PDF filled with schematics of both US and Soviet space vehicles, all drawn in the same style. Based on this, as well as the fact that the image is an outline rather than a photograph, I'm doubtful that it originated outside NASA. As the figures in the PDF aren't individually credited, however, I'm not sure how this could be proven beyond all doubt. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The Soyuz image has been replaced with File:Hawker Siddeley Gnat T1, UK - Air Force AN2239232.jpg, which illustrates a different aspect of the production. It is OTRS-confirmed and does not, as far as I can see, present any licensing concerns. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 22:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
All the images used seem to be fine now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Great to know! SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Are the characters named after the astronauts in-story? If someone does not know about them, is the TV series explicit in that point? Some words and expressions are a bit puffery, such as "Unknown to the rest of the world" or "the force behind"; use simpler terms. Do we really need so many trivial details about the cars? Name and pilots should be enough. Same goes for the overly detailed info about the defenses of the island or the motivations of the heroes and villains: you have to use a summary of the important and defining info. The last two paragraphs (analysis of the continuity snarls on the date and the hidden meaning of the call) are not needed and should be removed. Cambalachero (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the characters' names – no, there is no in-universe explanation to that effect. It was merely the producers' intention. I have therefore moved this information to the production section. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The text seems to be better now, but the use of a list in this location does not seem correct. It may be better to simply turn it into a paragraph. Cambalachero (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The paragraph ended by this sentence discusses writing and character development. Character naming falls under character development. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by splitting this paragraph. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, try to avoid the use of parentheses for sentence-long comments. It's better to just reformulate them as new sentences. In the second, "The local authorities..." is a 4-lines long sentence, try to reformulate it. In the third, do not include wikilinks inside of quotations. The sentence that mentions Bonanza should end there, and the rest be another sentence. World War II is far more common than "second world war". I'm not sure if the word "illusion" is appropiate. Cambalachero (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The section seems to be fine now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, try to avoid the use of parentheses. "(which were designated "A" and "B")" can easily be a text written after a comma. As for units, please choose one and use it from the them on, there's no need to keep giving numbers in both systems all the time. Watch out for overly long sentences. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons should be clearly described as such when linked, not linked under the name "new concept" (the reader must have it clear what is the link that he would follow). Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"separate "A" and "B" crews" may be replaced simply by "separate crews". You do not say anything specific about A or B, and the name used to set them apart is trivial. Cambalachero (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The A and B distinction becomes relevant further on, at the end of the third-from-last paragraph: most of the filming for Series Two was handled by B crew, since A crew was busy shooting the film sequel Thunderbirds Are Go. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Casting and characters
The "Other occupation(s)" field is an unneeded second field for in-universe information, and makes the column too wide. "Role" should be enough. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Section seems to be fine now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Design and effects
Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The actors whose likeness has been used for inspiration seems a bit trivial to include in photos, specially if it is such a wide set of photos. Again, watch out for the use of parentheses. Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Special effects
"Special effects" is a common word and does not need to be linked. "evolved from his wish" does not sound like good writing. In "This decision was not informed by any expert mechanical knowledge on Meddings' part: "The model just looked better that way.", the quote doesn't really add much; just skip the intro and say directly that it was a personal preference. Cambalachero (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The section seems to be fine now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Title sequence
Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
As pointed before, don't use wikilinks inside of quotations. Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Section seems to be fine now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Cambalachero: I believe that all the textual issues raised above have been seen to. What do you think of the article in its current state? SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 22:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

  • No way I was going to miss this one! Comments to come....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Two series and thirty-two 50-minute episodes were filmed - sounds like the two are additive. I'd change to something like, "Two series comprising a total of thirty-two 50-minute episodes were filmed" or something similar.
technological superiority - I'd say "advanced technology" or just "technology"
Changed to "technology".
The Tracy brothers took their names from... - I'd not make the characters the subjects, as it was the creators who determined the names, so make passive or make creators somehow subjects
Changed to "The Tracy brothers were named after ..."
– due to the series' technical complexity, a longer period than for any of APF's earlier series. - this looks wierd as ndash then comma as it makes the "longer period" relate to the clause immediately before it rather than the "five months" - I'd make it two ndashes.
Split into two sentences. an effort to go against viewer expectations - wish there was another way to phrase this...although an alternative isn't springing to mind...
What do you think of "to defy the viewer's expectations"?
Better...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd link petrol jelly
The sources give "petrol gel". I'm not sure how this became "jelly".

Looking on target for FA status otherwise I think...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ummm...@SuperMarioMan:? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: Sorry for my delay in replying here. I think that the points above have been addressed. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, am happy with comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for your support! SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 13:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the whole article is superb. Loved it. Couldn't find anything wrong, except that there is a footnote required at the end of the last sentence of "Filming". Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for your support! I've added a page reference for Captain Scarlet. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Coord note -- Welcome back to FAC, SuperMarioMan. Since it's been a long time between drinks, I'd like to see a reviewer conduct a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as well as the usual source review for formatting and reliability. Requests for those can be posted at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review/spot check by Cas Liber[edit]

In progress....

I've removed as being largely similar to IMDb. While the latter is something of a must for film and TV articles, the former isn't. I've also removed the Anderson Entertainment and Screenonline links as they are both single pages (remembering point #1 of WP:ELNO); I think that the latter works better as a reference.

The official website by Carlton, though no longer active, is still included (relevant guideline: WP:ELOFFICIAL). After some thought, I've also retained the BBC Online link – it is authoritative on the subject of Thunderbirds (being part of the official website of a broadcaster) and does, I believe, "provide a unique resource" beyond what the article would contain if it became Featured.

This reduces the number of external links from six to three. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Be consistent in how you write the publisher location (i.e. locale, state/country, or just locale alone)
  • Pageranges - you have "17-18" (i.e. 2 or all digits) in one bit and "121–2" (1 digit) - align one way or the other...
  • Also - align all the titles of references so they are in all title case or sentence case.
Formatting is now consistent throughout. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Formatting of refs otherwise looks ok.

Spot checking...

  • Earwigs comes up with a false positive from a mirror site, otherwise looks ok.
  • Online refs 104, 199 and 218 (using this version of the page) check out.
  • Online ref 9 used three times - twice fine, but source does not mention "April 2015" as date screened, just "2015". so to be faithful, we must either lose the "April" or add a source that says it screened in April
This has been re-sourced. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise looking ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin[edit]

Overall, this is very well written and only requires a few tweaks. Some queries...

  • "... he exerts a powerful telepathic control over his estranged half-brother, Kyrano, and manipulates the Tracys into missions that unfold according to his nefarious designs."—this sentence gives the impression of introducing Kyrano for the first time, when in actuality he is mentioned earlier.
  • It needs to be explicitly stated that there were two filming crews, A crew and B crew, because the two crews are mentioned in passing as if we are already familiar with these names.
  • "He therefore asked Anderson to devise a new concept – which, in his estimation, stood a greater chance of winning over the profitable US market."—it's unclear what exactly "which" is referring to in this sentence.
More coming; I've read up to Casting and characters. The Wikipedian Penguin 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "... typically measuring twelve by fourteen by three metres (39.4 by 45.9 by 9.8 ft) in length, width and height."—why spell out the dimensions in metres but write the feet in figures? It is not aesthetically pleasing and does not accord with the MOS.
  • "...director of photography John Read discussed the advantages of circumventing the puppets' lack of agility 'so that they appear, for example, to walk through doors (although the control wires make this impossible) or pick up a coffee cup (although their fingers are not in fact jointed).'"—literally, this is saying that he discussed the lack of agility so that the puppets appear to walk through doors or pick up a coffee cup, which does not make sense. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Models and sets were also 'dirtied down' with powder paint or pencil lead to create a used appearance."—"used appearance" is rather odd. Something like "to make them appear used"? The piped link to Used good is up to you.
  • We have critical praise/criticism in the reception section, where it should belong, but also some scattered in other sections, like Title sequence and Special effects. What was your approach to this?
    • The effects, music and title sequence are major aspects and arguably the most important reasons behind the series' popularity. It therefore seems appropriate to include a certain amount of critical opinion that is aimed directly at these elements. I've chosen to place all of this in the relevant sub-sections of "Production" so as to keep the focus of the main "Reception" section (which is already quite long) on the series in general. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 12:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "...the Thunderbirds title sequence varies with each episode: the first part consists of a rapidly-edited action montage that serves as a preview of the plot."—what does "rapidly-edited" mean? Anything like fast cutting?
  • "'Thunderbirds Are Go!' – the track accompanying the launch sequences of Thunderbirds 1, 2 and 3 – is praised by AllMusic's Heather Phares as a reflection of the mod aspect of 1960s British spy fiction."—the use of passive voice here is very awkward. The Wikipedian Penguin 16:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Granada transmitted Thunderbirds in unedited form for the first time with the start of repeats in 1966."—"unedited" was unclear to me at first. Make it explicit that they aired the 50-minute/1-hour form.
  • "In 1990, eight of the 19 audio episodes released by APF Records were converted into radio dramas..."—one of the exceptions to the MOS:NUM rule of thumb is that comparable numbers and numbers representing ratios be formatted the same way (i.e. either both figures or both words). So, either say "8 of the 19" or "eight of the nineteen". The Wikipedian Penguin 18:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Some elaboration on why Marriot believes the series was technologically influential would be helpful.
  • "Simon Heffer, a fan of the series in childhood, has commented positively on the series for The Daily Telegraph..."—I feel like "has commented" should simply be "commented", consistent with similar instances.
  • "However, he also opines regretfully that the 'tongue-in-cheek' humour of Stingray is less evident."—"opined" is right, but it's relatively inaccessible language for most readers.
  • "Thomas argues that the world of Thunderbirds is broadly similar that of the 1960s in so far as contemporary capitalism and class structures have survived mostly unchanged."—not sure what you're trying to say here.
  • "...arguing that its rejection of stereotyping is most evident when it is actively used to positive effect..."—the show rejects stereotyping by actively using it to positive effect? Maybe that is what you mean, but the example doesn't help much in clarifying.
  • "Bignell comments that the Hood's Oriental appearance and mysterious powers draw parallels with James Bond villains and fears of China acting as 'a "third force" antagonistic to the West'."—so we have a mix of "commented", "has commented" and now "comments"; why?
    • I've written the "Reception" section so that it contains a range of contemporary and more recent opinions; the former are framed using the past tense, the latter more often the present tense. I appreciate that this could be confusing and will therefore try to stick to the simple past when I revise this section. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 12:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "He suggests that Thunderbirds adheres more closely to cultural norms in its subscription to the 'cult of the secret agent whose skills defend the home from enemies unknown', for which it can be compared to The Avengers or Danger Man."—I don't understand this at all, sorry.
  • "...with the revived merchandising campaign more successful than that of the Star Wars trilogy."—implies the Star Wars trilogy also had a revived merchandising campaign. Note that this sentence was modified by me so that it could not be interpreted as the Thunderbirds toy line being more successful than Star Wars itself rather than the latter's merchandise. However, the original version of the sentence had the sample problem (re. "revived").
  • "A full-length "Thunderbirds" strip appeared a year later, at which point the "Lady Penelope" strip was given its own comic."—why quotation marks for Thunderbirds?
    • I was under the impression that comic strip titles used quotation marks, although I agree that they aren't really necessary here. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 12:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Write "United States" on first occurrence and then use "US" on subsequent instances.
  • Just a thought, but perhaps end the "Influence" section (therefore ending the entire article) with a quote from someone summing up the impact the show has had in the world in general? Are there such quotes available? It would really be a nice way to touch off and conclude such a long article.
    • I'm sure that a relevant quotation is available. There are sources included in the "Reception" section that could do this quite nicely. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 12:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This may look like a sizeable list, but given the length of the article, it is actually quite good. The Wikipedian Penguin 00:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll revise the "Reception" section to clear up the ambiguities and standardise tense. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 12:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I think that most of the above points have been resolved. Detailed response on quotations and tense, which are slightly more complicated, coming soon. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Support - and recusing as closing coordinator - This is a well-written and fascinating account of a much loved TV series from my childhood. I watched all of the Anderson's productions when they were first aired. Having read this wonderfully comprehensive article I no longer have any excuse to believe that Scott, Virgil, Gordon, John, Penelope and Parker were real people. But I am not going to stop playing with my Thunderbirds models. Fantastic article. Thank you. Graham Beards (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for your kind words. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 12:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Support – This is a beautifully written article on a TV show which I have liked since childhood and I have no shame of supporting this work for featured article candidacy. Z105space (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Nominator Note: I mentioned in my opening statement that this series has its 50th anniversary this year. In fact, it turns 50 at the end of this month – the first episode was first broadcast on 30 September 1965. As the TFA for 30 September has not yet been selected, should this FAC result in promotion (and if there is still time) I will definitely be nominating the article for a Main Page appearance on that date. I think that it would be a great tribute. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)

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


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

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

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

Source review—spotchecks not done.

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

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


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

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

An inconsistency: the introduction states that "Rwandans are composed of three ethnic groups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa", whereas the demographics section states that "the population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: there's a general problem here, because it is quite a hotly disputed topic in sources as to what the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa groups actually are. In some sources, Banyarwanda are regarded as one ethnic group, sharing a language and culture, with Hutu and Tutsi being social classifications, while in other sources the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa are themselves regarded as separate ethnicities. The text tries to explain this issue, and I've changed the lead to match what's in the Demographics section. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Education and health[edit]

The main focus for my efforts this weekend is going to be bringing the health section into line. I would like some feedback on one thing though - at the time of featuring, this as the version of the article: [17]. Then, education and health were in one paragraph (which I had modeled on a similar paragraph over at Cameroon, an earlier FA). The education part has not changed much, apart from the addition of some over detailed analysis of laptops. The health section, however, has been hived off into a separate section, and largely filled with non encylopedic and over detailed information.

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

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

Sport sub-section[edit]

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

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

Things that need updating[edit]


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


  • Last paragraph updated for recent developments - Done.

Politics and government

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

Administrative divisions No changes needed


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


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


  • Update water figures
  • Update electiricty figures
  • Update transport


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


  • Check national holidays


  • Check beers


  • Check and update


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

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

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

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World[edit]

Notified: Clyde Miller, WikiProject Video games

Review section[edit]

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

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

FARC section[edit]

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

  • Delist - Per my comments. GamerPro64 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist and re-assess as B-class. The prose needs improvement, not all of the sources are appropriate per WP:VG/RS, and the lead disappoints. Could be a GA candidate given some editing, expansion, and (re)sourcing. Esquivalience t 22:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Review section[edit]

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

  • I was hoping this would get some comments. Personally I don't think this is an easy fix, the history is complex and over the years