Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

The FAC coordinators—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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.



Yugoslav monitor Drava[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC) and 23 editor

This article is about a heavily armoured river monitor that saw extensive service with the Austro-Hungarian Danube Flotilla during World War I and then briefly saw action with the Yugoslav Danube Flotilla during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in World War II. It is the last of four articles about Yugoslav river monitors to come to FAC. During the invasion she was persistently attacked by Stuka divebombers who scored several ineffective hits on her until one bomb went down her funnel into her engine room, killing most of her crew and sinking her. It successfully underwent Milhist A-Class review in August last year, and since then has been expanded and improved with a German language source. While we believe it meets the FA criteria, we are keen to get constructive suggestions about possible improvements. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The Boat Races 2016[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Another Boat Race article... I've brought three or four to FAC before with some level of success, and I worked on keeping this one up to date, so much so that it was posted to ITN within hours and promoted to GA within days of the actual event concluding. As ever, I'm eternally grateful for each and every comment made here in an attempt to improve the article to something Wikipedia can be proud of. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Looks like a high quality article. I do think it misses on the economics of the race. I assume there is no monetary prize, but maybe this should be spelled out since pretty much every sports competition out there has a prize. Also, the article misses on the TV coverage: broadcast outside UK? viewers? paid rights? Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you Nergaal. This year's race has scant sources about the broadcasting, we have the usual 250,000+ spectators along the Thames but I'll need to do some digging to see if there's anything out there regarding the international viewing figures - as you know these are typically ridiculed (estimates range up to the 100s of millions), and they are absolutely impossible to gather with any credibility, but I'll look. Regarding prize money, etc, that's a good question too, and I'll see what I can find. Thanks for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It could be vague along the lines of "was broadcast live in X countries, including y, z, and w". Nergaal (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward[edit]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward, a 2012 visual novel developed by Chunsoft. It features an incredibly convoluted story (as you'll soon read) with more WTF moments than I can remember. It was well received by critics, and was even nominated by GameSpot for Game of the Year. This was the first article I ever put serious time into editing, and together with IDV and ThomasO1989, we've brought this article up to what we believe are FAC standards. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • The Reception section is exceptionally short right now and overquoted. Needs more paraphrasing and elaboration on major and minor themes from the reviewers. czar 22:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The thing about the reviews for this game is that they really don't go into a whole lot of detail about the smaller intricacies in the game, or what they liked and disliked. Seriously, it's weird, but I think it's because since it's a visual novel, most critics didn't want to spoil any plot related stuff. In fact, most reviews spend the majority of their time explaining how visual novels work and how the Nonary Game works. The EGM review for example states that "I know I’ve been decidedly obscure about explaining what you’ll find in Virtue’s Last Reward—but I cannot stress enough that the less you know about this game going in, the more enjoyment you’ll have" while the Eurogamer reviews states "To reveal how it does so would be to ruin the fun and take away the dizzying, off-kilter moments that make Virtue's Last Reward such a frequent joy." However, rereading through the reviews, I did find how some reviews felt the character animations were wonky, and I could add to each paragraph a little bit. I'll also try to condense the quotes into paraphrased sentences. Although, I would like to keep the quote "among the best performances I've ever heard in any game, period." Not often you see a quote like that for a game. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: I've expanded the paragraphs in the review section. I think you'll like the changes. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dissident93 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I've never did an article review before (I'd rather just edit it myself and save the time), but here is what I'd change, based on a policy or guideline. Here is what I found based on a solid skim through the article:

Lead Developed for the Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita, it was released on February 12, 2012 in Japan, and in North America and Europe later that year.

  • Dates should always be generalized in the lead, per WP:VG/DATE.
Done, though I'm a bit worried about having the word "in" used three times in the same sentence. I'll try to fix that soon

Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors was originally released as a stand-alone title, but its unexpected success in North America prompted game director Kotaro Uchikoshi to continue the series with a sequel.

  • Unexpected according to whom? And did it not have success in Europe, or was success expected there from the start?
According to Uchikoshi, it's a rarity for a game developed in Japan to be more commercially successful in the West than in Japan. I could add "but its unexpected commercial success in North America" if you want. As for the second part, Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors was not released in Europe. I feel that would be unnecessary to mention in the lead

However, the game was not commercially successful in Japan, which led to the development of its sequel to be put on indefinite hiatus.

  • Indefinite hiatus, but the sequel was released last month? This needs to be re-worded or sentences merged to seem less like they were written in two different eras (which seems to be the case).


  • Seems to be fine, I would have to nitpick to say anything needs to be fixed.

Plot Each character description is taken from the Aksys Games website.

  • Some meta-comment like this doesn't need to be stated in plain sight. Either turn this into a footnote, or remove it all together and find a better place for the source. Rest of the section seems fine.

Development Uchikoshi also considered including several scientific and philosophical theories/experiments that eventually were left out including: Dissipative system, Monty Hall problem, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Toxoplasmosis, Folie à deux, Capgras delusion, Fregoli delusion, Sally–Anne test, and Project MKUltra.

  • Run-on sentence that lists random (to a casual reader) linked concepts. Not saying this needs to be removed, but it could be better written or trimmed a bit.
I agree, but I'm not quite sure how to fix this. I'll get back to you on this.

Promotion and release

  • Section itself is fine, but normally we just go with "Release" as the subsection title on game articles. Probably just a nitpick though, but it's something I'd personally edit.
Agreed, so I changed it to just release

Reception The aggregate-review website Metacritic rated the Nintendo 3DS version 88/100,[48] and the PlayStation Vita version 84/100.

  • This means nothing to a casual reader. It should be written simply in prose as "The game received generally favorable reviews, according to review aggregator Metacritic."

It was also tied for the seventh highest rated PlayStation Vita game of 2012 on Metacritic.

  • This is not normally written in game articles, even ones who are listed as the best game of the year. I'd remove it, but this is another personal opinion, not a guideline or policy.
I just removed those sentences entirely. There not that important


  • Nothing I'd change here, section is fine from what I see.


  • One final thing I'll say is that I thought Visual Novel Database external links were considered user generated, and therefore should be removed per WP:ELNO #12? Outside of that, the article follows WP:VG/GL and WP:MOS guidelines and policies, and once the aforementioned issues above are addressed, I'll support the article becoming featured. But again, first time I've ever done this, so I'm not sure if I did anything wrong for a nomination. You might want to re-check your Dota 2 comments to see if I properly addressed them too, if you haven't already.
I know that movie articles tend to have IMDb in their external links, but since the Visual Novel Database isn't well established, I have no problem removing it. As for the review, don't worry, you did exactly what you needed to do. I'll ping you once I've finished the run on sentence in the development section. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Chicago Pile-1[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that you can pile rocks in a heap, and strange and wonderful things happen. Based on the science of neutrons, whose existence was demonstrated just ten years before, and which cannot be seen, only inferred. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

J. R. Kealoha[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about J. R. Kealoha, the only Native Hawaiian combatant of the Civil War whose gravesite (in the island) is known by modern historian. Efforts to posthumously honor him especially his unmarked grave occurred at a period of renewed interest in Hawaiian soldiers who fought in the American Civil War while Hawaii was an independent kingdom. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. I believe it is not far from a Wikipedia:Very short featured articles. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

St Botolph's Church, Quarrington[edit]

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

St Botolph's is an Anglican church in Quarrington, for much of its history a small village in the English county of Lincolnshire. The oldest parts of the building are from the 13th century although a church has existed in the village since the Conquest. The church has some "puzzling" architectural elements, according to Nikolaus Pevsner, while its age mean it is grade II* listed. This article complements the GA-class one on the village itself, and forms part of a project to improve coverage of Sleaford articles. After a bit of an editing hiatus (owing to my studies), I am bringing it here. I believe it is comprehensive, reliably sourced throughout and neutral; the structure seems to follow many of the other Anglican church articles. As only my second FAC, I am not expecting this to be perfect; any constructive comments, queries and suggestions are welcome. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC).

2006 Bank of America 500[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The 2006 Bank of America was the 31st stock car race of the 2006 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series and marked the half-way point in that year's Chase for the Nextel Cup. The event was won by Evernham Motorsports driver Kasey Kahne who started from second position. All teams who took part in the race were mandated by NASCAR to use a 13.8 gallon fuel cell, and a new right-hand tire compound was introduced in an effort to produce better racing. However, drivers reported they drove cautiously, and were unable to achieve a normal driving rhythm. This article passed its GA review in April and underwent a copy-edit from the GOCE in June. I am also going for the Four Award achievement. All comments are welcome. MWright96 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T1[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an Austro-Hungarian 250t-class torpedo boat that saw service in both world wars and in five different navies between 1914 and 1959. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

CMLL World Middleweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship, not just a list of champions but an article on the history of the championship, rules etc. This follows the format of the CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship which was recently promoted to FA and I have taken all input from that FAC, plus various GAs and FACs I've done on Mexican wrestling championships to hopefully produce a high-quality article worthy of the Feature Article status. I am open to any and all suggestions and always willing to work on any issues there may be.  MPJ-DK  22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Community Transit[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 22:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the culmination of two years of off-and-on editing and research, all for the local bus transit system I use for my daily commute. This is my first go at a featured content review, so I expect to overhaul and rewrite this article many times. I'm hoping to see this article at TFA for the agency's 40th anniversary on October 4, 2016. SounderBruce 22:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Catherine Zeta-Jones[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) & Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A lovely lady, Catherine Zeta-Jones is the perfect combination of beauty, brains and talent; it's about time we had a decent enough article to reflect that. This article has been through a couple of re-writes, most recently in reaction to the previous FAC in which the reliability of some of the sources were questioned. Those have now all been swapped out and the article has been strengthened since that FAC. – SchroCat (talk) & Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Support As before, should have passed first time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Support, per SchroCat, Blofeld, et. seq.. This had a solid FAC last time. I chose to stay out of it due to the nature of some disputes, but the issues raised were fixed. This is ready for prime time. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Support -- per Montanabw. The fixes look excellent, the overall prose, flawless, and the layout on par with any FA. Praise indeed to Krimuk90 for their excellent authorship and to SchroCat for his perseverance in not letting this article go to waste. CassiantoTalk 06:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks to all four of you! I really appreciate it. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Echoing Krimuk with my thanks too – Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments – An excellent piece of work, and I look forward to adding my support. A few minor points before that:

  • "née" – we normally italicise this, I think
  • "Zeta-Jones' dance" – rather a surprise, and not altogether welcome, to see the AmEng form of possessive used here instead of the usual BrE "Jones's"
  • "in a Swansea production of the musical, which was staged at the Swansea Grand Theatre" – too many Swanseas, perhaps. You could advantageously trim to "in a production of the musical at the Swansea Grand Theatre".
  • "English National Opera ... Street Scene, an opera by Kurt Weill" – you could avoid the repetition of "opera" by redrawing as "Kurt Weill's Street Scene", (which would have the additional advantage of not calling the piece an opera, which it isn't really – more a mix of opera and musical, despite what the composer called it). I saw that production, which was wonderful, but I confess I didn't spot a star in the making.
  • "H. E. Bates'" – another AmE possessive. Likewise Lucas' and Douglas' below.
  • "featured as a belly dancer in disguise" – how do you disguise a belly dancer, one wonders? (no answer needed).
  • "an aspiring duchess" – is that a duchess who aspires to something or someone who aspires to be a duchess? If the latter, "would-be" might be clearer.
  • "hench-woman" – the word is in the OED (to my slight surprise) and Chambers but is not hyphenated by either.
  • "Titanic (1996), however, was better received" – would read better without the "however", I think.
  • "leading lady in favour of Izabella Scorupco" – I imagine you mean "in preference to...".
  • " a significant worldwide audience" – what did it signify? Or do you just mean "large"?
  • "Zeta-Jones returned to stage in 2009" – missing a definite article before "stage"?
  • "an annual charitable program" – as we're in BrE this should be programme.
  • "In The Arms Of Love" – are the second and fourth words really capitalised in the original?
  • "the Sight & Sound magazine" – not sure about the definite article. Isn't it rather like referring to "the Punch magazine" or "the Time magazine"?
  • "issued a legal notice prohibiting its release" – this seemed odd, and I see, on checking, that it isn't what the source says: the most you can say is that her lawyers threatened to take legal action.
  • "Accolades" – I say! A bit over the top, surely? "Awards and nominations" would be less redolent of what User:Ssilvers memorably calls "fancruft".
  • "by the Monarchy of the United Kingdom" – not quite accurate (the monarch can do things; the monarchy, being an abstract conception, can't). Better just to say "in the Queen's Birthday Honours" or go straight from "(CBE)" to "in 2010". The title of the award, though ludicrously anachronistic, conveys pretty plainly the country of origin.

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there, I'd say. I'll watch with interest. – Tim riley talk 10:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim. All your suggestions taken in board and the alterations made. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Good grief! That was quick. Happy to support. Good work. Tim riley talk 10:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Two further prose suggestions to add to Tim's list. The article begins: "Catherine Zeta-Jones ... is a Welsh actress. Born and raised in Swansea, Zeta-Jones aspired to be an actress from a young age..." – the close repetition of "actress" jars somewhat. You could say: "Zeta-Jones aspired to a theatrical career..." etc. And I think "early age" might read better than "young age". Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Many thanks, now tweaked per your advice. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Support – I previously reviewed this under my former username (Z105space), and I believe the article still meets the FA criteria. It has certainly been strengthened since the last review. MWright96 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, MWright96. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Support, I previously briefly commented about the reliability of a certain source, but I could not review it due to the constant heat. Top work; engaging prose, brilliant references, and plenty of content! My favorite of her roles will always be Velma Kelly and her "All that Jazz". FrB.TG (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Thank you, FrB.TG. And yeah, Zeta-Jones is sensational in Chicago, which is my favourite musical film of all time. Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks FrB.TG - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Support The article has been thoroughly researched and is well referenced. This definitely deserves to be promoted to a Featured Article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoba47. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Echoing my co-nom: many thanks Aoba47. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments – Impressive work. She's come a long way since doing Sainsbury's ads ;-) Had a look at some of the sources and spot checked a few, just minor issues:

  • Refs 17 and 69 are more 'BBC Wales' than 'BBC News'
I guess Wales represents more of a location parameter, doesn't it?
  • Forbes is a magazine not publisher so needs correct parameter
  • Publish date for Ref 135? Lemonade51 (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Dooley[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... a fictional Irish-American bartender who was very real to those who lived in the Progressive Era. Mr. Dooley, whose homespun wisdom was generated by journalist Finley Peter Dunne, was noted for sayings that outlasted their creator, such as "the Supreme Court follows the election returns" and "politics ain't bean-bag". I'd like to read what he would have to say about the current campaign. I discovered Mr. Dooley in law school, and was surprised we had no article. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination added early by agreement with a coordinator, for the record.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support By way of disclosure, I did the DYK review, which I have linked here because it covered checkpoints that I already did, such as sourcing and copyvio tool checks. Additionally, the images are all public domain. I have reviewed all the edits done since the June 14 DYK approval. Most of those edits are stylistic changes, the way an editor does when they want the final product to be as tightly written as possible. Some inline citations have been added. I stick by what I said at DYK - the subject of this article is a wonderful piece of Americana, presented in a very enjoyable and professional style. — Maile (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, support, and thoughtful comments. I'm glad, in any case, that a hole in our encyclopedia has been fixed, and we now have a Mr. Dooley article!--05:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Finley_Peter_Dunne_Vanity_Fair_27_July_1905.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Added, thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – I peer reviewed the article and was v. happy with it. Both pleasurable and instructive to read. Certainly meets FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 13:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Much obliged, both for the support and for the comments at PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments (Brianboulton): I missed the peer review, but am reading through now. As usual I have a few prose/punc quibbles, but not much else (I rather like Mr Dooley) Here are my comments on the lead and opening sections:

  • "and then again" → "and again"
  • "Dunne's essays, which contain the bartender's commentary on a topic (often national or international affairs)..." – "topics" rather than "a topic" which might suggest that all essays dealt with the same topic. Or perhaps replace "topics" with "issues"?
  • "who in the columns owned..." → " who in the columns owns..."
  • I am very dubious of the hyphen in the noun form of "little-noticed"
  • Is "mostly only" acceptable? Seems a bit like "fairly unique" or similar formations.
  • "Due to" always jars. Could this become "through"
  • "hobnobbed with presidents": I don't think that "hobnobbed" is encyclopedic (the Oxford Dictionary styles it as "informal"). And did Dunne mix with presidents other than Roosevelt?
Harding. I've cut the phrase though.
  • Semicolon in first line of second para should be a colon
  • "another dialect column" → "a second dialect column", maybe?
  • The parenthetical note "(in all columns but the first, McNeery)" would be clearer as "(in all columns thereafter spelt "McNeery")
  • A second "due to" could be "because of"
  • This sentence seems oddly constructed: "This local fame came with some annoyance to McNeery's real-life analogue, McGarry, who found himself called McNeery, and even stared at by a Swedish immigrant, held by Chicago Irish in disdain". I'd be inclined to drop the staring Swede as inconsequential, and shorten to: "This local fame caused annoyance to McNeery's real-life analogue, McGarry, who found himself called McNeery and held in disdain by the Chicago Irish community".
You misunderstand. It is the Swedes who were looked down upon by the Irish. This helps explain why McGarry took offense.
  • Needs an "and" before "threatening"
  • "as is" should surely be "as was"?
This may be an Atlantic divide, but "as is", at least to my ear, can be used in the past tense, as in "He kept it as is".
  • "McGarry spoke in a heavy brogue, as did his analogue; this was retained in the move to Bridgeport". I'm confused by this sentence; you have previously used "analogue" to refer to the real-life equivalent, now you appear to be reversing the usage. This muddles the mind. It would be simpler to say that McNeery's heavy brogue was retained in the move.
Local man of wisdom
  • "doling out courage by the drink" – could you be clearer as to what is meant by this phrase?
I suppose it is unlikely that anyone heard rebel gunfire while under Dooley-induced influence. Cut.
  • "the home and church" → "home and church"
  • Some tense inconsistencies, e.g. "He interested himself...", "was mentioned...", "He remains..."
Dooley's backstory is in the past tense, what happens "live" in the columns is present.
  • "Dunne biographer Elmer Ellis..." I'm aware of AmEng usage, but still feel that "Dunne's biographer" would suit better, as Ellis was many other things besides.
I've changed it, but note there there is no room for Ellis's bio in either case.
  • "tries to beat some decency into the sodden Grady" – is "beat" meant to be taken literally here?
Yes. I could say "with his fists", but I'd rather not.
  • "made off" → "made of"

More to follow: Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I am glad you like Mr. Dooley. I've done those not noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


Mr. Dooley in war
  • Nothing (I made one punc adjustment)
Mr. Dooley in peace
  • It's that hyphen again: "becoming well-known" → "becoming well known"
  • "He then lacked access..." reads ambiguously and would be clearer as "At the time he lacked access..."
National sage
  • "ill-suited" → "ill suited" (One of my authorities for this hyphen pedantry is The Chicago Manual of Style, of which Mr. Dooley was no doubt a sedulous adherent)
  • "a role slightly greater than that in his actual book" – this looks like a sly dig at the immodest Teddy – appreciated, but not really appropriate unless a source made this observation.
Dooley makes the point more than the source, for that is the whole point of what Dooley said. Roosevelt is called ambitious and self-promoting, in a nice way now alas lost. Another joke about Roosevelt's book is that the typesetter ran out of capital I's, but I don't think that derives from Dooley.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "in late 1901 when he..." – the pronoun would be better as "the president"
  • Sorry to be so persistent, but do we hyphenate "African-Americans"? Our own article thinks not.
Slow decline
  • "it was finding that inspiration" – perhaps "that initial inspiration"? And comma required after "compose", later in the same sentence.
  • I'm not clear how "unwritten columns" could cause conflict with the syndicators.
  • "these did not generate a great deal of interest." Not clear what "these" refers to. Can you clarify?
  • "Dunne was encouraged enough to agree, in 1926, to do a regular Dooley piece for the weekly Liberty magazine". What was the basis of this encouragement, given what appears to be rather negative backdrop? Perhaps "Dunne was persuaded, in 1926..." etc

Concluding on Sunday, I hope. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the gift of your time. I am up to date I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Dota 2[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC), DARTHBOTTO talk 02:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Dota 2 is a very popular video game that is played globally, with professional tournaments that often have prize pools with millions of dollars. The article originally had a failed FA nomination in July 2014, but after working myself on it for the past year or so, fixing many of the issues raised, I believe it's reached a stage where it could be nominated again. First time I've ever done this though, so tell me if I did anything wrong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • From "Gameplay", paragraph 1: "Two five-player teams, referred to as the Radiant and Dire, compete in matches on an asymmetrical playing field." Is it actually asymmetrical? (I have not played Dota 2, although I do play League of Legends, which has a rotationally symmetrical map.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It has a general symmetrical shape, but there are a number of features, such as Roshan's pit, that make it asymmetrical. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It is, actually. Rosh pit exists on Dire side, and pathways leading into the river aren't the same on both sides, among other various differences. It's not big enough to make it unbalanced though, and you could even make the case that it shouldn't belong in the article anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. (It could be claimed that a reliable source is required for the statement, but in this case we may get away with it.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Article is missing two major pieces of data: highest watched Dota2 game; and how much money it generates for Valve. Nergaal (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Why does the most watched game matter, and how would you even source that? And the article does have some info on what the game has made for Valve. That info isn't public until being directly announced by Valve however, so I don't believe a lot of articles reported on that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • According to this reference by Kotaku, 2015's revenue from the game was ~$238MM. However, I don't believe that is a major piece of information, much less so while concerning the highest viewership for a game of Dota 2. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 09:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      • This article could be used, still, as I don't see why not. A single sentence should suffice. EDIT: just added it as "By January 2016, sales of in-game cosmetics had earned Valve over $238 million in revenue, according to the digital game market research group SuperData". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
        • It is relevant to show the impact of the game. If you say esports to a regular folk he will ignore you, but if oyu say x million viewers is a different thing. I know for LoL the finals have had over 20M, so I assume there must have been one with millions in Dota2. Nergaal (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
          • I found this, but this is not something you'd want to add as a reliable source. Also found this, but I think this fits better in TI4's article than in this one, but it could be added. There are eSport specific websites that give relevant info, but I thought they would be challenged here and eventually removed, so I didn't bother. EDIT: I just added "Concurrent viewership numbers of professional Dota 2 matches have reached upwards of two million." in the reception section, as it seemed more relevant there. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
              • Second one seems good for both articles. For somebody outside the area it is much easier to gauge the impact if you say sometimes 20M ppl watch a game. Outside of a very few select sports events, that figure is impressive. Nergaal (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
                • Agreed, however the same article states only 2 million watched it at it's peak, with 20 million across the entire tournament (doesn't seem to be unique viewers). However, that's still pretty impressive. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What is the player base? How many concurrent players have there been? Nergaal (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Player base is shown on the official website. 13 million active players as of July 2016. For concurrent players, it broke 1 million last year (source). CurlyWi (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The concurrent player base was more notable (and easier to find articles on) than the overall total. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Dota 2 player here, there are a couple of minor errors in the gameplay section. Destroying all six of the enemy team's barracks allows for special creeps for the attacking side to spawn more frequently with significantly enhanced health and damage, known as "mega creeps." Destroying barracks has no effect on the frequency of lane creep spawn, they spawn every 30 seconds regardless of whether they're mega or normal. Roshan will respawn 10 minutes after being killed. This was changed in gameplay update 6.79 in October 2013 to the following: Roshan will respawn at a random time between 8 and 11 minutes after death. One other thing, from the release section, In March 2016, a large update fixed many long-standing bugs and issues with the game, while also adding many community requested features. The game receives a major update every 2-4 months, fixing bugs and adding new content/features. I'm not sure why this specific update is worth mentioning over all of the others. There was nothing particularly revolutionary added in it. It might be better to just mention the fact that the game is continuously in development and gets regular content updates. Other than that everything looks good to me. CurlyWi (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • You may be thinking of super creeps, because I'm 95% sure mega creeps do spawn more frequently than normal creeps. It's how they overrun the base so quickly, excluding their enhanced stats. Not sure on the exact numbers however, but maybe this shouldn't be mentioned anyway. Also, I'll could change the Roshan thing to say around every 10 minutes. And I added the update article because it was a large, named update that was reported on by a reliable source. 99% of the other updates do not get the same treatment, unless they add a new hero or something, and at that point it should be added to the article. If more people have issues with this though, I'll remove it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I tested it in game to make sure. In all 3 scenarios, no barracks destroyed (normal creeps), some barracks destroyed (super creeps), and all barracks destroyed (mega creeps), lane creeps spawn exactly every 30 seconds. It's possible that it worked differently in an older version of the game (I started playing in 2012), but in the current version it 100% does not effect spawn frequency. The creeps pressure the base simply by being much stronger than their normal counterparts. They also give much less gold/experience when killed allowing you to gain a gold/experience lead over the other team. As far as the update goes, from a player perspective I would consider it to be fairly trivial, but if the reliable source thought it was important then fine. I don't feel strongly about removing it, its inclusion just seemed odd to me. CurlyWi (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Really? I'll remove it then, but I could have sworn they spawned more frequently. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
czar drive-by

MOBAs are infamously hard to explain, so I suppose you have some idea of what lies ahead. Here are some assorted thoughts, most from my usual readability advice:

  • Gameplay should scaffold to sufficiently explain what's happening. First, the overall objective and subgoals (overview), then description of the play field in which this happens, description of the intricacies of the main game, and when finished, those of the subgoals. Can't launch into the minutiae without an understanding of the base objectives and mechanics.
    • Yeah, but how well do you think the article currently does this? I could have added a lot more detail regarding the gameplay (or alot less), and I also debated whether I compare the features of gameplay to LoL, while also keeping it accessible for those new to MOBAs in general. In the end, it's written like the reader is completely new to MOBAs, without any direct comparison to any other game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Dota 2 can be explained without comparison to LoL, so a good decision on your part. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "the latter of which being an act called" – concision here
  • Dateline in the dev section: dates should be generalized (not specific) when the date/month doesn't have any significant import on the sentence. But even in general: don't provide more detail than necessary for a broad understanding or else risk losing your readers.
    • Any specific examples? You could say the exact date for all them isn't that important, besides the announcement and release dates. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Very hard to follow the different Dotas in the dev section. Think about someone unfamiliar with Dota reading this, and if you wouldn't change anything, see what a copy editor thinks
    • They could be written in full to avoid confusion (Defense of the Ancients), not a bad idea. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Explain jargon on first usage, especially technical terms like "mod"
    • I'd agree, but modification isn't even a used term for the word, so would it really need this? Even kids (due to Minecraft) know what mods are, but maybe not "modifications". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Summarize the aggregate opinion with human-friendly context, e.g.,

    The game received "mixed" reviews, according to video game review aggregator Metacritic

    rather than

    The game was met with very mixed reception. GameRankings and Metacritic gave it a score of 57.52% and 59 out of 100 for the PlayStation 2 version, and 55.25% and 58 out of 100 for the PSP version

  • Most of the level 3 headers are superfluous and can be struck
    • Which ones? I think they all fit and are needed to provide section breaks. Cramming them all under one section would be going backwards, but that just my opinion ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Group statements, such as "Reviewers praised X" in the Reception, are challengeable and require immediate citations. If no single source summarized it as stated, you need multiple citations to show that some reviewers indeed praised X.
    • I'll go through the reception part in a bit, I've focused more on the other sections as they've needed more work. But it does look like everything is properly sourced. A claim and then 2-3 sentences after that state the same thing with sources should be fine? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would think that there's plenty more to say on Reception and Legacy, like pages more and certainly enough to split the two. Most pertinent is where are all of the sources that place Dota 2 in comparison to Heroes of the Storm and League of Legends? There are reams written on the merits of each written in comparison with the other.
    • There should be, but I've tried to look for articles discussing the game's legacy and worldwide popularity, but couldn't find much. Nearly all of the recent articles written on Dota 2 are about the eSports scene, which would fit in the pro competition section instead. And regarding the articles comparing various MOBAs, I debated if they should be put into the gameplay section, but didn't think of putting them here. Not against it, but couldn't find the best way to write it in. An article like Starcraft has a better legacy section, but only because articles were written about it a decade after the game first released, which isn't the case with Dota 2 currently. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

May not have time for a full review, but I think these points are a place to start. czar 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Famous Hobo

As someone who knows nothing about how this game works, I feel I'll be able to properly gauge whether this article makes sense or not

My biggest problem with this article is that it seems to suffer from a lot of "In 20XX, this happened, and in 20XX, another thing happened. The professional competition is the biggest offender of this. I would like to see your opinion on the matter, as it does become a bit tiresome reading through the same type of in 20XX over and over again.

  • Do we just remove dates then? I agree that it's a lot, but it would be worse stating everything without them, wouldn't it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Solid for the most part, but the structuring is a bit all over the place. The development is spliced by the games reception, and the professional competition section comes afterwards, when it appears before the reception section in the article

  • Do they have to be placed in the same exact order? I think the last edit I did fixes one half of your problem. 04:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


For the most part, I completely understand how the game works, but thre are a few points that kind of confused me

  • Is there only one map? I feel this should be mentioned early on.
  • Players are also able to "deny" allied units and structures by destroying them, which then prevents their opponents from getting full experience. I really don't understand this sentence. Does one team benefit from the other team's allied units? That doesn't make sense. Also, why mention "deny"? That word, unlike "lane", "creep", and "barracks", is not mentioned again. Why not just simply say "Players are also able to destroy allied units and structures, which then prevents their opponents from getting full experience."
    • There is only one map, not sure if other MOBAs are the same, but I didn't think to mention the possibility of it not being that way. And I thought the "deny" part was clear enough. By doing that, you only allow the other team's player (in lane) to get half experience, which is always beneficial for the player, as it slows their progress. I could have written way more info, going into greater detail, but I tried to keep it accessible for people reading on the game for the first time. I'm not sure on the best way to re-write this part if it doesn't make sense, hmm. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


  • An expansion pack for Warcraft III, entitled The Frozen Throne, was released later that year; and a series of Defense of the Ancients clone mods for the new game competed for popularity. Just want to clarify, these clone mods were made specifically for The Frozen Throne?
  • MMR is updated based on if a player's team won or loss, which will then increase or decrease, respectively. Shouldn't it be "if a player's team won or lost"? You use to past tense for win, but the present tense for loss
    • I'm not 100% sure, but I think all later versions of DotA required the expansion pack, due to assets being used from it. And yeah, that was just a typo I didn't catch, going to fix it now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


  • On June 12, 2015, Valve announced that the entirety of Dota 2 would be ported over to the Source 2 game engine in an update called Dota 2 Reborn.[75] The beta was released to the public on June 17, 2015.[76] On September 9, 2015, Reborn was officially released out of beta... It's odd to say the exact days, when the rest of the article just says the month and the year, such as "However, after various updates and patches, over a million concurrent players were playing again in January 2016, with that being the largest amount of users since March 2015."
    • The move to a new engine/complete re-write of the game's code should be deemed more notable than a playerbase milestone. I guess they could be generalized, but I don't see why we have to do that to every single date. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Professional competition

  • To ensure that enough Defense of the Ancients players would take up Dota 2 and to showcase the game's capabilities, Valve sponsored sixteen accomplished Defense of the Ancients teams to compete at The International, a Dota 2 specific eSports tournament, for a $1 million prize in 2011. The International was already mentioned as a Dota 2 eSports tournament in the previous section.
  • After the introduction of the Majors, the biggest annual Dota 2 tournament, The International, was then considered to be the cumulative "Summer Major", with the 2016 iteration being the first one under the new format. Once again, the International was already mentioned in the previous section
  • I'm sorry, but is the Documentary section really necessary? That section has no relevance to the rest of the article. Tons of documentaries are made about major events, so what makes the Dota 2 documentary so unique. Honestly, if you can't establish greater notability, I would like to see this section removed.
    • Not against moving it, but it could also be merged with the development section. The documentary apparently brought in a lot of new players who weren't interested/aware of it before, so it's not something 100% trivial either. Also about TI, I tried to mention what it was in case readers skipped another section of the article, but I'm not sure how WP:MOS handles this, so I just went with the safe way. Do we write entire articles assuming the reader will read every part of it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Are the awards listed in the review box really necessary? There's already an entire section dedicated to the awards the game won.
    • Maybe not, but the template supports it, so it's not like they don't belong either. I'll remove them anyway, though, due to it looking cleaner. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, overall a very well researched article that definitely has the makings of featured status. Just some issues that need to be fixed before I can support. Also, would you mind returning the favor and reviewing the Virtue's Last Reward FAC? Famous Hobo (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

    • This is my first time ever nominating an article, so I've never been asked to do something like this. I personally prefer to just directly edit articles myself, but since you took the time to review this, I could try, sure. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

California State Route 94[edit]

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 00:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

After another long hiatus from FAC, I am nominating this article about an east–west freeway in metro San Diego. Rschen7754 00:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Support I'm not a very good reviewer, but this article looks pretty through and complete. And amazingly no grammar mistakes! :)
Kevon kevono (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 14:57 (PDT)
Comments from Kevon kevono
  • The introduction needs a few citations. The entire introduction is uncited.
  • I don't think we need three decimal places in the length of the highway, but, why not?
    • It's best to be as accurate as possible, according to the sources. --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Is File:California 94 Sign.jpg needed?
    • I don't see why not. --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • RD is good.
  • "However, the Highway 94 association, as well as the Campo-Potrero and Highway 80 chambers of commerce raised concerns about the safety of the children going to school in the buses along the road." Is this the only reason, because I feel it isn't a very big one.?
    • Again, we go with whatever the sources say, whether we personally agree with them or not. --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • " was planning for the portion west of there to the intersection of 18th and F streets and the future interchange with US 101." Wasn't I-5 built yet by 1956?
  • "By 1977, much of the SR 94 freeway was congested, with 85,000 to 95,000 trips per day on the freeway according to Caltrans." No citation to this sentence.
    • See the citation after the next sentence? --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "In July 1998, the Back Country Coalition sued Caltrans..." Um, what's the Back County Coalition?
    • A coalition representing the interests of the Back Country. --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • These two citations, California Department of Transportation (January 2016). "State Route 94 / SR-125 Interchange Project Fact Sheet". California Department of Transportation. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 10, 2016. Retrieved July 10, 2016. , and California Department of Transportation (March 2016). "State Route 94 Express Lanes Project Fact Sheet". California Department of Transportation. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 10, 2016. Retrieved July 10, 2016. , are dead links.
    • Works for me... --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The archived versions fail for me, but the originals still work. Imzadi 1979  00:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Removed the archives since won't take it for whatever reason. --Rschen7754 01:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems that SR 94 runs concurrently with SR 125 and SR 54 for awhile according to Google Maps. Otherwise, junction list is good.
    • I'm not sure where you're getting SR 125 from, look closely at the interchange. SR 54 is actually decommissioned from SR 125 to SR 94 (check the Caltrans bridge logs) - Google Maps is actually wrong here. --Rschen7754 00:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Excellent and descriptive prose with no grammar or spelling errors. However, a Google Chrome extension called Grammarly noted 35 writing issues for this article, 13 word choice issues, 12 passive voice misuses, 5 wordy sentences, 4 improper formattings, and 1 unclear reference.
    • I don't trust automated grammar checkers. If you can point out specific issues that you agree with, I might consider changes. --Rschen7754 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, but very close Overall, I'd say that you have to improve this article a little more and change minor issues. Then, I'll support the promotion of the article.
Kevon kevono (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC) 13:12 (PDT)
@Kevon kevono: regarding your first point, you apparently don't know of the tenets of WP:LEAD. A lead does not need normally need any citations at all. If it had a direct quotation, then yes, it would need a citation for that quotation, but there are none in this article. Everything else in the lead is a summary of material present in the body of the article, which is cited there, so it does not need an explicit citation. A quick perusal of Category: FA-Class U.S. road transport articles would show you that most of them lack citations in the lead, pretty much reinforcing my point here. Additionally, if you did the same outside of the highway FAs, you'd see a very similar pattern as well. Imzadi 1979  00:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Support I now pass this article.
Kevon kevono (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 13:31 (PDT)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria. I also conducted an image review at the ACR. Dough4872 01:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The Dawn of Love (painting)[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Dawn of Love is a horrible painting, which when initially exhibited in 1828 was described as "an unpardonable sin against taste", and critical opinion has not become noticeably more forgiving in the intervening 188 years. It's arguably the second most significant artwork in Dorset (I'm nominating this as part of the push to improve coverage of the West Country), but that says more about the state of Dorset's museums than anything else. ‑ Iridescent 18:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support The usual very thorough job. No points to make. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks... ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this fully soon, but a preliminary comment; is there no higher resolution version of the subject painting available? FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • FunkMonk, I've found a slightly high resolution version on ArtUK, with which I've overwritten the existing version on Commons (I can't see any value in keeping the low-res version), but I suspect that's going to be the best we'll find. After the National Portrait Gallery incident, a lot of British galleries—particularly smaller ones like Russell-Cotes which rely on the sale of reproductions and licensing rights for a significant chunk of their income—aren't going to put anything which can be used to create print-quality reproductions anywhere where Commons can get its hands on it. 800x660 is easily detailed enough that one can make out all the significant detail—this isn't one of those paintings where it's useful to be able to zoom in on individual elements to brushstroke level—so I'm not worried about the image quality. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Sagaciousphil[edit]

  • Support I've watched the series of these painting articles develop; this one is based on the same sound references that were reviewed/checked during the FACs for Etty's other works. I made a very minor tweak to a date format for consistency. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The 2003–04 football season was a memorable one for Arsenal players and supporters, their team became the first over a century to go an entire league campaign undefeated. Arguably manager Arsène Wenger's greatest achievement since arriving at the club, I'm hoping to get this to FA standard before his 20th anniversary in October. It's an comprehensive account of how the season panned out, filled with the essential statistics. I feel it satisfies the criteria hence the nom, and welcome any sort of comment, cheers. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The Ecstatic[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a 2009 album by American rapper Mos Def. It was his first album after changing labels and was viewed by journalists as a creative comeback, after two poorly received albums and his greater devotion to acting roles. It was titled after the Victor LaValle novel, whose titled Mos Def felt evoked his singular, unprecedented creative vision for the album. The Ecstatic has been noted for having an internationalist quality, sampling a range of global styles while including references to global politics and Islam in Mos Def's eccentric, conscious raps. It performed modestly sales-wise, but was a widespread critical success and named one of 2009's best albums by several publications. Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: With my issues being resolved, I'm now willing support to this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: support - great article - one that can be held up as an example for all others.Timtempleton (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This article looks clean and organized to me, I suggest for it to be featured. Xboxmanwar (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Support This is a well-written article. Good candidate for FA. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Valley View (Romney, West Virginia)[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This article illustrates the architecture and history of the locally-notable historic residence of Valley View in Romney, West Virginia. The article is written in the same style and layout used in other successful Featured Articles written about places and organizations in Hampshire County, West Virginia: Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), Literary Hall, Old Pine Church, and Romney Literary Society. I welcome your guidance and suggestions, and I look forward to working with you throughout this process to improve and promote this article to Featured Article status. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, West Virginian.


  • Remove the comma preceding Jr. per MOS:JR
  • Remove the word spacious as that is a weasel word.
  • Checkingfax, thank you for beginning this review, I've removed the comma preceding junior, and I have changed spacious to large. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Briefly interjecting here – a "weasel word" is one that is either vague, ambiguous or potentially misleading; "spacious" is none of these, any more than its replacement "large" is. It's a simple unexaggerated term, and there can be no reasonable objection to it. While we have to avoid overdrawn and hyperbolic words ("magnificent", "tremendous", "fantastic", etc), that doesn't mean we are confined to only the most monochrome of prose expression. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Brianboulton, thank you for weighing in here. I hope you'll be able to find time to give the article a quick glance to offer any guidance or suggestions for its further improvement. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll try – I generally enjoy these gently untopical articles that deal with architecture, topography and a little history. I should have some time available next week to take a closer look. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)




See also



External links

  • Per MOS:LAYOUT, Portals should be in the See also section, if there is one, which there is. More later. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I've started to read through, and will in due course post a list of comments on prose etc.. In the meantime, there is a slight issue concerning the initial grant of land in 1649. Your Zimmerman source (p.8) says that the grant in 1649 was made by "King George III", an obvious error (George didn't become king until 1760), so I'd be inclined not to cite this fact to that source. There is a further problem in stating that the 1649 grant was made by "Charles II of England", as Charles was not recognised as England's king until the Restoration in 1660. Any grant of land made by him as a putative king in 1649 would have had no legal basis, a fact recognised in your William and Mary Quarterly source, which states "the grant remained without force till 1662" when Charles renewed it. The complex history of the grant between 1662 and 1688 is somewhat glossed over in the article, as the W&M source indicates, and I would recommend some rewriting of the first History paragraph, to clarify the picture. (Do you have JSTOR access to the full W&M article: If not, I'll help you out). Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thank you tremendously for your thoughtful comment and for your suggestions. I've removed the Zimmerman source due to the obvious error, and I thank you for pointing this out. While Charles II was not yet King of England during this time, he was the King of Scotland from January 1649 on. Although, you are correct that the land grants were made as the claimant to the English throne. I concur with you that this should be illustrated more clearly in this article. I used to have access to JSTOR when I originally wrote this article, but my access has since lapsed. Any assistance you could provide me in reacquiring content from that article for a better illustration of the grant's history would be very very appreciated indeed! As you can see, this rewrite would also be incorporated into several other articles that discuss the grant's origins. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll post something on your talk in a few days (I'll enjoy doing a bit of historical research!) Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
See article talk. I'll be resuming my general review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Brianboulton, thank you for sharing this information with me here. I will finish drafting this paragraph over the next few days. As you know, this will affect at least ten other articles as well, so I look forward to your input and further review. Once again, thank you for bringing over this information from the W&M Quarterly! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an episode from the American television medical drama Private Practice. It received critical acclaim and attention for its representation of rape. I have recently created this article, gotten it through GAN, and based the structure and language on FA articles about television episodes. I believe the article meets the FA criteria: I have taken particular effort in examining as many reviews and articles written about the episode as possible and incorporating them into a comprehensive and authoritative treatment of the topic. I look forward to your feedback. Regards, Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/American television task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grey's Anatomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality

The Left Hand of Darkness[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Ursula K. Le Guin's 1969 novel The Left Hand of Darkness. It is a seminal work of science fiction, and has been influential in other literature as well. I have rewritten this article entirely, gotten it through GAN, and sought additional opinions at PR. I believe it meets the FA criteria: I have taken particular effort in examining as many scholarly works about it as possible, and synthesizing major themes from those. I look forward to hearing feedback. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

This is a well-written and interesting article. A few comments:

  • Lead
  • Setting
    • the background idea of a common origin for all the humanoid species: expand a bit? There are other authors who have used this theme (Larry Ǹiven if I remember correctly, for example). You could alternatively do this in the Hainish universe themes section, where human expansion (subtly different) is mentioned.
      • I've taken a stab at elaborating this; let me know if this addresses your concern. I'm not trying to suggest that that thought experiment is unique, because it isn't.
        • That is now fine, but it is not really addressing my point (which I probably did not make clearly): the corresponding content in Hainish universe themes refers to "human expansion" and confuses the point by referring to Asimov's universe which was almost exclusively populated by humans of Earth origin. The Hainish universe themes content needs to be consistent with the Setting content. It will also be necessary to avoid mere repetition. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
          • To be honest I'm still not entirely sure I understand: both the Hainish cycle and Asimov's works involve human expansion, except that in the Hainish cycle humans evolve on Hain, and expand from there. What would you suggest? Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
            • We can leave this for a while, it is a relatively minor point. I will think further. --Mirokado (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Reception
    • hugely positive critical responses: "overwhelmingly positive" would be better idiom.
      • done
    • The novel sold more than a million copies in English alone.: First-edition printings? in the first year? "has sold"?
      • This is strangely tricky; I've spent a lot of time searching, and it seems like nobody keeps track of how many copies of a book have been sold. Even trickier because this one has been issues in a number of editions. The information I have there is what a recent magazine article said, and it neglected to provide detail. I've tweaked the sentence a little to say "by 2014" which was when that article was published, and I'm going to keep trying for more detail.
        • This is now clear. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Budrys: I suggest moving the sentence at the end of the paragraph after the first sentence so that all Budrys' comments are together.
      • done
  • Shifgrethor and communication
    • Eventually, the two are able to converse directly with mindspeech, but after Ai is able to understand Estraven's motivations, and no longer requires direct communication.: "but after" is not clear. Do you mean "after which" or "but only after"?
      • done. Yes, "but only after" is what it should have been.
  • Style and structure
    • The structure of the novel was unorthodox enough that it was initially confusing to reviewers, before it was interpreted as an attempt to follow the trajectory of Ai's changing views.: Is it possible to give examples, perhaps quotes, to illustrate what seems to be an important evolution of commentary? Do we know who first published the changed interpretation?
      • This is also rather difficult, because this "initial difficulty" is not from my own interpretation, but directly taken from Donna White's book; and she doesn't mention specific reviews, but points to a general trend (ie its her own analysis, based on many reviews). Would it help if I stated that in so many words, or alternatively excised that sentence?
        • Please don't remove the information, it illustrates the ground-breaking nature of the novel. An inline attribution to White (similar to "Darko Suvin, one of the first academics to study science fiction, stated that ...") would be fine. --Mirokado (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Tweaked it; take a look.
            • Thanks, this is clear now and you have avoided the rather clumsy "unorthodox enough". You could tighten the text a bit by avoiding some repetition: "Writing in 1999, literary scholar Donna White stated that this unorthodox structure meant that ...". Please also have a look through the article for occurrences of "stated", it is getting overused. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
              • You're quite right. I've tweaked that sentence, and replaced many instances of "stated." Let me know if it's still excessive.

I will add a few open comments and questions, I hope tomorrow. --Mirokado (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Interrupted today: I will post some more later. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mirokado: just wondering if you had had the time to take another look at this. Vanamonde (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I had a "rather hectic" week, I hope to comment further this weekend. --Mirokado (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
RL happens. No worries; looking forward to hearing your feedback. Vanamonde (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so this will be catch as catch can. My standard quibbles (Part I):

  • The second lede paragraph seems to me to get bogged down in detail which the reader coming fresh on the subject may not appreciate (I've read the book, and most of Le Guin's stuff, but not for 35 years). Possibly begin with saying it's in the Haimish universe, say briefly what that is (the humans on the various seeded planets is one possibility) and go on with the plot. Obviously you need to mention the cycle and the placement in it is good detail, but I might put it later in the lede.
  • I've shuffled some sentences. Does this help?
  • Can you explain why part of the lede is sourced, and some not?
  • Those parts of the lede that are directly from the references (such as the quote from Bloom) I have sourced; those things that are my summary of sourced material from the body (such as the second halves of lede paras 2 and 3) I haven't, because they cannot be sourced to a small set of pages in a single reference like the rest can.
  • "a native of Earth (referred to as "Terra" in the novel)" I would simply put "a native of Terra" and link to Earth, omitting the parenthetical.
  • done
  • "the theme of religion, by contrasting the two major religions" I would change one or other to "faith" (s).
  • done
  • I would lead the final lede paragraph with the info "received a highly positive response from reviewers." to try to keep things chronological.
  • done
  • "In addition to the Hugo and Nebula awards," This is a bit of a repetition of paragraph 1, so I might recast it as "In addition to being voted the Hugo and Nebula awards by fans and writers, respectively," or some such. It flows easier into the poll, which is another fan action.
  • good point, done
  • " In 1987, Locus ranked it second " was this another poll?
  • Yes, it was. Do I need to adjust the wording to make it clearer?
  • I guess it's clear enough, from context.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "Le Guin's father Alfred Louis Kroeber was an anthropologist, and the exposure that this gave Le Guin influenced all of her works." maybe "experience" for "exposure"?
  • done
  • "the Vietnam war " caps?
  • done
  • "These sympathies can be seen in several of her works of fiction, including the Hainish universe works." I'm not sure what the last word is doing.
  • "Including works in the Hainish universe" is what it's trying to say, but it came out dreadfully clunky. I've tweaked the sentence. It's an interesting point that since the Hainish series contains novels, novellas, and short stories, none of those terms can be used to describe all of them collectively...hence "works".
  • The last paragraph of Background contains the term "science fiction" four times, and also contains sentences containing quotes that ought to be cited immediately after that sentence, our usual practice with quotations.
  • I've modified this sentence
  • "Some of these groups that "seeded" each planet" As you have not mentioned any such groups previously, "these" should be "the"
  • done
  • "Explorers from Hain as well as other planets use interstellar ships taking years to travel" I might make clearer that the ships do not travel faster than light.
  • Modified this too.
  • "At least two "thought experiments" are used in each novel." You seem to be going from the general, to the specific, back to the general again. Maybe part of the paragraph beginning above should be moved to be with other text speaking about the Hainish works generally.
  • Hmm, I'm a little hesitant about this, because I see that entire paragraph as pertaining the series as a whole; the mention of Left Hand is only incidental (so I could not mention it there?) I can't see an easy way to move that content around.
  • I'd let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Commentators have suggested the year 4870 AD, based on extrapolation of events in other works, and commentary on her writing by Le Guin" constant comment
  • done
More anon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Back again
  • Gethen's division into two nations might be worth mentioning early on in the plot summary
  • done
  • "an art practiced by the foretellers to prove the uselessness of knowing the right answer to the wrong question." I would cut "by the foretellers" as this really adds no info and the word is used a sentence or so later.
  • done
  • "and tells Ai that he was responsible for Ai's presence in Orgoreyn." well, maybe responsible for the invitation.
  • done
  • "He is called "Genry" by the Karhiders, who have trouble pronouncing the letter "L" in their language" I might cut "in their language" as, after all, Genly's name is not part of their language.
  • True. done
  • "shifgrethor and gender roles and Gethenian sexuality" why the multiple ands?
  • because I probably wrote the sentence twice :) fixed
  • Why is the last sentence of Genly's character description in the past tense?
  • done
  • "In contrast to Ai, Estraven is shown with both stereotypically male and female qualities, and used to demonstrate that they are both necessary for survival." I think you need an "is" before "used".
  • done
  • Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order.
  • done
  • "prime-ministers" It's stylistic, but I really don't see why the hyphen
  • done
  • "he regularly makes speeches on the radio against Orgoreyn" I might cut the last two words and insert "belligerent" before "speeches".
  • done
  • " knowing that Estraven and Ai's presence in Karhide mean his own downfall;" I think this has to be "means" rather than "mean".
  • done
  • "who wish to cease hostilities and reopen trade with Karhide." Given you've just called them the "open trade" faction, I think this could be shortened to "who wish to normalize relations with Karhide".
  • done
  • Your capitalization of "Open trade" vs. "open trade" seems inconsistent.
  • It's "Open Trade" in the original; I've fixed it throughout.
  • "Hugo award" why no cap when you do for Nebula?
  • done
  • "determined by science fiction fans" to avoid the sf repetition, I would say "voted by the fans"
  • this is the only time I use this sentence, thanks to the tweak above.
  • I was struck by your lower casing of all but the first word in Locus's title, and looked ahead to the bibliography. While I gather you are in theory lower casing all but the first word and proper nouns in the titles of short works and using title capitalization for books, you aren't consistent (compare R. Reid with the books listed in the Further Reading section, and in Watson, why is "Role" capped?). Also, while we are down here, all books should have the publisher and location in the citation. Also, "The Oregonian" needs to be italicized. (I'll do the source review) (by the way, I would shorten the in-text reference to simply "Locus". There's a link if the reader's unfamiliar with it
  • Sort of done. What I have tried to do with the citations is to reproduce the original title, so as to respect the capitalization choices made by those authors. I missed that in a couple of places, but I think I have everything now. I've added isbns and locations; the only issue is that locations are not easily available for some of the books. I've added the publishing headquarters as "location" for now, and am digging deeper. Italics and link fixed
  • "The Paris Review" (in reception section) italics?
  • done
  • The reception section seems a bit one-sided. Those who did not like it are consigned to one named person, a couple of categories (such as "feminists") and are immediately swept away by the authorial voice. If the sources will allow, possibly a bit more on the naysaying side, with names and quotes. After all, there was a "debate".
  • This might be tricky. I've tried to add all the substantive criticism I could find, but essentially all of it is of the "she didn't go far enough" variety. Overall, there is very little criticism of the novel. The "debate" occurred mostly among feminist reviewers, and I don't believe there is much of substance to add. However, I certainly might have used an authorial voice that's too strong; if you have suggestions about that, I'm happy to hear them.
  • The sources are what they are, then. I think it's OK as is.
  • "who displays steadily more androgynous behavior over the course of the novel, becoming more patient and caring, and less rationalist" I'm not sure this is phrased in the most understandable way.
  • tweaked this; take a look
  • Looks OK.
  • "The Gethenians are also not inclined to go to war," yet they've got a border conflict which is one of the big plot-movers.
  • true; but the border conflict is a) the exception that proves the rule, and b) not "war" in the conventional sense; the two sides never actually carry out more than "forays" (raids) into enemy territory.
  • "Bloom adds that this is the major difference between Estraven and Ai, and allows Estraven the freedom to carry out actions that Ai cannot" like?
  • done. A strange sentence from Bloom, so I've quoted him.
  • I also note that the retrieval dates are stated as day month year. Why?
  • I believe this is the default in many of our citation templates (such as the "cite" drop down menu in the edit window, which has the option to insert today's date under "access date.") It is also the standard outside the US. If you feel it important, I can change this all to month-day-year, but honestly I'd rather not).
I don't think the book is particularly associated with the US so I don't think it's worth the trouble to change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Will finish soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully finishing
  • "is shown as increasing loyalty to the two countries while decreasing loyalty to the planet as a whole" possibly "is shown as increasing nationalism, making it hard for those in each country to view themselves as citizens of the planet".
  • done
  • "explored through the persons of lone individuals on alien planets" suggest "experiences" for "persons"
  • done
  • I would move the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Loyalty" section elsewhere. You begin the second paragraph with "this conflict" but you've somewhat diverted from the theme to discuss a related one, so "this conflict" is no longer immediately at hand, rendering the "this" a bit dubious.
  • done
  • " Genly Ai tells Argaven after Estraven's death that the latter served mankind as a whole, just as Ai did" It is unclear from the sentence itself which of the three named persons is the "latter" ("last"?)
  • done
  • "During the border dispute with Orgoreyn, Estraven tries to end the dispute by moving Karhidish farmers out of the disputed territory. Estraven believed that by preventing war he was saving Karhidish lives and being loyal to his country, while King Argaven saw it as a betrayal." Why the shift in tense?
  • done
  • "in marked contrast to the (primarily male-authored) science fiction of the time, which was straightforward and linear" by 1969? That seems an overly flat statement to say about the era of, say, Vonnegut and Ellison (I mean the "straightforward and linear" bit. Ten or more years previously, I wouldn't be inclined to quibble. Similarly, the following sentence makes the reviewers appear awfully naive considering it's the same year as Slaughterhouse-Five.
  • I've rewritten this sentence to say "traditional science fiction" rather than "of the time;" Vonnegut may have been a contemporary, but he was equally unorthodox. Is that okay?
  • "In this sense, the novel can be thought of as a Bildungsroman, or coming of age story, as the reader experiences the central character's growth.[55] Since the novel is presented as Ai's journey of transformation, Ai's position as the narrator increases the credibility of the story." I wonder if the part "as the reader ... growth" could not be safely deleted. I really don't see anything in there that isn't implied in what's around it.
  • done
  • "in commemoration of her then-recent 85th birthday" this feels a bit awkward. Maybe "in honor of her 85th birthday" is enough.
  • done
  • Source review to follow. I'll wait until you're ready, I gather you're still looking at one or two things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Wehwalt; actually, you're welcome to go on with the source review. Apart from the points you just added (which I will address shortly) I have fixed and/or responded to everything, I believe. A couple might need further attention from you, as I was either unable to find a solution or reluctant to change for reasons I've provided. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I will review those.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Source review
  • You are inconsistent between USA and U.S.A. in the references.
  • fixed
That's all I see. Otherwise all sources seem encyclopedic and are appropriately and consistently cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any great reason to change the date format just to make work. I'm a little more troubled by the caps issue in the refs. Those works had their own style guides, and we have ours.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I believe I have addressed all the points you have raised; if there are further issues, let me know. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
What did you do about the titles? That's really the only thing left.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Wehwalt: Um. Forgot, apologies. I think I've brought it in line with this. Is that okay? Is there another guideline I should be following? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope, that's the one I was thinking of. All looks good on the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: thanks for the support. Since you asked, I actually managed to find a slightly more critical review (still a feminist criticism, though). I've added a couple of sentences; I hope this helps with the issue highlighted above. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Support excellent work. Thank you for bearing with me, as long as it took.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Gog and Magog[edit]

Nominator(s): JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about two subjects known through out not just religious views, but recognized as actual historical figures presented differently through out the world from different eras. I barely edited the article. All the credit goes to PiCo, who overhauled the article from this to it's current version. On a personal note, I have seen PiCo's edits since my registration on Wikipedia, and I'll say this, I have never felt more confident in an editor's skill to edit and overhaul articles such as PiCo. Anyways, this is a very interesting subject studied in different academics, but mainly biblical studies. This is my first nom. for FA, so I hope this process is successful. Thank you and Happy editing! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • '"Magog" might refer to Babylon, by turning BBL ("Babylon" in Hebrew script, which originally had no vowel-signs) into MGG (Magog).' This should probably be explained. Why do we think that BBL could be turned into MGG. By what process?
  • "was enduring exile in Babylon": I'd cut the "enduring", and have simply "was in exile in Babylon"
  • The two final paragraphs of the subsection on "Ezekiel and the Old Testament" seem to contradict each other: in the penultimate paragraph, we are told that Gog's allies may have been chosen for their "remoteness and reputation for violence", but in the final paragraph we are told that the names are simply taken from lists of nations elsewhere in the OT.
  • In the bibliography, citation formatting needs to be consistent. For example, make sure all the books have their ISBNs. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto, I have added all ISBNs and fixed citation formats. Currently I am redirecting links. I will clarify the suggestions you posted when I get time. Thank you & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The instructions at the top say "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Is PiCo happy to see it here? Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod I'm very aware of the recommendations, but I'm more than confident about nominating this article. If there are any questions or concerns, I'd be happy to answer. Also, I already informed PiCo about the nom. before questioning had begun. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Kiyoweap[edit]

  • Choice of main image which doesnt feature Gog and Magog. Find some other? features Islamic Yājūj and Mājūj but I doubt people are familiar with Dhul-Qarnayn as nickname for Alexander the Great. For main I think we should use a European version such as one I uploaded (see Talk:Gog and Magog#Alternate images), which is more self-explanatory.
  • Dont know much about "Red Jews". It is namedropped in the lede, but not explained in the body. Gog and Magog conflates Red Jews, says here, but Red Jews says it is conflates Gog and Magog, so which is it, reader may wonder.
  • If you read s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Gog half of that article is devoted Gog and Magog statues in London. So someone might think this an omission. This topic is currently covered under Gogmagog (giant) but some bridging prose is probably necessary.
  • So I actually came with the preconceived notion that Gog and Magog were individual giants, and the current way of organizing information is confusing to me. I think it is better to say Gog or Magog is the name of the individual in the Old Testment, but that John in Revelation used these names for the forces of evil. Then state that in later medieval writings began referring to the people of "Gog and Magog" (as a stock phrase, please use quotation marks) localized to the land of "Gog and Magog" localized to areas of Asia, etc. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) edited 08:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Kiyoweap, I'll clarify the connection of "Red Jews" in the article as you suggested. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Kiyoweap PiCo did explain who the "Red Jews" are: Some time before the 12th century the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel became identified with Gog and Magog.[41] The Franciscan traveller William of Rubric reported that he had seen Alexander's wall in Derwent on the shores of the Caspian Sea in 1254, and that there were other walls holding back Jews that he been unable to visit; William shared his information with Roger Bacon, who urged the study of geography to discover where the Antichrist and Gog and Magog might be found.[42]... but he didn't mention "Red Jews" specifically though that's what he meant. I'll clarify simply by adding Red Jews to the sentence per source already there. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
My point here rather was that "Red Jews" being a rather obscure term it did not merit mention in the lede. And "Red Jews" (rothe Juden) is described as a strictly German vernacular term for "confined Jews". It wasnt coined til ca. 1270 (Gow, p. 70) Thus not ascribable to William of Rubruck, a Frenchman (or Fleming) who wrote his Itinerarium in Latin, about a visit to the Iron Gate of Alexander in 1254.[1] --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Kiyoweap 2[edit]

  • #The names Gog and Magog I have found to be verifiable against cited sources. It relies primarily on encyclopedia entries for Gog and Magog written by Johan Lust, who is a biblical lexicographer.
  • However, Chronicles does not state that Gog is a "descendant of Reuben", and even less "son of Reuben". It states Gog is a grandson of Joel (prophet) (See Britannica on Gog) and several generations down this line a person emerged who became the leader of the Reubenites.
  • I also don't think Chronicles need be mentioned a second time if the Gog mentioned in it is an irrelevant personage. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "One of the most important legends associated with Gog and Magog was that of Alexander’s Gate" according to to the Britannica link, but you have to piece this "important legend" in pieces since the article is organized by sources, sort of chronolgical, and sort of scriptural vs. secular. Since you probably dont want to reorganize this completely, maybe a spinoff article on "Alexander's Gate" is needed.
  • The article passes silently from "Alexander's Gate" to "Alexander's wall" and assume readers will immediately realize they are equivalent, but is this okay?
  • The fact that Magog is son of Japheth / grandson of Noah according to Genesis 10 isn't stated until way down in the article. And I'm not sure it is all that significant to point out that Book of Jubilees aka "lesser Genesis" should echo the content of Genesis. Whereas it deserves to be pointed out that Josephus's Magog is in fact Magog son of Japheth, the same as the person in Genesis.[2] --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Kiyoweap I think its very important that the extra mentioning from biblical works outside the Bible be mentioned. There is no consensus on "who" or "what" Gog and Magog might be. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
A minor scriptural source is not automatically important over various secular works. A crude metric for importance to this topic is to use search the keywords: "Gog and Magog" vs. "Alexander the Great" gets 3890 hits, vs. "Josephus" 2130, vs. "Jubilees" 295. So the action i suggest is some combination of 1) notice to Jubilees be condensed, 2) Josephus be expanded 3) Jubilees etc. referred to in a later section as in, even if not chronological. The article isn't chronological anyways. It launches into a mini-lecture on the Jewish messiah-concept based on midrashic etc. writings, dating to much later than Josephus. And stuff about Napoleon. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Rare Replay[edit]

Nominator(s): czar 23:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

With a month to go, we are approaching the first anniversary of this compilation of 30 video games by Rare and its predecessor, Ultimate Play the Game. If you're a FAC regular, you might already know that a few of us have been working to improve each of these 31 articles as a Good Topic set, and now that (1) they're all at GAN and (2) we're in the home stretch, I thought it would be nice to try to put a crown on the parent topic in time for its first anniversary on August 4, 2016. Maybe you'll agree?

The compilation of 30 games span a 30-year history across consoles from the ZX Spectrum to the Xbox 360. They include 80s classics that defined an era of British gaming (Knight Lore, FA), 90s classics that characterized the Nintendo 64 (Banjo-Kazooie, Blast Corps, FA), and, well, some weirder variations in the 00s (Viva Piñata). The compilation was fairly well regarded with many reviewers waxing poetic on their youth. But they also agreed that the games weren't all great, which we can affirm after suffering through writing their reception. But this is a homecoming and this parent article is in great shape, with thorough prose as the most complete treatment of the topic in its short life. I look forward to your feedback. czar 23:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto[edit]

A few comments to get you started:

  • The lead links to behind-the-scenes, which is a disambiguation page. It looks like of the articles linked, Making-of is the closest, but I don't know that it's quite right.
  • "Rare's Nintendo 64 classics, with Blast Corps in particular, were the communal favorites" I'm not entirely sure what "communal favourites" is intended to mean in this context.
  • "New apogee" sounds odd to me: why not just "apogee"? Actually, why not scrap apogee and just say "high point"? "Apogee" is a needlessly obscure word, especially for an article likely to be of interest to a wide range of ages and reading abilities.
I don't think that "apogee" is needlessly obscure, but I hope a switch to "pinnacle" will suffice—"high point" doesn't really fit the context. (For context, it was high-water mark earlier, but I thought that was, to borrow the phrase, needlessly obscure.)
Personally, I would consider "high-water mark" much more understandable than "apogee" to the average reader, but I think "pinnacle" is fine.
  • "Reviewers were disappointed by the absence of...": I'd say "Many reviewers" or "Most reviewers", since it soon becomes clear that a minority were not disappointed.
  • "Grabbed by the Ghoulies, in specific, was ported to run natively on the Xbox One, receiving a high-definition and framerate update." I'm not sure what is intended by "in specific" here, but something needs to be fixed. Probably you can just cut "in specific" so that the sentence reads "Grabbed by the Ghoulies was ported to run natively on the Xbox One, receiving a high-definition and framerate update."
The idea was to call attention to it being the only game to receive this treatment
Perhaps "One title, Grabbed by the Ghoulies, was ported to run natively on the Xbox One"?
  • Although on that same sentence, "receiving a high-definition and framerate update" reads as jargony.
What would you propose? This is the non-jargon version.
Unfortunately, I can't think of anything. Leave it as it is for now unless someone can come up with anything better, I suppose.
  • "They figured that few companies lasted for 30 years": too colloquial. Maybe "As few companies last for 30 years, Rare wanted to do something unique to celebrate".
  • And on that point, the interview this is cited to says "studios", not "companies". It looks to me like the intended meaning is that few games companies have lasted that long, but the article implies that it means companies in general, where 30 years isn't hugely impressive: Wedgwood have been around 350+ years, Twinings 310 years, Colman's over 200 years, Cadbury almost 200 years. Even in the entertainment industry, Warner Bros. are approaching 100 years, as are Disney and HMV; while Virgin is approaching 50.
  • "Rare Replay's papercraft, theatrical stage theme was intended as part of the celebratory theme, and as a reflection of Rare's character" I don't really understand this sentence.
  • "Rare Replay became part of Rare's plan to celebrate its past and simultaneously announce its future with a logo redesign, new website, and Sea of Thieves announcement.": repetition "announce... announcement". Also, maybe explain what "Sea of Thieves" is and what about it was announced in the article?
  • "The company wrote the titles on a whiteboard and rated each for how it would fit the collection." Okay, but is this really needed? I'd cut it, frankly.
  • "which was their explanation for excluding GoldenEye 007" but we've already been told (twice!) that GoldenEye wasn't included because they couldn't sort the licensing out!
  • "The final opening was intended to invoke players' memories": I am almost certain that "evoke", not "invoke", is intended here.
  • "alongside their new game Sea of Thieves." This is the second time Sea of Thieves has been mentioned, it doesn't need to be linked again. And per my above comment, the fact that it was Rare's new game should probably be moved up to go with the previous mention.
  • "It reached the top of the United Kingdom all-format games charts, the first Xbox One exclusive to do so and Rare's first in 17 years (since Banjo-Kazooie in 1998)." Personally, I would rewrite this as "... the first Xbox One exclusive to do so, and the first of Rare's games to do so since Banjo-Kazooie in 1998."

Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to finish giving the section on reception a thorough read; hopefully I'll be able to come back to that soon. You should have plenty to get started on, though... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto, really helpful—thanks! I think I got 'em all czar 13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: a few more picky things:
  • "retains the 'authentic' graphical slowdown": possibly explain briefly what this means? I've skimmed the article on the ZX Spectrum and I'm none-the-wiser. (Reading the source article, it appears that what is meant is that the framerate changes depending on how much stuff is going on onscreen, but at least to this non-gamer that is by no means obvious from the article...)
  • The article cites the Kotaku Review of Rare Replay as support for Jet Force Gemini being both a most and a least favourite game; I really don't see how it supports the claim that JFG was a favourite game.
    Yeah, this was a weird one. He said that he had a positive impression of the game apart from his issue with the controls, and that the controls issue was amicable resolved. I had covered the controls issue later in the paragraph but wanted to note the game's overall reception alongside the others. I struck that first mention for now as being less important overall, considering the section's length.
  • I don't think that the article needs to remind us who the reviewer wrote for every time they are mentioned: the worst offender is the construction "Machkovech (Ars Technica)" appearing four times in two consecutive paragraphs.
  • "While Eurogamer liked how the Spectrum emulated the graphical glitches of the original console, Ars Technica disagreed." I'm not sure how much I like this kind of construction: is the reviewer not giving their personal opinion rather than speaking for the publication as a whole?
    These last two are an ongoing struggle. Some FAC reviewers insist on attributing the statements of the review to the writer rather than to the website (i.e., use the source as a metonym). I personally find review sections wholly unhelpful when they do this, as it's much easier for the reader to mentally juggle the publications for whom the reviewers speak than whoever happens to be the human reviewing that day. Otherwise the reader has to track five or more forgettable names that they might never see again after this paragraph (names that are really inconsequential to understanding the topic). I provide both to satisfy both needs, even though I think this is clunkier than, say, just avoiding the author's name after the first usage. While Machkovech wasn't paired with his website four times as far as I can tell, I reduced the most to two. What's your take? Got the rest. @Caeciliusinhorto czar 16:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I don't think it particularly matters whether you cite the reviewers as $NAME or as "the reviewer for $PUBLICATION"; I just dislike the "$NAME ($PUBLICATION)" format. I think you've got the rest. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto, all right, I've given the Reception another general round of edits to reduce the parentheses, per your wishes, but if you are opposed altogether I recommend seeing the discussions for prior FACs such as Blast Corps and Killer Instinct Gold in which the parentheses were an acceptable compromise. Again, I personally prefer using just the $PUBLICATION to ascribe the views, as the singular review is known as the publication's and not as the author's, though I think it's fine to add the author when needed for grammatical concerns. czar 20:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte[edit]

  • Would it be a better idea to reword "but an inevitable absence due to licensing issues" (Reception, third paragraph, first sentence) to "but were absent due to licensing issues"? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd want to preserve the sentiment that they both didn't like the circumstances and acknowledged that there was little to do about them. (I don't want to pummel the reader with reminders about the licensing, but it was a major point, so I want to make sure its handling by reviewers is in full context.) czar 13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: The article exemplifies how a compilation game should be made. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

History of Liverpool F.C. (1985–present)[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the recent history of Liverpool F.C. from 1985 to the present day. I believe the article is close to being at featured standard, and deserves the scrutiny of the community. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments - good to see another Liverpool article here, only got as far as the first section

  • Lead needs to be trimmed, it’s far too long.
  • "Dalglish became manager following the resignation of Fagan after the Heysel Stadium disaster. He started by replacing long-serving full-backs Phil Neal and Alan Kennedy with Steve Nicol and Jim Beglin," needs refs
  • The sentence which follows – “Liverpool started the 1985–86 season poorly," uses the same verb as its previous. Change to began?
  • "They continued to struggle until the end of the season when they won eleven of their last twelve matches,” not sure this is the right pronoun to use
  • "Liverpool needed to beat Chelsea in the last game of the season to win the league championship. A goal from Dalglish secured the championship,” sentence could be merged
  • You could wikilink ‘double’ for the readers’ benefit.
  • "At the start of the 1986–87 season, it was announced that Rush would leave the club for Italian team Juventus when the season was finished,” this could be more concise. Are you trying to say that Rush announced he would leave before the season was underway? Cut to the chase: "At the start of the 1986–87 season, Rush announced his intention to leave Liverpool for Italian team Juventus in time for the following season…"
  • Why did Rush announce his departure a season early? Quotes here would be useful.
  • "At the end of the season, Dalglish signed Peter Beardsley and John Barnes to improve their attacking options," needs citation and wikilink player names.
  • "The signings had the desired effect as Liverpool only lost two games in the league campaign. They did not suffer defeat until their 29th match against Everton and regained the league championship,” desired effect as they regained the league championship, losing two games is just the by-product.
  • "Despite being favourites…,” avoid noun + -ing form, use other words like 'although'
  • "Rush returned to Liverpool for the start of the 1988–89 season," citation? Why did he return?
  • I'd wiklink the 'up for grabs now' match somewhere. And you could include the fact that the match was originally scheduled to be played a month earlier but had to be replayed due to Liverpool's FA Cup commitments. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments @Lemonade51:, I think I've addressed them all bar the lead, which I'm going to rewrite in a few days! NapHit (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Some more, I'll try and have a proper look in the coming days...

  • "They remained unbeaten until a 3–0 loss to Arsenal in December, which was followed by another to Crystal Palace at the end of the month," needs ref
  • "Coach Ronnie Moran was installed as caretaker manager, he won three of the ten matches he was in charge of, as they fell further behind Arsenal," likewise, needs citation
  • "He bought Dean Saunders for £2.9 million, but the league campaign was unsuccessful for Liverpool, as they finished in sixth position, the first time they had finished outside the top two since 1981," another
  • "In the inaugural season of the Premier League, Liverpool performed poorly; they again finished in sixth place, losing fifteen of their forty-two matches," 42?
    • Yep, there were 22 teams in the first season of the Premier League. So, 42 matches were played. NapHit (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No, no, I mean this could be written numerically! My fault, Lemonade51 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the further comments @Lemonade51:, they have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

More, got as far as 'fluctuating fortunes':

  • "Their last match of the season was against second-placed Arsenal, who were three points behind" maybe change to final, reads better
  • "The match had originally been scheduled for 23 April, but due to Liverpool's FA Cup commitments it was postponed and rearranged for 26 May," change to 'game' as match becomes repetitive. "but due to Liverpool's FA Cup commitments" → "but Liverpool's FA Cup commitments meant..."
  • "The subsequent Taylor Report," published when? Year would suffice, don't need the actual date or month.
  • "Liverpool started the 1989–90 season in good form, which included a 9–0 victory...," how about replacing BIB with 'exemplified by' or 'illustrated by'
  • "The club suffered a blip in October," endured?
  • "Following the match, Liverpool signed forward Ronny Rosenthal on loan from Standard Liège to boost their attacking options," ref?
  • When Souness returned to Liverpool as manager, he notoriously made changes to the boot room which this article doesn't go into. I think it's worth a mention, given Souness is perceived as the one responsible for Liverpool's decline. Perhaps even quotes from journalists/ex-players as to why he failed would help? Then there's the argument that Dalglish left a old squad which badly needed reinvestment. And Liverpool's owners didn't embrace the commerical side of the game, unlike United who ran away with it in the 90s. Generally you have got the season-by-season account done, but context would give it that umph.
  • "The start of the 1992–93 season saw the start of the redevelopment of Anfield," reptitive
  • "Liverpool continued to struggle during the season, culminating in a defeat to Bristol City in an FA Cup replay," ref?
  • "Despite exiting the UEFA Cup and League Cup in the early rounds, the club reached the final of the FA Cup," what does the first bit have to do with the second bit?
  • Houllier got rid of the boot room culture, worth adding.
  • "Houllier continued the reshaping into the season when he signed forward Emile Heskey for a then club record £11 million in March.[57] With the absence of European competition, Liverpool's performance in the league improved. They finished the season in fourth place...," Liverpool were clear in second in April, so not sure performances 'improved' as they dropped down two places. Improved for a short time, yes, but was no Europe really a factor? I guess the key thing to take out is they missed out on third spot, which would've gained them entry to the Champions League.
  • Surprised there's no mention of Houllier's heart attack and subsequent absence during the 2001–02 season?
  • Decision to snub Anelka for Diouf worth including?

If I have time over the weekend I'll probably do a copyedit as I can spot a lot of repetitive sentences. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Covers everything without going into over-detailing, paragraphs all similar size, so no bias towards recent events. Things I noticed, which could be better but don't harm my vote: in the lead, I got the impression I was reading "improved" a lot. Also a lot of "disappointed". Plus, didn't Liverpool gone from top dog in 1985, to just fight for Europe? In fact, didn't they broke a record for longest without winning the league? That should be somewhere in the article. Beware of repeated links, there a lot of fanatics about that.--Threeohsix (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Threeohsix If you mean longest time for any English team, that would be Preston North End from 1890 to present. This is indeed Liverpool's own longest spell without the league, but I don't recall any significant coverage of that fact when the record was broken. '''tAD''' (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1999 NFC Championship Game[edit]

Nominator(s): Helltopay27 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the NFC Championship Game. It is a well known play in NFL history that is pointed to as the prime reason why an all-time great team didn't reach the Super Bowl. I started this page as a draft and just made it to an article. I believe that it is of featured article quality. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: In the lead, you say that a 10-point lead with 2:07 remaining would be "insurmountable" and link to three references. If at least one of these references specifically says it was insurmountable, please provide the quote, as I find this claim dubious (to use a high school comparison). This is important since it establishes whether the article should exist in the first place, especially in the absence of a 1999 NFC Championship Game article and the closest being this section of the 1998-99 NFL playoffs article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Regarding notability, it's been my experience that NFL editors only consider the Super Bowl and old league championship games automatically notable for stand-alone articles. Most playoff game summaries are placed in articles like 2014–15 NFL playoffs, with some individual articles for particularly well-known games. We do have some articles on famous plays, including The Drive, The Fumble, and my personal favorite, so it's not unheard of for plays to have articles. I did a Google search to inform myself, and much of the coverage was about the play instead of the rest of the game; maybe the lack of a good nickname makes this seem less notable than other plays. I do agree with you that we shouldn't imply that a 10-point deficit is impossible to overcome. My favorite team lost a 9-point lead to the Vikings in the final two minutes of a playoff game almost 20 years ago, so it can be done. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Is the intro the best place for a quote? I think that reestablishing that point with a quote, perhaps in "The kick" section, would be more appropriate. In either case, I can provide a quote from the Prospectus reference. As for notability, The Helmet Catch was originally titled "Eli Manning's pass to David Tyree" because of lack of a concensus nickname at the time. I agree that the lack of a nickname may lend the appearance of lack of notability even though it certainly is noteworthy. Helltopay27 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I think you both make good points regarding notability. As far as the Prospectus quote, if you could provide that I'd appreciate it. The book isn't searchable on Google Books, so I couldn't pull up the quote myself. If you like, you can even add it to that ref in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
          • See the edits I made to the line in question and the section "The kick." It turns out my memory was a little too good, and the line in question was a direct quote from Prospectus. I've changed the line and have added quotes to the kick section. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with serious reservations about whether this should be its own article. Much of the prose is not about the play itself—Background and Game Summary belong in an article about the game. Arguably the Aftermath section is stretched to be an addendum to "Game Summary". What we're left with is "The kick" which is straining to include enough relevant detail to be its own section, and Legacy, which is mostly a collection of trivia (inclusion on Top 10 lists, etc) and quotes from sportswriters who were compiling entertaining "Foul Ups" and "Missing Rings" TV spots. There seems to be a lack of much serious journalism about this play, which means to me it's just not material for an encyclopedia article. You've done a lot of good research to make this, and I encourage you to fold it into an expanded article about the game. --Laser brain (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • See above and relevant thread in article's talk page, and Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. The guidelines do not mention a determination of serious journalism, (which is a subjective concept regardless) rather neutral and reliable secondary sources. The trivial content you've highlighted are from documentary shows produced by the NFL Network (which considering it is the official network of the league would constitute a reliable source) and sports journalists published on reputable websites. (ESPN, Sporting News, etc.) All of these sources focus on the kick rather than the game and establish the kick as its own separate subject in NFL lore and not as merely a side note within the game itself. The first two paragraphs of the Kick section highlight are not meant to strain for detail, but rather highlight the gravity of the kick and its consequences. The Aftermath section also highlights specific instances in which the kick is elucidated as a major influence on the course of the game itself and does not simply stand as a continuation of the game summary. (Although the first two paragraphs do.) Your remaining points would undermine the concept of having any plays merit their own article, as such background information, as well as a summary of the game, would be necessary for any complete article about a significant play in NFL history. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – I haven't read through the article in-depth, but did want to note that leads don't generally have to be cited if their content is adequately supported by the body. For cases such as the direct quote, it's preferable to cite them, so I understand that one. However, you surely don't need two references to support the fact that the Vikings were playing the Falcons. Also, I peeked at the legacy section since it was mentioned by Laser brain, and was surprised that there is little on how that game turned out to be the best opportunity for one of the Vikings teams of that period to reach the Super Bowl (or something along those lines). There are a couple of quotes, but no real details on how the franchise declined. It looks like the ESPN source here has some good content on that front, although it doesn't seem to mention their next appearance in the NFC Championship Game, which I remember. :-) If additions can be made here, it would make the section appear more substantial, helping to address Laser's point. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, you could add something on whether the miss affected Anderson's career, if possible. Did he remain a top-level kicker, or did the miss have negative effects on him in following years? The readers are kind of left to guess in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • For the two references regarding playing the Falcons, those references were meant to support the idea that the lead was insurmountable. Considering the direct quote, I wasn't sure the best way to format this. Suggestions? As for everything else, you bet, I'll get to work on this. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose from Dweller

I've not spent too long on this and I'm just finding loads and loads of issues, listed below, that really ought to have been sorted out before coming to FAC. Get a copyedit from someone who knows nothing at all about American football and come back?

  • Just checking ... is it properly called the "NFC Championship Game" or the "NFC Championship game"? Or something else?
  • If that's accurate, why the inconsistency with "the league championship game"?
  • Avoid the redirect in NFL lore
  • "upstart Falcons" please, no journalistic, fansite POV, this is Wikipedia
  • "Despite being the first franchise in NFL history to appear in the game four times, the Vikings have never won a Super Bowl," consider reworking so the reader doesn't have to work so hard - what "game" isn't explained until the second half of the sentence, which is needless
  • "the loss in the NFC Championship" is this missing the word "Game"?
  • "The Vikings' loss in the Championship Game contributed to the franchise's history of devastating moments, and Anderson's missed field goal has been highlighted by the NFL Network as the main contributing factor." Sentence is entirely unsourced despite including POV before the comma and an apparent quote after. It's also poor English. The subject of the sentence is apparently the franchise's history (contributed to by the loss), and it's doubtful that one play is the main contributing factor to that.
  • Is the next sentence a repetition of the previous?
  • "the second most snake-bitten franchise of all-time" is unencyclopedic language and I barely understand what it means. If it's a quote, put it in quote marks
  • Is Jeff Diamond Jeff Diamond?

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Kiss & Cry (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a song recorded by Japanese–American singer-songwriter Hikaru Utada. This is one of Utada's well known tracks post-Deep River, and I believe the article is well written and well researched. I would like to ask Wikipedia editors and reviewers to give reason of their decisions/opinions so I can improve this article, if it does not get promoted. If there are any inquiries, please ping or post to my page. Thanks, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC).

Update; I had forgotten to link this to the Featured article nomination page. My apologies for this inconvenience. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 06:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Done the best I can to improve the article for FA; please notify me by any means if there needs to be any further improvement.
@CaliforniaDreamsFan: Great job with the improvements to the article. While I understand your decision to wait until a further consensus is reached about the Amazon review, I still highly recommend removing it as I have been previously flagged by a user for this during a GA review for an album. The user was very explicit that Amazon reviews should not be used for the review, but I respect your decision to wait and see what other people say about this.
I personally do not have a major problem with the source. I believe you had done as comprehensive work on this as you can so I'm now willing support to this FAC. Good luck with getting this promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an important invertebrate group. Much of the article was expanded over the years to a high standard by Animalparty with whom I have been in contact before nominating it. I think the article is clear and well written and have been polishing it up. I look forward to your comments for further improvement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment – This is an impressive article, but before adding my support I think the text needs to be put into consistently British or American English; at present it is a mixture of the two. I think there is more BrE – I spotted "armoured"; "behaviour"; "characterised"; "colonised"; "coloured"; "defence"; "faeces"; "metre" and "moult" – but there is a modest sprinkling of AmE too: "defense"; "discoloration"; "favored"; "hemorrhoids" and "specialized behaviors". In theory, following WP:ENGVAR, the article should stick to the variety of English used in the first version in which such a variety can be identified after due research in old revisions, unless there is a consensus to the contrary, but I very much doubt that anyone will object if the nominator simply decides whether it's to be in BrE or AmE and amends accordingly. But it really must be one or the other and not a mishmash of both. Otherwise I have nothing but praise, and look forward to supporting. – Tim riley talk 09:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The article seemed to be predominantly in British English so that is what I have adopted, made easier by the fact that my spellchecker is in British English. I have dealt with the words you mentioned but there may be others I have missed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Support – I know little about the subject (though I know a lot more now than I did before reading this article) and I defer to any experts, but this seems to me a comprehensive and authoritative treatment of the topic. It is highly readable – quite an achievement in such a technical subject, I'd say – and widely referenced, well illustrated and judiciously proportioned. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 16:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Agreed that this was quite readable. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edits look fine. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments: An impressive aritcle of readable scholarship. I have a number of minor prose quibbles (you don't have to accept them all):

  • "fused together as one" – last two words redundant
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "defend themselves with a variety of defensive chemicals..." – no need for the repetitious adjective
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Among myriapods, millipedes have traditionally been considered most closely related to the tiny pauropods..." – I'm not knowledgeable in this field, but instinct suggests that a "the" should be inserted before "most"; am I right?
I don't think so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "entirely" extinct? Wouldn't just "extinct" do?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "eleven to over one hundred segments"; any reason not to use numerics, as earlier in the sentence?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Their true function..." – why not just "Their function..."?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "secondarily lost their eyes": could this be clarified for the general reader?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Predators and parasites
  • I'm wondering if "are believed to" could be rendered a bit more authoritatively – as worded, this seems rather vague.
The source says "... a likely dietary source of such alkaloids" so I had better not be any more definite. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Other inter-species interactions
  • I notice you use the word "simply" in this section – about the fourth use within the text. In most of these cases the word adds little, and you might consider dropping it.
Removed three uses. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Interactions with people
  • "have even been reported" → "have been reported". As with "are believed to", above, there is imprecision here as to who reported this.
Removed both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "In popular music (including names of albums, songs, and artists) millipedes are poorly represented compared to other arthropods." This bit of trivia sits uneasily within the article; is it really worth keeping?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Living groups
  • There needs to be consistency in how you introduce people. Here, you use both the accepted BritEng form ("the French zoologist Pierre André Latreille" and "the German naturalist Johann Friedrich von Brandt"), and the AmEng form ("Dutch biologist C. A. W. Jeekel" and "American biologist Richard L. Hoffman"). As the article appears to be written in British English, you should standardise to the Brit form.
Done. Thank you for your comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to supporting (feel free to ping if I don't return soon). Brianboulton (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: I'm very happy with your responses. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
's was a question about reviewing the files used in this article. I don't see much wrong with the location of the files bar the recommendation to use WP:ALTTEXT. I see some collage images which cite the copyright license of the collage as the license of the file with the highest-number CC-BY or CC-BY-SA version, which seems to be correct under commons:COM:Collages. I shall look at the copyright status and use of the other files tomorrow.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments - taking a look now, notes below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Millipedes are arthropods forming the class Diplopoda, which is characterised by having two pairs of jointed legs on most body segments. - GIven the class name is not well-known, the first clause doesn't really say anything to familiarise the reader with the subject. How about, "Millipedes are a group of arthropods that are characterised by having two pairs of jointed legs on most body segments." - then add somewhere, "they are known scientifically as the class Diplopoda, the name derived from this feature." or something similar. Anyway, maybe not exactly this but something like it.
An excellent idea! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ellie (The Last of Us)[edit]

Nominator(s): – Rhain 05:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ellie is the deuteragonist and secondary playable character in Naughty Dog's 2013 video game The Last of Us. The character of Ellie underwent numerous iterations throughout development, and was very highly praised after the game's launch, particularly due to the rarity of such strong female characters in video games. After several changes and a great amount of feedback—including the first FA nomination—I feel satisfied that the article meets the featured article criteria. – Rhain 05:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: As per my review on the first nomination. --JDC808 18:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: This is a very comprehensive and authoritative treatment of the topic. It is great to see such a well-written article on a fictional character. The only note that I have to add is the image in the infobox requires an alt. Otherwise, good job! Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: Great looking article, don't see any reason why it shouldn't become FA. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Science-Fiction Plus[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the last attempt by Hugo Gernsback, the creator of the first science fiction magazine, to compete in the field. Science-Fiction Plus was an anachronism; the field had matured since Gernsback's heyday in the 1920s and 30s. It failed quickly, and Gernsback never returned to the fray. There are only seven issues of the magazine, so the sources are a little thin, but the article covers everything I was able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments by Moisejp[edit]

Publication history:

  • "but he did not return to the field for nearly seventeen years, when Science-Fiction Plus appeared": suggest to specify "return to the sf field" for extra clarity.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "and in theory should have given Gernsback a marketing edge": probably better to mention in the text the writer whose opinion this is.
    I think this doesn't need attribution -- it's not controversial (i.e. it's not a matter of opinion) in the world of magazines that slick format is a marketing advantage, so I think if I attributed it inline it would give readers the wrong impression. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What if you said "So-and-so notes that in theory this should have given Gernsback a marketing edge"? "notes" sounds closer to a statement of fact than a verb like "argues" but it still takes some edge off the "should have"—which jumps out at the reader as sounding like an opinion—even if, as you maintain, it's not an opinion. Not all readers (myself included) will have a background in the world of magazines to that know that this isn't a controversial statement. I just think if you can gently attribute it somebody with a verb like "notes", you could have the best of both worlds. Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    Fair enough; I've gone ahead and attributed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "and if the circulation of the new magazine had been comparable to that of his other titles it would have been profitable despite the more expensive slick paper": here too.
    I also don't feel this needs attribution; I don't think this is opinion. Slick paper was definitely more expensive; what's really being cited here is that the circulation Gernsback hoped for would have been enough to cover the extra cost of the paper, and that seems like a factual statement to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I see your point. If it was me, I might consider here too trying to reword it somehow to make it all the more clearly not sound like an opinion. But I think some of the other instances need it more than here.
    I've left this one alone for now but I'll have a think about rewording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Contents and reception:

  • "it evolved away from his focus on facts and education, and became more mature": I'm not sure what "mature" implies here; also may be better to specify the writer whose opinion this is.
    I cut "and became more mature"; I think it would be a digression to explain this and the important point is that sf was no longer focused on education. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The editor, Sam Moskowitz, also had a long history in the field, having helped organize the First World Science Fiction Convention in 1939, and he too had strong views about what constituted good science fiction, though his views did not always coincide with those of his publisher": quite a long sentence, with lots of clauses. Possibly consider breaking it up into two sentences?
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Moskowitz was the one in charge of obtaining stories, and he succeeded in acquiring work by many of the best-known names in sf, including Clifford Simak, Murray Leinster, Robert Bloch, and Philip José Farmer, but he also bought many stories by writers from the early years of the genre, such as Raymond Gallun, Eando Binder, and Harry Bates." Also a little long, with three independent clauses. But if you feel it's a matter of preference, I won't insist.
    This one I'd like to leave as is, because the "but" construction is what makes it long, and that's necessary for the "result" statement in the next sentence. I don't see an easy way to shorten it because of the lists of names. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The result was a magazine that felt old-fashioned, despite its smart appearance: in Ashley's words, "for a magazine to be 'slick', it didn't just have to look slick, it had to feel it, but in the case of Science-Fiction Plus all that glittered clearly was not gold"." Consider specifying whose opinion it is that it "felt old-fashioned". The quote from Ashley does not precisely support this. Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    I'm on the fence about this. The only two sources that spend time discussing the magazine in detail are Lawler and Ashley, and they both support this; Ashley calls the magazine "archaic" and Lawler describes it as "an anachronism". From my own knowledge of the field, I would say this is uncontroversial -- that is, nobody knowledgeable about the field would disagree. However, it is an opinion, even if it's one shared by all the sources. If I attribute the statement to Lawler and/or Ashley, I'm concerned that the reader will think it's not a unanimous opinion, which would be misleading. Any suggestions on how to handle this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would say it's safest to attribute it to them here. Again, maybe you can use a softer verb like "note". And even if you used a verb like "comment", which implies a little bit of opinion, I really don't think readers are going to think deeply, "Ah, 'comments'—so maybe lots of other people disagree with this opinion, and it actually wasn't old-fashioned." It's probably more likely that if you leave it as it is, sophisticated readers are liable to think, "This sounds like the opinion of this writer of this Wikipedia article. I wonder if it's true." Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    You make a good point; I've suspected the writer's opinion at work in articles I've read. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, and the copyedit; your commas look good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You're welcome! I have at least one more comment:
  • "The artwork was of variable quality ... Paul's work had not improved over the years. Alex Schomburg, who was also a frequent contributor, did provide some high-quality covers." This is definitely opinion, and as much as or more than any other instances in the article, I would strongly urge you to attribute these inline. Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think your changes are very good. Here are some final mini-suggestions, and then I'm going to try to do a source check:

  • "The editor, Sam Moskowitz, had been a reader of the early pulp magazines, and published many writers who had been popular before World War II, such as Raymond Gallun, Eando Binder, and Harry Bates. Combined with Gernsback's earnest editorials, this gave the magazine an anachronistic feel." It may be okay as it is, but for extra clarity you could spell out what "this" refers to: for example, "this use of early writers". But if you don't think it needs it, I'll leave this to your judgement.
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Gernsback believed from the beginning of his involvement with science fiction in the 1920s that the stories should be instructive,[8] although it was not long before Amazing Stories had begun to print fantastical and unscientific fiction to attract readers." So this was after he lost control of it in 1929, not while he was still involved with it? Either way, it could be good to specify this.
  • I found the answer while doing a source check. On page 54 of The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the beginning to 1950, it says "When Gernsback began serialization of 'The Moon Pool' in the May 1927 Amazing he faced the dilemma of introducing a story that was, by his definition, a fairy tale and not science fiction." In the Science-Fiction Plus Wikipedia article, the next sentence is "During Gernsback's long absence from the field, it evolved away from his focus on facts and education." But it might be good to clarify that this trend began while he was still publisher. (Or does "it" here refer to "the field", not to Amazing Stories?) Moisejp (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    Reworded; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "In addition to the fiction, Gernsback included departments such as..." I'm not sure if I would use the word "departments" here; "sections" sounds more natural to me. But if you are very comfortable with "departments" please disregard. Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    I'd like to leave this as is; "department" is the most frequently used term for this in the sources, and I think it does the reader no harm to acquire this sort of vocabulary by the usage in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Source check so far:

  • All of your online sources match what is in the article, and I couldn't find any instances of plagiarism. The information sourced to pages 50, 54, and 91 of The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the beginning to 1950 (available on Google Books) also matches. In the next couple of days I'll check (or spot check) any other sources that happen to be available on Google Books. Moisejp (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have now completed my source check of all sources that are either available online or on Google Books. (In the end, I didn't have access to any more than what I mentioned just above.) I am very happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for the support, and for fixing the mess I left behind; I changed it to "sf publishing" because he did continue to publish non-sf magazines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed but ile:Science_fiction_plus_195303_v1_n1.jpg gives an incorrect date. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent political figures of the 20th century, a man who established the Soviet Union and whose ideas had a colossal impact on the global communist movement. In recent months it has been awarded GA status and has undergone a peer review; now is the time for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Congratulations on bringing forward what looks like an impressively well-researched article. I am semi-detached from Wikipedia at the moment, largely confining myself to TFA and revising/updating my old FA nominations, with only occasional reviewing. So I doubt I'll be able to give this fine effort the attention it deserves. However, here are a few superficial observations for you to consider:

  • IB: it's not as long as some of those for comparable world figures, but it still plunges into the text. Does all the information in it qualify as "key facts", which is what IBs were originally designed for? Do we, for example, need "Succeeded by..." (is that "key"?), or all the brothers and sisters, or the non-information about children, or the list of "other names"? Worth a thought.
    • A very fair point. I have removed the list of "other names", because no references were provide for it. I have also removed the "Children: None" section, and the "Soviet" part of Nationality. That has cut the infobox down a little bit, although the change is admittedly not substantial. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Still with the IB, is "Soviet" a nationality? Also, is "Revolutionary" an "occupation" as we generally understand the term?
    • I've removed "Soviet" as a nationality; I think that "Revolutionary" may count as an "occupation" because the latter is distinguished from "profession" in the infobox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Over-citation. The total number of cited refs (577) is the most I've seen in a WP article by a long chalk, and since most of these contain at least three or four separate book refs, there are probably 2000+ citations in the article. This is fairly staggering. I note a particular tendency to over-cite simple facts: I see no purpose in ref 1, a dictionary definition of "Lenin". And do we need three book references to verify that "Ilya married Maria Alexandrovna Blank in the summer of 1863"? Or five to confirm "Every summer they holidayed at a rural manor in Kokushkino"? (these are random examples)
    • Ref 1 has been included (not by me, but by someone else) because it provides a useful citation regarding how to pronounce "Lenin"; so it's not there to bolster the definition but rather the pronunciation, so one that basis I would support its continued inclusion. As for the quantity of referencing, this is again something that I would defend; Lenin is a very controversial figure and there may well be individuals trying to change bits and pieces in order to push a particular political agenda - having multiple, clear citations to scholarly biographical studies are very useful in that scenario. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, yes for those aspects of Lenin which attract controversy, but surely not Ilya's wedding or the family's holiday destination? Or other mundane facts. If this article is promoted as things stand, it will be the 10th longest FA on the basis of wordcount, but the largest of all in terms of overall file size, at 769kb – the current longest FA, Elvis Presley, has 587kb. It might be that none of your other reviewers raises this concern, in which case well and good; I'm not going to labour the point, but I think it should be borne in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You need to check "p." and "pp." in your page range formats. I have something for an eye for these things, and you should look at ref 6 (Lih) and 25 (Rice), and check for others.
    • I've gone through and corrected all of the errors that I could find here. I think that I've got them all although if anyone else comes upon any then please do let me know so that I can make a correction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That's all for now, but I will watch developments with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Brian. It's appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment – The article is potentially of FA standard at first glance, but I don't propose to give it the close reading it merits until something is done about the spelling, which at present is a hotchpotch of English and American. We have criticised and criticizing, center and centre, neighboring and neighbouring, sympathisers and sympathizers. Alongside the BrE baptised, capitalised, emphasising, enamoured, favouring, haemorrhage, labour, normalise, organisation, theorising etc, we have the AmE defense, goiter, honors, misbehavior, realizing, traveling etc. BrE spellings are in the majority, I think, but there is a substantial minority of AmE spellings. I suppose theoretically, under WP:ENGVAR the first version of the page should be found that contains an identifiably BrE or AmE spelling and whichever it is should be adopted for this article, but that isn't possible here, because the first one in which such a distinction is to be found (28 July 2002) contains both BrE – practise (verb) and travelled – and AmEng – license (noun). I'd be happy to standardise the spelling, if wanted, with the aid of a little program I use that makes it a quick and simple task. But standardised it must be if the article is to reach FA standard. – Tim riley talk 08:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That program sounds great, do you have a url for it? - Dank (push to talk) 11:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Alas, it was cobbled together for me by a techie friend and sits somewhere on my old PC. I've an idea it draws on some available freeware but I'm not sure. Tim riley talk 12:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts, Tim. There is a tag on the talk page stating that the article uses British English so I think it best if we standardise it to that. I've gone through the article and made all of the changes that I could spot, namely those which you have already mentioned. If there are any further examples that need changing then please do let me know. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The spelling is now all fine. I'll begin a close reading tonight or tomorrow and will report back here a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 16:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments This is a dauntingly huge article, and it will take me several goes to do it justice. I'm really sorry to have missed the peer review, where most of the following comments would have been made, but better late than never. First batch, to the end of "Revolution of 1905 and its aftermath":

  • Childhood
    • "Every summer they holidayed at a rural manor in Kokushkino" – It isn't clear to me why we need to know this.
      • It may not be essential, but it helps provide a better appreciation of Lenin's family background (i.e. that they owned a rural manor and had the spare time to holiday there) and moreover Kokushkino is mentioned again slightly later in the article when Lenin was exiled there, so the initial mention therefore provides some background information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • "However, before the attack" – There are 20 howevers in the text of the article, and in my view every one of them could be removed, to the benefit of the prose.
      • Not sure I agree on this one. In many instances I feel that the "However" is of real benefit to the flow of the prose. That being said, I have removed it from the prose in a number of instances where I feel it is probably superfluous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • University and political radicalisation: 1887–93
    • "convinced the authorities to allow Lenin" – in BrE one convinces that and persuades to. Either "persuaded the authorities to allow Lenin" or "convinced the authorities that Lenin should be allowed to". Ditto for "she convinced the authorities to move her" and other later "convince"s.
      • I've changed it to "persuaded" in both instances. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Early activism and imprisonment: 1893–1900
    • "with Marxist schoolteacher Nadezhda "Nadya" Krupskaya" – rather a cumbersome false title; the prose might flow better if you gave her an indefinite article: with Nadezhda "Nadya" Krupskaya, a Marxist schoolteacher.
    • "authored" – strange and rather horrible verb; wouldn't "wrote" be plainer?
      • Personally I quite like "authored", but admittedly this is a moot point. I won't change it now, however if others come along and agree with you then I'm happy to do so at a later date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • "emigre" – "émigré" according to the Chambers and the Oxford English Dictionaries (though the OED doesn't insist on the accent on the first of the two es)
  • Munich, London, and Geneva
    • "RSDLP program" – "programme" unless it was for an early computer
  • Revolution of 1905 and its aftermath: 1905–1914
    • "the British Museum library" – I suppose it is an accurate term, but it looks odd: the place is always referred to as "the Reading Room of the British Museum" (with or without capital Rs, according to choice.)
      • I have changed "British Museum library" to "British Museum Reading Room" and appended the necessary link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 08:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Not much more from me on the rest of the text:

  • The phrase "in order to" keeps cropping up, and becomes distracting after several repetitions: there are no circumstances when "in order to" says anything that a plain "to" doesn't.
    • I've found eight instances of this wording in the article, one of which was from a direct quotation. When it comes to the other seven instances, I have left two which I think are fairly necessary and removed the remaining five. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Overlinking: for my money there are otiose blue links to everyday words including godfather, divorce, speculators, looters, prostitutes, suicide, coma and atheist; we don't link major religions (Jewish, Islamic); and there are 16 duplicate links starting with Kazan University and ending with Pravda.
    • Right, I've gone in and removed all of those duplinks, and removed a few of the everyday words (although I try to be cautious here as some words may seen common for those of us in Western contexts but may be less familiar for those in other parts of the world). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I have found it difficult to decide whether I can support promotion to FA: I found the article dauntingly long, but on the other hand I didn't see any extensive sections that strayed from the point or seemed over-detailed, and the prose is readable throughout. On balance, I think the article will meet the FA criteria, subject to the minor tweaking mentioned above.

Final point: I'm sure this has been very carefully considered already, but the title of the article surprises me: I don't think I've ever seen him referred to anywhere else as "Vladimir Lenin" rather than as "Lenin" tout court on the one hand or "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin" on the other. But having made the point, I do not press it. Tim riley talk 07:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, "Vladimir Lenin" is the title used for entries on this individual over at the BBC website, RT's Russiapedia website, and I certainly wouldn't be averse to a change to "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin" but think that the present title may best represent the "common name". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments, Tim! I appreciate the fact that you took the time to read through it and provide your opinions on how it could be improved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Good. I'm adding my support now, and I also add my congratulations for your Herculean labours on this important subject. Tim riley talk 21:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Avoid fixed image sizes, per WP:IMGSIZE
    • I've looked into doing so, however it results in some images becoming too large for the section in which they are located, and others becoming so small that they are barely visible. For these reasons I would recommend keeping things the way they are on this front. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • You can use |upright= to scale the images in line with users' preferences, rather than setting a single size for everyone. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Adding "upright=" doesn't appear to be correcting the problem; it still results in some images being too small and others being too large. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
          • I did a test edit and it seemed to work fine? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Ah, I see. I had been doing it incorrectly. I will make the necessary amendments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Lenin.jpg needs a US PD tag, and what was the author's date of death? Same with File:Lenin-circa-1887.jpg, File:Marx6.jpg, File:Engels.jpg, File:Lenin-1895-mugshot.jpg, File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg, File:5_May_1919-Trotsky_Lenin_Kamenev.jpg, File:Pogrzeb_Lenina1924.jpg, File:Lenin.WWI.JPG
    • Thus far, I have dealt with File:Lenin.WWI.JPG, File:Pogrzeb_Lenina1924.jpg, File:Lenin-1895-mugshot.jpg, File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin-circa-1887.jpg, and File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Okay, but if you're going to use the "published anonymously or under a pseudonym before 1943" provision, you need to demonstrate pre-1943 publication (not just creation) too. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I've removed File:Marx6.jpg and File:Engels.jpg and replaced them with File:Karl Marx 001.jpg, which is definitely free for us to use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • File:Lenin.WWI.JPG should be fine because we know that the author died over 70 years ago. File:Pogrzeb Lenina1924.jpg should be okay too. I'll remove File:Lenin-1895-mugshot.jpg and File:Lenin-circa-1887.jpg from the article as I cannot ascertain when they was first published nor the name of the individual who took these photographs. That leaves File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg, File:5 May 1919-Trotsky Lenin Kamenev.jpg, and File:Lenin.jpg for me to deal with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I've also removed File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg, and File:5 May 1919-Trotsky Lenin Kamenev.jpg from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Unterschrift_Lenins.svg: what is the original source of the signature being vectorized, and what is the copyright status of that original?
    • Unfortunately, I cannot find this information nor can I find information on the Russian legal restrictions surrounding the copyright (or lack thereof) surrounding signatures. Given that this image is very much non-essential in this article, I am simply removing it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Lenin_Age_4.jpg: who is the author and what is his date of death?
    • As this was an artistic rendition that was produced in the 1940s (albeit based on an earlier photograph taken in the 19th century), I am unsure as to whether this image can be used. Thus, I have removed it and replaced it with File:Dom ulyanovyh.jpg. As the Russian Federation permits freedom of panorama for buildings (although not sculptures) then this alternative should be acceptable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Nadezhda Krupskaya portrait.JPG needs a US PD tag and author date of death, and can you provide a translation of the source title?
    • I'm having some trouble with this one, so any advice from those with greater knowledge in the area of international copyright would be greatly appreciated. This photograph was taken in 1895 (according to Service 2000) although I have no information regarding when it was first published; presumably it wasn't published straight away, but rather likely following the Bolshevik's assumption of power at some point. Similarly, I cannot find any evidence stating who was the author, and thus the date on which they died. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Okay, I think that I've sorted this one out, but would appreciate others taking a look to see if it works. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • It doesn't. The new tag requires that the image was never published before 2003 - but we know it was published by 2000, as that's the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Okay, I've tried again with a different tag. Hopefully this now deals with the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Per above, you'd need to demonstrate pre-1943 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
            • I've not been able to do so, and so I shall remove the image from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Union-de-Lucha.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Lenin-Trotsky_1920-05-20_Sverdlov_Square_(original).jpg
    • I have added what I believe to be the appropriate US PD tags to these two images. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Again, we know the second of the two was published by 2000. Do we know anything about the first's publication history? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I've added a tag indicating that both of these images are PD in both Russia and the US because the authors died prior to 1942. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:MartovW.jpg: source link is dead
    • I've removed the source link and replaced the source with text explaining that the image is widely reproduced in historical texts discussing revolutionary Russia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • In that case, which of the Russian PD rationales is being applied? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Given the uncertainty, I've removed this image and replaced the space with File:Inessa Armand.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Okay, I can't prove early publication with this one either. Guess it'll have to go as well. Frustrating. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:A_A_Bogdanov.jpg: second source link is dead, needs US PD tag
    • Given the uncertainty as to when this image was created, I've removed it and replaced the space with File:Inessa Armand.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Iskra.jpg: if this was published in Switzerland, why are we applying Russian copyright?
    • Good point, although I'm having real trouble with finding any tags that apply to Swiss publications right now. Any pointers would be gratefully appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Would this apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately I don't think it will. That tag states that "this applies only if a reliable source is cited to indicate that the author is not publicly known; just not knowing who the author is is not enough to qualify the image as public domain". I know not of such a statement within a reliable source. Given the problems with this image, I've decided to remove it from the article and replace it with File:House of Lenin in Zurich.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Tov_lenin_ochishchaet.jpg: licensing is confusing - there's a note saying it isn't PD in the US, but a tag saying it is. Which is correct?
    • Given that it was published in Russia in 1920, and thus outside of the US prior to the 1923, it is PD in the US. I have amended the note to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Sztálin_Lenin_és_Kalinyin.jpg: which of the given rationales from the Russian PD tag is being applied here? Same with File:Lenin-last-photo.jpg
    • Done and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Per above, need to demonstrate pre-1943 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I've been unable to demonstrate this (indeed, I doubt very much that the latter was published prior to 1943), so have stripped both images from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:VictimOfInternational.jpg: source link is dead and many details are missing
    • I've removed the dead link and added far greater detail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:У_здания_Харьковской_ЧК.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag and author date of death
    • I've decided to replace that image with another, File:Kolyma road00.jpg, which already has a Russian/US PD tag on it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Which of the Russian PD rationales is being applied? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I've outlined which PD rationale is being used, however I will also have to demonstrate that the image was actually published rather than simply created before that date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately I've not been able to demonstrate when this image was first published. Accordingly, I've replaced it with the less ideal but at least copyright free File:Gulag Location Map.svg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Lenin-office-1918.jpg needs author date of death and US PD tag, and is tagged as lacking source details
    • I have replaced this image with an identical one, File:Lenin reads Pravda Newspaper.jpg, which has greater source detail and a US PD tag. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I can't say for sure where it was first published, but I have tracked down publications of this image dating from pre-1923, and added mention of them in the image's information. Hopefully this makes this image permissible for the purposes of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Lenin's_head_in_Ulan_Ude.jpg: since Russia does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, what is the copyright status of the statue?
    • I've been unable to determine the copyright status of this sculpture, so I have simply removed the image from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Lénine_mosaïque.jpg: a photographic reproduction of a 2D work does not typically garner a new copyright. What is the copyright status of the pictured mosaic?
    • Again, I can't find the copyright status of the mosaic, so I have removed this image from the article. To replace it, I have added File:Lenin, Brezhnev, Bodiul etc. (1976). (14241235186).jpg, which appears to be acceptable (although do double check to see if I am correct in that assessment.). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose pending resolution of some of these issues, simply because most of the article's many images have problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Nikkimaria. I think that I've dealt with each and every one of these issues now - bar one! That is File:Lenin.jpg, which we situate in the infobox. This is a great image and obviously it would be nice if we could keep it, but while we know the date of the image (1920) and the name of the author (Leo Léonidov), we don't know when it was first published (I'd have thought it was published pre-1923, but I have no evidence), and we don't know when Léonidov died. For that reason, I'm considering using a non-free rationale highlighting that this is a historic image of a deceased individual. Do you think that this is the best move or would you urge a different course of action? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Not sure it would qualify for {{non-free historic image}}, and too many free images exist to make {{non-free biog-pic}} stick. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Hmm. In that case I fear that we must be rid of it. I've just found an alternative (File:Lenin CL.jpg) that might suffice, and will look into the possibility of using it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Wait, I've gone with File:Lenin 1920.jpg instead, as I think that I can provide an appropriate tag for that one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Which of the Russian rationales applies to this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Villa_Bering_IMG_4807.jpg needs to account for copyright status of the buildings as well as the photo itself
  • File:Russian_civil_war_in_the_west.svg needs a source for the underlying data
    • Unfortunately the user who produced this image is no longer active on Wikipedia and I have been otherwise unable to find a source for the underlying data. I shall remove it from the article and replace it with a referenced quotebox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • File:VictimOfInternational.jpg: if this is to be on Commons, we need to account for its status in Russia
  • File:Victims_of_the_1921_famine_in_Russia.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I've also added an image of Lenin's Mausoleum to the article (File:Russia-2007-Moscow-Kremlin Senate at night.jpg). I think that it is acceptable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria; I think that I have now covered everything. Again, thanks for taking the time to offer your comments. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

I'll return in a day or so to have a more complete review and will do a source review unless I'm beaten to it, but a couple of problems spring out, which I think may just be the use of the wrong name or date in the sfn template:

  • FN35 points to Lih 2005 – there is nothing by that author on that date in the sources
  • FN362 points to Sandle 2001 - ditto
  • FN368 points to Pipes 1999 - ditto
  • FNs 458 and 59 point to Fischer 1990 - ditto
  • FN548 Read 2011 - ditto
  • FN553 Service 2001 - ditto

Kudos for taking on such a mammoth and heavyweight subject and I look forward to reading it more closely soon. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for both your kind words and your well-spotted notes on areas in need of correction, SchroCat! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A couple of minor tweaks made: feel free to revert or alter if I've erred.

I'm going through this, but it'll be in chunks, given the sheer scale of the work. That's my first problem with the article. It is currently at around 15,000 words (95 kB) and it may be worth reading the opening section of WP:Article size. I see that most of the sections—and some of the subsections—already have their own stand-alone articles (Early life of Vladimir Lenin, Revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin, etc) so I wonder if we need such a weight of information left in this article. The opening paragraph of #Childhood: 1870–87, for example, contains a lot of information about the ethnicity of Lenin's father, and the level of education received by his mother, but I'm not convinced it's all needed in this article if it's a repetition of the information in Early life of Vladimir Lenin. The six and a half lines of text (on my monitor) could convey the important information in a couple of lines, I think.

A second point (mostly minor) is on the infobox. I agree that almost all the information it contains is worth inclusion, but it may be worth thinking if the top two offices need to include the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" fields? I think Lenin's holding of the office and the dates should be enough. (Incidentally, although it's pointless fluff in 99% of articles, at least the "Resting place" field is of relevance, use and interest in this case!)

I'll be back soon with the text review, but the initial reading of the first couple of sections showed no problems I could see. – SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat. At your advice, I have trimmed the information on the educational background of Lenin's mother. However, I disagree on the issue of Lenin's ethnic background, because this is an issue that has been debated several times at the Talk Page, suggesting that it is a topic that interests a great many people. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No. 91 Wing RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nowadays when the Royal Australian Air Force has to deploy a mixed bag of aircraft to support a foreign war it forms an air task group, but in the 1950s it was "composite" wings. This article is about the one established to administer RAAF units in the Korean War, contemporaneous with No. 90 Wing (subject of a recent FAC) in the Malayan Emergency. No. 91 Wing's story is in effect – for those interested – an overview of the RAAF's entire involvement in Korea. Tks for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • All of the images are PD-Australia, but all have dates of after 1946 - are we sure the US copyright would not have been restored? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Well they're all Australian War Memorial images that would fall into the same category as say the 1953 picture from the recently promoted Reg Pollard, which passed muster -- happy to finetune the tagging on these if necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Does the govt worldwide release notice from the Pollard image apply to all AWM images? If so, think we should include that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I believe it applies to every AWM image that they've marked similarly to the Pollard shot, which includes all the images in the 91 Wing article, so happy to make consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
          • The AWM has marked all (or at least virtually all) of the images in its online database which are now PD in Australia with a blanket statement that they are PD, which applies worldwide. The AWM "owns" these images, so this in effect is a global release. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Standardised the tagging per above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Support – very readable, evidently comprehensive, well and widely sourced – and blessedly concise (unlike some other FACs we see now and again, no names, no packdrill). Happy to support for FA. Tim riley talk 16:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Life's too short for anything but summary style... ;-) Many tks Tim! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments Great work Ian, and given the somewhat surprising failure by the RAAF to ever produce wing histories, this article would have required a lot of work. I have the following comments:

  • "Personnel were preparing to return to Australia" - this implies something like a personnel rotation was occurring when, from memory, the entire squadron was packing up to leave. I'd suggest clarifying this
    • Will change to "the squadron".
  • "Communication problems with No. 91 Wing dogged the evacuation from Yonpo, which was effected through US Air Force support supplementing the efforts of RAAF Dakotas" - what's meant by "communication" is unclear here (does this refer to liaison and supply arrangements?)
    • Radio comms was specifically mentioned, will clarify.
  • "The standard working days for technicians at Iwakuni contrasted with shifts of up to sixteen hours near the front line in Korea" - what "standard working days" means here is unclear. Could this be changed to something like "While technicians at Iwakuni worked only standard business hours, those posted to Korea undertook shifts of up to sixteen hours duration"? Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I always found this problematic to word as the source simply says "normal" working hours without specifying the exact number. I'd hoped "standard working days" got the meaning across without using the expression "business" (as Defence was much less of a business back then!) but if we can't think of anything better I'm prepared to change it as you suggest, Nick.
      • "Standard RAAF working hours" perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Fine with that -- consider it done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Tks for looking Nick -- yes, this one was even more of a challenge than No. 90 Wing because of the additional units involved and it was only when I contacted the kind folk at RAAF Historical Section, Canberra, that I got conclusive evidence that Transport Flight (Japan) was officially under 91 Wing's control for a short time, something I'd figured but wasn't certain of until very recently... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Nick! Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Lynx (constellation)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about yet another constellation..but at least it's in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere so Juliancolton and Courcelles can actually see it...though the light pollution might make it really difficult :P. Anyway, I started buffing it for POTD and just kept going. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

NB: It's a wikicup nomination...

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

Some issues that should be easy to fix:

  • The "The GAPS programme with HARPS-N@TNG" reference has a slight mangle in its name. It should be "The GAPS programme with HARPS-N at TNG". Also in this the authorlist looks to be truncated, so perhaps would have "et al" appearing.
Heh, interesting conversion to '@' - fixed now. Fixed authorlist Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Long-Term VRI Photometry of Small-Amplitude Red Variables. I. Light Curves and Periods" reference should have full page numbers: 983–996
In these cases I always use last two digits only. I can't recall where I saw it written on wikipedia, but aligns with Chicago Manual of Style. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Periodicities of the light curve of the semiregular variable star Y Lyncis" reference should have full page numbers: 321–328
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Validation of the New Hipparcos Reduction" reference should have full page numbers: 653–654
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders: From Novice to Master Observer" reference should have full page numbers: 302–307
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The 0.5Mj transiting exoplanet WASP-13b" reference should have full page numbers: 391–94
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Deep Sky Objects. Amherst,reference should have page numbers 168–169
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "H I Imaging Observations of Superthin Galaxies. II. IC 2233 and the Blue Compact Dwarf NGC 2537." has extra "." in title, and no DOI or bibcode. (bibcode=2008AJ....135..291M, doi=10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/291
removed period and added others Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
yup/good catch. overhauled ref to proper published one and stats Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Massive Star Burps, Then Explodes" is missing writing date 4 April 2007 and has retrieved date in wrong style.
Fixed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "NASA – Supernova Imposter Goes Supernova" has retrieved date in wrong style.
Retrieval dates fixed & {{use dmy dates}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In the infobox meteor showers shows as ?????
oops, had forgotten to check. found and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Lost Stars: Lost, Missing and Troublesome Stars from the Catalogues of Johannes Bayer, Nicholas Louis de Lacaille, John Flamsteed, and Sundry Others. with two page ranges referencing several different things perhaps should get two references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
aaand ref split out now....answered all now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • in " Discovery of a large-scale clumpy structure of the Lynx supercluster at z∼1.27" "∼" character seems to be non standard, and does not display in my console window, perhaps ~ is the correct character.
substituted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For "ALPHA LYN (Alpha Lyncis) and ALSCIAUKAT (31 Lyncis)" reference, the star names are typed in all caps, but there is no separate title on that web page, and the html title is given as "Alpha and 31 Lyn". The html title looks to be preferable in appearance.
lowercased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a person whose name is spelled three different ways: Johns‐krull, Johns-Krull and Johns‐Krull. Best to have them all the same.
streamlined Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Two noninfobox pictures have no alt= text. This should describe what is seen in the image, and provide additional information to the caption, especially for people that cannot see the image.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Really there are not enough images. Perhaps there could be a sky image of the whole constellation. For each constellation I would also like to see a map with every visible star labelled with its designation, rather than just a spot, as our images on commons have, but this may be more appropriate for the list of stars in Lynx.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
there are none that are more detailed than the one in the infobox that are in English - this would be great in English. But might look odd with the infobox one as well. I will try to add some numbers to the infobox one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
see below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
nope/good catch. tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey Graeme Bartlett are you happy with changes till now? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I am happy with the changes made. I will also add a request for retrieved dates for web sites
  • "XMM discovers monster galaxy cluster" needs retrieval date.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Where there are huge lists of authors should they be limited with display-authors=10?
am looking for rules on this and can see limits of 3, 6, or none (i.e. unlimited) authors. I like the idea that everyone who does research can get listed somewhere so do like the unlimited option :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Also is there any non-astromony information about the constellation such as astrology or popular culture?
Lynx is really obscure...I have done some looking and found nothing so far. One last look yielded Louis Hamelin and his book, yet the book appears to have nothing to do with the constellation apart from the title..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I have struck off the resolved issues I raised. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Graeme Bartlett, in summary, there is no rule for limiting authors to 10, only for 3 or 6, and no consensus on pageranges. I've been using 2 digits for about 10 years, and our MOS doesn't say anything (unless I am missing something..?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Lithopsian[edit]

Hard to find anything left that needs changing, but the meteor shower is generally called the September Lyncids, to distinguish from two other very faint showers in Lynx. For images, this could be annotated with star labels, perhaps labels for the stars mentioned in the text. Or this at least labels more than a single star. There are also several deep sky object images that could be added, although there is already one in that section. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett and Lithopsian, what I tried to do a few years ago was alter the infobox map. So for Canis Minor I made File:Canis Minor IAUflamsteed.png..but then I couldn't get it into the constellation infobox due to the coding, so moved it to File:Canis Minor IAU.svg (see history at bottom of that one) but I was reverted, probably because I stuffed some format up. Ideally, I'd like to put some flamsteed numbers on the map in the infobox as it seems silly to have two maps of the constellation otherwise. I am open to ideas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, from this list there are 13 but only one established (the Alpha Lyncids). So I think the rest are of questionalbe notability..yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

(Note to Lithopsian: please use level four (====) for subheaders, as level two messes the WP:FAC page up. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)}

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "It was introduced in the 17th century by Johannes Hevelius." The constellation or the name for the constellation? (I assume from what you say below it was the constellation but this should be made clear in the lead.)
I made it a subordinate clause of the previous sentence to minimise repetition - let me know if you think it's too long a sentence now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Six star systems have been found to contain planets. 6 Lyncis and HD 75898 were discovered to have planets by the Doppler method, while XO-2, XO-4 and XO-5 were found to have planets that were observed as they passed in front of them by the XO Telescope in Hawaii, and WASP-13 had a transiting planet discovered by the SuperWASP program." Why mention the telescopes which discovered four and not the other two? It does not seem important enough for the lead. "passed in front of them" is linked to "Methods of detecting extrasolar planets", which redirects to "Methods of detecting exoplanets". I think the general link to methods should be from "found to contain planets", and would suggest something like "XO-2, XO-4, XO-5 and WASP-13 when they were [[Transit (astronomy)|transited]] by planets". Similar comments apply to the discussion of exoplanets in the main text.
Agree about removing them from the lead and done. I think they should remain in the text as there were/are only a handful of telescopes detecting planets and they are interesting, notable and different - so I will preserve the links there I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "and the Lynx Supercluster, which was the most distant supercluster known at the time of its discovery." It would be interesting to know the date and distance.
date added - distance for very distant things is tricky to explain as it has to take into account the expansion of the universe and the inflation of the universe itself. Mostly things are referred to in redshift numbers. I am thinking of putting a footnote at fist mention of redshift to explain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "spectral type K7III" - can K7III be linked?
I have linked spectral type to Stellar_classification#Spectral_types. K7III means it's an orange giant. Orange giant now links to Giant star (forgot to link and now done so) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The only named star is Alsciaukat" - I found this puzzling. Do you not regard Alpha Lyncis and 12 Lyncis as names?
They are designations - it means Proper names (astronomy), which I have now reworded th clarify and linked to. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would suggest giving the magnitude for Alpha Lyncis and Alsciaukat.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The components are a yellow giant of spectral type G8III that is 4.01 ± 2.17 times as massive as the Sun, and an F-type main sequence star of spectral type F8V that is 3.73 times as massive as the Sun." So the mass of one of the pair is known to two decimal places, and the other only as between two and six times the size of the sun?
dunno what happened there or, looking back, how the "± 2.17" got into it. Removed now as can't find how it turned up now.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The two are 10.6 au apart" I am not sure how familiar "au" is to laymen. I remembered that is stands for astronomical unit but had to look up what it meant. Maybe spell out 10.6 times as far apart as the earth and the sun?
have unabbreviated - added a footnote to explain distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent whether the distance is given - e.g. for 15 Lyncis but not for 12 Lyncis. (Is the information not available for 12 Lyncis?)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "convectively induced oscillatory thermal" - could this be linked?
have linked convection. The other just means temperature going up and down with oscillations... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Lynx's most notable deep sky object is NGC 2419" - most notable but not enough to be mentioned in the lead?
added to lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Shapley class II cluster" - another it would be helpful to link if possible.
added a link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "a blue compact dwarf galaxy that is somewhere between 17 and 30 million light-years away from Earth." No change needed, but is the approximate distance compared with exact ones for other galaxies because no cepheids have been seen in it?
I suspect somesuch - standard candles are Very Useful Things... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In the last two paragraphs you sometimes give objects redshift, sometimes distance in light years. (I assume this is due to differences in the sources, but presumably you could convert redshift to light years?) Dudley Miles (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Aargh. see this and this. Need to think about this...sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC) aaand the other problem is the universe model you apply after all that...sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Update @Dudley Miles: - have added footnote with link to redshift and Hubble's law with explanation that redshift is used for far distant objects. Could be expanded I guess but that might be better done on target page. It isn't done well on Hubble's law. Happy for input/feedback from readers POV on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Support. I think providing conversions from redshift to light years would be very helpful, but I accept your point that this could not be done without a POV selection among different methods of conversion. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thanks/much appreciated. Will do some reading later and maybe post at the astronomy wikiproject about imporving the target pages on this regarding redshift etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

38th (Welsh) Infantry Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division was a British Army division that fought in several of the main battles of the First World War. Most notably, on 7 July 1916 it launched its initial attack on Mametz Wood that ended in failure. Over the following days, the division cleared the woods at a high cost. This paved the way for future British attacks on the Somme. In addition, it inspired Christopher Williams to paint a somewhat famous depiction of the events. It is my hope that the article can pass FA standards and be on the front page for the 100th anniversary of these events.

Following the Somme, the division became somewhat of an assault division and led the charge in numerous engagements throughout 1917 and 1918. The division was disbanded in 1919, and reformed in 1939. During the Second World War, the division engaged in home defense duties and eventually became a training division. The article has been copy edited, passed its GA review, and was on course to pass its A-Class review although a lack of reviewers has stalled that process.

I believe the article meets the FA standards, and all comments are welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "which also saw influence securing officer commissions": I don't know what that means.
    Per A Nation In Arms p.117, the full quote for you: "The use of influence to secure commissions was rife in the Welsh Army Corps". It is then followed by a few examples. Basically, those with the political influence were able to ensure that their sons etc. were able to become officers regardless if the were qualified or trained for the role. Recommendation for improving the wording? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    I tweaked it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    I have read over the section, and the various templates that should not be used and I do not see them in the article. If you are referring to the OOBs, I was able to get the 70th Div article passed without incident. Is that what we are talking about?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) doesn't have an OOB collapsebox until the end-sections; it's not a problem there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    To confirm then, a dedicated OOB section for the three collapse-boxes?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    All I can tell you for sure is that it's a MOS problem in the main text. I don't keep up with what Milhist likes to see in endsections, but I suspect it's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Amended to keep in line with the MOS.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "most adequately bombard[ment]": ?
    Fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Done for a few hours. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    Appreciate the comments, and have left some feedback; look forward to your replies and any other comments you have.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "machine gun fire", "machine-gun fire" (lots of both): consistency.
    I have amended this, with the sole exception that is within a quote.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've gotten rid of some of the single quote marks; it would probably be a good idea to get rid of the rest of them.
    I have removed all except, if I am not mistaken, those that are quotes within quotes. The few remaining, I have re-confirmed with the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you Dank for your edits, comments, and support. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:51st_Division,_Battle_of_Pilckem_Ridge,_31_Juily_1917.jpg: if this is free in the US, we don't need a non-free tag for it. English Wikipedia only considers US copyright
    Amended per your comments, I hope this suffices?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    Still seeing a fair-use rationale that isn't needed - suggest replacing with the more generic image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    My apologies, I missed that!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Hore-Belisha_1935.jpg: why is this PD in the UK - which of the given rationales applies? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    I had assumed that as the work is of a then sitting politician, #1 would apply. Further reading of the NPG website indicates they allow usage of their works under BY-NC-ND (which i note is not allowed on the commons). Advise in regards to UK-PD would appreciated, otherwise I will move to remove the image (and replace it with a somewhat inferior one from the IWM that is covered under UK-PD). Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    1. 1 applies where the work is by the UK govt - is that the case here? It could be a work for hire, but that would depend on who did the hiring. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    I have been able to find little else on the photo, and believe the best course of action for the moment is to remove it from the article, which I have done.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - super apologetic for not being able to get to this earlier; I was traveling across the US and had less Internet than I thought I would. Maybe a new target could be the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Pilckem Ridge? Thoughts:
    Likewise, sorry for the delay in getting back to you and thank you for the review, comments, and edits. The anniversary of Pilckem now seems like an achievable target, especially considering it began the rehabilitation of the division's reputation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The division raised in 1914 was the 43rd Division of Herbert Kitchener's New Army. 43rd? That comes out of nowhere. This needs more context or could be left for the main body?
      I made a few tweaks, do they work? Or still a little out of context and, per your recommendation, drop it from the lede?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • On 5 August, Herbert Kitchener was appointed Secretary of State for War assuming a vital and largely independent role, within the war cabinet. Language here could be cleaned up.
      Tweaked, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • In the training section - why disband the 80th just to recreate it? Sounds like a paper-only change? (I assume not—can you explain this more?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
      I no longer have access (other than snippet view) to Hesketh, so I have added in what I can.
      These are my edits, regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Source review

  • Have been through the References, and they all look to meet FA requirements in terms of reliability and formatting, except the Hart source, published by Stackpole Books (a "popular history" publisher best avoided). But given the material sourced to Hart isn't exceptional, I think it is ok in this case. I question the need to link the publishers in the References section, but it also isn't a war-stopper. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
To alleviate any concern, as I have seen similar comments made about Stockpole, the book is the paperback reprint of the original hardcover that was released in 2000 by Praeger (part of Greenwood Publishing Group), and the author is/was a lecturer at Sandhurst. The book itself is extremely well sourced and provides ample footnotes throughout. It is an academic text, rather than a popular history. I do appreciate the scrutiny though, in order to get this to FA standard.
In regards to the links, it is a habit I have picked up; they can be easily removed if requested.
Thank you for the review, kind regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


  • (the largest on the Somme) - does this refer to the wood or the number of prisoners? It wasn't clear to me, but perhaps I'm being obtuse. Wouldn't hurt to insert "wood" after "largest" though.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • once Horne has been introduced, he should just be referred to as Horne thereafter.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The use of Welsh as an abbreviation for the Welsh Regiment seems entirely usual, but when you use the term "Welshmen" it tends to create a bit of confusion as to whether you are referring to those from the Welsh Regiment or Welshmen in a more general sense. I suggest using a term such as troops or soldiers or British or the 38th Division rather than "Welshmen" or "Welsh" to avoid confusion. It is apparent that not all of the troops of the division were in fact, Welsh.
    I think I got them allEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest consistently using prefixed ordinals for German formations (like 111th Division instead of Infantry Regiment 116).
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • footnotes should be in numerical order, [68] is ahead of [67] at one point (as in [68][67]), there may be other examples.
    I think I got them allEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • link 47th (1/2nd London) Division
    I have moved the link to the first mention of the divisionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • could you just check the reference to 143 machine guns? It seems excessive for 634 prisoners.
    Verified, and I have amended the text and made this a quoteEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think "Belgium border" should be "Belgian border"
    SortedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would have liked to see mentions of the VCs awarded (with some details) in the narrative, rather than just a list at the end
    I will address this shortlyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • not sure about the initial capital on Militiamen
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • otherwise, looking very good. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for your comments, I will address the VC situation shortly (probably this weekend).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Looking good, but a few thoughts from me, mainly around the flow of the text. I've gone up to 1919.
  • "The division arrived in France with a poor reputation, seen as a political formation that was poorly trained and led. " - "poor" and "poorly"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "the reputation of the division was sullied by miscommunication " - "sullied" felt odd here; you'd usually only sully something which had a good reputation, which the unit here doesn't have.
    Good point, I have made a change that I hope should resolve this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • " ceasing to exist during 1919." - the main text says "the division ceased to exist by March 1919", making the "during" feel a bit odd.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • " In 2007, Simkins wrote " - I'd always recommend explaining to the reader who someone is when first introduced, e.g. "In 2007, the historian Peter Simkins wrote..." Ditto Hughes, Farr, Thacker etc. Gary Sheffield gets his first name in the article, but others don't; should be consistent.
    To many cooks... I got the ones you mentioned, and on reading through I did not see any others. So I hope I got them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "David Lloyd George stated publicly that he "should like to see a Welsh Army in the field"." - I'd normally expect to see the cite immediately after the relevant quote.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Despite the training, it was not until November that the division had been fully equipped with rifles.[16] To be declared fit for overseas service, the division's soldiers had to fire 24 rounds on a rifle range." - is the implication that they couldn't deploy overseas because they lacked rifles to do the test? If so, worth spelling it out.
    I have yet to change this one. The full quote and context: "On the South Downs, the training areas were better but equipment in no better supply. In late November the division was ordered to move to France. All troops had to fire a short course of twenty-four rounds on the rifle ranges before being pronounced fit to deploy; a regular solider would have fired ten times that amount. ... "
    So, the division had yet to deploy and equipment was an issue, but I believe the author is getting at the troops were just not as trained as the pre-war regulars in musketry. It seems it may even be a reference (after a little googling) to Serial 22 Table B, Appendix II in the Musketry Regulations Pt.1 aka the "Mad minute".
    I can do some digging to try and find more context?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "and by 5 December it arrived in France via Le Havre." - "via" felt odd here, Le Havre being part of France. "arrived in France at Le Havre"?
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "These troops had to "cut their way back out" and returned with just eight men." - the quote needs in-line attribution
    SortedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Final Battles" - each paragraph is beginning the same way, "On 5 August, the division...", "On 21/22 August, elements of the 114th Brigade...", "On 25 August, the division advanced..." which reads a bit oddly
    I will address this shortly.
  • Image File:38th Division, Battle of Pilckem Ridge 31 July 1917.png is first published in the UK, but lacks a UK copyright tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    I would like to thank you for your comments. I have addressed most, left a reply in regards to one, and will address the rest in the following days.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi-5 (Australian band)[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the Australian children's musical group formed in 1998, which is associated with the children's television series of the same name. The brand has produced numerous television series, music albums, worldwide tours and merchandise. Hi-5 were one of Australia's highest paid entertainment entities, placing in the Business Review Weekly's annual list several times, earning an estimated A$18million in 2009. The membership has changed several times. SatDis (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking a look now - will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

developed the series as a contemporary form of preschool entertainment,... suspect "contemporary" is redundant as we're not gonna be talking about historical preschool entertainment are we? In fact "form of" is then redundant as well...
incorporating educational trends with an appeal for all ages - I am not sure what this means, you mean appealing to adults as well as preschoolers? Also, this sentence not supported by the source.
where she realised that children are the same around the world, and decided the show would appeal universally, with accessible themes such as family and animals - I don't see the source talking about similarities of kids around the world, and she can't "decide" that it will appeal universally as that is up to the consumers. Also there is no mention of family and animals in the source.
The show is kept contemporary so that these themes relate to the current world of children, with the producers keeping in touch with the audience - waffly, why not just, "Harris strove to incorporate items of current interest to children to keep them interested in the show" or somesuch..
It is confusing referring to Kelli as Crawford and not Hoggart as she was the latter for much of this period.
however the original cast was so strong that the Australian series was sold overseas instead - needs to be reworded to reflect Harris' POV - something like "Harris was so confident in the original cast that the Australian series was sold overseas instead

The prose is pretty puffy in many places and needs to be tightened, with segments such as "Hi-5 has a distinguishable pop music sound" and "The Hi-5 members took their passion for creating change and ensuring happiness for children worldwide beyond the stage and screen" removed entirely. I have concerns about the sourcing. I fear this will need quite a bit of work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments from Dweller
  • There are some places in the text where I'm unclear whether "Hi5" refers to the band or the TV programme or both
  • Some inconsistency over whether Hi5 is singular "Hi-5 was created" or plural "Hi-5 are an Australian children's musical group". This may be linked to my previous point, which makes it more serious. I appreciate that ENGVAR means you may wish to refer to a band in singular or plural, but not both.
  • Timeline looks awkward. I'd expect to see the original members grouped, then the first to join, then the next etc.
  • Too many gushy self-praising quoteboxes in a bunch in the middle of the article for me

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun[edit]

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... John C. Calhoun. John C. Calhoun was a South Carolina statesmen who held a number of high political offices in the early 19th century, including that of Vice President. He began his career as a modernizer who supported various programs that would increase the power of the Federal government. However, as the divide between the North and South increased, he changed course. He became a strong opponent of protective tariffs, which were harmful to the Southern economy, and a major proponent of slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Checkingfax

  • Hi, Display name 99. I made a deep scrubbing starting here. I would suggest adding alt text to all images that could use it. I will be happy to !vote on this when the FA review process is further along. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Dead links via Checklinks: None
  • Bare URLs via Reflinks: None
  • Disambig links: None
  • Redirects: In order
  • Citation bot: No issues
Checkingfax, I do not have a good understanding of what alternative text is, nor do I know which images in the article could use it. Would you explain this more please? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Display name 99. I would suggest reading the alt text link I provided above and also consulting with Natalie.Desautels and Graham87. Maybe they will make some other comments while they are here 718smiley.svg Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Checkingfax: Hello Display name 99. I have taken the liberty to add the first three 'alt text' captions. You will of course be able to see the 'alt text' code structure in Source view. Visually impaired persons often use a screen reader, and I like to provide information about a photo they cannot see. Since the reader reads all text, I wouldn't state what is already there. For example, since the second image is of Calhoun's wife Floride, there is no need to repeat this; so I added '|alt=oval image of young woman seated, with pinkish white frilled head bonnet and dress top, black narrow waist dress and straight dark hair parted in the middle]]. Normally I would not say 'image' or 'photo' of since, well, what else could it be; but I did want to emphasize that it is an oval image. My own taste is to provide 'alt text' which is a bit longer than recommended, and my implementation has been successful. It's a good idea to check with Graham87 for a conclusive opinion. I'm sorry my time is a bit taken right now, but if you need further help, just write. ...hope this helps. You can see all alt text at a glance here. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 06:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Checkingfax: Hello Display name 99 I did a few more 'alt text' captions. Please feel entirely free to revert or correct in any way you see fit. I'll be very happy to answer questions, if you wish. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 06:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Checkingfax and Display name 99: Hello Graham87 I've completed the 'alt text' for all the images in this article. I am hoping you will be able to review, as time permits. Your help and opinion is always much appreciated. Kindest regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Natalie.Desautels:Thanks, they sound good. I've added a metric conversion to one o them. Graham87 09:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Natalie.Desautels and Graham87, thank you for your help. I am pleased to say that I now have a better idea of this for the future. Display name 99 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, Display name 99. As this is a new paragraph, I feel you need a year added to this: In July a group of Yale students requested in a petition that Yale rename the Calhoun College, one of the University's twelve residential colleges. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. A different editor wrote that, and I should have caught it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm doing some detailed comments, but to start you, I'm somewhat concerned about the term "minority rights" in the lede. Wouldn't that in present-day usage be assumed to be referring to racial or ethnic minorities?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I understand your concern and it has been voiced before. The fact is that Calhoun was very concerned about the idea that, as the North continued to expand in population, and if it was able to get control of the territories and outlaw slavery there, it would overwhelm and oppress the smaller and weaker Southern states. In defense of the South, Calhoun defended such practices as nullification and advocated for the expanse of slavery in order to "protect minority rights from majority rule." That becomes clear if one reads the article's body.
I understand that "minority rights" sounds confusing to anyone trying to understand it in 21st century context. Obviously Calhoun was not concerned about protecting blacks, immigrants, etc. After a question on the talk page here, I agreed to add "in politics" to the end of the sentence. If you can think of a still better way to clarify it, please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's an oldie, but what about "state's rights"? That would probably be up there with "slavery" if you asked people (who knew of him) for quick summaries of Calhoun. Or "sectional rights for the South"? Or possibly just expand the sentence to explain as you just did, that the minority rights spoken of are that of the (white) South. Possibly "minority rights for the South to maintain its way of life without outside interference" or some such.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "His positions heavily influenced the South's secession from the Union in 1860–61." Since he was dead at the time, maybe "opinions" or "teachings"?
  • " to serve as " "as" is probably enough. I would even delete "the seventh", which seems only put in there to hang a link you don't really need because you can get there from the infobox.
  • "Calhoun had a difficult relationship with Jackson primarily because of the Nullification Crisis and the Petticoat Affair, in which Calhoun's wife humiliated Jackson's allies. " I would cast this in terms of their political differences, as that's really what caused the crisis and aggravated the affair.
  • I quote two statements: "He began his political career as a nationalist, modernizer, and proponent of a strong national government and protective tariffs. By the late 1820s, his views reversed and he became a leading proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification, and opposition to high tariffs"

and "In contrast with his previous nationalism, Calhoun vigorously supported South Carolina's right to nullify Federal tariff legislation which he believed unfairly favored the North, putting him into conflict with unionists such as Jackson."

As far as I can see, you're using the words "nationalist", "unionist" and "proponent of a strong national government" to mean the same thing. At least, that's what I'm getting when I parse this. I also note that there is considerable repetition in the lede as exemplified here, at least in my view, and the second sentence makes the reader follow a bit like a tennis match, first starting on the strong government side, then off to the other, then back again. I try to avoid that personally. But this is a long article, I think the lede can be shortened somewhat as I suggest.

Got to go, more soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt. I've made some changes based on your recommendations-please see. "Nationalist" and "proponent of a strong national government" basically mean the same thing. However, the word "unionist" was meant to describe anyone opposed to nullification and secession. Andrew Jackson was not really a supporter of a strong national government, and generally favored states' rights. However, he made it clear that he was staunchly opposed to nullification. That is what I meant by calling him a "unionist". Display name 99 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Done up to Secretary of War. Very well written. A few points.
  • Is the recitation of the birth dates and deaths of Calhoun siblings really necessary?:
Done. I suppose not. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we need the discussion of the Petticoat Affair in the marriage section, in view of the fact that it is fully set forth later? I'd rather see something about her intelligence, say, or how she got her husband to within a heartbeat of two different presidents. Deal with the petticoats later.
I'm not aware of any accounts regarding her intelligence. I'm not sure what you mean about getting "her husband to within a heartbeat of two different presidents." I think that would we have in the section now about the Petticoat Affair, which is already less than one sentence, is appropriate, considering how notable it was in Mrs. Calhoun's life. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent in the capitalization of "Petticoat Affair"
Done. I have capitalized it one place where it was not. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The final sentence of the marriage section appears out of place.
Do you have a better place to put it? I'm not sure I see one. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The absence of the national Bank had also distressed the Treasury, so Calhoun called for a new national bank. " not only is there a repetition, but the reader has no reason to pick up on any significance except the Treasury might be upset. Why a national bank was thought to be a good idea might be a useful interpolation (why people thought it was a bad idea can come with Jackson's actions)
It was part of the system promoted by Calhoun and others of increasing consolidation and reformation. I made some edits to this section to help clarify this point. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is the rhetoric section here?
I didn't make that section, but it basically summarizes Calhoun's speaking styles while he was a member of the House. Perhaps it wasn't placed later in the article because it could create a confusing jumble of contradictory quotes, some nationalist and others sectionalist. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there anything useful to be said about his re-elections in 1814 and 1816?
I'm not seeing much about it, so maybe not. I he was most likely relatively popular in South Carolina at that time, and so I imagine that he did not have much trouble from the state legislature in gaining reelection. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "He promoted a plan, adopted by Monroe in 1825, to preserve the sovereignty of Eastern Indians by relocating them to western reservations they could control without interference from state governments." In other words, a trail of tears. I'm not sure that this phrasing adequately fits present-day views of such things.
The statement makes sense to me. I think that one reading it carefully will get the idea. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "but Congress either failed to respond to his reforms or responded with hostility. Calhoun's frustration with congressional inaction, political rivalries, and ideological differences spurred him to create the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1824." it might be useful to note that he acted without Congress's say so.
I personally don't see a reason, and think it's implied anyhow.
People wouldn't necessarily think a bureau was something just authorized by the secretary.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help Wehwalt. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "where John Quincy Adams was declared the winner over Crawford, Clay, and Jackson, who had previously defeated Adams in both popular vote and electoral vote. " Well. Not defeated obviously. "Led"? And he was only declared the winner over Crawford and Jackson as Clay had already been eliminated because the 12th Amendment says the House shall choose from among the top three electoral vote getters and Clay wasn't.
Done. Jackson did do better than him in both categories, but he did not attain the necessary majority-thus the election was decided in the House. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Jackson selected Calhoun as his running mate," Again, this point. Possibly something along the lines that Jackson let it be known that electors pledged to support him should also vote for Calhoun. Calhoun had his own power base,the South Carolina legislature was going to choose electors who were going to support Calhoun no matter what Jackson said.
Calhoun's biography on reads:
"The old hero welcomed Calhoun's support, assuring him that they would "march hand in hand in their [the people's] cause," cementing one of the most ill-starred partnerships in the history of the vice-presidency."
This shows that Jackson was willing to accept Calhoun's support, and in exchange effectively named him as his choice for vice president. Our article makes it clear that the two were never close allies in the same way that Jackson and Van Buren were. But they were, for this time, partners. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Jefferson explicitly endorsed nullification.[46] Calhoun differed from Jefferson and Madison in explicitly" overly explicit
  • In the Nullification section, I would separate the theory by putting the events surrounding the famous toasts in a separate paragraphs.
  • You are inconsistent in usage "U.S." or "US"
Done, I think. I replaced one "US" with "U.S." I have noticed no others. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Did Calhoun actually do anything during his first term as vice president?
Under "Nullification", his opposition to the Tariff of 1828, enacted during his first term, is mentioned. I see how this can be confusing, because the sub-sections under "Vice Presidency" are organized according to issue or event, and not by term. The biography that I linked above discusses some things from his first term, but I personally don't find many of them particularly relevant. Calhoun's second term was more eventful. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Did Calhoun attempt to gain a third term as VP at any point?
I don't think he ever made a serious attempt to do so. I read once that Jackson made it known as early as December of 1829 that he didn't want Calhoun on the 1832 ticket. Their relationship only got worse after that. He was more effective on the Senate floor, which was why he eventually resigned. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't Calhoun's tie-breaking vote on Van Buren's nomination as minister to Britain worthy of mention?
Done. I added it into the Petticoat Affair section. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It may be worthwhile to mention directly the battle over the reauthorization of the Second Bank of the United States. You keep kind of dancing around it.
That isn't my intention. I just covered a web search, typing in thing such as "Bank War Calhoun", but the sources don't really seem to mention Calhoun in connection with the Bank War. My guess is that Calhoun would have opposed its rechartering, because he would have seen it as a threat to states' rights, and because he later allied with Van Buren over many of the same issues that led the Democrats to oppose the bank. It's unfortunate then, that the sources that I am examining only seem to mention Calhoun's vice presidency in connecting with nullification and the Eaton Affair, and in the Bank War focus almost exclusively on Clay and Jackson. Rjensen, is there any way you could help here? Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
DN99 is right. He was a jeffersonian agrarian who distrusted capitalism & banks. he opposed renewal of the Bank in 1837, but did not play a central role. [see Coit 328-31] Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Did Huger resign to clear a place for Calhoun?
I think so. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "through its Northern majority, passed the bill several times" Since the Wilmot Proviso was not always a bill, but sometimes a rider or amendment, I'd say "the proposal" rather than "bill" and some other substitute for the other use of "bill"
One more tranche to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I have responded above Wehwalt. I thank you again for all you have done to improve the article. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
No trouble. Your responses are fine, and Rjensen's. Thank you both.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "staunch slaveholder" how is this unusual?
  • "" the expansion of slavery into the backcountry" I would cut "into the backcountry which is a bit uncertain if we're talking about SC or USA. The expansion of slavery is the nub of it.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The Alexander portrait of Calhoun in the Slavery section is surely the lead image recut.
These paintings are not the same. The most noticeable difference is the placement of the hands. Check that. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "and postponed the declension" I would find a synonym for declension more likely to be known.
Let's teach the reader some vocabulary. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Phillips explains how:" This has more the feel of news reporting than an encyclopedia. Maybe "According to Phillips:"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "the War with Mexico" proper noun for war?
Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "bring in Mexicans, deficient in moral and intellectual terms." I might put "whom he deemed" after the comma.
Done. I added "whom he considered". Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "which led immediately" not immediately, a month and a half.
Done. I removed that word. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "They formed the new Confederate States, which, in accord with Calhoun's theory, did not have any political parties." Does the source draw the conclusion, that because of Calhoun's theories, the CSA lacked parties (it did not lack for factions)? There was no prohibition on parties in the CSA constitution that I'm aware of.
There were no recognized political parties in the Confederate States. Southern leaders, like Calhoun, saw them as a source of corruption. Factions did emerge, but no true parties like the ones founded during the Second Party System, which nominating conventions, etc., were ever formed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Historian Richard Hofstadter (1948, 2011)" possibly leave it with the 1948 as he was most certainly not writing in 2011!
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "has garnered a super-regional application in American political thought." I'm not sure what this means. I would have thought concurrent majorities more common in nations with multiple large ethnic groups, at least in theory.
Done. I replace it with "some acceptance". Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "abstract treatise of Calhoun's definitive and comprehensive ideas " abstract and definitive seem to clash some.
Done. I replaced "abstract treatise" with "essay", which is much more simple and straightforward. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "he worked on it intermittently for six years until its 1849 completion" I would say after "years" "until he completed it in 1849." It is because you seem to be suddenly shifting from active to passive.
I think the timeline is important enough to remain. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The Disquisition section seems awfully long, especially the blockquote. Maybe some of this is best placed in the article on the book.
I tried shortening it a bit. The blockquote, though, seems important enough to remain. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Calhoun doctrine said Congress could never outlaw slavery in the territories" nor could the local voters.
Done. I added this detail in. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It may not be obvious that the image to the right in the legacy section is a postage stamp, and I might make that clearer.
Done. I added "postage stamp" to the caption. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Calhoun is often remembered for his defense of minority rights by use of the "concurrent majority"" Why the quotes? I think by this point, we know what the concurrent majority is.
  • I am not convinced by the legacy section. It seems more a recitation of various things named for Calhoun. What influence has he had on political thought, for example.
I know that it's a bit dry, but "Legacy" sections are often used for reciting these things. Outside of the information on the things that Calhoun is named for, there are three sentences about how Calhoun is remembered, and the influence of his ideas, as well as information on more modern controversies surrounding him. Adding more would seem redundant, as it is already noted in the "Political philosophy" section. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, please see my comments above. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I've read them and there's nothing I have an issue with. I do consider the legacy section a major impediment. The community colleges and Alabama lakes don't do it. What I would like to see is a short essay on Calhoun and his place in history, or tracing how he has been viewed historically over time. This is standard for FA articles on historical figures and I urge you to examine them. In my view, any historical figure of more than minimal importance needs to have a section that in an organized and coherent fashion puts his life in perspective.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll see what can be done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I made some changes to the section. Not much text was added, but I think it helps. You will find it on the latter half of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The second half of it is more along the lines that I want, but I think there needs to be more of it. Possibly the tributes like the lake and so forth could be split of into its own section, as is often done in such articles. I would settle for a paragraph or two tracing how Calhoun has been viewed over time. I just don't feel that there is as much substance there as I would like. If a student comes to the section trying to figure out how Calhoun has affected history, he's not coming away with much, I think. I'd be grateful for Rjensen's view on the section in question. This is really my main remaining point.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I divided the sections into "Monuments and Memorials" and "Historical Reputation". and added a quote from Wilson. We now have one paragraph discussing Calhoun's influence on secession and his legacy as one of the most important senators in history, a quote from a historian, and an introductory sentence followed by two paragraphs describing how Calhoun has been viewed negatively for his support of slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Support Between there and the section on his philosophy, I think that's fine. Very nicely done and congrats for being willing to take on an important (and ever divisive) figure like Calhoun.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • I've never seen anyone use this style of ref= in the templates. It works, but how do I know what has been referenced and what hasn't? This means a lot of work for me; tomorrow I'll have to check manually. It would be much better IMO to use ref=harv in every case, so Ucucha's script could check....
I looked at the harvard template and it looks like what's in place. Could you put one of them in the format/style you're referring to so we can follow and fix? Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Lingzhi. If you open the page then Preview it, the system will throw any errors at the top of the page in red so you can address them. CS1 errors will already display in light green in the references section if you have the show hidden errors JavaScript installed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There are two Ford sources, both 1988. Normally I would say they should be 1988a and 1988b, but in this case I strongly suspect only one of the two is actually being used (probably "Republican Ideology in a Slave Society"). If that's the case,"Origins of Southern Radicalism" should be deleted....More later.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Your suspicion was correct. I deleted "Origins of Southern Radicalism". Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You've got a Krannawitter 2004 and a Krannawitter 2008 but the refs just say "Kranawitter"..ok so you have "ref=Krannawitter" on one template but no ref= on the other. This works on the surface but is misleading under the hood. Why do you have two Krannawitter sources if only one is used, is the reader to know which Krannawitter the body text cites? You'll say "click the blue number" but I suspect this has the potential to go wrong... yeah, this is how it goes wrong: three sources with ref=Calhoun.
I agree that's weird. I removed the 2004 Krannawitter source because I couldn't find any matches for it. Please remember that I personally did not enter many of these soures in. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Nothing intended to be personal here I'm sure. Hoppyh (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You've got abcde Bartlett with no page numbers.
I noticed this while attempting to improve the sources before nominating this as a FAC. Unfortunately, I have no printed copy of the work, and could not find it on Google Books. I have no idea what to do here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Alternate sources could be used. Hoppyh (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Belko, William S. is not inside a template, nor is Capers Gerald M. You need to be consistent.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I have fixed this. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can I get you to ditch this ref = Ford1988 and ref = Ford1994 system and just make everything ref = harv?
See my reply above - could you do one of them in the format/style you're referring to so we can follow that and fix the others? Hoppyh (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can I also get you to delete unreferenced sources?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. If you are indicating the 2 mentioned, absolutely. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I think Lingzhi is saying that every item listed under "Sources" needs to be referred to in the article or should be removed from the list of Sources. Hoppyh (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'll remove them if I see any more. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • He rarely mentioned religion... although he loved to discuss the subject. Spot the contradiction.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. The second part was actually unsourced. I took it out. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Call me a fuddy-duddy, but I am very much not a fan of dangling a lone quote thing at the end of the article: " The whole South is the grave of Calhoun"   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I added a quote box for this. I still don't think that it looks excellent, but it does appear to be an improvement. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I recommend incorporating the quote and author's name into the body of the Legacy section in order to remove this objection. Hoppyh (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I have bad news Display name 99. template:quote box is only for pull quotes. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Checkingfax, I have placed it in the body of the article as suggested by Hoppyh. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Display name 99. It is a powerful quote. Now that it is in the body you can add it as a pull quote in a little quote box. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, but I think I would rather leave it in the body of the text. It seemed to be positioned as a pull quote before, which was what caused the concern. There are plenty of other quotes in the main body, and I think this will do fine with them. Thank you for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • He is above all sectional and factious prejudices .. Historian Charles Wiltse agrees, noting, "Though he is known today primarily for his sectionalism". Spot the contradiction (being "last" doesn't negate it).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
When considered, there isn't really any contradiction. The quotation from Adams comes in 1821, when Calhoun was still recognized as a leading national figure, rather than as a representative of Southern interests. The quotation from Wiltse in some way affirms Adams's comment by claiming that Calhoun took longer than many other political leaders of his day to take a sectional position. There might be a way to make that more clear though. You may suggest something to that end. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I have attempted to remove the apparent contradiction. Hoppyh (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That looks better now. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "If the whole community had the same interests..." Mine eyes glazeth over. Is there really no option other than a blockquote large enough to swallow a small country town? Is there no way to break this down into its key parts, and render them more digestible to the reader? BTW, I'm consistently not a fan of blockquotes hanging at the end of a paragraph anyhow (see two items above)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll have some time later on. I will attempt to determine if anything can be done then. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • in the aftermath of a minority veto, when the ubiquitous demagogues betray their constituencies and abandon the concurrent majority altogether... is missing some quotation marks somewhere. Direct quote... and.. did Freehling quote there or did you...? And... stop me if I'm wrong, but... are there sorta kinda lots of direct quotes embedded in sentences w/out quotation marks up in there? I was taught the magic number is 3: more than three sequential directly quoted words means you must set it off as a quote somehow.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I barely have a clue WTH you're talking about. Please explain more clearly. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW...the text here does look highly intellectual and does make me wonder if it needs quotation marks. Hoppyh (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hoppyh, I just copy/pasted the phrase that Lingzhi quoted, and was only able to find it written in places that seem to copy directly from Wikipedia. Once again, I do not have the text of the source available to me, and cannot find it on Google Books or jstor. As for the intellectual sound of this sentence, at least one of the primary writers of this article before I first began work on it apparently wrote with a very eloquent style. I suspect that it could just be that. Lingzhi, please identify any other specific quotes to me that you suspect are not original to Wikipedia so that I can check them. Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Your checking this out certainly satisfies me with respect to the quote issue. Hoppyh (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If further help is needed trying to get access to the source, Rjensen may be able to help. Hoppyh (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi, thank you for your comments and advice on improving the article. Please see my responses above. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The more I look, the more inconsistent the refs get. Very tempted to Oppose because fixing this will be a nontrivial task, but will relent because FACs take plenty of time. Why are some instances of {{cite book}} & {{cite journal}} inside <ref></ref> tags inside the body text, but others are in the bibliography section? Why are some author names first middle last ("Patricia Cline Cohen") and others last comma first MI ("Belko, William S.")? What does "|author1 = Ford Jr. |author2 = Lacy K." mean? Choose one method and stick with it, preferably putting them in the bottom section. I will try to help but am feeling a little irritated.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi, I understand the concern and I just got your message on my talk page. There is one editor who, during the GAN and FAN processes and time in between, spend time adding content to the article, some of which I opposed. His referencing style was rather sloppy and I guess I didn't do enough to fix it. I'm not sure if I'll change all the formats as you suggested, but I will try to work to keep things consistent. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Display name 99. May I suggest a consultation with editor Jerome Kohl about F M L vs L, F M ? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(undent) No need to consult. Just make every damn template "|last= Smith |first= John" (or) "|last1= Smith |first1= John |last2= Jones |first2= Sam". I am still tempted to Oppose or suggest withdrawal.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Display name 99: I did a lot of work but much is left yet to be done. I will try again tomorrow. Maybe you can look at what I've done & imitate. Many problems being revealed in this process e.g. two sources for Capers but never mentioned in text; eighty sources for Wiltse but years never given, etc. More later. It is in a mess now because it is in an intermediate state, but it will get better and better.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help Lingzhi. I'll look at it later today and see how much I can replicate. I get the idea that I'm not as good or experienced at this as you are, and I don't want to screw up something and make more work for you. However, I will do what I can. Display name 99 (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Display name 99 (with cc to Lingzhi and Natalie.Desautels). It is my understanding from listening to Jerome Kohl opine that body citations should be in First Middle Last format and that Bibliography and List citations should be in Last, First Middle format. Also, to use harv= parameter, three criteria must be followed. See {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} for details. Please keep me in the loop. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, my opinion is correctly represented here. However, since such matters are based on what is actually practiced, it is certainly true that inverted author names are found in footnotes all over Wikipedia. I am not accustomed to seeing this done in books and journals, though my experience may be limited, and I know of no style manual that recommends this practice. (Again, I do not claim to have comprehensive knowledge of all style manuals).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your concern. The plan here is to move all of that mass of multiply-formatted shtuff out of the footnotes and into the works cited section.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, the books are looking considerably better now. Not done yet (esp. probs with John Quincy Adams), but much better. Now... journals... I have exactly zero idea why so many journals are listed in the References section (should "Footnotes" be added as a subheading there?) and so many others are listed separately in the "Specialized studies"... and WTH is "Specialized studies" anyhow? Me personally I wanna move all those journals OUT of the notes and into the "Specialized studies" (whatever that means), but that would be a task. I could do it programmatically to save time (as I did for the books), but it would still be a task. Input/opinions from other participants on this page would be welcomed.Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Specialized studies I think is more commonly referred to as Scholarly studies - academic/doctorate desertations etc.. but has fallen into disuse. Rjensen is knowledgable on this. Hoppyh (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The "Specialized studies" section to me simply looks like it is meant to include any scholarly work relating to Calhoun, that has thus been cited, but is not meant to be a complete biography of him. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the presidential articles don't employ a section like this. Hoppyh (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Could we eliminate all 3 of the sub-sections under "Sources", simply leaving all of the works cited grouped under "Sources" or "Further Reading"? Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
That would be consistent with the FA presidents' articles I have looked at. You might keep Calhoun's own works separate under "works" or "primary sources". Hoppyh (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hoppyh:@Display name 99:Someone really does need to do an RS check on all those websites to determine their reliability. Some of them are looking shaky to me. Your best option would be to find the exact same information in a book or journal, especially (but not necessarily) one that you already have cited before (just because that saves trouble). In some cases you might even simply delete the info and the web cite, if it doesn't seem all that important or useful.... and finally, if you replace a web cite with a book or journal, you could, you know, move the reference down to the bottom of the page and put a {{sfn}} in the body text where the web cite used to be. :-)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Reference 109 is redlinked and needs to be fixed. I tried to repair it myself but, alas, this is not one of my strong subjects. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 05:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
yes thanks, I mentioned this above. I'm having problems with this and with books that have several volumes. I will try to sort it out later...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • beginning with "Biographer John Niven says..." Here there's an uncited direct quote, but you might not need to add a cite because the quote seems trivial/irrelevant anyhow. Then the pronoun "He" in "He graduated as " is syntactically ambiguous (who graduated?). I would solve all these problems in one swoop by just deleting all the stuff about the teacher.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Lingzhi, I removed that material. For what it's worth, it was added in by a different editor about 2 weeks ago over my objection. Display name 99 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Aaaaand it was just reverted. Display name 99 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
everyone--including Yale this year--says that Yale had a major impact on his political thinking and Niven explains the influence in detail. How an intellectual got his ideas from his most important teacher is not trivial, it's important. so I restored it. 1) Brooks M. Kelly calls Dwight the "mentor" of John C. Calhoun. Kelly, 1974: p138; 2) in Brown, Calhoun's Philosophy of Politics stressed his "his celebrated discussions with New England Federalist Timothy Dwight". 3) Gordon Post (Into to Disquisition p viii) thinks Calhoun got his ideas on secession from Dwight as does Gordon Wood Radicalism p 268. [Dwight's brother was a leader of the Hartford convention of 1815 that called for secession] Rjensen (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Very well Rjensen. I will not contest it further. However, Lingzhi did have a question about one of the sources. Citation 8 applies to the direct quote as well as the sentence after it, does it not? Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I added some depth from Coit's bio. Yes quote = Niven p 20 and next sentence. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that looks good enough, then. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Also Rjensen, when citing books, it would be helpful if you would place the full bibliographical citation at the bottom under "Sources", leaving only a smaller page citation in the body of the text. This would be good for maintaining consistency. Would you be able to do this for the 2 sources that you just added in? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(undent) @Rjensen: The reason we're having this mild disagreement is because what you're saying in the article isn't what you said you're saying. The quotes above (here on this FAC page) look very nice and very relevant. The quotes on the article about " awesome mastery of the classics" look like extraneous padding. Very strongly suggest you remove the "awesome mastery" quote and insert what you wrote just above my words here.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

well i don't see a problem. Niven has an excellent statement about the powerful influence of Dwight on Calhoun's mode of thought --[Biographer John Niven says "Calhoun admired Dwight's extemporaneous sermons, his seemingly encyclopedic knowledge, and his awesome mastery of the classics, of the tenants of Calvinism, and of metaphysics. No one, he thought, could explicate the language of John Locke with such clarity.]. that seems very important in explaining how Calhoun learned to understand political philosophy & prepared himself to be a leader in that field. Second is the different point raised by Coit that Dwight & others taught Calhoun about nullification & secession & convinced him they were legitimate options. These became central themes in Calhoun's career and their origins are important. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem here, which you don't see, comes from the fact that you know what you're talking about ;-) The implication you hope readers will draw from your quote is too subtle. You imagine a reader thinking, "Oh.. Dwight explained Locke to Calhoun...Calhoun thought this over, deeply, then...compared Locke's beliefs about natural rights to his own beliefs and... OH YEAH, I GET IT!" That's a charming picture, but unfortunately you have forgotten to write to the real target audience: an intelligent but uninformed reader. So what will actually happen is more like this: "Locke... what.. but the article doesn't draw a clear connection... and in Western culture at least, it is the article's responsibility to point out all connections to me, the reader, or at least offer me a clear waypost from which I can draw an inference... so.. this must all be an exercise in padding an article." To make a long story short, please, I beg you, delete the "awesome mastery" quote and add the quotes you offered up above my post here...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
ok i'll work on it.  :) Rjensen (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes Haysville Community Library a WP:RSLingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
th haysville cite is a long quote from Howe, Daniel Walker. What hath God wrought: the transformation of America, 1815-1848. 2007. Pulitzer Prize winner. Rjensen (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept, per above. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
it's a copy of a major RS = Graff, Henry F., ed. The presidents: a reference history. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1997. (3rd ed ??) --may be illegal copy Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything proving that it was illegal, so I kept it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes The Rational Argumentator a WP:RS?
I think it's very poor quality. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes, Net Industries a WP:RS?
I think it is poor quality Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes (Kevin M. Levin) a WP:RS?
I think it's very poor quality. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes a WP:RS, considerig thatthe bottom of the page has a caveat emptor warning: "This item was created by a contributor to eHistory prior to its affiliation with The Ohio State University. As such, it has not been reviewed for accuracy by the University and does not necessarily adhere to the University's scholarly standards"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's poor quality. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Display name 99 (talk)
  • This looks very fishy: "Jewell, Michael E. (2015) Senatorial Politics and Foreign Policy." Can't find it on, which is already a deal-killer, and also his name is Malcolm not Michael.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I can attest to this. Jewell is a leading political scientists and I looked. Fulltext is on line at Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. Rjensen added another Jewell citation which seemed good enough. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow. This one is a student project: Andrew Jackson 1767–1845 A brief biography: Tariffs and Nullification – Again American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond. University of Groningen.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The Welling project is pretty high quality. I've used it for many years. However, I would rather use a more sophisticated longer source. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept. If it is reliable and contains the necessary information, it is sophisticated enough. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm having problems with the Freehling (1965) reference, and I admit that I might have been the one who screwed it up. But how can a journal article that runs from pages 25 through 42 have so many cites to pages 222, 223 etc.?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The sites beyond page 42 hard to have an unknown and uncertain book by Freehling – you wrote a lot of them. So I will try to replace with better sources. Rjensen (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Rjensen seems to have done so. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "He saw attacks on Eaton stemming ultimately from the political opposition of Calhoun, who had failed to silence his wife's criticisms" I'm not sure I see this information on the web source provided.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I read it that way as OK. However I would delete the low-quality journalism in the previous footnote = Andrew Jackson's Tragic Love Story] U.S. News. April 1, 2011 Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi, I'm sorry about that. I fixed a couple and probably would have done more today and yesterday. However, a tornado taking out my neighborhood's electricity got in the way. I should start working on it tonight. Display name 99 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about the severe weather; hope there was no serious damage. No rush on this FAC of course, so long as it gets done some day or other.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
Lingzhi, please see my responses above. I will soon take care of the last of the concerns voiced in the image review and in the last review by Wehwalt, and from there I hope we can begin voting if nobody else has anything to say. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

(undent)Display name 99 There are still direct quotes with no page numbers, and books cited repeatedly with no page numbers. The former is definitely a deal-killer, and the latter leans that way. So these must all be fixed. I am on vacation and not able to do any more extensive reviewing, but can make quick responses like this one.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  • "Organization and strategy were widely demanded " still missing page number. Are there more direct quotes w/out them?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi, could you show me where that quote is in the article? I believe that I have taken care of all other direct quotes without page numbers. Display name 99 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Please read MOS:BQ, then come back to this article, hold the CTRL button and type F, then enter this text into the box (without quotation marks): "Organization and strategy were widely demanded".  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Rjensen, is there any way that you could help determine the page number for this quote? It is found as a blockquote at the bottom of the "Slavery" section. If you are able to find the page, you can give it to me here and I'll take care of the formatting. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:UNDENT No need. searchable Google books is a wonderful tool for occasions such as these.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I used an electronic version without page numbers. but it's Dict Am Bio v 3 p 416 Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
There are now no quotations in the article that are without corresponding page numbers. Display name 99 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi, I know that you can't do any full reviews now, but I'm letting you know that today I was able to add page numbers to 7 different citations. That leaves only 7 more book citations without page numbers, 5 of which are from the same book, and none of which are for exact quotes. Display name 99 (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Floride_Calhoun_nee_Colhoun.jpg needs a US PD tag, as per the wording of the life+70 tag
  • File:Statue_of_Hon._John_C._Calhoun_erected_in_Statuary_Hall_of_the_Capitol_at_Washington._Proceedings_in_Statuary_Hall_and_in_the_Senate_and_the_House_of_Representatives_on_the_occasion_of_the_unveiling,_(14762688871).jpg: per the Flickr tag, are any more specific copyright tags available? We need to account for both the photo and the statue, since the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculptural works
  • File:JCCalhoun-1822.jpg: source link is dead, is a new/updated one available?
  • File:Closeup_of_John_C._Calhoun_grave_IMG_4649.JPG: what is the copyright status of the monument? Per above, no freedom of panorama here
  • File:G.P.A._Healy's_portrait_of_John_C._Calhoun,_Charleston_City_Hall_IMG_4589.JPG: a simple reproduction of a 2D work does not warrant new copyright protection in the US. What is the copyright status of the pictured work? The given tag appears to be for the photograph rather than the work itself, which is what we need to worry about.
  • File:JohnCCalhoun.jpeg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Jcctypo01.jpg needs a US PD tag and a source - the current sourcing is circular. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC) amended 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, IMDb is not a reliable source.Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed IMDb by replacing its first citation with a more reliable source and removing the second part altogether after finding too little on the film. Just so that everyone knows, I am unsure of how to deal with all of the other concerns. Display name 99 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Display name 99, I've expanded a few of the above points, and if you have specific questions I'm happy to try to answer them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Nikkimaria. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the link to File:JCCalhoun-1822.jpg is dead. I clicked on all the links and was directed somewhere. Also, I tried adding US PD tags to all the pictures on Commons as you suggested, but am unsure that I did so correctly. Would you please examine those edits to be sure? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the image description page, there are two links under 'Source' - one redirects to the image description page itself and the other returns a 404 error. Looking at the tags you've added, File:Floride_Calhoun_nee_Colhoun.jpg stands out - to use that tag you need to show that the image was published, not just created, before 1923. Can that be done? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I believe that I have fixed all the links. However, I can offer no proof that the image was published before 1923. However, Mrs. Calhoun died in 1866, and I highly doubt that the image, which was most likely created near the middle of her life, remained unpublished for as many as 57 years after her death. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
What was the first publication that we can confirm? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I regret to say that I can't confirm anything. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay. From what I can tell the portrait is in the collection of Fort Hill - could they be contacted to verify its history? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I found it in 1917 book = William Montgomery Meigs (1917). The Life of John Caldwell Calhoun. Neale Publishing Company. p. 80.  Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Great Rjensen. Your efforts to improve the sourcing for images and content in this article are appreciated. Display name 99 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Front image[edit]

Calhoun by Mathew Brady, 1849 photograph
Calhoun by Healy, c. 1845
Calhoun c. 1843

Recently a high-quality, dated photograph by Brady was replaced by an undated painting as the front image, and I do oppose this change. Never mind that the painting is a WP:FP, but compare it with the photos of similar age (one earlier one later) and note the difference between the artist's impression and reality. We do prefer photographs to artworks AFAIK. Materialscientist (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Materialscientist, it was decided by several other editors, Jdcrutch, Hoppyh, and Wehwalt here to switch the image. I will quote Wehwalt and Jdcrutch, as I believe that their arguments adequately express why the image was changed.
"I do not think the lead image shows the man as he ought to be pictured by the world. While I understand photos are preferred, I don't see this as an absolute rule."
"The Brady photo shows Calhoun in the last year of his life, as he was dying of tuberculosis, not as the vibrant, charismatic man who nearly became president of the United States, and was twice elected vice-president."
There are many figures from this time period for whom photographs are only available of them near the end of their lives. A photograph taken of Calhoun in 1849, a year before his death, while of very high quality, is of a very sickly man. The Healy painting makes him look somewhat more presentable. In addition, I really don't see a big difference in Calhoun's physical features between this painting and photographs from around the same period. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I have heard several times that photographs are preferred on Wikipedia over paintings and drawings, but I have never seen any WP policy to that effect. Can Materialscientist point us to one?
There appears to be a widespread prejudice in favor of photographs, to the effect that they are more "accurate" than "art works", but anybody who has even a passing acquaintance with the photographic process will realize that such a prejudice is unfounded. Photographs are art works. They are composed, just as paintings are (although some may be composed in an instant, or by selection after the fact). Alexander Gardner, who made many of the pictures Matthew Brady claimed credit for, once dragged the body of a soldier many yards to stage a photograph. (He may have done it many times, but we know certainly of one instance.) Photographs are affected by the quality of lighting used, and by the chemistry of the plate or film employed. They may be manipulated in development, and in the printing process, as well, such as by cropping, burning and dodging, touching-up, and so on. Such manipulation may be falsification, depending on the intentions of the photographer; but it may simply be art.
On the other hand, a given painting or drawing may be more "accurate" than a given photograph, particularly where, as here, the painting is in color and the photograph is not. A painting may convey truths about its subject that are known to the artist but not visible at the time of sitting to the mechanical eye of the camera. Such a presentation is necessarily subjective, but not necessarily more subjective, or less accurate, than that of a photographer.
Of course, what we mean by "accurate" is itself subjective. All two-dimensional graphic representations are inherently inaccurate, in that none reproduces exactly what the human eye perceives. All, obviously, are in two dimensions, whereas human vision is three-dimensional; although both can suggest the third dimension. All have definite boundaries, which vision in general has not. Both paintings and still photographs present an active subject as stationary, though both can suggest movement in various ways. A line-drawing may be called "a perfect likeness", even though its subject isn't really made up of lines and cross-hatching.
The point is that no medium is inherently preferable. Each image must be judged on its merits, and compared to other images without prejudice, but with regard to the purpose for which the image is to be used. Both paintings and photographs may be bad. Either may misrepresent its subject. Either may be better than the other for a particular purpose, and in a particular context.
In the present case, although the Brady photograph is valuable, and an important record of Calhoun in his last year of life, I believe the painting to be a better summary representation of the man and his character throughout his career, and therefore preferable for the lede. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. Compare the c. 1843 photo and the c. 1845 painting. The painting has an odd, asymmetric "crop" (hand is cropped by the bottom) and shows a distorted, twisted face expression, which is an artist's impression (there is no evidence he ever produced such), while the photo shows a natural one. Colors are often distorted too, both in paintings and photographs, so this is a weak argument. Compare the c. 1845 painting with this one, for example. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Calhoun's face in the 1845 painting looks to be less full. This actually makes sense, as based upon the c. 1843 photograph and the 1849 Brady photograph, Calhoun does appear to have grown very thin in the last decade of his life. Calhoun's hair in the 1834 painting also looks different, but based on the photos I think the c. 1845 painting actually got it closer. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
You hit the point - per WP:NOR we should avoid speculations ("I think .."), and photographs help us in this. Paintings do the contrary. The arguments above that photographs are also distorted are both true and useless - any fact is distorted by the observer, but photographic distortions are predictable and relatively small. As to "I think the c. 1845 painting actually got it closer" - no, they were made in different years. Yes, his health deteriorated in 1849, and this affected the photograph. This may well be mentioned, but this is not a reason to substitute reality with artistic view. For obvious reasons (money, fear of criticism, etc.) those who were asked to paint a portrait of a famous person tended to embellish that person. Very few did not, but then they might overshoot and exaggerate (the ugliness). Is this masterpiece close to reality? Nobody knows, but it deviates from other portraits. Further, we often deal with photographs of paintings, which are made in poor museum lighting, and the color deteriorates with time in old paintings - note the color variations in different versions of this same artwork. Lighting and image degradation don't affect professional b/w studio photographs that much.
Hence WP:NOR, hence avoid paintings when possible. Materialscientist (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
for the pre 1850 period I think paintings are much more accurate. a professional photographer in 21st century takes dozens -- even hundreds of shots-- with control over lighting lenses and photoshop editing. In 1850 the film, the lighting, the pose was all poor quality & artificial by 2016 standards -- the subject had to freeze in a pose for examples. One shot was usually all they got, not 50. The painter spent days getting the pose, facial expressions, etc as good as possible. with color of course, not artificial b&w Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

<indent>Thanks. I do value your opinion, but this is again WP:OR. Materialscientist (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

By your definition of original research to include someone attempting to capture the likeness of a person through paint, how do you avoid including under the umbrella of original research all those works which seek to capture the likeness of someone through words? By your definition, any work from anyone that attempts to describe anyone else must be considered original research, and thereby to be discredited. Where does that leave us? Display name 99 (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to make Materialscientist sigh, but I still find her or his arguments unpersuasive. He or she has not pointed to any Wikipedia policy favoring photographs over paintings, and merely continues to assert, without citing any objective evidence or authority, the opinion that photographs are more accurate than paintings. This she or he seeks to prove through an entirely subjective contrasting of some paintings with some photographs—which is no less "original research" than anything Materialscientist has pointed to. This only reinforces my argument that neither photographs nor paintings should be regarded as superior per se, and that each image must be evaluated on its own merits, in light of the purpose for which it is to be used.
Let us remember, after all, that nobody is suggesting the suppression of any of the images we have to choose from. We're really only debating placement of the various pictures within the article. It's quite evident that Calhoun had one of those faces that seem to vary markedly, depending on angle of view, lighting, mood, etc.; and that his appearance altered considerably over the course of his life. (This has led to the misidentification of at least one photograph as Calhoun's. See this archived discussion.) The article should accordingly include every available image of Calhoun, so that readers may compare them and draw their own conclusions. (Note that there is a life mask of Calhoun, unfortunately not dated, but apparently late; a photograph of which was deleted from Wikipedia for reasons of copyright. I suspect the Princeton library, assuming it's the copyright holder, would grant a license for WP to use the photo, but I haven't pursued it.)
The picture in question here, in any event, is for the info box, and will stand above the rubric, "7th Vice President of the United States". It therefore seems to me most appropriate to use an image of Calhoun made during his tenure in that office, if one exists. I would expect there to be an official vice-presidential portrait of Calhoun, though I haven't been able to find one with a cursory search of the web. If none exists, then I'd suggest the 1834 Peale portrait, which is close in time to Calhoun's second term as vice-president, and is the work of a celebrated portraitist. Failing agreement on that, I'd still prefer the c. 1845 Healy painting as a better general representation of Calhoun the statesman, over any photograph that I've seen. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the life mask of Calhoun, mentioned above, please note that I have uploaded a different photograph of (presumably) the same mask, which is dated 1844. See my note on the article's Talk page. Note also that that photograph looks very different from the photograph of the same mask on the Princeton web site, a fact with some significance for the discussion above. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


Oppose - for the time being. There are problems with the references. This script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors will highlight them. Graham Beards (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Graham Beards, I have been unable to find the "Smith 2011" citation within the article. Do you know what number it is? If I can find it, I will either add the book or journal to the Bibliography or find a different source. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is cited - hence the problem. (There are others) Graham Beards (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Graham Beards, not cited where, under "References" or under "Sources"? I'm not finding it anywhere. All I see with the name "Smith" is a thing from 1911 under "Sources". And though you said "There are others", this is all that came up when I clicked on the script. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, here they are:

  • 17. Wilson 2003, p. 254. Harv error: link from #CITEREFWilson2003 doesn't point to any citation
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 105. Adams 1848, V, p. 361. Harv error: link from #CITEREFAdams1848 doesn't point to any citation
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Kuic, V (1983). "John C. Calhoun's Theory of the Concurrent Majority". American Bar Association Journal 69: 482. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFKuic1983.
Done. Moved to "Further Reading". Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Meigs, William Montgomery (1917). The Life of John Caldwell Calhoun vol. 2. Neale Publishing Company. p. 80. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMeigs.2C_William_Montgomery1917.
Done. I got rid of it. I have no idea what it was doing, especially with a version without a page being cited right above it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Smith, Henry Augustus Middleton (1911). "Calhoun, John Caldwell". In Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopædia Britannica 5 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFSmith1911.
Done. Moved to "Further Reading". Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Adams, John Quincy (1874–1877). Adams, Charles Francis, ed. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams: Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848. 12 v. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co. ISBN 978-0-8369-5021-2. Retrieved June 12, 2016. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAdams1874.E2.80.931877.
Done. The source has been replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Adams, John Quincy. Charles Francis Adams, ed. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams: Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848. Lippincott. ISBN 978-0-608-43349-3. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAdams.
Done. I removed them without re-adding them to "Further Reading" because, unless they are being cited, Adams's memoirs don't belong at the bottom of a Calhoun biography. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Boucher, Chauncey S.; Brooks, Robert P., eds. (1931). "Correspondence Addressed to John C. Calhoun, 1837–1849". Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1929. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBoucherBrooks1931.
Done. Moved to "Further Reading". Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Calhoun, John C.; Wilson, Clyde (1959–2003). The Papers of John C. Calhoun. University of South Carolina Press. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFCalhounWilson1959.E2.80.932003.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Graham Beards (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Graham Beards, I think I've taken care of it all. Thank you for your help and please let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks Ok now. Graham Beards (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Ian Rose. It's been 4 days since the last comment here, with one vote in support of the nomination and none against. Can you tell me when I may expect a decision to be made regarding the article's possible promotion? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, we try not to think in terms of 'votes' here but rather resolution of critical comments, per the FAC instructions. That said, articles do require several reviewers to declare clear support for promotion once issues are dealt with, so we need more input here before promotion. If I were to close the review now I'd have to archive it as not having gained consensus to promote but I'd prefer to give it chance to garner some further reviews, so I've listed it at 'FAC urgents' at the top of WT:FAC and we'll see how that goes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi, as I have been unable to gain consensus so far to promote this article, would you please say whether or not you believe the issues that you addressed were resolved to your satisfaction? I ask this so that this nomination can be concluded. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Maunus[edit]

  • It may be because I am a Social Justice Warrior but I find the usage of the phrase "minority rights" to refer to the rights of a parliamentary minority (in this case the parliamentary minority's right to keep abusing their ethnic minorities) to be grating. Is it possible to find a way to make it clearer earlier on that he was defending the rights of states within the federal system, not the rights of citizens as I believe the phrase "minority rights" are most likely to be understood by the naive reader in the 21st century? I am particularly referring to the first sentence in which the phrasing frankly comes across as self-contradictory (being a proponent of slavery and minority rights) - the sectoin where Hofstadter points out that his usage of "minority" differs from the meaing of that term also suggest that the term cannot stand alone undefined in the first sentence. I am unfamiliar with the literaturw but I think that perhaps his idea of "minority rights" corresponds best to what is today called "State's rights" in American politics?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
This has caused confusion before. The conclusion that you reached is basically correct. Calhoun saw the South as a sort of beleaguered minority that required special protection from Northern tyrants attempting to deprive its citizens of their rights. In the process, Calhoun developed a whole philosophy regarding the protection of minorities, which is where the concurrent majority and nullification come in. But Calhoun's ultimate goal was to free the Southern economy of burdensome tariffs and prevent the North from making any move against slavery. To achieve these goals, Calhoun sometimes went against his states' rights ideology, most noticeably by insisting that a new territory or state had no right to abolish slavery even if its people voted to do so, which was of course total hypocrisy. I'm open to suggestions that you have that would help clear this up.Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
How about writing something like "best remembered for his strong defense of slavery and for advancing the concepts of "concurrent majority" and "nullification" in order to protect the values and interests of the South from perceived threats from the Northern parliamentary majority"?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Maunus, I think that the term "minority rights" is important to use here. Whether we in the 21st century like to think of it that way or not, Calhoun's ideas had a lot to do with understanding the need to protect the rights of political minorities. It is important to give him credit for that. The sentence ends with this: "which he did in the context of defending Southern values from perceived Northern threats." That should make it clear what specific "rights" were, in Calhoun's view, at stake. Display name 99 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Agree with Dn99 as to minority rights. Some concepts are complex and should not be simplified. It is not unreasonable for Wikipedia occasionally to send readers to the dictionary. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think some kind of work needs to be done to show that the term in his use is not at all related to the current usage of it - I dont think it actually sends the users to the dictionary unless they are made clearly aware that it means something other than what they are likely to assume. I will of course not insist, but I do think that many future readers will be perplexed and annoyed at the current wording. (note for example that looking in Wikipedia for Minority rights does not make us any the wiser regarding Calhouns ideas on the matter)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Maunus, Calhoun was concerned with political or social minorities. And once again, the very next phrase of the sentence, "which he did in the context of defending Southern values from perceived Northern threats", shows that Calhoun's arguments for minority rights and 21st century definitions of minority rights are very different. If people are still confused or annoyed, they should take a closer look at the man. The use of this phrase in the first sentence of the article has been questioned several times, and I'm just not sure that there's anything else that can be done to make it easier for people to understand. Display name 99 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What is the relation of the third paragraph of the section "State Sovereignty and the 'Calhoun Doctrine'" to the tpoic of that section? Sounds more like it is about contemporary evaluatoins of his political style in general.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I moved it to "Rhetorical style", which is actually where it was once before it got moved for some reason. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems a little odd with an entire section on "Film and Television" with only one sentence in it. Any possibility of consolidating this into the legacy section?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I made it a subsection there. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • IN the Legacy section, going from "Wilson 2015" noting that the "run of the mill historian" is critical of Calhoun due to his defense of "the bad", to saying in the next sentence that "Recently, however, Calhoun's reputation has suffered" seems a little counter-chronological. Surely that is exactly the viewpoint Wilson is defending Calhoun against.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I moved it to the end of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Maunus, please see my comments above. Thank you for the helpful review. Display name 99 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

A short textbook published in 2010 may seem like a very odd subject for a featured article nomination, but Alasdair Cochrane's first book was actually one of the first books exploring animal ethics from the perspective of political theory, something which has created a real buzz in certain corners of academic ethics/political theory, spawning numerous books, articles, theses, special issues, edited collections and even a dedicated journal. The article is fairly short, but I hope you will agree that it is comprehensive. I must thank SlimVirgin for a GA review, and hope you will enjoy reading the article. All comments are welcome. This is probably a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

Very interesting, will be commenting shortly... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Great prose, but I had to do nitpicks ;) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • was one for the first books I think it should be "of" and not "for".
  • "Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series" is linked here but not in the main article. I don't think we will have an article on this topic in the near future, and I am not a fan of redlinks in the lead. Perhaps delink it?
  • It is good to begin with the full name of the author (and link it) when you begin with the main article.
  • The Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics...Garner and Martha Nussbaum. This part belongs more to reception, the time after it was published. In this section we discuss the time before and when the book became a reality.
    • Yes, I had mused on this. I have added a legacy section, which seems the appropriate place to talk about how this was an early example of the kind of work now been done. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • the approaches taken by five schools of political theory A natural question would be – their approaches toward what?
  • Um, should the subheadings not be level 3, with an edit link by their side?
    • They were, but I wasn't a fan of the very short sections. Do you think I should switch them back? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Not sure, I have not seen such subheadings in other articles... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if meat needs a link
  • Of all the traditions considered in the book, Cochrane is most critical of feminism Should not sound like Wikipedia's opinion, better add "According to Garner..."
    • I've removed this, based on SV's comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can we have a few direct quotes from the book?
  • I think the reviews should be in the order: Garner, Cooke, Seymour, that is the order you list their names in.
    • I've tried to do it a little more thematically; I don't so much like "Review 1, review 2, review 3" in reception sections. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Where do you use blockquotes and where do you not?
    • 30 words isn't a bad rule of thumb; do you think I'm being inconsistent? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Not really, just wished to know how you decide their use. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • the first of which was the use of the concept of justice May be link "justice" again, it is relevant here and some readers may have missed the previous link. You have similar duplicate links elsewhere.
Other points
  • A better caption for Garner's image would be "Robert Garner, pictured in 2013"
  • Consistent in "open access" tags?
    • I think I am? There are two open access pieces cited; others may or may not be freely available, but they're not open access publications. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the ISBNs should be hyphenated.
    • I've dropped ISBNs in the refs, but I've added dashes for the release versions. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sainsf: With thanks for your comments; I'll get to them properly tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support I don't find any more issues with the prose. Must make an awesome FA, just remember my suggestion about direct quotes from the book. Good luck! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by SlimVirgin[edit]

Hi Josh, this is very similar to the version that was promoted to GA. I wonder whether it needs to be expanded a little for FA. For example, I would like to see just a bit more explanation as to why he rejects the feminist positions as providing a basis for obligations to animals. For example:

  • You write that Cochrane rejects "the idea, taken from ecofeminist theorists, that domination of women and domination of animals are both due to an ideal of domination over nature." Whose work does he cite, how would you unpack "due to an ideal of domination over nature," and how does he find their arguments lacking?
  • More needs to be said to explain Adams ("Second is Carol J. Adams's argument that exaltation of meat-eating serves to oppress women") and why Cochrane rejects her arguments.
  • It isn't clear what "Third is through the use of language" refers to in this context and what Cochrane is rejecting.
  • Re: objectification. "Cochrane … argues that the oppression of women and animals are not necessarily linked." How does he argue that?
  • The section concludes: "Of all the traditions considered in the book, Cochrane is most critical of feminism," citing Garner, but Garner doesn't say that. He writes that Cochrane is "harsher on the claims of some traditions—the feminist care ethic in particular …"
    • Ok, interesting. Sainsf raised different concerns about the sentence, so I've dropped it entirely. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for taking the time to offer some comments; I'll reply to your suggestions properly tomorrow. As an initial reply, I'd certainly could expand the synopsis section, but I wanted to keep it brief. Do you perhaps think I should expand the coverage of all chapters, or do you think I should focus in on feminism given reviewers' comments about Cochrane's coverage? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I would say all the sections could use some clarification (not necessarily expansion). Looking at utilitarianism, for example, you would have to be familiar with the arguments to understand that section. Why is it historically important for animals, what does it mean to say it has an egalitarian nature, and why is that a strength? I think it needs to be unpacked so that readers not familiar with it will understand.
There is also this: "He closes by arguing that, if the book's claims are correct, treatment of animals should be considered one of the most pressing political questions today." That was something I asked about during the GAN. It really isn't clear which of the book's claims it refers to, and why those claims would make treatment of animals one of the most pressing political questions. SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, this is very valuable; I'll have a rejig and see what I can do. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, J Milburn.

  • The Bibliography was throwing one CS1 hidden error but there turned out to be more like 10 cite templates that needed work with the authors and editors as seen here.
  • Bullet point 15 in the Bibliography is in plain text and should be converted to a cite template.
Converted. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Converted again from non-citation style to citation template style per WP:CITEVAR. Changed it from cite book to cite journal per Josh.

I will be happy to review this further when the FA review is further along. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks for your efforts, but I'm afraid I have reverted your edits. Unless I'm missing something, you're "cleaning" things by changing my citation style, which is not something which should be done without discussion. I use citation templates to help with consistent formatting; they're not an end in themselves. If you're really concerned about my use of the templates, I'd rather just drop them altogether. (Relatedly: The plain-text reference would throw up errors if I put it into a citation template, despite the fact that "forthcoming" is the correct date, and the DOIs you tagged as dead are fine- perhaps there's something wrong with your script?) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As a note to anyone watching, Checkingfax has reverted me again, and promised an explanation. I am not happy with the citations at this time, but await the explanation. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It isn't easy to see what was changed, because Checkingfax has added whitespace under the headings, which throws the diff off. [3] SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. The two things that are bothering me are mentioned on my talk page. (By the way, I have not yet finished dealing with your comments, Sarah; I stepped away from the article for this evening to give Checkingfax time to respond. Thanks for your patience.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
For the sake of advancing this review, I'm willing to leave Checkingfax's changes (including the change to the article's citation style), but I am still not satisfied that his/her actions were appropriate. Conversation about this continues on my talk page, but does not need to clutter up this page. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Josh. For the record I did one rollback. I immediately contacted you on your talk page to avoid any panic or extra chatter here. I promised to restore your minor edits that got bombed in the process and I did when I got back from my appointment. There were a couple of resulting issues which editor Sainsf, you and I collaboratively remedied. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Toolbox checklist[edit]
  • Alt text: Pending
  • Citation bot: Passed
  • Disambig links: Passed
  • External links: Passed
  • Redirects: Passed
  • Reflinks: Passed

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. A fascinating article, very well written and evidently comprehensive. It is a good sign that I am left with no idea where, if anywhere, the nominator's sympathies lie between the various competing theories. Very happy to support. Three exceptionally minor comments, which don't affect my support:

  • Background and publication
    • Mildly surprising, and not especially welcome, to see the American "advisor" instead of the English "adviser", but if that's the man's official job title so be it.
  • Academic reception
    • I wasn't quite sure why we have "On the other hand" before S O'Sullivan's comments. The four words led me to expect a hostile review to follow D Dombrowski's favourable one, but both are enthusiastic.
  • Releases
    • To avoid the possibility of WP:DATED, I'd be inclined to change "The book is available in paperback..." to "The book was published in paperback..."

That's my lot. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. The references in the version I looked at (at 13.24 today) look fine to me at first glance, and I don't imagine that if any change is needed it will be anything more than minor tweaking, to fit the nominator's preferred layout. A most stimulating read. Tim riley talk 12:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Tim; thoroughly appreciated. I followed Cochrane with "advisor", but it's not an official title. I've switched it. I've dropped "On the other hand", and made the change concerning "available"/"published". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You have "Cochrane 2007b" as a ref, yet there's no "Cochrane 2007a". As far as I can see, there's only one source for Cochrane in 2007 (the PhD thesis). Do you not have a handle (hdl) for the thesis? Singora (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch; there was a 2007a, but I hadn't added it to the bibliography. It's there now! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


  • Would suggest changing the Cochrane and and Garner captions to either "X, pictured in 2013" or "X (pictured) in 2013"
  • "File:An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory.jpg: I wouldn't call a "cover artist" - do you mean the site is the source of the owl image? Suggest rewording. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nikkimaria; the captions have been changed, and I have clarified that (per the book's back cover) the cover image belongs to the website. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • Is there a reason why refs 26 and 42 are formatted differently to, say, 25 and 40?
  • Refs 50, 51, 53 and 55 use a hyphen which will need to be changed
  • Missing page number for ref 54
    • It would be "passim", but that's a but old-fashioned; I'm citing the book as a whole. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Note 2" finishes without a closing citation

I'll read this today and offer nitpicks later. CassiantoTalk 08:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Support - Sorry I didn't get round to this. It appears you didn't need me anyway. A glowing example of how a FA should be done. Nice work Josh. CassiantoTalk 21:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

Interesting read, thank you. Having just read the introduction of the textbook, I think something is missing from this article. The textbook's introduction brings the issues to life whereas this article just says "animal rights". I think the article would be more interesting if it expands on it a little bit, maybe just a sentence or two. Either in Synopsis or background.

Happy to make an effort, but could you clarify this? You want me to expand a bit more on the book's introduction? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. I'd like to see a bit more on the topic of animal rights. The textbook does bring that topic to life right away in the introduction. What kind of issues are we talking about? Edwininlondon (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Minor comments below:

  • nonhuman or non-human? In the body it has the noun as non-humans. Should also be consistent with non-ideal or nonideal
    • I'd prefer nonhuman but non-ideal, except in direct quotes, but given Cochrane's thesis's title, I've gone with non-human. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • introducing his interest-based theory of animal rights - how many times can you introduce something? and wasn't it actually introduced in his thesis?
    • I take your point. I've tweaked this a little.
  • series's or series'?
    • Series's x for "x belonging to a single series" and series' x for "x belonging to multiple series". (Similar for species; it's an unusual case of a word ending in s for which the singular and plural form are the same. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Alasdair Cochrane, (pictured) in 2013 --> I find the parentheses quite odd
    • Very odd; if I introduced that, I wasn't thinking straight. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • after which Cochrane defends the account both against arguments in defence of speciesism and against critics --> could benefit from a rewrite, hard to grasp what he defends against
    • I've made an effort; the topics are very familiar to me but not necessarily to others. Could you let me know if that's clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • the captions seem not balanced: Adams gets a full sentence, Garner nothing but a name. I'd aim for a middle ground, e.g. along the lines of "Robert Garner, a political theorist who reviewed Cochrane's book". I don't think think pictured in 2013 is necessary;if it was 1963 then yes.
  • Maybe keep the order of reviewers consistent in Academic reception: Garner is mentioned first but then Cooke's review is first given.
    • I try to address critical responses thematically, rather than review-by-review. I may not have been fully successful here; I will have another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Cooke considered Cochrane's own.." --> I got confused here since Cooke's review had already been dealt with, so why are we going back to Cooke?
  • "Seymour argued that Cochrane's critique was superficial or "[missed] the point entirely". --> this leaves me wondering why. Any chance a succinct summary of arguments can be given?
    • Good point; no fix made yet, but I'll definitely look into making this change. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Releases --> Would Formats be more appropriate for a book?

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this; I'll get to your comments soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again; replied inline. I'll get to making the fixes I've held off in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • I wonder if the "Feminism" section has too much text without immediate citation. Perhaps some additional citations to cover the large block of text in there would be a good addition? Also, this section consists purely of one long paragraph; perhaps consider division into two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Why are the subsections in "Synopsis" only demarcated by bold text rather than with the three "==="? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Garner said that the book came "highly recommended"; he considered it "a very fine book"," has "book" repeated in fairly quick succession. How about replacing the first instance with "work", "volume", or "tome"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for this; I'll get to your comments in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Note to delegates and reviewers: Thanks for waiting; I promise I will give the comments the attention they deserve. Things are all over the place for me right now (I'm moving house today, for example, and I am at the very end of my doctorate) so, although I'm about, I'm not necessarily in the right headspace to make these corrections. Thanks again, Josh Milburn (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

I note you are a bit busy in real life at the moment, so no rush! I read the article with interest and have a few minor comments: -

  • The sentence starting "After introducing the purpose of the book ..." is a bit long and complex and I had to go back and read it again to establish what the "history of thinking" was all about.
  • "Chapter three considers utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, Cochrane argues, ..." - This could be rephrased so as to avoid repeating the word "utilitarianism".
  • "This is the claim the domination of women and animals are both due to a patriarchal elevation of the "rational" over the "natural"." - This sentence would benefit from an additional "that".
  • I ask myself the question "Who is a featured article on a book meant for? Is it for the knowledgeable who understand the implications of the terms used (as this one does), or is it for the general public who lack the specialist knowledge?" As a member of the latter group, I would like to see some brief explanations on the topics utilitarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism. For example the sentence "Chapter three considers utilitarianism." could continue as "Chapter three considers utilitarianism, the concept that ..."
    • In general, the prose is excellent and the subject comprehensively covered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Canadian National Vimy Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Canadian World War I memorial in Northern France, the 80th anniversary or the unveiling is this July. This article has been previous advanced for consideration and the most recent nomination in Feb 16 was rejected largely due to concerns associated with imagery copyright.

After a couple months wait, OTRS tickets have recently been completed on the Commons for a couple of these images (File:Vimy Memorial - Foundation construction.jpg, File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg) which effectively confirmed that images with a status of expired are released into the public domain by Canada (with a requirement to credit). Citations are improved on another (File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg and a the painting at the bottom of the article was confirmed as acceptable to the Commons via deletion request Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/22#File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg (closed by a sysop).Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments Looking really good; will read through properly and review.

At the risk of prolonging the image pain, a couple of quick thoughts:

  • File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg is justified under a UK anonymous tag. UK law requires that this is based on reasonable research into the identity; this is reflected in the wording on the copyright tag, notes that "if you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." No information is currently provided, which invalidates the UK copyright tag.
This image is a Gallaher cigarette card from a series of Victoria Cross winners title "Victoria Cross Heroes". This particular image comes from the 5th series. The New York Public Library record of this object is the best I've seen yet with regards to completeness (complete with electronic images of both front and back) but even they acknowledge its not perfect. The only potential author of mention is Central Press, which I've take to assume from researching (The Press Photo History Project) is Central Press Photo Ltd or London but there is no mention of an individual either as photographer or artist that completed the colouring. I researched the records of other cards in the series and got no further ahead. The only hit in the online records or the UK National Archive was [4] for a card held at the Museum of English Rural Life but with no author details available and a search of the Imperial War Museum Records[5] drew a complete blank.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
As per the copyright tag, this information needs to be added to the image description on the file itself for the claim to be valid. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Vimy Ridge - Watkins memorial.JPG has a copyright tag for the photograph, but not for the owner of the underlying copyrighted text and the memorial itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The Memorial is labeled as being Veterans Affairs Canada, consequently the Canadian government. I think it would be questionable whether a threshold of originality even exists here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The memorial mainly consists of the two paragraphs of text that were photographed, though, and they carry copyright. A Canadian Government copyright tag would therefore be needed here. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
For Canada the threshold requires that a work "not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise". There is absolutely no hope of this memorial holding copyright under Canadian law. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine that exist for instance in the UK is firmly rejected in Canada as being too low of a standard for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The photograph is of two paragraphs of text (one in French, the other English). These are subject to copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The text is firmly the "short word combinations" scope for Canada. Further this is a statement of facts which in Cnaada does not meet the requisite level of creativity for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Labatt, I don't agree with you about the short word combinations point; Canadian copyright law doesn't give copyright to titles, names, slogans, short word combinations etc., but the items copied here are 104 word paragraphs. While you cannot copyright a fact in Canada, expressions of a fact - for example, a paragraph of text - are certainly copyright. The material would similarly be copyright in the US where the Commons is hosted. The File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg issue still hasn't been fixed either, - the image description hasn't been altered as per the issue raised above, rendering the UK tag invalid. Reluctantly oppose at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The photo of the Watkins memorial isn't so central to the article to base approval/opposition on it alone. For it what I'll do is remove it from the article for now, send a formal request to Veterans Affairs Canada and if they come back with release that can be confirmed via a commons OTRS ticket. Would that be a satisfactory way forward.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hchc2009: Still waiting for a response from Veterans Affairs Canada. I've placed a note on the image page on the Commons but the image is removed from the article until a response is received.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll copy the text to the Jones cigarette card photo. I hope that addresses that concern.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support in terms of sources and academic background; I haven't done a copyediting check though. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As before: feel free to revert my copyediting. I enjoyed this and found it readable, but copyediting it was kind of a tough job, so I stopped reading a little more than halfway through, at Second World War. I'm hoping another reviewer will pick it up from there and make a call on supporting or opposing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Did a little more; I made it down to Restoration and rededication. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Reading the commentary at the deletion discussion for File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg, I find the arguments against it being free far more compelling than those in favour. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I put up a vigorous motion to delete following the last FAC and the conclusion was to keep, the conclusion having been made by a sysop. I'm not sure more could be expected in terms of a confirming review.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The "conclusion" was that life+50 applies; if that's so, absent any other information, this can't possibly be PD in the US, because that would mean copyright expired after 1996 and thus that US copyright was restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately the decision is not my call but I don't make it a habit of questioning such conclusions. Maybe @Jdforrester:, as closing admin, can offer further clarity on that discussion. Nevertheless, the image isn't so central as to merit being such a distraction so I've removed it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • King's position received unanimous support from both sides of the House and—after the Canadian federal election, 1921, there were three major parties represented. What does "both" refer to?
  • both referred to government and opposition. I've simplified the text to simply state unanimous support.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The 1997 ceremony at the memorial was attended by retired Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and at least 5000 people. Subsequent smaller-scale ceremonies were held at the memorial in 1997 and 2002.—meaning there was another memorial in '97 after BM visited? And were the 5000 Canadians?
  • Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The Mulroney ceremony should read 1992 not 1997. Correction made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - an excellent article. Some minor suggestions:
    • Maybe add a footnote to this sentence: "The commission revised its initial plans and decided to build two distinctive memorials—those of Allward and Clemesha—and six smaller identical memorials" - the footnote could link to the memorials: Saint Julien Memorial, Passchendaele Memorial, Hill 62 Memorial, Bourlon Wood Memorial, Courcelette Memorial, Dury Memorial, and Le Quesnel Memorial.
    • Suggest adding a mention of the upcoming centenary commemoration of the battle. It seems as if the official programme has not yet been released by Veteran Affairs Canada (UPDATE: found this page), but some additional mention would be good. Possibly of interest (though maybe not suitable for the article) is this.
    • The 'Sociocultural influence' section has a 'when?' tag in it.
Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No Me Queda Más[edit]

Nominator(s): – jona 19:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a song recorded by American Tejano music singer Selena for her last fully recorded album before she was shot and killed a year later. This song holds very dear to me as it brings back nostalgic memories of my mother while growing up. I've made a major overhaul a few months ago and updated the article and subsequently asked the GOCE to copy-edit it. After that, I re-read the article a few times in the weeks following the c/e to make sure the article is indeed ready to be nominated at FAC. I hope you guys enjoy reading the article as much as I had writing it. Best – jona 19:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cartoon network freak[edit]

@AJona1992: With my issues being resolved, I'm now willing support to this FAC. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Media review

  • File:No_Me_Queda_Mas.ogg: FUR for this article should be expanded
  • File:Selena_No_Me_Queda_Mas.jpg: FUR does not adequately explained why it is necessary to include this image - what information is it intended to convey? Needs expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I added the album cover FUR template to the cover art that provides a more understanding than the previous method used, while also expanding the sound file with additional information that may had been missing. Thanks again for your comments – jona 12:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, just the second point remaining. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I took another jab at it and tried it in my own words, I hope that my explanation for the purpose of the cover art has fully satisfied your concerns. Thanks – jona 14:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Er...jona, you're editing the fair-use image that I didn't have concerns with. File:Selena_No_Me_Queda_Mas.jpg is the one at issue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that :/ I have removed the image and tagged it orphaned for deletion as it does not convey any necessary information the reader can gather without reading the article; the caption was addressing the singer's dress which did not provide any value to reader. – jona 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from EditorE[edit]

OK. The article looks pretty good from a quick scan through, but after looking at a few parts of it a little more, I have a few comments:

  • I'm not so fond of how the citations are formatted. is still Billboard magazine, and it is published by Prometheus Global Media. The publisher for these sources are missing in the cites, and should be added. should also be changed to
  • Done
  • The Alt description for the cover is decent, but not perfect. It should include a mention or the background and that the photo Selena is in is covered by a frame and is titled. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Done
  • I'm also gonna have to be picky with the English, since this is, after, a FA nomination. Starting with the lead, you need to put the period in the quote. In this case, its the quote of "nothing but happiness"
  • Done
  • "children's singing competition" Did the source specify which competition? If it did, the name of the competition should be added.
  • Added
  • The infoboxes and charts lists for two of the cover versions of the song are unnecessary. Since there isn't a lot of chart peaks that the cover versions, they should be removed and any bit of commericial performance info should be handled by the prose. The subsections are also unneeded in this case, given that there's not a lot of info on both covers.
  • Done
  • The year-end and all-time chart lists needs to be scoped.
  • Done

editorEهեইдအ😎 22:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@EditorE: Thank you for your comments, I have fixed all issues. – jona 23:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@EditorE: Have I satisfied your concerns above? – jona 14:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, but I might still have more, so stay tuned. editorEهեইдအ😎 18:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Great, looking forward to it. Best – jona 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by DivaKnockouts[edit]

  • @DivaKnockouts: Thanks for your review, I have fixed all issues. Best – jona 14:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Great job on the article. DivaKnockouts 18:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by magiciandude[edit]

  • @Magiciandude: Thank you Erick for your comments, I have fixed all issues. Best – jona 17:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed you have, support. Great job! Erick (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: Great work with this! It is a very comprehensive and well-written article. This definitely deserves FA status. Aoba47 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Prism[edit]

  • is a song recorded by American recording artist Selena for her fourth studio album, Amor Prohibido (1994). → is a song by American recording artist Selena from her [...]
  • Done. – jona 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • while production was handled by Selena's brother-producer Since production is already mentioned, is producer really needed? Plus, I'm almost sure the term you used doesn't exist.
  • Done. – jona 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Its lyrics express unrequited love Perhaps express an unrequited love.
  • Done. – jona 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Avoid "with verb[ing]" constructions such as with the singer wishing her former lover and his new partner "nothing but happiness." Can "nothing but happiness" be paraphrased?
  • I rephrased it to wishing for the best. – jona 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • during the publication's quarter-century celebration Is this necessary?
  • Removed from lead. – jona 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • An accompany music video (also incorrect by the way, should be accompanying) → A music video
  • Removed. – jona 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It received the Music Video of the Year Add award at the end.
  • I added it. – jona 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. Reading Billboard I understood that the original version was remixed for commercial purposes, while here it says that there was never an "original" version.
  • The "original" version was released during the early distribution of Amor Prohibido while the "sweeten" version replaced it a few months later; where the front-cover reads "includes new version" of No Me Queda Más. – jona 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

More to come. Prism | (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 275 (Michigan)[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a highway in Michigan, as most of my nominations are. However, this one is special. Depending on which government agency you ask, you'll get different answers at how long this one is. Additionally, it has some special history related to a cancelled northern segment that was partially revived under a different highway designation. Imzadi 1979  16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria, even with the changes made since then. Dough4872 00:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Will211[edit]

Just peeking in, I was looking at sources and reference number 12 comes up with a 404 error, so that will need to be fixed. Will211|Chatter 02:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Will211: thanks for that. Archived link added, so that's good to go now. Imzadi 1979  03:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by starship.paint[edit]

Hello, I'll get to reviewing this article within this week. Disclaimers: I'm not American, I don't edit road articles, and I hope you'll check out my own FAC. starship.paint ~ KO 02:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Imzadi1979: - Why did you consider my edits as bad linking practices? As a non-American editor, these Wiki-links would have been greatly useful. Plus another revert. Per WP:REPEATLINK, it is okay to link at the first occurrence after the lead. starship.paint ~ KO 03:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For Exit list, the reference/link provided seems to be insufficient, in the sense that it doesn't link to the I-275.
  • For the Bike trail infobox, Trailheads 16 along improved trail north of I-94 8 along unrefurbished trail south of I-94 is unsourced.
  • Also, what bikes are the bike trail intended for, bicycles, motorbikes? It should be the former based on reference 12. Trail Use: Cycling - Trails, Hiking, In-Line Skating, Jogging, X-C Skiing This could be added to the infobox - place "biking" with "cycling", the common term.
    • @Starship.paint: it is unnecessary, and bad form, to link to "US" in that first sentence. It's such a general topic that linking to it is normally WP:OVERLINKing. Even linking to the more specific topic of "US state" is still not a good idea when we can point our readers directly to the most specific topic, "Michigan", which is already linked. Given the title of the article, and the other mentions of that specific state already present, we don't need to display it when linking to the county name lower in the article. And lastly, "I-75" redirects to a national-level article instead of the state-level (and frankly higher quality) article on Michigan's segment of Interstate 75.

      As for the next reversion, the clarification attempt falls flat by omitting part of the township name. (Berlin is a separate location on the western side of the Lower Peninsula was renamed to Marne during WWI.) In short, your edits did not actually improve the text.

    • As for the exit list, that mapping source can't point to any specific highway, yet it's been used in nearly 30 other FAs on Michigan's highways without issue.
    • I've copied the footnote from the body text over.
    • In American English, "bike trail" itself implies bicycles, not motorcycles. The latter have to use the same roadways as cars unless they're "dirt bikes" that use "ORV trails" (off-road vehicle trails). As for "biking" in American English, it's synonymous with "cycling", so no change is necessary. Imzadi 1979  04:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • They are common in American English but maybe not in other dialects of English. In my country we use "cycling", I have never heard "biking". In this case I would err on the side of clarity than WP:OVERLINK, this is an educational website after all. starship.paint ~ KO 02:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The interchange with I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) on the border between Plymouth Township and Livonia is where the FHWA considers I-275 to end - I do not see this in the source.
    • The FHWA source does not note an overlap between I-96 and I-275, while it does note other overlaps between Interstates in the "Overlap Miles & Route" column, as in where it says "5.84 Mi. on I-480" for I-271. That source also gives a total length for I-275 of 29.97 miles, and if you compare that with the MDOT source material, that is about a half-mile longer than where I-96 and M-14 cross the I-275 mainline; the extra half mile would be the part of I-275 that extends north of that freeway crossing to where I-96 merges in. Imzadi 1979  17:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Then I believe it would be better if you weave in "The FHWA source does not note an overlap between I-96 and I-275" into the article text. starship.paint ~ KO 02:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The second phase was completed in the latter half of 1976, when I-275 was extended north from Schoolcraft Avenue (and the incomplete interchange with the future route of I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) to the I-275/I-96/I-696 interchange in Novi. - is this sourced to the 1977 newspaper? Just checking.
  • the headquarters of the Visteon - I don't think the second "the" is needed here
  • Are the sources really Open access as the reference icons suggest? They are telling me I can only "try 7 days free" and "You need a subscription to view this page". starship.paint ~ KO 02:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
New extension plan
  • After the January 1977 cancelation of M-275 as a full freeway, the State Transportation Commission explored building the highway as a parkway instead - the Parkway Would Replace source doesn't support this. It was the state highway department which proposed a parkway. When the source was published, the state highway department had not even recommended the parkway proposal to the commission, so the Wikipedia text is inaccurate.
  • The Oakland County Road Commission, local land developers, and local politicians supported building a highway along the route of M-275 to open up the area for development. This sentence is out of place. Should it be inserted before the previous sentence? Both the previous and the next sentences talk about the potential parkway.
  • In September 1977, the commission ordered MDOT to study the parkway option - I feel that this fragment is also inaccurate according to the Official Seek source. The commission did not discuss the parkway proposals Wednesday, but made it clear it would consider a north south trunkline highway in the area. It ordered the highway department to study other possible developments, including improvements in local roads... Is a "north south trunkline highway" same as a parkway? Also, "improvements in local roads" is not mentioned in Wikipedia.
  • After many years of inactivity, further work began along this same route, - why did work begin at that time?
  • The section infobox lists that M-275 existed for 10 years despite it being never built? That doesn't make sense to me.
  • The section infobox wrote that M-275 ceased to exist circa May 1985, but is that mentioned in the article text? I do see that By May 1985, MDOT had relinquished ownership of right-of-way in West Bloomfield Township, but I do not understand if this equates to M-275 ceasing to exist... actually I do not really understand this fragment. Could it be explained better?
I-96 overlap
  • After it was completed, I-96 was routed to run concurrently with I-275 between Novi and Plymouth Township - is the Proposed Trunkline Numbering source supposed to be citing this fragment? If so please insert the cite. The next source is the 1955 source, chronologically it should not be able to cite this fragment.
  • @Imzadi1979: please see my comments above! starship.paint ~ KO 07:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments here as I go through the article; I'll probably only get a little done this morning.

  • Suggest either marking on the infobox map the section of the highway that is not agreed by both authorities to be part of the highway, or else (less preferable) indicate in the caption which version of the route is shown.
  • "running parallel to the east of Haggerty Road": suggest "running parallel and to the east of Haggerty Road".
  • "This interchange is where I-275 meets I-96, which merges from the east on the Jeffries Freeway and turns north to run concurrently with I-275. From the west, the M-14 freeway merges and ends. MDOT still considers the freeway north of here part of I-275, and signs it as such.". I think some rephrasing is needed here. The first sentence unconditionally says I-275 is concurrent with I-96 on this stretch; the third says only MDOT considers this to be the case. I think this can be condensed.
  • Is there signage north of the I-96 interchange that says "I-275"? Does MDOT or FHWA control the signage?
  • "It was not well-maintained originally, but it is being improved": suggest a date qualification for the second half of this sentence, per WP:ASOF.
  • "the state originally planned it to follow almost all 60 miles (97 km) of I-275 at the time": this is much longer than the stated length of I-275 given in the lead. If this is because the length refers to the original plan for a longer freeway, I think that needs to be clearer. Also, this paragraph says the bikeway runs along "a 44.1-mile" stretch, substantially longer than even MDOT's given length.
  • The FHWA length is given in the lead as 29.97 miles, but the cumulative length numbers in the table jump from 29.417 to 31.217 -- shouldn't one of those numbers match?
  • Also suggest adding a comment in the Notes column of the table to indicate the intersection at which the FHWA considers the freeway to end.
  • "William Swanson in MDOT's highway planning unit stated that the original planned route for I-275 would have instead been used for I-75 itself, with the I-275 number applied to I-75 through Detroit": I don't quite follow this. Is Swanson saying that had the original 1958 numbering plan been followed, this would have happened? I think what's confusing me is "original planned route for I-275", because the previous two sentences don't seem to refer to anything like that -- they refer to a north-south freeway later marked as I-73.
  • This is just a suggestion, not necessarily something you have to do for FAC, but I noticed you were relying on old state highway maps to deduce when sections of the highway opened. Have you considered using old newspaper reports via For example, I just had a quick look and found an article in the Holland Evening Sentinel for 10 January 1976 (page 12 according to, but "Page Nine" according to the numbering in the newspaper itself) that discusses what sections are opening when.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: fixes applied for the above except the map (that's in progress). Since MDOT owns and maintains the highway, they erect the signage, and yes, they sign it as I-96/I-275. The edits just applied should clarify and reflect that fact. Imzadi 1979  03:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Your fixes look good; I'm still going through the article and should finish tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest replies:
  • I tweaked the I-96 interchange row in the table to use a range of mileposts, listing the MP for the point where eastbound M-14 crosses the I-275 mainline, and for the point where I-96 westbound merges in. There's still a minor discrepancy in the numbers to the hundredth of a mile, which could be variations in survey methods between the two sources. I added the note as well.
  • Other revisions have been applied to address your other comments.
  • Whenever possible, yes, we use old newspapers, however, they haven't always been available/accessible when the initial research into the articles has been done. That article you found is great, except that it's about scheduled, not actual, openings. If it said a segment was to open within just a few days, then I could use it, but it's months before the planned opening. That means any number of delays could have popped up in subsequent months, rendering its statements less useful for our purposes because it can't account for unforeseen events. Imzadi 1979  18:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    All struck except for the question about the 44.1 miles quoted for the existing bikeway -- doesn't that mean it must extend beyond I-275 at one end or both, given that the MDOT length is only 35 miles? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Mike Christie: well, that source seems to be out of date in terms of the length. Even with the extra length to loop well around the I-96/M-14 interchange, along with the extra length to follow the outsides of the various entrance and exit ramps, all of which would make the bike trail longer than the paralleled section of freeway, the southern end has been truncated out of Monroe County completely, shortening the bike trail to just 31.6 miles. Also, it seems that the official access points have been severely curtailed as well now that the full length has been paved by MDOT. All in all, I updated that stuff to reflect 2016 sources. At this point, I'd be willing to entertain any suggestion to move that entire section out into its own article, much like M-6 (Michigan highway) and its associated bike trail (the Frederik Meijer Trail, née M-6 Trail). Imzadi 1979  01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

More comments (edit conflict; I see you're commenting on length above so I'll read that next).

  • I'm having a bit of trouble relating the description in the second half of "Original plans" to the exit list. Per the prose, the first four miles ran from "Ford Road to Schoolcraft Avenue (just south of the Jeffries Freeway interchange)". Schoolcraft Road has only been mentioned once to this point in the article, and that mention "North of the Middle Branch of the River Rouge in Plymouth Township, I-275 crosses Schoolcraft Road" doesn't tell us much about where it is. I fairly soon figured out that it had to be north of Ford Road, since Plymouth Township is north of Ford Road in the exit list. Then I had to go back and figure out what the Jeffries Freeway was, since that's not mentioned in the exit list either. I think just adding "Jeffries Freeway" in parentheses in the notes for exit 29 would do it: "Southern end of I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) concurrency".
  • I spent a few minutes with Google Maps reading the second paragraph of "original plans", and referring to the exit list, and it became much clearer. How about a long linear map of the freeway, oriented vertically in the article, with the exits numbered and intersecting roads identified? I think that would make it a lot easier to follow the prose.
  • In the section on the cancellation of the northern segment, have you made it clear to this point what that segment was proposed to be? The original plans section only seems to mention a plan to run it to Davison in passing, in the comment about a possible switch of numbers with I-75. How about starting this paragraph with "The Michigan Highway Commission canceled the northern section of the highway, originally planned to run from Novi to Davison, ..." or something like that? With any additional details about the route that are available. Though it appears that it can't actually be Novi-Davison, since Davison is 60 miles north of Novi so that wouldn't match the original total planned length of 60 miles, mentioned in the bikeway discussion.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at the Holland Evening Sentinel source (note 18) it's interesting that the article doesn't mention Davison so perhaps the plan was no longer to go that far north -- in fact, they don't mention Genesee County. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that's it from me for tonight; I thought I could finish the review this evening but I'll pick it up again in the morning, if I have time. By the way, no need to ping me when you reply; I have the page watchlisted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't add that parenthetical to the exit list notes: the Jeffries Freeway isn't concurrent with I-275 at all; I-96 leaves the Jeffries to follow I-275. However, I can tweak the prose in the history. As for a map, I can't make that as that is outside of my capabilities. I would also note that the other FAs on Michigan's highways lack such a map, and that prose edits should be enough to work around without such a map.

Sorry, I made a typo. The northern endpoint would have been between Davisburg and Clarkson, not Davison. Imzadi 1979 

I've struck the non-map points above; your edits address them well. I don't think I'd oppose over the map, and I take your point that previous FAC reviews of similar articles haven't required a map, but wouldn't you agree a map would be beneficial? This is an article about a geographic (albeit manmade) feature, after all. The map in the infobox is useful in giving the location, but the detailed course of the route is described in the article body with numerous place names and road names, and a map would render much of the discussion easier to follow for a reader unfamiliar with Detroit. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the Major intersections table does provide a lot of what a map would accomplish. --Rschen7754 14:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, but speaking as someone who spent time making sure I understood the route and the sequence of construction, that table was no substitute for having Google Maps open on a second screen. If you're not convinced, let's wait and see what other reviewers think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mike Christie - a map would be easier for understanding than the text or the table. Of course, it is not compulsory for FA status. starship.paint ~ KO 10:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Support. My only reservation is that, as discussed above, I think a map would benefit the article. I don't think that's worth opposing for, since the article is comprehensive without it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Image review:

All good. --Rschen7754 07:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Heffernan v. City of Paterson[edit]

Nominator(s): Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a recent US Supreme Court decision regarding First Amendment protections of public employees. The first amendment protects the rights of public employees, and the Court has previously held that being fired or demoted for political speech or political association is unconstitutional, but in this case, Heffernan was fired not for what he did but what his employer mistakenly thought he did. The Court had to answer whether public employees are protected when their employer bases their decision on factually incorrect information. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that employees are protected in this situation. I'd also like to acknowledge Daniel Case, Neutrality, and Notecardforfree for all their efforts in getting the article to this point. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "A line of cases going back to 1968's Pickering v. Board of Education holding that the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech permit public employees to speak out on matters of public concern, even criticizing their employers, as long as they do not do so disruptively.": Something's wrong there.
As the writer of that sentence, how so? Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Where's the verb? - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Actually, I ultimately decided to move those sentences to the "legal background" section, where I think they belonged (once we get to Heffernan's case, we don't need details of a precedent unless they are specifically discussed by a judge to distinguish it from the instant one). And I did some prose-tightening as well. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments Support from Notecardforfree[edit]

First and foremost, I want to apologize to Wugapodes for not posting this review sooner. I completed DYK and GA reviews for this article, and I am very happy to see that it was nominated for FA status. I think this article is very close to satisfying the FA criteria, but I have a few recommendations for improvements:

  • In the "Legal background" section, for the sentence that begins "These protections not only prohibit the government ...." I think you should include a citation at the end of the sentence. Although the assertions in this sentence are unlikely to be challenged, the incorporation doctrine has been the subject of substantial debate in academia (see, e.g., this Yale Law Journal article), and I think it is generally good practice to provide attribution to any idea or concept that you found elsewhere.
I think I addressed this? Take a look and make sure. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
That looks good to me. Thanks for adding this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In the legal background section, I would consider creating separate subsections for (1) the discussion of the first amendment and cases; and (2) the discussion of section 1983.
I'm hesitant to do this because the current discussion of section 1983 is only one paragraph and I think subheadings for a singular paragraph are overkill (the TOC quickly becomes overwhelmed). If by this you mean to expand the discussion, then that's another matter. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, after thinking this over a little further I think this is fine the way it is. The arrangement of the paragraphs gives this section a nice flow; I am generally biased toward including more section headings (rather than fewer), but I think this section is good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • When discussing the majority and dissenting opinions, make sure all descriptions are in the past tense (the Justices made the arguments when the opinions were published; they are not currently making those arguments at this very moment).
I think I have corrected the problem with the tense. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This section looks good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • At some point in the "Opinion of the Court" section, you should explain that the case was remanded to the Third Circuit for further proceedings.
Wow, duh. Added. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For the citation to the slip opinion, is there a reason why you provide a link to the Justia page for the article rather than the PDF of slip opinion? I would recommend linking the citation to the PDF of the slip opinion, since errors occasionally occur when articles are posted on Justia. In a few years, when the case is published in the United States Reports, we will need to update citations to the version that appears in the U.S. Reports, but we son't need to worry about this now.
Yes, the citation is produced by {{ussc}} which links to the Justia text by default. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. In that case, I would leave it as-is. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Are the sources written by Trelease, and Blum & Urbonya books? If yes, these citations should use smallcaps (see this guide).
Fixed. The guide you linked said to put the whole citation in small caps, but that seemed weird to me, and the guide I looked at only said to put the title in small caps. I coded {{bluebook book}} to only put the title in small caps, but if that's incorrect let me know and I can adjust it. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I've seen it done both ways (and I have been inconsistent in my own writing). However, most law reviews will place an author's name in smallcaps. See, for example, footnote 6 in this article and footnote 13 in this article as examples where the author's name is in small caps (cf. citations to chapters with separate authors, such as the citation to Bennett in footnote 13 of this article). For the purposes of this article and this reivew, I think it is okay to only place the book title in smallcaps. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Was the Hudson article published in a journal (called First Reports)? If yes, the name and volume of the journal should be included in the citation.
Fixed. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me know if any of these comments are unclear or if you have any questions. Thanks again for your fantastic work with this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: Addressed all of them. I have addressed of them one needs your attention and one might? The two citation problems I will look into, I think it's a problem with the citation template I wrote so I need to take a closer look in the morning. The first item on adding a citation will likewise take a day or two; I need to look at the sources again because I forget where I got it (if I got it? a number of people helped on this and I forget what I wrote and what others wrote). And don't apologize for the time, there's no deadline and the fact that you took the time to, again, read through the article and give feedback more than makes up for any perceived delay. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the citations. They were apparently manually written rather than using a template (probably because the template didn't exist until a few minutes ago) which explains the problems. They should be fixed now. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Many thanks for your excellent work. I am proud to give this nomination my full support. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "In order to adequately discern the limits of the government-as-employer's discretion, the Court developed a framework": I'm not sure "discern" is the right verb here -- it implies the framework was constructed so that pre-existing limits could be seen. How about "distinguish"?
  • "the department acted on the belief that he had, and the department should have demoted him on the basis of that erroneous belief": surely "should not have"?
  • I'm not sure if this is important, since I have no background in law, but when you mention some of the organizations filing amicus curiae briefs, wouldn't it make sense to indicate which side they argued for?
  • In the last paragraph of the "Oral arguments" section, I don't understand the relevance to the case of the distinction between apathy and neutrality. For this to be relevant, wouldn't Goldstein have to argue that Heffernan was apathetic, rather than neutral? I don't see such an argument mentioned in the article. Or am I misunderstanding this?
    • The source and wording are admittedly a little vague and confusing. Goldstein made the distinction and then went on to argue that Heffernan was apathetic, not neutral, and thus not protected. It's more clear in the argument transcript (p. 31), so I've tried to clarify that in the prose. Let me know how it reads. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
      Yes, that's clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Because employees thinking of engaging in protected activity will be equally dissuaded by an incorrect dismissal as by a correct dismissal, both reasonings should be considered in violation of the First Amendment" is uncited.
  • "For the dissent, even if the dismissal was for the wrong reason and harm was suffered, the dismissal cannot infringe upon rights he never exercised" is uncited.
    • That and the preceding sentence are both from the same page, so I moved the preceding citation to the following sentence to avoid using the same citation twice in a row. I think this makes it more clear, but if you'd prefer both sentences be cited, let me know. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
      No, that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

-- That's everything I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Let me know if you have any more. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
That looks good. I will read through again tomorrow to see if I can spot anything unless before supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Support. I reread the article and have made some minor copyedits; please revert if necessary. I'd suggest getting rid of the volume 578 link in the "See also" section; it's already linked from the infobox. That's a minor point, of course, and doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Slug (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a song recorded by U2 and Brian Eno as part of a side project album in 1995. This is the song's third nomination for FA, as its previous nominations failed as many editors simply felt the article was "too short". Keep in mind, that the song about which the article was written was not released as a single, performed live in concert, or released on a mainstream album. As a result, it was a very obscure track released under a pseudonymn by major artists. I have noted that it is comparable in size to FAs of other lesser-known releases. The article completely details the background, inspiriation, writing/recording, and reception of the song, and I feel that is definitely warrants the status as a featured article. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by starship.paint[edit]

  • Support. I believe the length of the article is not an issue as it is comprehensive, well-sourced and presentable. Bonus points for the pictures, a quote and the sample. starship.paint ~ KO 12:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If Passengers is a secret pseudonym, perhaps that should be emphasized.
  • Some discrepancies between this particle and Original Soundtracks 1. So this song was released on 6 November and the album was released on 7 November? Shouldn't they be on the same date? Also, the album says the recording for Westside Studios, London was in 1994.
  • Is there a source for the recording locations... would that be the album itself?
  • How is the genre for the song determined? I see 'experimental' appearing in the body, but not 'ambient', 'alternative' or 'rock'.
Background and recording
  • U2 and producer Brian Eno intended to record the soundtrack for Peter Greenaway's 1996 film The Pillow Book - what soundtrack?
  • U2 spent time in Shinjuku, Tokyo at the end of the Zoo TV Tour in 1993, and their experience in the city influenced the recording sessions. - when were the recording sessions?
  • I believe that all the sentences until ....the bullet train in Tokyo". should be in one paragraph as they are about the album. Whereas the stuff after that is about the song.
  • By early July 1995, the band renamed the song "Seibu/Slug" - so why did the name turn out to be just Slug? Since it was never mentioned in the sources, how about inserting The song was released as "Slug", the second track on the Passengers album Original Soundtracks 1 on 7 November 1995. rephrased from the first sentence of the Reception section into the background section, before Details of the song's recording sessions were documented in Eno's 1996 book, A Year with Swollen Appendices.
Composition and lyrics
  • I thought the line "Don't want to be a slug" should be mentioned...? There should be some explanation of the title of the song, lest people like me think of the mollusc. I wiki-linked to Wiktionary since you didn't explain. Is that all right?
Most issues have been addressed. I don't understand your concern about the intention of recording for a soundtrack. U2 and producer Brian Eno intended to record the soundtrack for Peter Greenaway's 1996 film The Pillow Book. That sentence seems fine to me. What soundtrack? The soundtrack for the film - which they never ended up recording. As far as the name of the song, I could not find any source that explains why the name was changed. The closest thing I found was a source that mentions how The Edge still calls the song "Seibu", but I couldn't find a place to fit that in nor did I think it was worth mentioning. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dream out loud: LOL I was confused on what a soundtrack was, but I understand now. See two unfinished concerns above. starship.paint ~ KO 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: Thank you so much for your feedback! Out of all the FA nominations this article has had, I can easily say that your feedback has been the most constructive. I've address all the issues so far. Please let me know if you have any other comments. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dream out loud: - You're welcome, I'm heartened to hear that. There's one last issue above at the red text. The Reception section seems fine, the sourcing seems great, my review is almost done then. I don't see problems with length, content is enough for a non-single. starship.paint ~ KO 10:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Last issue addressed. Thanks again! –Dream out loud (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dream out loud: - one more thing I thought of. Since this is a non-single, could you mention the album's commercial success (or lack of it) in this article to get an indication of whether many people could have heard this song. Maybe mention that this was one of U2's poorest albums (according to the album article) and the album's peaks in the American, British and Australian charts as a sample. Two sentences for commercial stuff. starship.paint ~ KO 23:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: Thanks, I didn't want to get too detailed about the album's lack of success since the article is about the song, but I did add one sentence in the reception section. I don't think statistics are necessary so I just added a line mentioning how/why it didn't sell well. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "Lyrically, it is a portrait of a "desolate soul"[1] during", and throughout: See WP:INTEXT. Quoted material has to be attributed in the text (or paraphrased, i.e. not quoted). - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "the Edge": Two problems here. On WP, BritEng requires "the" in front of "guitarist", which would make it "the guitarist the Edge", which doesn't sound right. Also, one "the Edge" is fine (and it's fine in the infobox), but the constant repetition comes off as affected ... Donald Trump is sometimes known as "the Donald", but imagine how it would sound if you kept referring to him that way. "Edge" alone is listed as an acceptable name in his article, so I've switched to that name, I hope that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "started to "sound better" and described it as a "[l]ovely song" ... they seemed "unfocused" and": I don't get why people make the mistake of quoting lots of completely ordinary phrases. This isn't a fancy FAC rule, this is common sense. Suppose I make a comment that the "article" had many "short, repetitive" phrases and numerous "punctuation" problems. Wouldn't you wonder what the hell I meant by the quote marks? Use quoted material sparingly, and only when it adds something to the narrative more than paraphrasing would. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Dank: Thank you for your edits and your comments. I went ahead and removed some excessive quotation marks in the prose; I left ones in where the sentence referring to a quote (e.g. X described Y as "Z"). As a result, I removed the quotes from "desolate soul" so I don't feel a need for attribution. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The article is very well written and I couldn't find any issues while reading it. There is, however, a FN issue with FN#22, once this is fixed I can support. Best – jona 12:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • One last thing, if this song was released on November 7, 1995, wouldn't it be a single or even a promotional single? – jona 15:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @AJona1992: No, the song's album was released on 7 November 1995. There was no single or promo release for this song. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Since you fixed the issue, I can now give my support. All the best – jona 20:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp[edit]

  • "As producer, Eno had most of the artistic control during the sessions, limiting U2's creative input on the recordings": I found this sentence problematic. My understanding of the producer title is that its degree of artistic control can be anywhere from total control—someone like Phil Spector (except when he worked with high-profile artists like John Lennon?)—to someone who simply makes suggestions but leaves the final decision-making to the artist. From my limited knowledge of Eno, I have the impression he is perhaps a strong-willed producer who is used to taking quite a bit of control (?), but U2 is a band with a lot of artistic integrity, and I'd expect them to have some say in artistic decisions. I know U2 had worked with Eno before, and maybe part of the story is that they have developed a lot of trust towards his artistic instincts. But the next bit ("which prompted Edge to force the other members of U2 into putting extra effort into arranging the song") suggests maybe they were being complacent (not giving 100%) in the Passengers recording sessions. To sum up, problems with this sentence are (1) "As producer, Eno had most of the artistic control" suggests this is always the case for producers, but I don't believe this is true; (2) "limiting U2's creative input" sounds like Eno "forcibly" kept U2 from contributing much artistically, but it sounds more likely that U2 willingly ceded decision-making (possibly through complacency or respect)—unless there was a big power struggle during the recording sessions, in which case this should be stated more explicitly.

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, thanks for the quotation below. That helps clarify things. I retract the comment above, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "which prompted Edge to force the other members of U2 into putting extra effort into arranging the song": instead of "force" would "convince" or "spur" or "encourage" be more accurate?
  • (minor suggestion) "[l]ovely song": If the "[l]" is just because there was a capital L in the original, it feels unnecessary and distracting, and I would just put "lovely song". But if you disagree, please disregard. Moisejp (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
U2 had been working with Eno since The Unforgettable Fire, which came out 11 years before this song, so for the band to make this comment, must have been implying something unusual about the way he was working in the studio. I'm not sure what you "know" about Eno personally, but what is stated in the article is directly based on an except from the cited book. I can't speculate further on this as per WP:OR on the situation at hand, so I basically summarized what I read.
For the most part, the idea was that Brian Eno would be captain of the ship. He'd call the creative shots and, like good musicians, the members of U2 would obey. "The only tracks we really dug in our heels and did more work on and tried to craft," The Edge explains, "were 'Miss Sarajevo', 'Seibu', and 'Your Blue Room'. [...] It seemed obvious to me that they could be great songs, and so I did some extra work and pushed them."Dream out loud (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Great. I have a few other comments, and I'll try to get them in the next couple of days or so. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • "As all the songs on Original Soundtracks 1 were written for films, "Slug" is credited as having been written for a fictional German film of the same name." Earlier it says, "Eno suggested they continue recording music suitable for soundtracks, as Eno did with his Music for Films album series." So am I correct in understanding that they recorded a bunch of music that sounded film-y, and then attached fictional film titles and stories to all of them afterwards. If so, I think "written for films" sounds a little misleading. How about something like "Following Original Soundtracks 1's theme of music for imaginary films, "Slug" is credited..."?
  • "the group witnessed gang members who had their fingers amputated as punishment for their misbehaviour": I suspect this just means the band saw gang members who had amputated fingers, and U2 did not witness the act of amputation. But whichever meaning it is, the current wording may be ambiguous. If it's the former meaning may I suggest "the group saw gang members who had had their fingers amputated as punishment for their misbehaviour"; if it's the latter meaning, then "the group witnessed gang members having their fingers amputated as punishment for their misbehaviour".
  • "Original Soundtracks 1 had low album sales compared to previous U2 releases,[22] as its record label Island Records intentionally did not market it as a U2 album." I wonder whether it would be better to remove this sentence—it doesn't seem really relevant to "Slug" itself?
  • I feel the final paragraph is the weakest. It stretches too thinly the idea that some critics have compared it in some way or another to Zooropa. You could extract the general, non-Zooropa bits (from DeRogatis and Stokes) and group them with the other general reviews, and then possibly sum up in one sentence the fact that some critics found similarities with Zooropa, with one or two specifics mentioned as examples? That could be one way to handle the content.

I have at least one more comment that I'll have to get in next time. Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed. The sentence about the low album sales was only added after an editor here in FAC suggested its addition, but I agree it seemed out of place and I removed it. The Zooropa paragraph was also removed with some of its content consolidated above, and other content was reworded to satisfy certain clarifications you requested. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice. There was one suggestion above that I'm not sure if it got lost in the shuffle, but did you want to keep the verb "force" in "prompted The Edge to force the other members of U2 into putting extra effort into arranging the song"? It sounds extreme to me, but do you feel it's justifiable?
  • So here's I think my final suggestion, and it's about the whole article, at least to the end of "Composition and lyrics". There are two time frames in the article: one is closed, basically 1995 around the time of the recording sessions; the other is open, and consists of all of the instances mentioned where band members have talked about their experiences after the fact. By using the simple past for both of these time frames, the article currently unsatisfyingly compresses both times frames into one. So you have instances such as "The lyrics were written in five minutes and are derived from U2's experience in Shinjuku. Bono compared the lyrics to those in U2's 1991 song "Tryin' to Throw Your Arms Around the World"... " I would like to suggest that the present perfect would be more appropriate for this open-ended time frame. This would mean changing:
  • "Bono said that Original Soundtracks 1 evoked" → I see from the Footnotes section that Bono said this in interview in 1995; however, because this time frame is not implicitly or explicitly specified in the text itself, I would argue that here also the time frame is open-ended, and the present perfect is appropriate → "Bono has said that Original Soundtracks 1 evoked"
  • "He said that along with" → "He has said that along with"
  • "The Edge later said he felt his effort" → by using "later" here you have already distanced it from the 1995 time frame, which could be enough. However, if you take my suggestion to use the present perfect in these other instances, for consistency I would recommend the present perfect here as well → "The Edge has said..."
  • "Bono compared the lyrics to" → "Bono has compared the lyrics to"
  • "which Bono described as a "very, very surreal" experience. He said that "Slug" was" → "which Bono has described as a "very, very surreal" experience. He has said that "Slug" was"

I think you could keep all simple past for all of the Reviews section. Moisejp (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • One more comment. May I suggest the caption of the sound clip could restate a point mentioned in the sound clip's Fair Use Rationale. This would reinforce the justification of the sound clip's existence all the more. The caption sort of does already, but it may not clear to the reader what a "laundry list" is (and the number of things "listed" in the sound clip is too short to be clearly a list); and if "laundry list" does have negative connotations (?), this statement by Catlin sounds subjective. Since you could include anything in the caption, why not, to the extent that's possible, include a clear, neutral, objective-sounding statement that reinforces the FUR? Moisejp (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Possibly "said" is slightly overused throughout the article? The last three reviews all use "said" as do several quotations from Bono and The Edge (including most of the ones I mention above). It shouldn't be too hard to substitute other verbs for some of these. Moisejp (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. All issues have been addressed. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Support - My concerns are all addressed and I'm happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Coord notes -- looks like we still need:

  • Image licensing review.
  • Source review for formatting and reliability.
  • Because it's a few years since your last FA, Dream out loud, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

You can request these at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter Martyr Vermigli[edit]

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Vermigli was an influential but lesser-known Reformation theologian who has experienced a renaissance of scholarly interest. He was born in Italy and converted to Protestantism after meeting Italian reformers. He fled the Inquisition in his forties and spent time with Bucer in Strasbourg, Cranmer in England, and Bullinger in Zurich. J Milburn conducted a thorough review and passed the article recently at GA. JFH (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • Great work in general.
  • The opening sentence does not state Vermigli's nationality. I appreciate that this might be a complex issue (Italy not yet existing as a state, etc), but could we not refer to him as Florentine? Doing so helps to situate him in a particular geographical context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Done I don't have a problem calling it Italy. My sources call him Italian and it was referred to as such as a region before becoming a state.--JFH
  • "Vermigli was attracted to the priesthood from an early age." - maybe "Catholic priesthood". I know that that seems obvious for anyone familiar with the region and time period in question, but some readers may not be aware of the Catholic hegemony of the region and might suspect that it was also inhabited by Protestants or pagans or whatever. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Done.--JFH (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Lent and Advent" - I'd recommend adding a link to these two events. Many people who live outside of Christian communities will not be familiar with them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "There he learned Hebrew from a local Jewish doctor to read the Old Testament scriptures" - i'd go with "There he learned Hebrew from a local Jewish doctor in order to read the Old Testament scriptures". It'll just make it that little bit clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, the script I use to convert to Oxford English excised this, but I've found no evidence this is a British/American issue. I agree it helps. --JFH
  • " learned from Vermigli. Vermigli had learned" - "learned" appears twice in quick succession. I'd recommend replacing one with a synonym. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Done --JFH
  • "arguing that the Jesus' words "this is my body" at the institution of the sacrament" - this doesn't really make much sense to me ("the Jesus"?). COuld it be clarified? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Definite article was a typo. I also clarified that this is at the Last Supper. Does that help enough or still unclear?-JFH
  • Thomas Cramner is linked to about four times throughout the article; only two are permissible, that in the lede and the first mention in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I found three and deleted one.-JFH
  • " has argued that Peter Martyr Vermigli, Wolfgang Musculus, and Heinrich Bullinger " - we really don't need Vermigli's whole name here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "regarded by New England Puritan divines" - what is a divine in this context? If possible, could we have an explanation or a link? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Old-fashioned word for theologian, fixed-JFH (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • On the basis of the text and comprehensiveness, I am happy to give this my Support. Good work, JFH! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, all images of Italian buildings should explicitly account for the copyright status of the building as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I added a PD-old-100-1923 to File:Le balze, veduta su badia fiesolana.JPG, as the building is well over 100 years old. I hope that was the right move, as I've never dealt with building photos before. Thanks for the review. --JFH (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
It was, but you'll need to do something similar with File:Basilica_di_San_Frediano_Lucca.jpg as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, that's now done too. --JFH (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Driveby comments: watch out for overuse of "reform" and its variations ("Reformation"), especially in para 1 of the lead and para 2 of Legacy. Similarly the "Christ's body and blood" three-peat in the lead. "Peter Martyr Vermigli (Italian: Pietro Martire Vermigli, born Piero Mariano Vermigli"—rather than begin the article with three repetitions (basically) of his name, could you move the second two to a footnote?—indopug (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this was helpful, and your edits improved the article as well. --JFH (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "decision to flee for Protestant land": this reads oddly; wouldn't "to Protestant lands" be more natural?
How's "northern Europe"?--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "The prohibition was removed on Vermigli's appeal to Rome, with which he received some help of powerful friends he had made in Padua": suggest "from powerful friends".
Done--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Like his earlier post in Spoleto, the monks of the San Frediano monastery": needs some rephrasing; the monks are not like his post.
"Like at" OK? --JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I made it "as", which I think is a little more formal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "He set up a college based on humanist principles of education and the model of the newly founded St John's College, Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford.". Suggest "...of education and modeled on the newly founded..." to avoid choosing between "model" and "models", since there are two models given.
Done--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "despite a papal meeting with the Emperor in Lucca in 1541": why is this meeting relevant to Vermigli?
The idea is he's reforming Lucca right under the pope's nose. I changed the sentence a little in case it wasn't clear that Vermigli is there at the same time. --JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Vermigli was summoned to a Chapter Extraordinary of the Lateran Congregation": I think, after reading through the paragraph, that Vermigli did not obey the summons, but fled instead, but it's not completely clear on first reading; he might have attended and then fled. I think this could be made a little clearer.
Done--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "several initially suspicious Protestant leaders": what were they suspicious of?
Clarified--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "the chair of Old Testament": can you confirm this is the correct title for the chair? It sounds less natural than "the chair of the Old Testament" or "the Old Testament chair", but since it's the title of a post, not just running prose, I didn't want to change it myself.
The source uses "chair of Old Testament". "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are often referred to as fields of study. See for example: [6] --JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "The disputation put Vermigli at the forefront of debate over the nature of the Eucharist": suggest "forefront of the debate".
I don't want to suggest there is one coherent debate, so I used "debates"--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Vermigli succeeded the chair of Hebrew from Konrad Pellikan": suggest "Vermigli succeeded Konrad Pellikan as the chair of Hebrew".
Done--JFH (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Fifteen editions of the Loci Communes spread Vermigli's influence among Reformed Protestants": can you say over what period these editions appeared and this influence was exerted? If these fifteen editions came out over the next twenty or thirty years, that's a very different influence than if they appeared over the following 150 years -- in other words, were they a key text of the theological debates of the time, or a long lasting standard work? Or both?
I've added the year-range for the editions. I think the legacy section also addresses these questions. --JFH (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

-- I've completed the review; the above points are all I could find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you very much for these comments and your copy-edits. --JFH (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

I know nothing about the topic area so can at least look at it as a neophyte/layperson and offer suggestions on accessibility hopefully (and prose). Comments to follow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

most well-known - why not "best-known"?
King Edward died in 1553, and this was followed by the accession of Mary I of England, - looks odd to refer to Eddie as "this"....

Other than that, the article reads well and is accessible to someone like me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've addressed your comments. --JFH (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose and (presumably) comphrehensiveness - nice read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

HMS Emerald (1795)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a 36-gun frigate of the Royal Navy which served with distinction during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Since becoming a good article in August last year, additional information has been incorporated and I have given it a thorough copy edit and checked all sources for possible copyright violation. I believe it is now as complete as reliable sources will allow and that it satisfies the criteria (IMHO) Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the last map. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. I have enlarged to 300px. Is that about right, do you think? Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ykraps. For the benefit of readers that rely on special image sizes, please use our image scaling parameter instead of hardcoding the image size. The scale for 300px would approximately be upright=1.36
Remove 300px, and replace it with upright=1.36 (between two vertical bars). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Done, thanks. I have never come across that before. If I can find where it is I will read up on it.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Found at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnail sizes, thanks--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Checkingfax

  • Hi, Ykraps. I made two edit sessions starting here to nudge things along, and will do more in a couple of days. Ping me back when the review is further along so I can !vote on it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for your edits.--Ykraps (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax: The review is further along. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, Ykraps. I believe the lead would be more engaging if it had much less minute detail. Leave the minutia for the body. Slash the minutia. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    I've removed some trivial detail. See what you think. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

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

  • I'll start making comments, but don't edit the article yet please, I'm working on it.
  • "a Spanish treasure fleet was", "The British fleet under George Elphinstone were": check the article for consistency on was/were after "fleet".
    Done - Just the one instance, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "a number of": search for this throughout; there's some evidence that it's ambiguous, at least as used on Wikipedia. Delete it, or say "several", or be more specific. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    Done - Changed one and deleted another. The precise 'number of' is given later anyway.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "the 74-gun Leviathan, the admiral's flagship, Swiftsure and a small fireship, Incendiary.": Is that two, three or four ships? Be careful with the wording in your lists.
    There were four ships including Emerald. I see what you mean and hopefully I have now made it clear.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, copyediting this is giving me a headache so I'm going to stop at Caribbean service, about halfway. Hopefully someone will pick up the copyediting from there. I may come back and support later on. It's engagingly written. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for your edits and I am sorry it gave you a headache. I reverted one change here as it is more usual to say sail when talking about ships. Or perhaps it's a dialect thing. I'll double check.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    No, I'm pretty sure it's not limited to a particular dialect. The most high profile example I can think of is at the Battle of Cape St Vincent (1797) where Robert Calder and Benjamin Hallowell count Spanish ships as they appear.[7] Regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    How about "ships"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    As a substitute for sail? I'm not sure. I try to avoid using 'ship' as it had a very specific meaning during this period of history whereas 'sail' is a nondescript term for any unidentified ocean going vessel and is routinely used in history books. Where I've used ship as a generic term, I have tried to make this clear by including a description or link to the vessel in question.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    vessel, craft? - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    Either could work. I have rewritten the sentence accordingly.--Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    All the edits since mine look great. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Brigadier-general", "Lieutenant-colonel": Hyphenation can vary a bit; I really can't say if this is okay at FAC or not.
    Hi Dank, can you elaborate here? I've scanned the article but can't see what you mean by hyphen variation.--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't mean it varies in your article, I meant it varies in the wild, so maybe your usage is fine ... but I rarely see those two with a hyphen in military history articles on Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    I was going to say, it's an Engvar thing but having checked the three dictionaries I have to hand:The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8.  and Oxford Dictionary of English: 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198610571.  both hyphenate; Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. ISBN 0-00-433286-5.  does not. So yes it does seem to vary but providing it doesn't vary within the article, I assume it's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I fixed the commas (I think) down to Caribbean service, but the comma usage continues to be substandard after that, and I hope someone will fix the commas before this gets promoted.
  • Otherwise, Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 08:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for your support. I hope I can sort out your remaining niggles. Best--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Euryalus

  • Nicely detailed, and it's about time there were more featured articles about eighteenth century ships. I have a bunch of comments, so these are a starting point only. Please consider my comments in the light of my justified reputation for pedantry.

Lead, first paragraph

  • Consider “was a 36-gun” instead of “one of the 36-gun” as the current wording suggests the reader is either familiar with Amazon-class vessels, or that Emerald was one of the ones with 36-guns as compared to ones with other numbers.
    Done - I was trying to make the point that all the Amazon's were 36-gun but I take your point and have changed as per your suggestion.--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove “there” in last sentence, as redundant.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • John Jervis was a knight, but his role in this context was as an admiral – consider changing the honorific.
    Done - again I take your point, although I have referred to him later on as "Admiral" John Jervis. Is the repetition okay do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead, second paragraph

  • Suggest rewording second sentence as “In 1797 ’’Emerald’’ was one of ... the crippled Spanish flagship Santisima Trinidad which had managed to escape from the British victory at the Battle of Cape St Vincent.” Reasons: it doesn’t imply Emerald was at the Battle, it notes why the Spanish ship was important, and it gives a year to add context to the paragraph above.
    Done - yes, much better. I'm afraid my leads are always a bit weak. I write them last to ensure that they summarise nicely but by that time my mind is wandering onto my next project.--Ykraps (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Capitalise “Admiral” in “Rear-Admiral” – lower case is generic but this refers to a specific person and should be capitalised (in the same way as commodore as a rank and Commodore John Smith as an individual)
    Done - I was of the opinion that when hyphenated, only the first part should be capitalised but as this has come up before and having failed to find a single example to support my position, I've come to the conclusion that I'm wrong!--Ykraps (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead, third paragraph

  • Wikilink “western approaches” as it may not be a commonly recognised term. The eighteenth century western approaches was larger and more southerly than the one mapped in our article on it, but it is close enough to be of value as a link.
    Done - I initially chose not to link for the very reason you have given above but your argument has some merit.--Ykraps (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    What we need is someone with an enthusiasm for both eighteenth century maritime history and obscure marine geography, who can expand that article and avoid this issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed we do.

Construction section

  • Instead of “one of the first” ‘’Amazon’’-class frigates, how about “the second of four.”
    I wrote that sentence in that way because, as she was ordered and laid down at the same time as Amazon, I considered Emerald to be joint first. She was launched a little later though (27 days) so I suppose she was second.--Ykraps (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    I've had a go at the entire section. See what you think now.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Too many decimal places in the construction dimensions, suggest reducing to a single decimal place as the text is currently too precise for an eighteenth century craft.
    There is a parameter one can add to the template to restrict the number of decimal places but can't find where it is for the moment.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    Now done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Last sentence – the Winfield ref says she was copper sheathed at Woolwich, which was completed by 12 October. This isn’t really fit-out, which needs only to have occurred before she sailed for the Mediterranean in January 1797. To come closest to the reference, suggest changing fit-out to copper sheathing in this sentence.
    Done - I may have obtained that info from another source but it should agree with the reference cited so I have changed it pending further investigation.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Spell out tonnes burthen in the section, instead of using (bm)
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not essential, but consider adding the names of the remaining two Amazon's, either in the text or as a note. Winfield notes these two were built from fir – do we know what Emerald was principally made from? Am assuming oak, and could probably hunt this down for you if you think it adds anything. Otherwise, up to you but I wonder whether it might be better to remove the reference to fir for the remaining vessels as it begs the question on timbers for the subject of this article.
    As there wasn't an article on Amazon-class, I thought it might be useful to include a bit about other Amazon's so I'd like to keep it if possible. Any info you have on it would be a bonus. I have added a note regarding the names as you suggested. Further thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    Looking re oak/fir for first pair. Footnote looks good on the second pair - I wonder if the apostrophe is in the right place? Not an area I am expert in, it just looks odd the way it is. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    It shouldn't be there at all. I have removed it.--Ykraps (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mediterranean service section

  • Winfield and Clowes both spell the captain’s name “Berkeley” – obviously spellings were variable at the time, just highlighting this to make sure we have the most common usage.
    Done - I think that spelling came from another book but again I have changed to agree with the source used.--Ykraps (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Paragraph is too long – consider a break after “nearby Lagos Bay with other vessels.”
    Done - good suggestion.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The listing of vessels sent to pursue Santimisima Trinidad - sentence is a bit long, doesn’t explain that ‘’Santisima Trinidad’’ was the Spanish flagship, and as a minor syntax issue suggests Jervis issued the orders to the frigates themselves, rather than the crew. How about
“... entered the bay. Admiral Jervis ordered that three frigates - ‘’Emerald’’, the 40-gun ‘’Minerve’’ and the 32-gun ‘’Niger’’ – begin a search for the disabled Spanish flagship ‘’Santisima Trinidad’’ which had been towed away from the battle. They were to be accompanied by two smaller craft, the 20-gun corvette ‘’Bonne-Citoyenne’’ and the 14-gun sloop ‘’Raven’’.”
  • Again, good suggestion - done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I appreciate this is an article on the ship and not the crew, but it may be worth noting historical conjecture that Berkley’s failure to bring ‘’Emerald’’ to engage the Spanish flagship was responsible for his subsequent resignation from command. It’s in both James (referenced in this paragraph) and the “History of the Royal Navy by Clowes (I can drum up the Clowes ref for you if you like).
    If that was the case then I think it's a good idea to include something but all I can find in James (vol ii) is, "Captain Berkeley was much censured for his apparent want of resolution". Unfortunately it doesn't say by whom so that will invite immediate tagging. And, unless I'm missing something, Clowes (vol iv) simply says the motives for his mysterious actions were never made public.--Ykraps (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    Hmm, not sure what I was reading, then. Give me a little while and will either come back with a different source or strike this. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    Various newspapers from March-May 1797 indicate Berkeley was to be court-martialed on Jervis' orders for his failure to capture the Spanish ship, despite her having struck her colours on his approach (so the censure is both by the newspapers and by implication Jervis). However this slightly breathless account indicates the court martial was called off when the captain of Minerve offered a convincing explanation for Berkeley's conduct. So have stopped looking, as the reasons for Berkeley's resignation might reasonably be described as matters of historical dispute. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    If we wanted to include something about censuring, we could use the source you've found to say something like, "Berkeley's reluctance to attack infuriated some of his fellow officers who asked for a court-martial. Minerve's captain, George Cockburn however came down on Berkeley's side, opining to Jervis that, under a jury rig, Santassima Trinidad was still capable of making a defence.--Ykraps (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest using the full name (well, the Royal Order name) of Santisima Trinidad (Holy Trinity) on all occasions and not shortening it to Trinidad (Trinity) as occurs in one instance.
  • The last sentence relates to the subsequent section and should be included there instead of here.
    Done - I was trying to create a link to the next section but it didn't really work.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The subheader "Mediterranean service" doesn't work here, as everything down to "Caribbean service" is also Mediterranean. A non-essential suggestion: consider removing the “Career” header entirely and making “Mediterranean service” “Caribbean service”, “Home waters” and “Later career” the new level twos.
    Would you mind taking another look at this? There is very little difference between the two so you probably haven't noticed that the headings between "Mediterranean service" and "Caribbean service" are level three headings. They are sub-headings of the Mediterranean section. I have used the {{TOC limit|3}} template to stop them showing in the contents box which I thought was a bit too large.--Ykraps (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    Looking. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    In order to make it a bit clearer, I've removed the template so the contents box displays all.--Ykraps (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "hopelessly" seems like editorial, suggest removing this word.

Will have a few other comments in another day or so. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mediterranean service Uses Terpsichore twice in the last sentence – is it possible to remove or replace the second use of the word?

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Action of 26 April

  • Not essential, but the section could probably do with a sentence or two to set the scene for what we are about to read – for example, why the British were blockading Cadiz, and how many ships were involved.
    There was an explanation further on in the article but I think it should have been given earlier.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The first and second sentences – on a first read I was uncertain if the Spanish ships captured/destroyed in sentence one are the same ones as mentioned in sentence two. Is there a way to make these two sentences relate to each other a little more. As above, not essential.
    Does the addition of a simple "the" improve it any?--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The section could do with a map, if one exists, as there are a lot of place names.
    I would've liked one showing the relative positions of Cadiz, Trafalgar and Conil bay but alas nothing seems to be available. I'll request one at the appropriate venue, if I can find where it is.--Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • “which posed a threat to unwary seamen” seems a bit redundant?
    Okay, agreed. I wanted to convey that it was a hazard the Spanish weren't expecting their pursuers to have the skill or courage to negotiate but as we're not writing an adventure novel...--Ykraps (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • “Irresistible and Emerald had captured Ninfa and destroyed Santa Elena but ...” suggest removing these words as redundant. It is important to note the silver was delivered, but the rest simply restates what we read previously.
    Done - I was trying to make the point that the victory was a somewhat hollow one but I've reworded and I think I've managed to retain that feeling.--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As with previous section, the last sentence (“Later in 1797 ...”) doesn’t really work here and perhaps belongs in the section below.
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In a minor FAC transgression I've also made a mild copyedit to this section, directly to the article. Please feel free to revert if you prefer - it was just quicker to make these directly than to type them out here. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks, your edits look good.--Ykraps (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Second bombardment of Cadiz

  • I like the introductory sentences here as they give necessary context. Am assuming Emerald missed the Battle of Cape Vincent – do we know why?
    Not missed as such; normally only 3rd rates and above fought in fleet actions so she was anchored in nearby Lagos Bay with the other smaller vessels. There is a small sentence saying as much in the previous section.--Ykraps (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Here Jervis orders a blockade of Cadiz, but Emerald was already blockading Cadiz in the previous section. I think it was the same blockade?
    I think this has been sorted by moving the explanation further up the page.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Which side owned the mortar boats that were captured?
    Done - Spanish.--Ykraps (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    have struck the above, but its not clear how a bombardment of the town leads to the capture of Spanish mortar boats, which were presumably docked (you cannot use mortar boats to defend against ships at sea).
  • Last sentence doesn’t entirely work and might be better located in the following section.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have fewer suggestions for the following sections, I promise. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am happy to have a thorough review.--Ykraps (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


  • Idle curiosity – are we still with Jervis at Lisbon? Also, I imagine there’s no answer to this but how did we end up with a temporary captain in Proby? Proby was only a Lieutenant at this time – seems a surprisingly large command for an 18-year old.
    Yes, still with Jervis. The ex-Mediterranean fleet was stationed in the Tagus, waiting for an opportunity to re-establish itself. I'll see what I can find out about Proby but I'm not very hopeful.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I've made it clear that Emerald is still in Jervis' fleet.--Ykraps (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Second sentence could do with a copyedit – I know what you’re saying by listing Nelson’s ship next to his name, but breaking up the ship list and putting the destination in between, is a bit hard to follow.
    I've listed the ships together - see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Third sentence “became separated from the rest of the squadron” might read better – otherwise it is “Emerald”” herself that becomes separated. Also, “two weeks later” might read better than using a second date in the same sentence.
    As the battle happened over a couple of days, saying, 9 days later, or similar begs questions such as; did she miss just the start or the entire battle? I have kept the dates therefore but rewritten slightly. Again, see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In the sentence on going to Alexandria, might be good to explain why. Also, needs the date of the Battle of the Nile as is not otherwise evident why being lost in a storm on 21 May means the battle is missed.
    Done - have added more detail and rewritten section.--Ykraps (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Was Anemone captured off Alexandria where “Emerald” was stationed?
    Yes. After the Battle of the Nile, Emerald remained off Alexandria for the rest of the year (part of a squadron under Samuel Hood, I believe). Winfield only says where not who with or what she was doing but I remember reading somewhere that she was assisting with the evacuation of French troops. There is a sentence at the end of the previous paragraph which might be better placed at the beginning of this one?--Ykraps (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    James says that Nelson, "...sailed for Naples ; leaving Captain Hood with the Zealous, Goliath, Swiftsure, Seahorse (who had joined on the 17th), Emerald, Alcmène, and Bonne-Citoyenne, to cruise off the port of Alexandria". I vaguely remember reading that she was left to blockade the port, possibly in Clowes but I can't find it at the moment.--Ykraps (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    I've added this information using Clowes.--Ykraps (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • “Wooden casks” seems odd here – did they build a raft?
    No, as being able to swim was unusual at the time, swimmers among the British crew swam in with empty casks for the French seamen to use as buoyancy aids. Various sources say the casks were small so I am assuming they were empty rum containers as the water would've been kept in large barrels, and various sources (including James) attribute it to a single lieutenant (my mistake, Middy), Francis Fane (Royal Navy officer). I cannot find the original source I used for this section and I am having difficulty opening the Gazette citations to see what they say. I will try to open them from a computer at work tomorrow and have another look.--Ykraps (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    The Gazette says "our people" but particularly mentions a midshipman from Emerald. I have added some more detail and added James as a source.--Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Camin needs a first name as will be unfamiliar to the reader (including me).
    Neither the Gazette nor James gives first names and I have so far been unable to find a source that does. I initially left out names as I thought them an unnecessary detail but another editor, User:Acad Ronin put them in later; using the Gazette as the source, presumably.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Clowes doesn't give first names either.--Ykraps (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    User:Acad Ronin has found a source and entered Camin's full name in the form of a footnote.--Ykraps (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not essential, but I would remove “as well as some other passengers” as superfluous.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

18 June 1799

  • Only one here - "advance Mediterranean fleet" - in advance of what?
    The source only refers to it as such. At the time, the Royal Navy had withdrawn from the Med and had no permanent presence there. Following the Battle of the Nile, with French force weakened, the British started looking for a permanent base, which they found after the capture of Minorca. I am assuming that Emerald was part of a small fleet sent in advance of the main Mediterranean fleet stationed at Lisbon.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    James also makes reference to Emerald as being part of an "..advanced division under Lord Keith", but is not altogether clear as to its purpose. I have therefore removed the phrase, until a satisfactory answer is found.--Ykraps (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Caribbean service

  • Not essential - Did the invasion force also include troopships, or was it solely the listed RN vessels?
    None of the sources list troopships so I assume the troops were carried aboard the vessels listed.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    I've struck this, but I doubt the troops were carried aboard the RN ships. Will have a look at the wording, but this shouldn't hold up the review.
    Actually, having double checked, James says, "On the 21st of June, at 11 a.m., Commodore Samuel Hood, with the 74-gun ships Centaur and Courageux, Captains Bendall Robert Littlehales and Benjamin Hallowell, and some smaller vessels, having on board a detachment of the British army under Lieutenant-general Grinfeld, anchored in Choc-bay, Saint Lucie for the purpose of reducing the island..."--Ykraps (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Also not essential, but it would be better not to have a one-sentence paragraph here – is it possible to put this sentence on the end of the preceding paragraph instead?
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Fort Diamond

  • Suggest putting the reason for the use of the boats ahead of the first sentence, which explains the effect of using them. Would also be useful to add “Captain” before O’Bryen in this instance – we met him in the preceding section but as this is only the second mention it helps make clearer who he is.


  • Minor grammar issue – the schooner and batteries didn’t “see” Emerald – it was their crews/gunners.

Back in Basque Roads

  • Possibly making too much of this section – Is it correct that “Emerald”’s only role here was to stay behind while other vessels engaged? If so this may not need its own section; if not then I’ve misunderstood and perhaps this could be made slightly clearer in the text.
  • Yes, Emerald was left to shadow the French fleet. An important role which I think needs mentioning but I take your point and have shortened the description of the engagement as that is not so relevant.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph typo: calls Stopford Stoppard

Chase of “Niemen”

  • First sentence is a bit long – can this be broken in two? Again I slightly wonder about the need for the section - "Emerald" spotted "Niemen" but then lost her - really this section is about the two captures mentioned in the first sentence.
  • I have shortened this section and added it to the previous section. I agree Emerald didn't play much of a part in those actions but thought they were worth mentioning in order to lessen the gaps in her history and to show where Emerald was an what she was doing at the time (if that makes sense).--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Further question

  • Apologies for coming back with a final query, but the lead lists this as a 36-gun vessel but the infobox details 44-guns. Am travelling so don't have Winfield ref with me - if you've got it handy this should be pretty easy to resolve either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    She was a 36-gun vessel; carronades are not counted as guns (if that is what you are doing). This is consistent with all similar articles. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    The things you learn, though I note this is inconsistently applied across some similar articles. Still, thanks for the speedy response. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

  • Well done for amassing his much detail on a frigate, which by definition is usually in a supporting role or in minor engagements that barely make the histories. It is certainly detailed enough for an FA; if I had any regrets it would be a) that we have a good history of the ship’s battles but not much on the ship itself; b) that the battles sometimes read like a list, and c) there's occasionally too much detail without context on its relevance. But these are the realities of the kind of coverage these vessels get, and you’ve made the most of what exists. Most of this last set of comments are suggestions only, once you correct the typo etc, support. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


  • I have corrected all the typos I have found, though probably have introduced others. I have also worked on style, converting the passive voice into the active wherever doing so made sense. Lastly, I have added-in all the material that I could find to flesh out what Emerald did outside of the battles. Net-net, I support making a featured article of this article.Acad Ronin (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference and source checking by Cas Liber[edit]

  • Any reason why Troude (1867), Vol. 4, pp.74-7 is not "74-77" as other page ranges are not abbreviated?
    Done - I am afraid that ref was added very recently and so wasn't checked when I prepped the article.--Ykraps (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Also is it Seaforth or Seaforth Publishing?
    Done - Good question. I have more than a dozen books by that publisher; they all say simply, Seaforth on the spine but inside they all say, Seaforth Publishing. I have changed all to the latter for consistency.--Ykraps (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • And "Winfield, Rif & Stephen S Roberts (2015) French Warships in the Age of Sail 1786–1861: Design Construction, Careers and Fates. (Seaforth Publishing). ISBN 978-1-84832-204-2" has publisher in parentheses for some reason...
    Done - Again, ref added after article was nominated.--Ykraps (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Refs otherwise consistently formatted.
  • Earwig's copyvio tool all clear.

I will do more later. After 1am here and I need to sleep. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

NB: To FAC coordinators, see User_talk:Alansplodge#Featured_article_source_review for source review material. I can go review something else now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC) My bad, was test only. Will continue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Using this version for ref numbers:

  • FN 9 - used twice, article material faithful to source.
  • FN 54 - used once, article material faithful to source.
  • FN 79 - used once, article material faithful to source.

Most sources offline. Am happy with what I have found so far. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: I appreciate that this is quite late in the review, but I don't think we're quite there on prose yet. A quick look revealed several little issues that I wouldn't expect to see at this stage. Overall, I think we're fine, but I think a last polish is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A few examples only from various places in the article:

  • A lot of sentences in the lead begin with either "In" or "She" which makes for repetitive reading
    I have rewritten six of the fifteen sentences I found beginning with "in", and seven of the ten beginning "she". Is that enough do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Emerald was first commissioned in August 1795, under Velters Cornwall Berkeley": Under who? Especially as this is a red-link, it would be nice to know who he was
    Berkley (Wikinotable in that he is mentioned in multiple reliable sources) is most famous for his inaction after discovering Santissima Trinidad. Something he was censured for and very nearly court-martialled. Minerve's captain, George Cockburn came to his defence, however. I don't think he ever rose above the rank of captain and I assume that is because he died prematurely. It is red-linked in other articles and is on my hit-list although I'm not sure I'll have enough for more than a stub. If it's a deal breaker, I can remove it until such an article is written.--Ykraps (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "In January 1797, she sailed to join Admiral John Jervis' fleet in the Mediterranean.[1] Although attached to Jervis' fleet at the time...": Close repetition of "Jervis' fleet"
    Fixed--Ykraps (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "On 16 February, the victorious British fleet and its prize ships entered the bay. Jervis ordered the three frigates, Emerald, Minerve, and Niger, of 40 and 32 guns respectively, to search for the disabled flagship, Santisima Trinidad which had been seen being towed away from the battle.": This is a very long sentence which could be split; also, "which had been seen being towed away from the battle" reads clumsily
    Done - Not split but rewritten and shortened. Clumsy phrasing removed. See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that the MoS suggests times are in the format 16:00 rather than 16.00
    Done - two instances found.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I notice from a quick scan that a lot of consecutive sentences begin with the same words throughout the article
    In addition to the sentences starting "in" and "she", I have changed seven from twelve sentences beginning "on". Anything else?--Ykraps (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Nelson is not linked on his first mention in the main body
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Throughout, we seem to be a bit wordy and could stand to tighten up the prose quite a bit. For example, we have "Later, in July 1797, Emerald took part in the unsuccessful attack on Santa Cruz.[1] Admiral Nelson had proposed an attack on the port in April, which had been aborted when the 3,500 troops he had hoped to use were redeployed. Jervis had since been advised that the Spanish treasure fleet was anchored there, and revived Nelson's plan." This could be cut back to "In July 1797, Emerald took part in an unsuccessful attack on Santa Cruz.[1] A planned attack in April, proposed by Admiral Horatio Nelson, had been aborted owing to the unavailability of the troops required to execute it. When Jervis was subsequently advised that the Spanish treasure fleet was anchored there, he revived Nelson's plan."
    Done (sort of) - I didn't like the "...had been aborted owing to the unavailability of the troops required to execute it" as that made it sound like the unavailability was a requirement, so I've flipped that part of the sentence. I've also changed "plan" for "idea" as the word plan crops up in the very next sentence. Again, see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Another example of wordiness: "Then in May 1798, on hearing of a large invasion fleet leaving Toulon, Jervis dispatched Emerald, Terpsichore, Bonne-Citoyenne, and the 74-gun Orion to look for the fleet. The squadron, commanded by Nelson in the 74-gun Vanguard, left Gibraltar on 9 May". Why not "In May 1798, Jervis dispatched a squadron of five ships, including Emerald and commanded by Nelson in the 74-gun Vanguard, to locate a large invasion fleet that had left Toulon." I'm not sure we need the names of the other ships, but perhaps they could be added as a note?
    Done - I guess part of the reason for listing the other ships is to provide links to their respective articles, but I've added as a footnote as per your suggestion.--Ykraps (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I found these from looking randomly through the article, and I suspect there are many others like this. I suggest another look through the tighten up the prose. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I may be able to help here, tomorrow, but no promises yet; I need to think about my approach, and how this ties in with the current discussions at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Sarastro, are you happy with Ykraps's changes? - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 22 July 2016 (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.

Pope Pius XII[edit]

Notified:WikiProject Catholicism

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted and reviewed last time 10 years ago. In the meanwhile the literature on Pius XII has developed quite a bit with important new work by authors such as David Kertzer (his recent Pulitzer awarded book on Pius XI includes much relevant material on Pius XII, especially his period as Nuncio and Camerlengo), Susan Zuccotti and Robert Ventresca, which has provided new critical perspectives on his relations with Mussolini and views on and actions regarding the Jews. The lack of integration of these new prominent pespectives made me placea NPOV tag on the article more than a year ago. No one has contested this criticism, and another editor arrived and expressed agreement that the article is currently not neutral but lacks engagement with relevant criticism. Hence I nominate the article to have its status as FA reviewed. I think that it currently fails both the requirements 1b, 1c and 1d - as well as probably having some MOS related issues (criterion 2c specifically) that should also be fixed for the status to be retained. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It's also rather...large...@Maunus: if you could highlight material that could be relagated to a daughter article that'd be great...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It is 102kb readable prose, but size is not in fact among my concerns and I am much more interested in the article accurately and neutrally summarizing the differing viewpoints on Pius XII's relations to fascism, nazism and anti-semitism before and during WW2. Since this is a very controversial topic there are many different views to be summarized, this can be done in different ways - for example by spinning out more comprehensive daughter articles and summarizing them. Nonetheless I dont think shortening the article is in itself a solution to the content related problems, which need to be addressed regardless of what length the article ends up having. The work involved in fixing these problems is quite substantial, more than I am willing and able to take on at this point, otherwise I would have done some of this work myself before nominating for FAR.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


Notified: JorisvS, Drbogdan, PlanetStar, ‎Astredita,‎ Kevin Nelson, WikiProject Astronomy

This article no longer appears to meet criteria 1, 2b, 2c or 4 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are several very short sections and paragraphs consisting of single sentences; some sections are merely lists of individual miscellanea. The table of contents is too extensive, and the citations are not formatted consistently. For an article that should be written in summary style, it is over-long with too many individual specific examples that should be summarized to give a more general picture. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This article about the now major astronomy topic deserves it once we address these issues, like expanding short sections and summarizing it. PlanetStar 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@PlanetStar: Please note that "keep" and "delist" are only used in FARC (removal candidates) and not here in FAR (review). As noted above, "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." From a quick glance, it does in fact look like it's much too long. If it can be condensed adequately without removing anything essential, I think it has a good chance at staying featured. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Relativistic beaming – Relativistic beaming measures the observed flux from the star due to its motion. The brightness of the star changes as the planet moves closer or further away from its host star." Is this name correct? I thought relativistic beaming was for matter moving at near light speed. It might be better to use 'Doppler beaming' unless this use of 'Relativistic' can be confirmed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Both terms are used, as well as others. The effect is very small even for close-in planets. The description in the article is poor, though. Lithopsian (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay yes, I found one instance that used the term in the context of a planet,[8] compared to many using "doppler beaming". Praemonitus (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
More generally - I see that some work has started to improve the article, but I'm struggling to see how it will be brought back to FA level. As DrKay describes, the problems go far beyond simply being too long. I guess give it a little time and see how it goes. Lithopsian (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: As a suggestion, the planet article tree can (and does) cover many of these topics. This article should focus on aspects specific to exoplanets: a high level discovery history plus the various detection methods, observation techniques, and nomenclature. Elements of the article that are highly dynamic, such as new discoveries, should be spun off to a child article, leaving just a summary here. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

There are quite a few minor issues to fix

  • There are some references where the title is all caps. (or other bits all caps) These should be changed. refs 91 144 165 196 201 207 Fixed x6   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • reference 8 claims to have invalid bibcode Not fixed Bibcode OK. Per Help:CS1 errors#bad bibcode, digits will be allowed in positions 6–8 at the next code update.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • reference 228 has lower case "kepler" — should this be upper case? Fixed (Kepler M-dwarfs)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 183 time not needed Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • not fixed Actually fixed this time   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 174 has "world★" with bonus "★" that should get stripped Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 150 looks to be deformed and missing stuff: Astronomers Find a New Type of Planet: The "Mega-Earth" date=June 2, 2014 authors=HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS (but in lower case) Fixed (used the 2 authors listed at bottom of source and publisher=H-S CfA)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 146 looks as if it would be a journal article, but may only be a web page. full date=6 January 2014 Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 145 missing most info "Probabilistic Forecasting of the Masses and Radii of Other Worlds" Jingjing Chen, David M. Kipping 29 Mar 2016 Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 149 is confusing, it seems you go to a page then click a piece of text to view a video. But what is "22:59"? It looks like a time or duration. Fixed ({{cite video}})   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 88 "01.17.96 – Discovery of two new planets -- the second and third within the last three months -- proves they aren't rare in our galaxy" needs information and formatting author=Robert Sanders date=17 January 1996. Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 79 "NameExoWorlds" is missing info, date=30 November 2015 publisher=IAU Fixed (& surrounding refs)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 79 clearly states "Updated on Nov 30, 2015" but you have added "July 2014" (should we use the current one or the version as retrieved when the article was written?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
      • (now ref #76) Using the version as retrieved makes more sense to me since it's talking about a 1-time event (the start of NameExoWorlds), so having a 2015 date for a 2014 event seems counter intuitive. The only problem is that the earliest entry is 15 Aug 2015, which prevents the next logical step of assigning a correct |archive-url=.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 60 Kepler telescope bags huge haul of planets is missing date=26 February 2014 author=Jonathan Amos, publisher=BBC News Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 59 missing publisher and retrieval date (perhaps many are) Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 45 Peter van de Kamp has an article, but do we need to author link when there is one in the page already? Fixed by someone else (I would have opted to keep it in, since someone might not see the prose-link while looking at the refs; will leave as-is)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 39 how about finding an online link for "On the Infinite Universe and Worlds"? And given that this was titled De l'infinito universo et mondi to start with, the quote is probably a translation, but from where? Fixed (now ref 36)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  20:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 4 is missing info. Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 203 " Patterns of Sunlight on Extra-Solar Planets" no publisher Fixed ({{cite web}})   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 191 "Astronomers May Have Found Volcanoes 40 Light-Years From Earth" missing info Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • " life as we know it" incorrect style Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  22:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "wasn't available" incorrect style Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "vs." should not be abbreviated in a title or text. Not fixed I don't see this mentioned in WP:MOS, and the MOS uses vs. in text.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • strange unicode in "V 391" ref 72 Not sure I can't find it it, and I don't remember fixing it. Is it still there? The only "weird" character I see is Ø, which isn't causing me any problems. (now ref #69)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It was between the V and 391. Perhaps it was thin space, but I have changed it to normal space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • upper-case or uppercase - choose one spelling. Fixed (uppercase)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • triple-star or triple star — choose one style Fixed (triple star, per Star system)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • time-scale or timescale - choose one spelling Fixed (timescale, the prevailing usage)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Super-Earth(s) or Super-earth(s) should Earth have a capital letter? and should it be in quotes:'super-Earth'? (I like caps version best) Fixed (super-Earth, per Super-Earth)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • spin-orbit or spin–orbit (perhaps n dash versus hyphen) Fixed (spin–orbit, prevailing & per Tidal locking)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • RJup is used as a unit without explanation (or non breaking space). Probably it is radius of Jupiter. Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In ref 57 a name appears here as Pr Sa, but originally listed in the journal as Andrej Prˇsa, also listed as Prsa, very likely should actually read "Prša".[9] Fixed Prša per pmid & IAU.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • planets' or planets' (I can't tell the difference in these) Not fixed Identical; all 3 instances use ascii 39 (keyboard apostrophe).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 67 and 163 are the same Rodler, F.; Lopez-Morales, M. (fix this last so as not to mess up the ref #s here) Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Should "non-linear" be "nonlinear"? Fixed (nonlinear)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • NASA’s or NASA's (different apostrophes) Fixed (straightened)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • maximum-masses should have no hyphen Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mass‐Radius or Mass-Radius (used in reference names so should not be an issue) Fixed (both titles currently use keyboard hyphens, per their respective bibcodes & dois)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Lopez-Morales also appears as López-Morales Not sure what to do; both are correct per their respective sources (I'm tempted to not consider this a problem).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "isn't" should not be used Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thomas N. Gautier III's ordinal incorrectly appears as Iii in ref70 Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • hydrogen-helium or hydrogen–helium or H–He? Pick one of the three. Fixed (hydrogen–helium, per List of planet types & Helium planet   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In ref 151 "Harps-N" should read HARPS-N Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • link G-type star on first use Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 201 non standard date format FEB Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • extrasolar or extra-solar Not fixed All (minority) instances of extra-solar are in titles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • exoplanet’s or exoplanet's Fixed (straightened (except in filenames))   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • should equilibriums be equilibria? Fixed (equilibria)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia is excessively linked, and is this the same as Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia? Fixed (and yes, also fixed)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • disc or disk? Fixed (disc -> disk, 1 non-title instance)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 1-planet and 2-planet should be one-planet and two-planet Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • °F is used in one spot. Perhaps it should be dropped, or used in the other places with °C Fixed °C-to-°F replaced with °C-to-K.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • None of the images has alt= text, which should differ from the caption and describe what is in the picture, for those who cannot see the image. On hold I've never paid attention to alt text. Can you (or anyone here) point me to a good example-page, and I'll attempt to apply it? Just found WP:ALTTEXT & will apply it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Fixed All images have been assigned alt text to the best of my ability.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Tom.Reding: please let me do the striking of my own issues! which I will do when I have checked the issue is addressed. Then I know what I have checked or not checked. Thanks for the corrections so far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Graeme Bartlett, oops... Sorry about that (I thought it was a just a formatting preference). I'll unstrike my new posts from today.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Lithopsian[edit]

The lead is, apart from being rather long, almost impossible to read because it is crammed full of inline citations. My understanding is that an FA should comprehensively address all the points that are summarised in the lead, making citations in the lead entirely unnecessary. If that were done here, the lead would be a lot more manageable and appear shorter even without having fewer words. Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to do this, but I hope someone else does (so page watchers know I don't plan on doing everything).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is too long. Citations don't make it hard to read in the final text. But the sentences in parenthesis make it hard to read. If we can turn these into flowing text it will be clearer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Fixed(?) Graeme Bartlett's suggestion by incorporating the longer parantheticals into the surrounding text. The remaining parantheticals are now only 2 words each.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
At least until Fdfexoex reverted it. And JorisvS fixed it. Thanks :) (didn't see that until later)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Fritz the Cat (film)[edit]

Notified: Secret Saturdays, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Comics

This is a 2007 promotion that is the work of a banned editor (Sugar Bear) and has not really been maintained since that editor's departure. Specifically:

  • 1a) The article contains poor writing ("As Krantz began to prepare the paperwork, preparation began on a pitch presentation...") and writing of an improper tone ("He decides to ditch his bore of a life"), and requires copyediting once the content issues are resolved.
  • 1b, possibly 4) The plot section has been altered heavily since the promoted version, and I'm no longer sure it accurately describes the plot of the film. It needs to be compared with the old version and with the film itself.
  • 1c) The Reception section is not well-researched and likely does not represent the literature out there on the subject. The Critical reception subheading has had a maintenance tag since November 2014.
  • There are uncited passages (see last para of Rating).

Since the principal editor of the page is banned, I'm hoping someone else who is familiar with the film can help get it back to standard. --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, you're hot on animation and all it covers: is this one you can cover? - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a peek, though I have to admit I haven't watched the movie all the way through—I love Crumb's comics, but the movie bored me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The prose needs a lot of work, and I'm surprised at the lack of background—we learn virtually nothing about Robert Crumb, the underground comix movement, the Fritz comics (some of Crumb's most prominent work), nor do we learn anything about who Bakshi was or where he was coming from. It mentions how Crumb "later drew a comic in which the Fritz character was killed off", but not that the strip appeared immediately after the film came out in direct response to the film (the strip is called "Fritz the Cat—Superstar" and satires his rising fame). Fails on comprehensivenss. I'll see if I can motivate myself to fix some of this, but I'm afraid a lot of research will have to be done to determine just how comprehensive (or not) it is. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The closer I look, the more work this article seems to need. A lot of the text I can't even understand. Example:
  • "Bakshi says that he "started to get giddy" when he "suddenly was able to get a pig that was a cop, and this particular other pig was Jewish, and I thought, 'Oh my God—a Jewish pig?' These were major steps forward ..."
This line was gibberish to me—why is he getting "giddy" over a Jewish pig? Is he a bigot? Is this some bizarre countercultural humour? Click through to the Bakshi article and find out he's Jewish—"Aha!" I think. Then I read it again and I'm still in the dark.
I'll still take a whack at this thing, but I'm not sure I've got the motivation to bring it up to standard within whatever timeframe there may be. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm never sure of the timeframe, but I don't think that there is ever any rush (within reason), as long as there is progress toward improvement. Nikkimaria, what's the normal process with FAR - it's not an area I'm familiar with. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a fair summary - if you need time to work you'll have it, within reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Covent Garden[edit]

Notified: SilkTork, WikiProject London

This article is scheduled to be featured on the main page on 30 June, but it's a complete mess. The introduction is five paragraphs long and comprises a mix of tourist guide-style material and an extended paraphrase of a single source detailing the history of the area; the history section, which should and sometimes does have that information, is poor; the geography and landmarks sections are completely tangled, again frequently containing material that should be classed as history; the rest of the article is a hodgepodge of trivia and unnecessary detail: the stage of the Royal Opera House is roughly 15 metres square, the collection of the Transport Museum had previously been held at Syon Park and Clapham, The Harp has been owned by the landlady since 2010. Et cetera, et cetera. The writing is of poor quality throughout, largely as a result of how disorganised the article is. Here's an example: Platform access is only by lift or stairs; until improvements to the exit gates in 2007, due to high passenger numbers (16 million annually), London Underground had to advise travellers to get off at Leicester Square and walk the short distance (the tube journey at less than 300 yards is London's shortest) to avoid the congestion. The reader of this article, once they get their breath back after trying to read that in one go, will recall that the 300 yard factlet had already been presented to them irrelevantly in the introduction. It's not worth trying to scrub through this piece and spot and fix the issues in time for it to be featured again; this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting before it goes anywhere near the main page.  — Scott talk 22:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Since FAR generally requires more warning than this on the article's talk page, I'm guessing this will be rejected at FAR ... but if anyone here has time, it would be great if you could offer opinions before June 30, regardless of what happens to the FAR. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I brought it directly here because the article has had barely any regular editors and is due to be featured so soon. If this incredibly bureaucratic process rejects it because of that, well... the less said about that, the better.  — Scott talk 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
      • You are also welcome (and recommended) to have a go at tightening the prose yourself ("Before nomination, ... Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
      • And btw, this hasn't actually been transcluded to WP:FAR, so it's just us chatting at the moment. And note that SilkTork said on his talk page that he'll be looking for problems over the next few days. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Oops. Done.  — Scott talk 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think a question we should answer sooner than later is whether it's salvageable in time for TFA or if that slot should be rescheduled. --Laser brain (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't worked on this article for years, so all my notes are gone. I did have it watchlisted to keep it tidy, but took it off my watchlist some time ago. I think I last made an edit about a year ago. I am in the same position, therefore, as anyone else looking at the article, and would need to do the same things. Because of personal circumstances I rarely have the time or energy to spend long periods on Wikipedia, so my time here is random and uncertain. Sometimes I can spend a few days on an article, but rarely at a high level. It will mostly be obvious tidying up. I will take a look at Scott's concerns, though I would urge him in the meantime to get stuck in and do the copy-editing of that sentence he finds over-complex, and to sort the lead into a more acceptable number of paragraphs. Also, Scott, it would help those who are to work on the article if you could more clearly list the areas you feel need attention. You mention the number of paragraphs in the lead, one sentence that is over-long, and that you disagree with the arrangement and value of certain pieces of information, but in general your comment comes over as "I don't like this", rather more than helpful and constructive criticism. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong on almost every point. I would suggest not involving yourself in this any further, out of kindness to our readers.  — Scott talk 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more constructive, Scott? I have seen some minor areas of concern which I am addressing, but other than that you dislike the lead having X number of paragraphs, and one sentence was too complex to parse easily, you haven't given us much to work on. At this point I'm not seeing a valid reason for this "review", and from the timing, the carelessness, the mistakes, and the language, this simply seems disruptive. I am willing to work on the article to address concerns, and I have already done some tidying up, but I am not seeing the cause for concern. At this point the article is substantially as it was when it was accepted as featured, and is up to date with relevant changes to the area, and with current Wikipedia policies and procedures. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
"Disruptive"? That's Wikipedia Discussion Bingo! I'm out of here. Would say good luck, but luck has got absolutely nothing to do with where you're headed.  — Scott talk 20:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
OK. I've just had a quick look, and it does have areas of concern. Some sourced material has been removed, and some trivia and grammar mistakes inserted ("Covent Garden is a area in London..." is currently the opening sentence). It looks like the article has been fiddled out with since I last looked at it. I'll see what I can do. It may be best to roll it back to the last secure edit, and then look at what positive edits have been done since that date, and reinsert them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SilkTork asked me to comment. I would say roll it back to the version that passed FAC, or the most recent version that SilkTork is happy with, and see whether Scott still has the same concerns. SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Judging by Scott's comments I think that Scott sees Silktork's writing as part of the problem. I don't think we can have two parallel versions. My vote would be for looking at the current version as it is already being worked on. Fresh eyes are good, so will look later. Will be in transit for a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't see a problem with the writing. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Nor I. The version as it stands is pretty much the version that was passed, and several people were involved in copyediting at the time. There has been minor updating is all. Over the past few months, as I had taken it off my watchlist, some errors had been introduced, which I have now corrected. I have looked at the transport section and refined the information regarding the underground station, which now reads better, and I hope satisfies Scott. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Scope and Stability The main problem with the article is its scope, which is huge – hundreds of years of history and hundreds of notable buildings and businesses. This is an issue for FA status because featured articles are supposed to be complete. As an example, note that the article has a section about "Pubs and bars" but has nothing much about eating establishments such as restaurants. This district contains numerous notable restaurants including London's oldest restaurant, Rules, several incarnations of the Beefsteak Club and modern institutions such as The Ivy. I have written several articles about such places myself, including Food for Thought, Gaby's Deli, Hawksmoor and Old Slaughter's Coffee House.
It might be feasible to expand the article to include missing aspects such as this but we will then have the problem that FAs are supposed to be stable. The page currently has a banner tag saying that it "is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" and this indicates that it is not currently stable. I'm not especially bothered about such formalities myself and so will give the page some attention over the coming days, as it approaches the main page.
Andrew D. (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Some good points. I will take down the updating tag, as I don't think there is that much work to be done to justify the banner. And I will also look into those eating establishments you mention. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
To add to this, the article has 26 kb of readable prose as of this revision, so there is scope to add material, if we take 50 kb prose as a limit to article size. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think User:SilkTork has this well in hand. I wouldn't worry too much about what Scott thinks, especially as he seems to have walked away. Despite being an admin, he is a combative and prickly editor. When I remonstrated with him once for abusing his admin powers (threatening to block editors who disagreed with him) he simply removed my comment from his talk page. I suppose this is a COI, but I've tried to be objective when reading the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In para 2 of the lead, it opens with Though mainly fields until the 16th century, - which is confusing as it seems to contradict what comes next and is out of chronological order - I'd either remove it or move it along to appropriate time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You know, that has always troubled me slightly, but I've never done anything about it... until now! Thanks for the push. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have addressed concerns raised, and added a restaurant section as suggested. Where do we go from here? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been walking through the area with a view to making suggestions. There's history around every corner there. Walking down King Street, for example, at one end, by the Apple Store, there's a plaque commemorating the National Sporting Club. Down the other end is the original branch of Moss Bros which closed recently, alas. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm too busy currently to give this much attention. Perhaps it can be postponed a month or two. Andrew D. (talk)
  • Comment The process is that "The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage." We are just waiting for that to happen. There was no first stage, so usually the second stage is rejected. I think there was no rejection of this second stage because the article is scheduled for the main page, and it was felt appropriate to give it a look over. It has been looked over and the article has been cleared of recent errors, and has been updated and expanded along the lines suggested in the FAR. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Fighting in ice hockey[edit]

Notified: Mus Musculus, WikiProject Ice Hockey

I am nominating this featured article for review because I don't think this article meet the criteria anymore, like User:DrKiernan point out at the talk page more than 18 months ago, major source problems still not addressed, and there's several paragraphs with no footnotes at all, two [citation needed] didn't get any attention. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment – I'll have a look at the article over the weekend, with the aim of improving it. At a minimum, I'll make sure that the blacklisted sources disappear for good. Although I don't remember doing so, I took the Hockeyfights link out of the References section last year, but I missed the fact that the two tables in the body use it. Replacing them will be my highest priority, along with adding references. It looks like the other two sources mentioned on the talk page have already been removed from the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I can see Giants2008 has been working on it - ping me when you feel waht you've done should by rights save it from FAR. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
If anyone here wants to see how progress is going, please feel free to do so. I'd still like to incorporate some of those "Notable" fights into the history section when I get a chance. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

George III of the United Kingdom[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Military history

The overcrowd of images out of context and the unsourced content are the most striking, of the content, there's almost nothing of politics and governments of the Monarch, instead there's a timeline of the UK in the period. Just my 2 cents. Frenditor (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The initial promoter has long since retired - I am not familair with the subject - can you be more specific in political material that might be missing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with this characterization of the article. There are three sections without images; most sections have one or two images, with only one section (the longest) with three images and one section (on Arms) containing a gallery of five. The only part of the article where text is between images (on anything other than a massive screen) is the first section "Early life", where the first image is opposite the tail end of the infobox. But because the infobox and the images in the first section are staggered, the 30% of readers that use mobile devices should not see text squeezed between two images facing each other. The images are in context: matched by date or subject matter to the appropriate section.
The "unsourced" material was discussed at the previous review, where I chose not to source it because they are general statements (such as "The Second Coalition, which included Austria, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire, was defeated in 1800") that can be found in any history of the period.
As evidenced by section titles such as "Constitutional struggle" and "William Pitt", as well as the content of those sections and others, George's involvement in politics and government are covered. DrKay (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor who started this was blocked as a sock. --Rschen7754 14:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, I think it should either be deleted as WP:CSD#G5 or archived. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to the delegates as to whether they want it archived or deleted. --Rschen7754 18:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, given that it's here, I can see a few things that need attending. There are some uncited sentences that I will tag, and "kaleidoscope of changing views" in the lead that should be easy to rephrase and dequote. Also the Legacy section has 3 paras that start, "George III..." If these get done I think I am happy to close. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the level of images, and I suppose given the number of his children we are stuck with the long infobox and awful template. Close, ideally after fixing Cas' points. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Cas, looks like your tags were removed - are you happy with the explanation given? DrKay, Johnbod, could either of you address the other points? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I am ok with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


I am nominating this featured article for review because this article is shit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Curly Turkey - usually I would ask you to clarify which of the FA criteria you feel the article doesn't meet, but given the discussion on the talk page I'm guessing you don't actually believe that. We can certainly run an FAR to deal with Poeticbent's concerns one way or the other, but both of you please keep in mind that FAR is not dispute resolution. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't care what happens to the article. Eveyone who comes across it has some beef with it, and I'm sick of dealing with it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think Poeticbent has some valid points but if both he and Curly Turkey are too disgusted at this point to engage in this process, I don't see a whole lot of progress being possible on this FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Awww, was just about to read the comic for the first time... If I get it done before this closes, I might have something to say. But I'm not sure what the issues are. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist per unsolved problems. At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum in angry exchanges, I find it useful to bring back the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria at this point. The article is not well-researched, not neutral, and not stable. It is a target of ongoing edit wars with enraged participants hiding behind IP addresses in order to stay safe. I do not participate in edit wars by my own volition therefore there's no edit wars from me, which is but an illusion; please read Talk:Maus#FAR for more. The article goes into unnecessary detail where it does not matter, however, it lacks historical context of the Sosnowiec Ghetto in occupied Poland, with the sections on the Maus political impact abroad and surrounding controversy decidedly substandard, as I have already said both at the article talk page and on my own talk page as well. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Neither you or anyone else has to my knowledge pointed out any actual, actionable problems with the article. That would require some more substance than the subjetive critique you have advanced at the talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Poeticbent: We actually don't declare "delist" or "keep" at this stage. This is for delineating and attempting to fix problems. I've semi-protected the article for three months and will consider indefinite semi, because I don't see any useful contributions at all coming from drive-by anonymous editors. As for your other concerns, there is a question of whether we have any hope of addressing them without the involvement of the primary editors. If not, might as well fast track to FARC. --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The article obviously should be delisted (and shame on the reviewers for letting this garbage out of the bin), but not for Poeticbent's rationale. Reviewers should be very careful not to take Poeticbent's comments at face value:
There's been a lot of ciriticism of the article, so let's ping a whack of these people: @Cordless Larry, Bus stop, Softlavender, Sıgehelmus, NebY, Only in death does duty end, Volunteer Marek, and Lost in space:. I'm sure I missed someone. Feel free to ping them—we can't let this pile of shit continue to fester with that gold star at the top of it.
Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Last time I looked at it was like four years ago when it was up for GA and I don't recall having any major issues with it. In fact I vaguely remember thinking it was pretty good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
As I explained on the article's talk page, I stopped watching it because of the tone of responses I got when I tried, on request, to provide some outside input into a debate. I don't get the feeling that that tone has changed, so I won't be contributing here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the drama police ought to close this RFAR, and that noone should reopen it untill some specific actionable complaints preferably supported by reliable references showing how the article misrepresents the literature about the graphic novel.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Threatening to use the FAR process to push an edit is disruptive. maclean (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • My final comment. I would like to take User:Laser brain up on his suggestion (from above) and fast track this entry to FARC, because there's no hope for addressing my concerns here. I do not understand why there's so much aggression in some of the responses from above. – Reverting my single edit with citation from reliable third-party book of Holocaust history (with one-click) was, and still is, the canary in the coal mine for me. The whole affair makes me remember what happened when we suddenly realized that the article about the SS was controlled and heavily edited by a genuine i.e. self-identified fascist. (It has been fixed though.)
Our article about Maus is not balanced, and lack the encyclopaedic tone. It is written in a childlike manner (hallmark of all fan-pages), thus ignoring the criticism by published authors who point out that the representation of human beings through anthropomorphic animals: Jews as mice, German gentiles as blockhead cats, Polish gentiles as pigs ("unclean" by virtue, the only ones straight from Goebbels), Gypsies as Gypsy moths, Swedish people as reindeer and the British as fish; makes a connection between cultural identities of these nations and the metaphoric non-human animals in the minds of those who don't like them. It is a gimmick – as the critics point out – making fun of biological determinism by turning racial conflicts into natural predator/prey relationships (none of it is stressed in this article enough). Our Maus article denies the stereotypic connotations of Spiegelman's technique, but also turns that technique upside down. It fails to explain that the author is playing directly into the racist visions of Adolf Hitler. (Robert Harvey presses this point in Art of the Comic Book) The story's moral underpinnings are troubling. In fact, this is why I did not participate in the (quote-unquote) quality drive of this entry before now, even though I was aware of it much earlier. I stopped watching it similar to Cordless Larry, but for my own reasons. Things changed when I realized that Maus is being promoted in the factual Holocaust history articles from occupied Poland. I attempted to help bring some sense to it, and was reverted by "the owner" at an instance. That is why I'm here. For the record, I am not threatening anyone by informing them about my intentions in the follow up to their actions.
Some comic book critics question the use of the animal metaphor in relation to Holocaust history (Der Stürmer comes to mind immediately). Indeed, some have roundly criticized Spiegelman's use of the device as 'glib and irresponsible', although none of it is in our article. Hillel Halkin, reviewing Maus for Commentary in 1992 wrote: 'The Holocaust was a crime committed by humans against human, not – as Nazi theory held – by one biological species against another. To draw people as animals ... is doubtly dehumanizing, once by virtue of the symbolism and once by virtue of graphic limitations.' Other commentators insisted that fidelity to truth is essential to writing about the Holocaust. – The Sosnowiec Ghetto was destroyed during the courageous uprising in which all fighters perished. Stories of attempted rescue abound. And yet, there were also people like Moshe Merin in there, who aided the Nazis in the hunt for the leaders of the aforementioned groups. We know little to nothing from reliable third-party sources about people in this book. The lack of true historical background to Sosnowiec/Będzin Ghettos trivializes the matter. The Holocaust narrators are bound by an ethical imperative to represent details as accurately as possible according Sara Horowitz (Voicing the Void) and Wikipedia is no different I believe. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 11:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  1. Charles Hatfield, Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature ISBN 1604735872
  2. Judith B. Kerman, The Fantastic in Holocaust Literature and Film: Critical Perspectives ISBN 0786458747
  • I do not understand why there's so much aggression—you can only be so dense. The aggression comes entirely in response to the bizarre, unprovoked threats and aggreession you've displayed ever since I offered to help you un-botch your ridiculous edit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • none of it is in our article—holy shit! so you just up and admit you haven't read the article then? One of these critics even gets his photo in the article, and the Hillel Halkin and R. C. Harvey quotes you quote are in the fucking article! Just how blind are your to your own bias? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – I can't say that I'm an expert on graphic novels or the horrors of the Holocaust, but I decided to check the source behind the disputed "little stereotyping" vs. "much stereotyping" sentence. Fortunately, the relevant page was available to me on Google Books. After reading it, I must admit to some confusion. It may be that the content is completely beyond my pay grade as an editor (it probably is in fairness), but I don't see where proof behind the "much" change is. Perhaps it's at the top of the page, where "one-dimensional animal caricatures and 'bestial' stereotypes" are mentioned, but the context is on the prior page, which I don't have access to. Therefore, I can't be sure one way or the other. Later on the page, I see discussion of how stereotypes are being "mitigage(d)", and how "Spiegelman may do much to reverse a negative stereotype" in one instance. That doesn't match up well with the edit; was there another source that was used for this information? If so, the source should have been swapped when the edit was made. While I have no wish to trivialize Nazi horrors, we do need sources that verify content changes. Then again, I might be missing it because I'm not as familiar with interpreting academic literature as some; maybe it's right under my nose, so to speak. I don't have any further opinion on the article, as I just don't know enough about the subject matter. I do hope, though, that we can get on without calling people's work "childlike" and basically calling people fanboys; that won't lead to the kind of collaboration this site thrives on. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to have a PhD to read exactly what is being said and than substitute words which are synonymous to get to the bottom of things. The "owner" of this article admitted on my talk page to have written that sentence himself by saying (quote): "I may have misinterpreted the source..." Here is what he wrote: "The Germans are depicted with little difference between them, but there is great variety and little stereotyping among the Poles and Jews who dominate the story." Little stereotyping implies almost no stereotyping. Alas, depicting Poles as pigs and Jews as mice isn't stereotyping, because Poles are like pigs, and Jews are like mice. Look at the faces of those "pigs". There's "great variety" between them (sure), each one looks like a different filthy monster from Der Stürmer, with a brand new evil expression on his face. The "owner" of Wikipedia article chose to delegate this sort of racist talk to a dark little corner, and (when confronted) follow it with dismissive personal attacks full of hysterical filibustering and exaggerations. You don't have to buy it though. Poeticbent talk 05:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Good God, but aren't you fantastically dishonest?—
  • It's telling how you've edited my comment down from "I may have misinterpreted the source or gotten the wrong page", where I alsgo gave the likely pages (and removed the text until I could be sure). Where I may have made a mistake (but probably didn't), you introduced a clear, deliberate, and disgustingly sneaky distortion of the text to push your POV with the change from "little stereotyping" to "much stereotyping".
  • The "owner" of Wikipedia article chose to delegate this sort of racist talk to a dark little corner, and (when confronted) follow it with dismissive personal attacks full of hysterical filibustering and exaggerations—interesting (and totally dishonest) interpretation of my comment on your talk page, which really couldn't have been more congenial. I offered to find a way to work these matters into the text, and you responded by threatening to sic the admins on me. Supposedly I'm "aggressive", while Poeticbent has accused me of racism and OWNership and threatened me repeatedly.
  • Poeticbent still hasn't bothered to address his bizarre accusations that there is nothing in the article critical about Spiegelman's use of pigs, when there are in fact several such critical voices, include two exact quotes that he accuses the article of lacking. Why do you refuse to address this, Poeticbent? Is it because you haven't actually read the article?
  • I see some bizarre behaviour from Poeticbent elsewhere. He had the Treblinka extermination camp article promoted to GA, then after failing to have it promted to FA, had it brought back to FA by one of the supporters of the FA1, and then himself supported the FA2.
  • Once again, I urge anyone who feels like tackling this mess to first ttake a peek at "Contemporary Debates on the Holocaust in Poland The Reception of Art Spiegelman’s ‘Graphic Novel’ Maus" by Tomasz Łysak, an essay in a RS about Polish reaction to Maus that appears to have been written specifically about Poeticbent. And be sure not to ignore Poeticbent's "each one looks like a different filthy monster from Der Stürmer, with a brand new evil expression on his face", which says reams and reams about this editor's psychology.
Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A week has gone by without a single comment from the broader community. What's happening, dear colleagues worldwide? Are you too afraid to dip your finger in this steaming pile of propaganda? Timothy Snyder, Housum professor of history at Yale University and author of seminal Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin wrote in the New York Times Sunday Book Review on June 22, 2012. – And ... no, you will not find his name in the reference section of this star decorated hate speech. But you can read his review online. I'm posting here a few selected samples from a very long essay, but with a sense of satisfaction, because the likelihood of "the article owner" deleting it from here is much smaller, when compared to the complete denial of my right to contribute to "his own article" in mainspace.

In a nutshell, the case against MAUS is that, despite its veneer of sophistication, the book is a rather primitive expression of the author’s prejudices in choosing to portray the Poles as a nation of swine. Furthermore, its portrayal of Poles contains serious misrepresentations regarding their alleged role in the Holocaust. This is contemptible, and unacceptable by Canadian standards.

Depicting Poles as disgusting and brutal animals is eerily reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda newspaper, Der Stürmer. Significantly, this point is usually omitted by reviewers of MAUS, even though the image of fat, fascist pigs permeates MAUS and is all too glaring to overlook. The fact that MAUS employs the same imagery of the Poles as found in Nazi propaganda, where Poles were often referred to as “pigs,” could perhaps be explained, provided teachers and teaching materials addressed this matter squarely. The fact is they almost never do.

Spiegelman does not humanize the Polish “pigs.” He humanizes only his Jewish mice characters, while depicting his Polish pigs essentially as racist stereotypes. By focusing on negative characters like the camp kapos, Spiegelman implies that the Poles, who were also victims of the Nazi regime, collaborated with their fascist enemies. Unfortunately, these crude stereotypes are, for the most part, simply perverse history and would be unacceptable in any other context. — Timothy Snyder, 3. Why is the depiction of Poles in MAUS objectionable from a historical perspective?

(Google cache) Poeticbent talk 14:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The viewpoint of Snyder can be added to the article. The fact that it is not currently included is not a major problem, and certainly not a cause for delisting. You need to start taking a positive and collaborative attitude here, for example by suggesting actual changes using the normal editing mechanisms when one wants to include content and perspectives to the article. Your belligerent postures here do not help you in the least. Especially not when several of your claims about the article turns out to be untrue. This is simply a case where you want to fit the article closer to your personal point of view. The correct way to argue that is to use arguments to convince others that it is necessary, not to abuse editorial processes and make enemies out of the people who have worked in good faith to create a featured article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@Poeticbent: While I do take you seriously, I have little desire to engage with agenda-driven editors such as yourself because you are incapable of editing from a neutral and dispassionate stance. I doubt you can claim with a straight face that you don't have an agenda and POV here. This is at odds with Wikipedia's mission. I agree with Maunus that Snyder can be added in an appropriate fashion. This FAR should be closed. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
For the record. The article was promoted to a featured article status at 16:59, 17 January 2013 based on support votes from both, User:Maunus and User:Laser brain, neither of whom edited the article in the process. And please, spare me the personal attacks. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I did not support promotion. I can see others' points above when they grow frustrated with your inaccurate or dishonest representations of facts. If you see my calling out your agenda as a personal attack, so be it. But I'm still calling it out. I don't blame Curly Turkey for getting exasperated with you, because I'm already almost there just from these minimal dealings. --Laser brain (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - as a completely uninvolved editor, who hasn't even read the article, the amount of snark in this conversation is baffling. It all seems to boil down to: one editor wants some more critical views added to the text that deals with animal analogues. This editor needs to propose some fitting text that can be added (in line with WP:due weight) and be much more specific. It will take much less time than writing long tirades and endless discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
What would you like me to do, User:FunkMonk, "propose some fitting text" to whom?! – The people who refuse to edit on my behalf (like User:Curly Turkey), or those who abuse me verbally on a par, but without ever editing the article? You say, "the amount of snark in this conversation is baffling", but is there an affable and cordial way of talking about racism? MAUS is a Holocaust industry enterprise with a lot of money at stake. Please read Snyder comments on U.S. distribution practices (quote): "MAUS has been taught widely in U.S. high schools, and even elementary schools, as part of the literature curriculum for many years." This sort of thing usually translates into landslide resource revenues. The book is being promoted as non-fiction. Snyder writes: "MAUS clearly cannot be treated as an accurate historical record, although it is passed off as such. The perspective of the protagonist is too narrow and flawed. The voice of the author and narrator, rather than exposing the protagonist’s biases and misrepresentations of the historical record, reinforces them" (end of quote). Look what happened to Norman Finkelstein as soon as he began to expose the workings of similar phenomenons. His tenure at DePaul was denied. – However, I would love to see MAUS article developed like all other Wikipedia articles about highly controversial subjects (including Finkelstein article itself), but it will never happen for as long as this one entry is being walled off from joint editing through a preposterous Feature Article sticker awarded by a good faith mistake. That's why I'm here. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
And the obvious way to propose changes would be to make a very precise, point by point list of suggested changes on the talk page or here, so uninvolved editors can get an overview and judge for themselves. What you've done now is very counter-productive to your own cause, huge walls of rambling text (referring to older talk-page discussions, therefore hard to follow) with little specific suggestions on how to improve the article. It makes it extremely hard to follow what it is you actually want to achieve. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You're correct, of course, FunkMonk. I shouldn't let my irritation show, and I should stick to the content. What you point out is exactly why we're spinning our wheels here. We all presumably want to see the article improved if it's deficient, but we've now veered completely off-topic and have had a large paragraph about how Maus is making money by being taught in schools. It's thus far been impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to Poeticbent's commentary. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Bureaucratic creep. Another two weeks have gone by. Everybody talk but nobody listen. I have explained in great detail what is wrong with this article using comprehensive prose. My comprehensive prose is straightforward and clear. It is not a tirade. Suggested WP:BULLETS are not workable, because the coverage of MAUS is flawed to its core and, for as long as Curly Turkey's 'ownership' of this entry is protected by the FA sticker, all WP:RS voices of reason (which I quote, including comments by professional historians such as Snyder, Grobman, and McDonough) will be reverted, and nothing will be improved. I would like to have this article returned to standard editing (so it can be improved) and therefore ask the coordinators at FAR, User:Nikkimaria and User:Casliber, to please place my review at featured article removal candidates. In my substantive comments (from above) and at the article talk page I have raised complex issues about factual accuracy and neutrality. This I have done to the best of my abilities, and critics may say what they like. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 16:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
FAs are subject to standard editing just as all other articles. You just need to get consensus for your suggested changes, which you have failed to do (partly because you havent proposed any concrete changes).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"I don't like it", is not an argument. The reason you have received no comments is because you refuse the make a concise list of suggestions (which is what we have all been waiting for during these two weeks). It is very simple. "Flawed to its core", allegations of "bureaucratic creep", and other over-dramatic BS means little to nothing without readable suggestions for how to improve the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate you think the article has flaws, Poeticbent, but this is a forum for article improvement, not for dispute resolution, and we're not here simply to remove the "FA sticker". As such, specific and actionable comments with reference to the FA criteria would be far more helpful in gauging next steps. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment from random passerby. I'm not sold that Poeticbent's complaints are valid. At best, add another sentence that Polish nationalists are offended by the comic and why. It's not cause to assume everything else is wrong. Don't move to FARC, just close this. SnowFire (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Harbhajan Singh[edit]

Notified: YellowMonkey, WikiProject Cricket

Review comments[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it now falls some way short of FA standards. It passed FAC (review here in 2007 and came through a FAR in 2008. We are struggling on criteria 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d as this article has not really been kept up to date since around 2008. I think we're also in trouble with 2b and 3c. Here is the summary I gave on the talk page at the beginning of May, but these are samples only.

  • There are numerous unsourced statements. This is a BLP which makes this a major problem.
  • There are prose issues throughout, and I'm not sure this would pass FAC today; lots of run-on sentences and repetitive structures. Someone should look closely at this.
  • The lead basically stops in 2008 and has nothing for the last eight years
  • "Harbhajan Singh married his longtime girlfriend, actress Geeta Basra, on 29 October 2015 in Jalandhar." is listed in "Early Life"
  • There is hardly anything about his career between 2011 and 2015
  • The structure of the article is fairly impenetrable.
  • The later text is basically prose line.
  • Quite a lot of fancruft throughout.

These are the changes since the article was last at FAR in 2008. Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is recoverable as the nominator and lead contributor, YellowMonkey, is long gone and there is a huge amount of work to do. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: The readable prose size for this article is 74 kB, which is way WP:TOOBIG. The version which passed FA was only 38 kB, which means the current article is double the size of the original one. The article is an absolute disaster, for reasons outlined above, all of which I agree with. It should be cut by at least a third to make it anywhere near acceptable. Recommend delisting. Kingsindian   13:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

FARC comments[edit]

Moved to FARC section - above points need looking at. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Delist – It doesn't look like any real work has been done to resolve the issues raised above. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist: Nothing has been done, alas, because there is no-one left to work on this. It is no-where near FA standards anymore I'm afraid. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Notified: Tony Sidaway, Risc64, Mindmatrix, Guy Harris, Czar, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Computer science, WikiProject Free software, WikiProject Software, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Open

Review comments[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because in the ten years since the FAC and six years since the previous FA review, the article has undergone significant changes (see the article from 2006) and has fallen short of FA criteria in several areas:

1(a): Not particularly well-written, mostly bland technical writing.
1(b): Not comprehensive, very brief in several sections.
1(c): Citations are lacking in several areas, particularly sections 2-4.
2(a): Five paragraphs in lead; much of this content probably belongs in the main article but not the lead.

I have notified several users above who have contributed a fair amount to the article, as well as one user who also thought this should be brought to FAR. I also notified the projects that have this article listed as Top or High priority. The user who initially brought it to FA, as well as the user who initiated the previous FAR, are both inactive, and the article only averages one edit every 2.1 days as it was only heavily edited during the initial FAC around 2005-06. However, there should be a few users that I notified above and others in the WikiProjects who would be willing to help improve the article and possibly work to keep it as FA (although it does need a considerable amount of work).

I also have a basic peer review of the article that could improve it somewhat to start:

  • American vs. British spellings: License and licence both used in lead
  • OpenBSD Project: P should be lowercase
  • “M:tier” in quotes: not sure if this is proper
  • Component and third party sections: Too listy
  • Development, 3rd PP: Inverted quotes (double within single)

Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Gosh, this really has been battered to death since the last FAR. It's practically unrecognizable and nowhere near even GA status. Lots of unsourced text, lots of choppy sections, probably requires a complete rewrite. --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  • My comments are on the article's talk page but in short, the unsourced sections are alone enough work to warrant the delisting. The prose also is a long way from brilliant. I'd be curious what it would be like to rebuild from its 2006 state as opposed to blowing it up and starting over. Good luck to anyone who takes it on I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 15:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Sometimes I advocate a blanket revert to the last known good state, but that obviously wouldn't be appropriate here because of everything that's probably occurred with an active OS. It looks like Tony Sidaway updated the article quite a bit in June 2012. I'd love to hear their opinion, but it looks like they have not edited actively in recent times. --Laser brain (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • As noted above, I did notify Tony Sidaway and a few others who had made some recent edits. Tony's last edit to this article was in July 2015, so he might still be around and provide some good comments. I think the 2006 version, and to some extent even the current one, could be used as templates for sources and content and build from there. It'll be a lot of work, but doesn't need to be from scratch. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reading through this article, it's B-class content at best, and probably closer to C-class. There exist gaps in the history section, no section or significant discussion on the features of OpenBSD, the majority of the article discusses more minor aspects (funding, security, etc.). The present content is fine although needing of a copyedit; however substantial expansion is needed to bring this article to even a GA. Esquivalience t 23:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I also noticed that there are mostly named references, with a few exceptions which were likely added more recently. There were some references added to the lead since the start of this FAR, so if there's a consensus to continue having all sources be named refs at the end of the article, we could standardize this throughout. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm still around. It looks as if this nomination has brought renewed attention to the article, resulting in attempts to improve it. That's good news. On the use of the spellings licence and license in the lede, note that these are the normal British spellings of the noun and the verb respectively according to the OED, which also lists licence as an accepted variant spelling for the verb. I no longer remember whether the article is supposed to be in any particular dialect and I have no strong opinions on which dialect the article should be written in. --TS 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice to see you Tony. I agree that User:Michael Reed has done a great job so far and the article is improving rapidly. For the license spelling, I went ahead and changed it to the American version since that was the spelling used in 35 out of 37 instances in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

FARC comments[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section included prose, coverage, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Michael Reed has done a great job of cleaning up the article. I have also made some changes, and several others have contributed occasionally. I would have to agree with another comment above, however, that the article will probably need a rewrite to be FA-quality. We can use the improved existing version and compare it with older versions to develop a structure for the article that will ensure complete coverage while also being up-to-date. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, I noticed the article has had 175 edits in the past three weeks, whereas the article only had one edit every two weeks or so before. It may be well short of FA criteria, but that's a wonderful statistic! Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I still see a few glaring issues: the number of one-sentence paragraphs, the short sections (if the section needs to be short, perhaps you kill the section heading?), the unsourced lists (are they even necessary?), and there's a whole lot of primary source referencing going on for a featured article. There's no secondary source that covers this stuff? I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 03:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would be best to make a list of all the sources in the current article and separate them by primary and secondary sources. This might help improve a rewritten article in that regard. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The article is much better from all the massaging done in the past two months. However, I still do not know from the article thefeatures that OpenBSD has, instead focusing on the development process, a whole section on relatively minor things such as marketing and funding, etc. Although I would be comfortable giving it B-class status and GA with some more focus on features instead of less important things, it would be much, much better served with a rewrite. I would move to demote to B-class. Esquivalience (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That would be best for now, and would allow us to do GAN and FAC after the rewrite. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist, sorry. As Esquivalience notes, it's a strong B-class but needs a lot of work. Inadequate lead, stubby paragraphs (some of which are unsourced), and substandard writing. --Laser brain (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A note: I am working on a rewrite here, but it could take months before it even reaches GA quality. Any help in developing the rewrite is appreciated. Esquivalience (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll try to check it every so often and contribute as I can. I'm working on bringing another article to FAC, but want to get this article back to FA quality. I mentioned an idea earlier about going through sources and identifying more that are not self-sourced, such as, to address the above concern and provide a better foundation for the rest of the rewrite. That might help some. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for starting the rewrite; I definitely plan on contributing when I can. The troublesome thing, however, is that a lot of OpenBSD's newer features—security or otherwise—only seem documented via primary sources. There are a lot of ~10 year old OpenBSD USENIX publications, but any newer security features seem only documented in manual pages, blog posts, and self-published papers at (see pledge(), for example). Michael Reed (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Notified: Drbogdan, WolfmanSF, JorisvS, Volcanopele, BatteryIncluded, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been tagged for update in the atmosphere section, which is very short. Readers are directed to a sub-article Atmosphere of Enceladus, but it seems to contain all the same information as the main article, and so appears somewhat pointless. In my opinion, the gallery section does not add much to the article, and a link to the commons category should be sufficient. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

comments from Graeme Bartlett
  • I am looking into this. There do not seem to be many more writings on the "atmosphere", and most do not distinguish it from the plumes. I found one thesis modelling the atmosphere, but does a thesis count as a reliable source?
  • One topic missing that I see quite a few papers about is the effect of Endeladus on the magnetosphere, but its own and that of Saturn.
  • Another is related, the auroral hiss[10].
  • referencing improvements required:
    • The Blondel, Philippe reference needs expanding with links.
    • Satellites of the Outer Planets: Worlds in their own right needs an ISBN.
    • "Cracks on Enceladus Open and Close under Saturn's Pull" has author Bill Steigerwald
    • 56 and 67 have a bibcode but no doi (needs a check)
    • Taubner R.S.; Leitner J. J.; et al needs some kind of link and et al should be expanded a bit.
    • "Ocean Within Enceladus May Harbor Hydrothermal Activity" should have publisher which is astrobiology, but this is a NASA press release, so there is probably a better source.
    • "Our Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water" is also a NASA press release
    • "'Jets' on Saturn Moon Enceladus May Actually Be Giant Walls of Vapor and Ice" needs author= Charles Q. Choi date=6 May 2015
    • "A Hot Start on Enceladus" needs date March 14, 2007
    • "Atmosphere on Enceladus" needs standard format on date.
    • "Enceladus Life Finder" needs fixing, internal title is "ENCELADUS LIFE FINDER: THE SEARCH FOR LIFE IN A HABITABLE MOON" authors are J.I. Lunine, J.H. Waite, F. Postberg L. Spilker, and K. Clark, this is part of 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2015)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll see if I can do something about the references tomorrow. As for theses, I'd say they need some external support (in the vein of other sources citing them) to work in and of itself.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Update, done with a few notes:
    • 56 and 67 does not seem to have a doi that I can find.
    • The NASA press releases are the sources of the images in question; I've found an article on Nature here about the hydrothermal activity in the ocean.
    I'll see about the auroral hiss and the magnetospheric effects later.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Replaced the press releases with that Nature citation too. The atmosphere will have to wait a bit, unfortunately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Most images are missing alt= text. Please read WP:ALT before adding text though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • More checking word by word: (using tr "][()\t,.:;\"" " "| tr " " "\n" | sort -u )
    • There is inconsistent date format. Sometimes we have yyyy-mm-dd form, but it is mostly month dd, yyyy. This applies to access dates and publication dates. eg: 2007-04-15 2008-11-27 2011-12-17 2014-04-03 2014-04-04 2014-04-27 2014-12-17 2015-04-09 2015-04-15 2015-05-08 2015-09-17
    • There are a couple of nonprinting characters in the dimensions in the infobox "513.2 × 502.8 × 496.6" (surrounding the first and second ×) (these are halfwidth spaces, not a serious issue)
    • Inconsistent ISBN13, we have 978-1-4020-9216-9 978-1-4244-7350-2 and 9783540376835 (the last form is best)
    • Cassini‍‍ '​‍s has a non printing character before apostrophe (due to use of {{'s}})
    • Caption at internal structure " mantle/yellow and core/red" style should be " mantle (yellow) and core (red)"
    • infobox mean radius uses Earths and Moons - probably should be Earth's and Moon's
    • E-ring should be E-Ring
    • We have "g/cm³" (2 uses) as well as using superscript 3 g/cm3 (1 use, but I thought MOS said this one).
    • Two uses of wrong spelling: kilometres (It was convert template doing it, spelling mistake avoided by using |sp=us
    • Using m/s² in info box instead of superfixed 2
    • Abbreviated journal titles like "Orig Life Evol Biosph" should be expanded fully.
    • "Saturn׳s" has non-standard apostrophe
    • " —called libration— " uses spaces as well as m-dash (should be no space?)
    • I suspect " UV–green–near IR images" uses the wrong kind of dash. It is an adjectival form. (actually it appears to use –) (others use / or ,)
  • Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    I think I got the issues except the inconsistent the dates (MOSUNITS does indicate the superscript standard; probably because it's easier to create that code than to create the superscripted number itself); will need a check on non-printing characters.
    • Striking corrected (notice I added more issues after you started work) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Did some more edits to resolve these issues, except for the dash and nonprinting character edits. I didn't find any "kilometres" in the source; I guess a template is causing these issues. Now, for the atmosphere I've to confess that other than using Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chilean volcano) as templates I've never worked with FAs; is the atmosphere section of Pluto plus the magnetosphere and auroral hiss a good template to follow?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think so, yes. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Another inconsistency is the possessive form: Enceladus' versus Enceladus's. I prefer the second, but is that right? Many of the sources use Enceladus' Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It can be either, but I too prefer the second, because I think it's clearer in written prose. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I personally prefer the first; at least to me it was indicated to be proper grammar. I'll do some other work here in about a week, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
You might like to read MOS:POSS and Apostrophe, especially the section Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe, particularly sub-section "Basic rule (singular nouns)". It seems that a lot depends upon how the possessive form is pronounced. Corinne (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Corinne

1) In this sentence in the lead:

  • Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging from old, heavily cratered regions to young, tectonically deformed terrains that formed as recently as 100 million years ago, despite its small size.

the phrase "despite its small size", because it comes at the end, sounds like it might apply only to the last clause, so is a little puzzling (if it does apply only to the last clause, I don't understand the connection between small size and relatively recent deformation of terrain). I believe you mean it to apply to the first clause, "Enceladus has a wide range of surface features". If so, I recommend putting the phrase at the beginning of the sentence:

  • Despite it small size, Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging...

2) The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:

  • Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until the two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

You haven't mentioned Voyager spacecraft before this, so saying "the two Voyager spacecraft" assumes that your readers know what they are. I recommend removing "the". You can, and I guess you do, go into more detail about the two spacecraft later, and who's to say there won't be more in the future?

  • Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

3) The last sentence in the lead is:

  • Its resonance with Dione excites its orbital eccentricity, which tidal forces damp, resulting in tidal heating of its interior, and offering a possible explanation for the geological activity.

(a) I was confused by the clause, "which tidal forces damp". It is true that "tidal" is an adjective, so "forces" ought to be a noun; however, "damp" is more often an adjective or noun than a verb, so "forces" jumped in as a verb. It took a re-reading to realize that "damp" was the verb to the phrase "tidal forces". To a non-scientist, even one who knows what the verb "to damp" means, the combination of "tidal forces" and "damp" is so unusual that it is hard to comprehend. I'm wondering if another verb could be found other than "damp" to make this more comprehensible for the average reader. Perhaps "suppress", or "counteract"?

(b) Also, for the average reader, the word "tidal" suggests, of course, "tides", which in turn suggests the presence of a large body of water (or other liquid). The previous paragraph mentioned "a subsurface ocean of liquid water", but no connection between the tides and that body of water was made. If the "tidal forces" are related in some way to the subsurface body of water, that connection should be made clear. Since no surface body of water (or liquid) is mentioned here, the reader will look for it later on. In the section "Orbit and rotation", "tidal deformation" is mentioned in the second paragraph, but no body of liquid is mentioned. If these "tidal forces" and "tidal deformation" have nothing to do with a body of liquid, that ought to be made clear, also.

4) The first two sentences in Enceladus#Orbit and rotation are:

  • Enceladus is one of the major inner satellites of Saturn. It is the fourteenth satellite when ordered by distance from Saturn, and orbits within the densest part of the E Ring, the outermost of Saturn's rings.

I think the wording of the clause "when ordered by distance from Saturn" could be made a little clearer for the average WP reader. "When ordered" sounds like "ordered from a catalog", "ordered in a restaurant". I think it would be clearer if it were worded something like this:

  • It is the fourteenth satellite in order of distance from Saturn, and it orbits..."

5) In the second paragraph in "Orbit and rotation", can you put the conversion so that distances in miles are given?

Corinne (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

2) Without "the", it suggests that there have been more than two Voyager spacecraft, which is untrue. Any possible futute Voyager 3 would be crystal ball.
I don't agree. Saying just "until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby" is just introducing the spacecraft since you haven't mentioned them before this. It does not suggest that there were, or will be, more. It is really not good to use the definite article until you have first introduced or mentioned them. Corinne (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
3) a) I think saying it in the passive does the trick. b) Tidal forces also act on a solid body. The effect is only much stronger if they act on a liquid. For example, solid Mimas has been tidally locked to Saturn; in fact, none of the small regular moons of Saturn are known not to be tidally locked.
I have copy-edited the article based on several other points. --JorisvS (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Atmosphere section

DrKay's original concern was with the Atmosphere section, which I just removed. I'm not totally sure about it, so see my rationale on the talk page and let me know if you agree. A2soup (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As we've established, it was not possible to expand the section and I think short sections should be merged into others, which is essentially what has been done here with the material positioned in the Cryovolcanism section. DrKay (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. The prose is poor, using an unnecessarily repetitive and unidiomatic style that is also indicative of structural problems in the article. Because relevant material is deliberately excluded, the subject is not placed in its context rendering the topic non-comprehensive and difficult to follow without following links to other articles. Attempts to address these problems are reverted. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
If by "relevant material is deliberately excluded", you mean the atmosphere apart from the plumes, I have to disagree. That's more a case of "relevant material is not yet known". No argument on the other points, though. A2soup (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I mean for example that the article says Enceladus is "sixth-largest", "one of the major inner" and "fourteenth" moon of Saturn, but we are not told how many moons there are or how many of those are "major inner" ones. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem there is that Saturn has a difficult-to-define number of moons. There are spherical moons, but Moons of Saturn gives 62 moons with confirmed orbits, of which 53 are named. Of course, what's a moon or not is ultimately subjective - the rings are made of zillions of "moons", and how can we define when a chunk is big enough to be a moon? Saying Enceladus is "sixth-largest" with no absolute number specified is actually an elegant solution to this problem. I have addressed the other two concerns you raised by given content for "one of the major inner" and removing "fourteenth". Do you have any other prose concerns? A2soup (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Dunkleosteus77
  • Change all ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 (I only see one) using this site as per WP:ISBN
    Done. There were four (I have a little script). --Mirokado (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

The instability leads me to move here. Concerns about prose, which can be difficult to balance between exactness and accessibility in these articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What "instability" do you mean? There was one recent not-quite-edit-war (both editors made varied changes that ultimately led to improvement, rather than flat reverts). Also, can you point out specifically what prose concerns you? A2soup (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The fact that they are not edit-warring does not mean there is consensus. Prose is a pretty major issue to try and get right and moving it here means we're not closing this as a "keep", that is all. Further work and continue before editors comment on whether the article should retain or lose FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Lack of consensus is not a stability issue if the article text is stable. But I'm more interested in what specifically the prose issues you see are - I would love to try to address them. A2soup (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@A2soup: Calling DrKay about these prose issues.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@DrKay, Graeme Bartlett, and Corinne: Where do things stand here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
All the minor issues are fixed, but my major issue still remains, which is incomplete coverage on the topic of its effect on Saturn including auroral hiss and its magnetosphere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Could we perhaps have declarations from A2soup, BatteryIncluded, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and JorisvS? Thanks. I have no comments on the prose but am not competent to comment on the comprehensiveness, which is the remaining concern. DrKay (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The issues mentioned by Graeme can probably be easily fixed with some sources and text from them. No opinion on prose, my English skills are not sufficient to comment on them.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The science aspect seems to be updated. I have no opinion on the prose. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Default keep. FARC section open for 4 months with no explicit delist declarations. DrKay (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any problems that are sufficient to warrant delisting. Still one of our hihgest quality articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Still worth having this as a FA. Many improvements have been made as part of this effort. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)