Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968[edit]

Nominator(s): Spartan7W § 17:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This articles covers the 1968 campaign of Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States. A figure subject to great interest to this day, the article discusses Nixon's second bid for the Presidency, briefly outlining his background as a politician, events leading up to the campaign, and the campaign itself. It details the strategy and events which the campaign experienced during the pre-primary months, the primary season, and the general election. Unlike the article covering the 1968 election itself, this article covers many areas specific to the future president which would be excessive on an article covering all three candidates' sides of the election. It was made a GA-class article in 2010, and has remained very stable since, with few major changes (none affecting its GA-quality) prior to my Featured Article preparation efforts. Spartan7W § 17:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Kalidas (film)[edit]

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

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

Comments from Pavanjandhyala[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

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

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

Comments from edwininlondon[edit]

  • "₹75000 (US$1,200) against a budget of ₹8000 (US$120)" — Is that US$120 correct? Doesn't match up with the first number.
I think you know of two things called "exchange rate" and "inflation". And I have used the INRConvert template, but I am unsure if the template has produced an accurate result. Is there any source that lists the history of Indian exchange rates? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There are a few semicolons that are unnecessary. "while Rajalakshmi spoke in .." and "Rajalakshmi's singing performance .." are both better as their own sentence.
  • The cast section is incomplete. Move some cast info from the Production section into here. That is, more actors and also the extra info per cast member.
The other actors appear in seemingly minor roles, and I can't find information about their roles in the film. Can I just say "Other roles were played by ...." and add a source at the end? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Legacy — Is there anything that can be said about other multi-lingual films?
I'll look into this. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No songbook survived, yet we see an illustration and a still. I think this warrants an explanation. It is so fantastic to have these 2 illustrations. Can you satisfy the curious mind? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Some of the remaining images of the film appear in the 2011 book The Best of Tamil Cinema. Can I mention this? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished[edit]

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 15:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a picture of a right foot; The Parthenon magazine was a great admirer of said foot, saying it "seemed to glow with the rich juice of life", but The London Magazine disliked the foot and felt it did not have sufficient heroic character. The foot in question is attached to The Combat, a very large painting of highly questionable taste, which in the mid-19th century was considered by some critics as among of the greatest artworks of all time, but which has gradually faded into obscurity.

The double lead image breaches the MOS, but in this particular case I feel it's appropriate to do so. The Combat has spent the last 150 years marinating in the air of Edinburgh, and hasn't been cleaned; as a consequence, it's acquired a layer of grime. While an article on a painting obviously has to include an image of the painting in question, it's hard in this case to make out what the picture is actually of. Consequently, I've included a black-and-white engraving of the image immediately beneath it, to act as a visual guide to the original; the engraving in question is specifically discussed in the article, so it's not a superfluous illustration. – iridescent 15:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Up to the usual quality, & I agree re the lead image - a very good solution I think. Quibbles: I do think 2nd versions by the artist should be mentioned, and engravings. Here that info is only picked up from the caption "Engraving by G. T. Doo, 1848, based on a reworked version of the painting completed by Etty in 1845". Also, can the grime be referenced? Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the grime, not that I can find, which is why I don't specifically mention it, but it's obvious just looking at the state of it. Per my comments below, because it's been to big to move it hasn't been included in any exhibitions so hasn't been written about much in the last century. I can cite for the similar-sized Sirens and Benaiah deteriorating, but I'm reluctant to make explicit inferences as Etty was something of an experimenter with paint mixes so different paintings have degraded as different rates. The information about the second version and the engraving is already there in the body text (in the Legacy section, as the engravings weren't until 20 years after he painted it); I don't personally think it's significant enough to mention in the lead as well but have no objection if you feel that it does. – iridescent 17:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, missed the stuff in "Legacy" somehow. I take it the #2 is still in private hands, as far as the sources tell? In a much cleaner condition, I'll bet. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Tracked #2 down to the Ringling Museum of all places. I knew that John Ringling was the last collector listed in Farr (1958) as owning it, but assumed it had been sold on after his death. Although their website doesn't appear to list it, I can find a 2006 blog post which mentions seeing it there, so I'm assuming Ringling hung on to it and it entered his museum after his death. (I wouldn't add an image of it unless it comes from an official Ringling source; because the original was in the Royal Scottish Academy, there are a lot of student copies floating about.) – iridescent 16:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I'm of mixed opinions about the dual-image lead. The argument presented is somewhat persuasive, but it seems equally possible to move the etching to the Composition section to maintain MOS compliance. I would prefer the MOS standard, but I won't consider this an actionable objection.

Johnbod immediately above you wrote WP:VAMOS, so if he doesn't see an issue with the lead images I'm not concerned. – iridescent 17:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • When sources have been assigned an ISBN, there's no need to also provide an OCLC number; the goal is to have an identifier, not all identifiers.
  • There's no need, but as I see it there's also no reason not to. My feeling is that including them doesn't distract from anything or take up any significant space, and it means one fewer click per item for anyone who wants to check the sources for themselves. – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A quick survey of past FACs reveals little consistency here; reviewers have at various times requested only one identifier (which, admittedly, is my practice) or both identifiers. As the FA criteria do not provide specific guidance, I presume this is safely a matter of editorial discretion. However, consistency of formatting is an FA expectation, so the three Smith sources should have OCLCs included as well, for parity. And, actually, while I'm looking at the Smith sources, the 1996 work needs be re-ordered to come before the 2001 sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Added all three. Resorted the Smith references by date, although I still think alphabetical order makes more sense. – iridescent 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • ISBNs should be presented as ISBN-13s with correct hyphenization. User this tool to covert.A s
  • Done, although I'm singularly unconvinced a bot wont just come along and convert them back; the pan-WMF ISBN guidance at meta uses unhyphenated ISBNs in all their examples, so that's presumably what the bots will follow. Done and then undone, as the hyphenated ISBNs were generating a mass of error messages. Anyone else, feel free to have a go if you think you can get it to work. Given that the hyphens will be stripped out the moment anyone clicks through to Special:BookSources anyway, I don't see this as a significant issue. – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The Meta page on the topic is an embarrassment, as it doesn't even seem to acknowledge the existence of ISBN-13s to begin with. Fully hyphenated ISBNs, according to the issuing organization, are the "most correct" form. And, in general, they're what's been preferred in my past experience at FAC. As an aside, I've never had a bot mangle them in one of my editorial contributions. As for the error messages... sometimes templates are cranky. I'll go see if I have any better luck fixing this! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And fixed. It looks like you were having some problems with the last (checksum) digit when converting between ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. They should all be squared away now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The answer may simply be no, but is there any discussion in reliable sources about the current condition of the work? Discussion of conservation status?
  • Not to the best of my knowledge. It hasn't been written about much in the last 100 years—Etty has long been out of fashion, and The Combat is too big to have been included in any recent exhibitions (and thus to have been discussed in catalogues). The conservation status can safely be assumed to be "left to rot"; in the current climate the Scottish National Gallery is going to have much higher priorities than a painting by an English artist which even if restored would be too big to display. (I suspect that following the second referendum there will be a two-way repatriation of artworks between London and Edinburgh, which will bring the SNG's Etty's into the hands of the Tate who do have the cash to restore them, but that's well into WP:OR territory.) Manchester City Gallery restored the similar-sized The Sirens and Ulysses, but that was a showcase project which took five years and cost a fortune; Sirens is also much more in keeping with current tastes than The Combat. – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunate, but we're bound by what others provide us. I suspected that was the case, but felt obligated to ask. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In general, I have not undertaken a thorough prose review, although I'm dubious about the inclusion of a small quote from The Parthenon review immediately followed by a blockquote that includes the same excerpted passage. One solution might be to cut the blockquote entirely, but I don't think that's the only approach that could be taken here.
  • I'm not convinced; there isn't anything obvious to be cut from the blockquote, and I can't really see any reader being inconvenienced by the repetition of such a short snippet. I'm reluctant to lose that particular quote, as it exemplifies the tone of contemporary reviews. This series all rely heavily on quotations from contemporary reviewers for their "reception" sections, as Etty has received so little critical coverage after his death. – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me give this use a little more thought. My concern's as much about due weight as reader inconvenience, but your argument is a cogent one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed. – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

None of my objections are substantial barriers to meeting the standard. Assuming no substantive prose concerns are raised by those with more time to examine them, I'm happy to conditionally support promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being so prompt in looking at this! – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim Riley I'll be supporting this excellent article, but a few small points first, if I may:

  • Composition
    • "with regards to history paintings" – is "with regards" rather than the usual "with regard" intentional?
      • Reworded—I think this was my overzealously trying to stop it looking too similar to The Destroying Angel, which makes a very similar point regarding Etty's painting "history paintings" of non-existent events. – iridescent 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Reception
    • Not sure it's necessary, or even advantageous, to quote "which seems actually to glow with the rich juice of life" and immediately quote it again within the blockquote.
      • Per comments above I don't consider it a problem, but as you're the second person to have mentioned it I've removed the first instance. – iridescent 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Legacy
    • "the most prestigious honour available to an artist" – more prestigious than the Prix de Rome? Or does this just refer to Britain?
      • I had Britain in mind, but would make a case that in this period "most prestigious in England" and "most prestigious in the world" were synonymous. France was reeling from military defeat and economic destruction, Continental Europe hadn't recovered from the Napoleonic Wars, and the US was still a backwater. – iridescent 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
        • That'll teach me to try to be clever! Tim riley talk 17:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "The Combat was the first very large work…" – three incidences of "very large" in 28 words.
      • Reworded – iridescent 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "He produced nine very large paintings in total, although as time went by his canvases came to be increasingly dominated by nude women." – I can't quite get a handle on this: the two halves of the sentence don't seem to belong together. The first deals with the size of his canvasses and the second with his preferred subject, and the "although" suggests that the latter is somehow antithetical to the former.
      • That's a product of my over-familiarity with him, I think. His history paintings were generally pretexts to shoehorn as many nude and scantily-clad figures into a canvas as possible; the nine monumental paintings were atypical of his output, as they were more conventional morality pieces like this one, in which if there was any nudity it was relevant to the composition rather than gratuitous. (In The Combat and Benaiah the male nudity wouldn't have raised an eyebrow given the obvious debt to the Elgin Marbles; in The Sirens and Ulysses both male and female nudity have an explicit purpose as an illustration of temptation; the three Judith pictures were straightforward religious art with no nudity, and the Joan of Arc tryptich showed historical scenes from her life, again without nudity.) – iridescent 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency, and I look forward to supporting promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk 13:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Now very happily supporting. Tim riley talk 17:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Imperator torosus[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is a fairly concise article with just about everything there is to know on this fungus. Sasata and I have worked on it over the years, so there's two of us to fix things quick-sharp if folks find anything that needs improving. Have at it. (NB: Is a wikicup nomination for me) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon, will probably also do an image review. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Elias Magnus Fries and Christopher Theodor Hök" Some authors get "presentations", others don't, should probably be consistent.
added these two - there are so many I will think how to minimise repetition... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "distinct from the B. pachypus described by Fries himself." Meaning seems a bit unclear. Had fries given another species this name?
yes - I will think how to reword.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "He reported in his 1838 Epicrisis" which is what?
  • Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici seu Synopsis Hymenomycetum full name now given. Sasata (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
this was a work where he covered all fungi that had been published to that date, with some corrections and annotations - will expand in his article and maybe make a standalone article at some point Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking you could add "his 1838 book Epicrisis". Otherwise we don't know what it is. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
aah ok, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Boletus (now Imperator) rhodopurpureus or B. (now Imperator) luteocupreus" Seems a bit confusing to have the (now Imperator) within the wikilinks, maybe add a single (both now considered Imperator) after the two names?
yeah..done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Could we get some more dates under taxonomy? We jump from 1948 to 2013 within two sentences, but the reader wouldn't know.
often taxa "lie fallow" for many years. I will take another look at the sources though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "was classified in Boletus section Luridi" This made little sense to me as a non-fungus guy, perhaps "was classified in the Luridi section of the genus Boletus" or some such? Also, classified by who?
have rejigged and elaborated slightly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "formally published the subsection Torosi of section Luridi" As above, could be written in a less jargony way.
Okay, I tried rejigging like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Boletaceae phylogeny, brawny bolete was most closely related" The brawny bolete?
yeah..added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There is inconsistency in whether you use the scientific or common name throughout the article.
I have done that to reduce repetition. Also felt it was odd to keep calling it I. torosus before it was assigned to that genus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "and Israel." But not in the rest of the Near East? is it introduced?
Fungi are elusive in that they are invisible unless fruiting, so the records can be pretty sparse. It is not introduced and can only record what we find. I don't recall finding records for elsewhere but will take another sweep. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright, with the UK occurrence, and the images apparently from Germany, it seems a bit odd... Perhaps it has a wider distribution than the sources used say? FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the United Kingdom, it is listed as a "priority species"" Just before you say it is native to southern Europe?
  • "only distantly related to the type species of Boletus" Which is? Not described as such in the article itself.
It's Boletus edulis - I converted to an mdash to make it clearer its not a series of different entities after the comma Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd like some more detailed distribution info, as the distribution seems inconsistent, but if this can't be found in the sources, not much to do, rest looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Let's just get to it. Both images are appropriately licensed (otrs permissions), but I wonder if the taxobox image could get some kind of caption? Where are the depicted specimens? FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The answer to that is proving elusive.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The source seems to be a website about hiking in Germany... FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Some quick comments:

  • I'm not sure about the comma in the second sentence (similar with the first sentence of the habitat section)
I agree it is a little jarring for flow and have removed both, but once removed we have a problem of an inline ref not coming after any punctuation. Is that a problem? I feel if it is at the end it does compromise ref accuracy a little. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not opposed to references appearing in that way, but I know some people aren't at all keen. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've made a change to the bruising info in the lead, but I'm not sure how consistent it is and was with what is said in the description section- sorry if I've made a mess...
looks fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici seu Synopsis Hymenomycetum" Should this be capitalised? It's not in the citation
  • Now title case. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to Italian mycologist Carlo Luciano Alessio,[1] additional synonyms include Henri Romagnesi's 1948 Boletus purpureus var. xanthocyaneus, and the same taxon, promoted by Romagnesi to distinct species status in 1976,[14] Boletus xanthocyaneus; others, however, consider B. xanthocyaneus a distinct species.[15][16][17]" I don't understand
I think the semicolon confuses things, but I think it can be written better. I need to take a deep breath before tackling that one.....hang on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I had a go, is that clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Much better- you are trying to get across a lot of complex information. Perhaps "promoted" to species would be better than "classified" as species, but I'll leave that up to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "for taxa that align" Do you mean taxa, here? Or specimens?
  • Changed to specimens. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "this was the only taxon faithful to the original description with a grey cap and yellow pores that slowly turn red" Again, I'm not clear on what you're referring to by "taxon", here.
Sorry, I meant "description" - i.e. Quelet's matching the original of Fries and Secretan...but now there are three "description" s in the one sentence :P Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "subsection" Do we have an article for this rank? If not, perhaps a redlink would be useful?
  • I'm reluctant to make articles for Boletus subtaxa in the midst of the current phylogenetic reorganization of the Boletaceae... perhaps after the molecular dust settles. Sasata (talk)
  • "I. (then Boletus) luteocupreus" Is splitting names like this standard?
no it isn't - I came up with it to clarify its status succinctly. I have rejigged and left taxa at their Boletus names at the time of the study and rejigged so the placing of the other species in Imperator is an footnote here. I can make the placement of luridus and dupaini into another footnote or can just leave out as not that integral to the material Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I like the new approach. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "It has been described as, "having a stone in your hand"." Why the comma? Also, presumably holding one has been described as that, rather than the fruit body itself
  • Changed to "Holding the brawny bolete has been described as "having a stone in your hand"."
  • "sometimes protruding beyond the tubes" This is going to be unclear to unfamiliar readers
changed to "beyond the pored undersurface". Could make it "beyond the cap's pored undersurface" or "hangs over the (cap's) pored undersurface", though am worried that adding "cap's" is unnecessary and makes it a little repetitive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What is "sordid" brown?
  • Changed to "dirty brown". Sasata (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The description seems to lack specific information about the pores- what sort of diameter/density are we talking about?
this is proving rather hard to find. I have added "small and round" which is a little bit more informative (but not much). Will add when/what I can source... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks fairly uncontroversial. Funny name (sounds a bit scifi) and a slightly whacky authority, but that's not a problem! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support unless something crops up I've missed. Well written, answers the key questions, based on good literature, neutral. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done; I've not checked for missed sources. Just looking at reliability and formatting.

  • Translated article/book titles may be a useful addition for those not in English. I note you've provided it in one case, but not others- consistency would be good.
  • Translations now provided for all foreign-language titles (Cas, please double-check the Latin ones ... I struggled with Google translate). Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am struggling with the formatting on the Alessio source
  • Perhaps it looks odd because the title italicization reverses the genus italics, and the unitalicized series titles follows the title ... but I think the template formatting is correct. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Access date for the British Mycological Society source?
  • I'm happy to take your word for it that the capitalisation on the foreign language book titles is appropriate, but it may be worth double-checking
  • Latin and French book titles are often published in sentence case (for reasons I'm not aware of), but I've made them all title case for consistency here. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • One was changed in the prose above- I'm not sure which way is "more" correct, I'm just aiming for consistency. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The JSTOR link on your Taxon links is redundant- it's the same as the DOI.
  • Removed. I blame robots. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There's an inconsistency as to whether you provide locations for book publishers- I've no strong preference
  • Missing locations added. Sasata (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Language for the Flammer article?
  • German, added. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Possible courtesy link? I think it's an offprint, but it should be functionally identical to the final publication.
    Added link. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes the Assyov source reliable? Also, are you attached to the italics on the website name? Though the MOS is a bit back-and-forth on it, this is not a kind of website which is specifically mentioned as requiring italics.
  • Assyov is faculty member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences who did his PhD on Bulgarian boletes. He has several relevant publications, and is one of the authors of the genus Imperator, so I think his website qualifies as a reliable self-published source for info on Boletales species. Website name now unitalicized. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps an accessdate for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee source? Also, does "Report" need to be capitalised?
  • I wouldn't bother providing ISSNs, unless you have an overriding reason in the Benedek & Pál-Fám source?
  • Removed. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You've really delved into some obscure-sounding journals, here! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

University of Virginia Greek life[edit]

Nominator(s): Puppysnot (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the University of Virginia's fraternity and sorority system, which has existed since the mid 1800s and whose history includes the founding of two national fraternities as well as other events of significance. The article details the history of the system and lists the Greek organizations on grounds including foundation date, a picture of the residence (if there is one), and other notes. Puppysnot (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I have performed only a cursory prose review, primarily examining structural and referencing requirements. There is arguably a case to be made that the long tables constitute a list article (and thus a candidate for FLC rather than FAC), but I'll not address that consideration, and treat this as an article that merely includes a large subsidiary list.

  • The lead is problematic. I am not convinced it represents an adequate summary of the article body. In particular, the lead's discussion of reserved rooms does not seem to appear in the body (and is likely too specific for lead inclusion to boot).
  • I'm not sure I understand your comment here; could I ask you to be more specific? The lead seems to me to be a comprehensive yet brief summary. You're right that the Lawn room assignments hadn't appeared in the body, so I have added them to the Notes section in the tables. I feel they should be included in the lead because they give an example of the Greek system's importance to the school--being selected to live in a Lawn room is very meaningful (I could mention that in the article if needed), and out of the very few organizations that hold reserved rooms, three of them are Greek. But I'm open to discussion. Puppysnot (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The introduction paragraph in History is problematic, claiming that Greek life began "relatively soon after" 1819, but noting that fraternities were not introduced until the 1850s. It's not immediately clear what is being cited for support here, and some of the confusion may be the result of the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society's operation as Greek-lettered Phi Pi Theta. It is mentioned (in the lead) as being lettered, but never named as Phi Pi Theta, and I'm not sure the distinction between it and actual fraternities is made clear; I'm certainly unable to define the difference.
  • Done. You're right; the Jefferson Society is not a fraternity, and I have added that in explicitly. I also reworded the History lead to remove the timeline ambiguity. Puppysnot (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The Late 1900s section discusses Easters without any context. I have no idea who or what the Easters was.
  • Done. I had explained what Easters was after it was initially mentioned, but I reworded the section to make it flow better and make it less confusing. Puppysnot (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Controversies" section has but one controversy, and is basically just a place to hang discussion of the Rolling Stone article; perhaps issues like the failure to maintain house condition (until remedied by the HRC) belongs here, which would also prevent discussion of the HRC from appearing in anachronistic order? Also, I'm of a mind that this section should appear before the tables; it's reasonable to believe our readers would think the article's prose complete before scrolling to the bottom of these lengthy tables.
  • I moved the controversies section in front of the tables, but I didn't add the HRC information--I think the HRC info is better suited to the history section, since it wasn't a recent or well-known controversy. I don't think the controversies section should be removed, since the Rolling Stone article was recent and gained national attention, but I don't have much else to add to that section. Not sure what the best decision is here. Puppysnot (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Try to have the column and table widths consistent between the various tables.
  • Done, to the best of my ability (unfortunately entering the same width for the identical columns in each table doesn't result in exactly the same width in reality). Although you may want to check it on your computer--I don't know if tables display differently on different screens. Puppysnot (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it standard practice when discussing fraternal organizations that have disbanded and reformed (sometimes decades later) to treat them as a contiguous organization with the original founding date intact? Do third-party treatments of fraternal organization history do so?
  • I don't think there's a standard practice, so I chose to use the original dates because it was objective. Using the most recent "re-founding" could lead to a lot of subjective decisions--what would count as a "re-founding," as opposed to a temporary suspension? Some organizations have had charters revoked by their nationals temporarily, some have been suspended by the university. Others have disappeared for a time because membership lapsed. In any case, whenever I found that some sort of blip in the organization's timeline existed, I mentioned it in the Notes column, so I think as long as it's consistent it should be okay. I spoke with an editor from Wikiproject Fraternities and Sororities, and he agreed that using the original founding date would be best. Puppysnot (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Defunct fraternites are mentioned, some by name. Is it possible to include a table for them as well?
  • I thought about this, but I figured it would make the already lengthy article unnecessarily long. It would undoubtedly miss some organizations, as I haven't been able to find a comprehensive list of defunct fraternities at the university. Puppysnot (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference formatting, and possibly reference selection, needs work:
  • Several references are not formatted at all, and lack sufficient bibliographic information. See especially #24 and #107, but also print sources incorrectly formatted as bare links, as in #16, #86, and #99.
  • Done for these, plus a couple others I found. Puppysnot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Book sources need ISBNs, when assigned, or OCLCs otherwise.
  • Done. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find ISBNs/OCLCs for Patterson's book or the 2 Corks and Curls books. Perhaps someone with more experience could help. Puppysnot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Some web-only sources lack retrieval dates. Some print sources archived online have retrieval dates (which are not strictly required, and often disfavored).
  • Reference #88: [A]lpha
  • In general, very little of this is referenced by sources I would consider independent. While I'm not concerned about using fraternity publications to cite charter dates or the names o their houses (in general, the table information), even the historical context of the topic is largely sourced by University of Virginia documents (note that, broadly speaking, I'm less concerned about sources merely published by the University of Virgnia Press), and the websites and publications of the sundry organizations that are the topic of the article istself. Many aspects of this topic are of considerable historical importance; has nothing more been written by third parties?
  • Actually, I strongly disagree with this. There are a lot of primary sources, but most of them are used in the table for the Notes section. I made sure that any significant claims were cross-referenced with reliable sources, or else I didn't include those claims in the article (the article's edit history demonstrates that). As for the History section, most of the material comes from the histories by Dabney, Bruce, and Patton, with other third-party sources scattered (like Wilson and Mohr's Encyclopedia of Southern Culture). From my understanding, all of those should pass for reliable sources, especially if you aren't concerned with sources published by the UVa Press. There are occasionally primary sources in the History section, but they generally serve to source founding dates or other insignificant information. However, if you feel differently I'm open to discussion. Puppysnot (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's very clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, but I believe that it still has quite a bit to go before meeting the FA criteria. Regrettable, I lean oppose on prose and structure, and oppose outright on the current state of referencing and reference formatting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Squeamish Ossifrage, thanks for the review. This is my first FAC so I'm not surprised that there's some work to do. I'll make note under your above comments as I address each issue, and if the consensus is still oppose after I've made the improvements, then I can do some more work and renominate in a few weeks. Puppysnot (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Squeamish Ossifrage, I believe I've addressed all of your comments, although some merit further discussion. I'm in no rush, I just wanted to let you know I had finished. Let me know what you think! Thanks, Puppysnot (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

History of Roman and Byzantine domes[edit]

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

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

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

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

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

Comments by RoyGoldsmith[edit]

Continuing the second comment made by Nick-D above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sounds fine, too, but I am a little paranoid now about others objecting to something without specific citations to back it up. The use of the word "successor" to describe the Byzantine Empire, for example, is a known point of contention (there was an argument about that at the List of Roman Emperors article not too long ago). AmateurEditor (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK[edit]

  • All images are CC or PD, and have sufficient source and author info - OK.
  • Infobox image verified via OTRS - OK.
  • Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
  • 3 images (in the gallery) lack EXIF-data, but upload histories show no signs of problems - OK.
  • File:Mausoleo_di_galla_placidia,_int.,_volta_con_tetramorfo.JPG and File:Basilica di San Vitale cupola 2.jpg have a special Italian authorization tag as part of "Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2013". I have never seen that tag before (and couldn't find any documentation /sigh), but image usage should be OK nonetheless (images are hosted on Commons as part of a larger event) - OK.
  • Please let me know, if any later changed images need checking during the nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Ghirla[edit]

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

I agree about the influences section and I am working to fill that out right now. I am not sure what you mean by color symbolism of Orthodox domes. If you are referring to non-Byzantine Orthodox domes, I think that is a bit too detailed for such a high-level summary section and will fit better in an article about Orthodox or Russian domes themselves. The only color symbolism I am aware of in the Byzantine domes themselves was the use of gold to represent heaven; is that what you meant? I don't think there were any Byzantine onion domes, so I assume you mean non-Byzantine Orthodox domes there, as well. I might be able to find a source that mentions them in the context of Byzantine influence, but I suspect that those were an original development that sources will not specifically tie to this subject. I can only add what I find in reliable sources, after all, so we'll see if there is mention of those or of "Neo Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire" (which sounds awfully narrow and specific - the odds are better at finding mention of general Byzantine Revival architecture). We'll see what turns up. Beautiful cathedral, by the way. I wasn't aware of that one. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

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

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


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


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

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

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

The Boat Races 2015[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 running of The Boat Race was an epoch-marking moment – the three "senior" races were held, back-to-back, on the Tideway for the first time in the history of the event, which dates back to 1829. This article was one of the last of the entire set that I got to good article status, a day or two after the races themselves. I waited for a long time for a peer review and received some very brief comments, so I thought (no, I knew) if I brought it here, it'd receive a much more critical examination. Thanks in advance to everyone who spends any time or energy in the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

I'll jot some notes as I go.....

In para 2 of the lead, you've mentioned the result of the Osiris/Blondie race but not the Isis/Goldie one...(should put the Isis/Goldie stuff together somehow)
Oopsie, added now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Prior to this year, the women's race was usually held at the Henley Boat Races along the 2,000-metre (2,200 yd) course, although on at least two occasions, in the interwar period, the women competed on the Thames between Chiswick and Kew. - I think this sentence flows better if split in the middle...
Split. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
They were inadvertently discovered stranded during an RNLI exercise - presume you mean, "They were discovered inadvertently stranded during an RNLI exercise"...?
I guess that depends on the inadvertedness, the RNLI discovered them by chance (according to the sources) and of course any stranding would have been inadvertent, so I'm not sure if the rephrasing is strictly necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Aaah, ok you're right/my bad...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Over 250,000 spectators lined the Thames to watch the three races - is this alot/about average for this...?
Anecdotally I'd say it's just a little over average, but I'll need to see if I can find some sources to make some comparisons. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
OK - I am sure if you find it you'll add it and if you can't then you can't. Minor issue in the scheme of things so I am at a stage where i can't see any obvious improvements then....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it's one of those things that's notoriously difficult, to estimate the number of people lining the four-and-a-bit miles length of the Thames... I'll keep digging, but thatnks for your comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise little to fault really...looks comprehensive and prose is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Cas. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Phil_Hughes_cropped.jpg: this is tagged as a temp upload so is liable to be deleted
    In the meantime, using the main image. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Oxford-University-Circlet.svg: uploader is not the author (if they were, the licensing would not be valid). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Replaced author with the University. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Nikkimaria. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Brustopher[edit]

Haven't really commented on an FA review before, just saw this pop up on my watchlist and thought I'd give my two cents. Apologies if I'm doing this wrong.

In the second paragraph of the lede the women's boat race is brought up without really explaining what it is and where it's come from.
Well it's linked there to the main article and is explained in more detail in the Background section. Is there something more specific that you're looking for? I didn't want to make the intro too awkward, particularly with regard to the various start years, regularity, courses etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
In the background section it's not explained when the women's boat race began. This could read as implying it began in 1829 with the men's event.
I've added the year of the first women's race, 1927. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The Eleanor Oldroyd quote in the background section could mislead people into thinking the Boat Race has prize money. Perhaps a template:sic and a clarifying note could work here?Brustopher (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, odd one that, I guess Oldroyd was meaning to refer to the financial sponsorship given to both crews rather than money for winning the race. I've done as you suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Brustopher, I am just about to do family stuff, so I'll get back to your comments as soon as I can. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've responded to the comments above, thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I'm pretty happy with this. Thanks for the changes, and writing the article in the first place. Brustopher (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – my usual whinge about tabloidese false titles ("umpired by six-time Blue Boris Rankov" etc) but that's a matter of personal taste. Otherwise nothing but praise for this article, which I suspect may well be the best of all the fine Boat Race articles written by the Rambling Man. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, I've had a trawl through to remove the falsies where I saw them. Cheers for the support. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): ceradon (talkcontribs) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC), Lingzhi

Well, here we are again. Since the last FAC this article has gone through MILHIST A-Class review and a number of improvements. Thank you, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. I supported last time and have just read through the article again; I think this is excellent work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Mike. Cheers, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 21:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Confederate_General_Robert_E._Lee_poses_in_a_late_April_1865.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I've changed the image to File:Leeedit.jpg which is the same thing just edited for quality (and a Featured Picture). I have also archived the source link there. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 21:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the ancient city of Palmyra. It was an important metropolis during the first three centuries of the Roman Empire and became famous in ancient sources for its warrior queen Zenobia, while in modern times, it is famous for the many well preserved ancient ruins combining both Greco-Roman and Near-Eastern traditions. The city is designated as World Heritage Site and is endangered due to the Syrian Civil War. The article was copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors and it received a peer review.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • since Syria does not have freedom of panorama for sculptural works, all such images need to be explicitly identified as PD due to age
Im sorry but I didnt understand, they are rightly licensed by the people who took the photographs. Do you mean that they need to be declared PD by a Syrian official or that I should add a tag declaring that they are DP because they are 1700 years old ? If its the latter case then can you be so nice and refer to the right template to use ? How can I tag a pic as public domain due to it representing an old sculpture even though the pic was taken by someone who published it under a different license.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Because there is no freedom of panorama, we need to have two licenses - one representing the original work and one representing the photo of it. Right now we have the licenses representing the photos, so we need to add a tag like {{PD-old-100}} to represent the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks for explaining, I dont do a lot of work on Wikimedia and dont really understand much about the licensing. I have added the requested tags for sculptures inside Syria while the ones currently in Britain such as "File:PalmyraWoman.JPG" or Istanbul such as "File:Istanbul - Museo archeol. - Colombario funebre da Palmira - Foto G. Dall'Orto 28-5-2006.jpg" dont need the tags since both Turkey and UK have freedom of panorama.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, shouldn't it be obvious that they are PD since the structures are thousands of years old? FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That's why it's an easy fix, but we should still say so explicitly. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Palmyra_imposed.png: What is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Palmyra's_landmarks.png
The sources for Palmyra_imposed are in the section Palmyrene Empire. Zenobia annexed the Roman provinces in the east : Egypt, Syria, Arabia and the Anatolian regions up to Ankara and including Galatia. The map highlight the borders of those provinces. Do you need me to put the sources in the image as well?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Done for both File:Palmyra_imposed.png and Palmyra's_landmarks.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
As for Palmyra's_landmarks: this book in page 26 (figure 1.14) [1]. The university of southern California site also present the city layout [2].--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Hairan-Herodes.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Maeonius.jpg, File:Babylonlion.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Done, as for File:Babylonlion.JPG, there isn't such a file in the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes there is, it's in the portal box. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh wow! I didnt expect that. I added the required tag.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Thorpe[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thorpe was the most talked-about politician in England 40 years ago, for all the wrong reasons – see Thorpe affair for details. Last December he died, and a new biography came out – publication had been delayed for fear of libel laws. I've used this new material to expand Thorpe's biographical WP article, and provide a fuller account of his life. I suppose, however, that what will always remain most prominent in readers' minds are the sensational events that finished his career prematurely. Comments are welcomed.

Support. I was a traveller through PR, where my minor concerns were happily dealt with. Since then the article has improved further and more than meets the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – having (as a young, very junior official) encountered and liked Thorpe in the early 1970s, I found this a painful article, but it seems to me to present the known facts fairly and without undue sensationalism. Widely sourced, fully cited and with good pictures. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 22:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Support—never met the Dog Terminator meself, despite going to school right next to Lib-Dem HQ, but I did very much enjoy reading Brian's recent piece about the Thorpe affair and Bomber's unfortunate downfall. I read through this biography a couple of times and had my say at PR (a seizure on an assault course, indeed). The article is of FA standard in my view regarding prose quality, sourcing etc and I have no qualms about supporting its promotion. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

SupportTim will curse me for saying this, but I don't remember Thorpe in the 1970s (not so much as an itch in dad's pants then), nor do I remember reading about him when I eventually did come along in the 1980s. Either I'm too young or too stupid; or perhaps both? Anyway, what I have read here has certainly educated me on about a man whose glowing career sadly ended in scandal as a result of his own promiscuity. An excellent account and one I'm happy to support to FA status. CassiantoTalk 10:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Support I had my say at the peer review and my concerns were answered. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • There's little for me to do here at the moment, apart from thanking the above supporters, all of whom made significant contributions to the peer review, here. Their comments and suggestions were, as usual, of great benefit to the article. Thanks, also, to Nikkimaria for her image review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support I knew nothing about Thorpe until I read the article but I found it the article a comprehensive and interesting account of his life. Personally, I feel for what happened to him after he was acquitted. I only spotted one minor nitpick. Z105space (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Pompfret is linked to the type of fish and not to the town in Connecticut.
So it was, and many thanks for spotting this. I have corrected it. Thanks, too for your comment and support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. I can find very little to object to here, and certainly nothing substantively affecting promotion. However, because I'm obligated to pick nits in reference formatting for any FAC review: all ISBNs should be presented as properly-formatted ISBN-13s. ISBN-10s can be converted to ISBN-13s with this handy tool, which I strongly encourage all FA-bound editors to bookmark. The Partington source needs an ISBN added, likely along with an edition number (the absence of which prevents me from determining the ISBN for you). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have that tool. Unfortunately, every time I type in a 10-digit isbn it tells me that the number is incorrect, even when it is manifestly not, so I've given up on it. Fortunately, I've been able to find the 13-digit versions from WorldCat or ABE. I've never understood why the 10-digit version is deemed unacceptable, apart from the desire for uniformity – reason enough, I suppose. I've found the Partington isbn. Many thanks for your zeal, and for your support here, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review

  • Spot checks done on online sources only; no problems found.
  • The false titles (using the semi colon) is frowned upon: best to go for sub-sections as titles;
  • FNs 76 & 120 is inconsistent (three digits on the second page number);
  • FN 129: we should probably include the journalist's name here;
  • For those sources from behind database protection (FNs 129, 130, 187 and possibly others), it's probably best to add the {{subscription}} template;
  • It is not compulsory, but it may be a good idea to archive the web pages to protect against link rot; this is one of the possible archive sites. (Let me know if you want me to do this).

That's it from the sources side: ping me if I haven't been clear on any of this. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

2012 Daytona 500[edit]

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

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

Hastings Line[edit]

Nominator(s): Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a secondary railway line in the United Kingdom. It was built across difficult terrain requiring many tunnels. Lax supervision of the construction of the tunnels meant that a following rectification of the defects discovered, a restricted loading gauge was required for 140 years. During a modernisation scheme in the 1980s, measures were taken to remove the loading gauge restriction.

This is the second nomination for this article. The first nomination failed mainly because of a lack of reviewers. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Editors involved with previous FAC

I take it that you still support, Tim. Dr. B, have you any further comments to those issues raised in the first FAC? Do you accept my responses where I have not made changes? RedRose64 and Tivedshambo/Pek, do you have any comments re this FAC? Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Happy to support again. It is a weakness of the FAC system that a fine article can fail because not enough reviewers happen to have looked in. (Not that I can think of any other FAC system that would be more practical.) I hope most sincerely that this time the article will get enough head of steam. It certainly merits promotion to FA in my view. I have (not, I hope, improperly) put a note on my talk page drawing attention to this review. Tim riley talk 20:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Mjroots[edit]

Editors should read the comments in Archive 1 before commenting here. This is to avoid duplication. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Tim brought me here with a request on his talk. I've fixed some refs for you and have laid down some "by whom" tags which I think need to be clarified. I'll continue to read and post here over the next few days. CassiantoTalk 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I've clarified one. One is obvious, and for the other the source does not state who proposed the line to Mayfield, only that there was such a proposal and that a meeting was held at Mayfield. Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok. CassiantoTalk 12:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


  • "The Hastings Line is built over difficult terrain..." POV. How and why is it difficult? Give the reasons why it is "difficult". CassiantoTalk 12:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
"Difficult terrain" is not POV when a source states that the High Weald is difficult terrain (Beecroft, p.7, para 1, line 3 and also p.7, para 3, line 2). Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)q
How is it difficult? Rocky, hilly, slippery, overgrown? What might be "difficult" to one might not be difficult to another. CassiantoTalk 14:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Explained that it is forested and hilly. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Better, thank you. I would be willing to strike the oppose if everything else is ironed out. It's not completely out of the question to be able to do this whilst the FAC is ongoing, it just depends on how much time in RL you have to be able to do it. CassiantoTalk 15:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose -- I'm sorry, but the more I look at this article the more I see further problems. There is a lot of repetition in the prose; tunnels, station(s) are two words that spring to mind immediately and a lot of it can be either cut out or merged. There are a lot of stubby lines which makes for some bumpy reading; POV issues which could be worded in a more neutral way, and punctuation errors are also present (two of which I have fixed). On the whole, I don't think it's ready. I see you had a peer review which resulted in a couple of people turning up, but to be honest, I don't think it has been of benefit. I would suggest you withdraw the nomination, look about at FA and note down past editors who have been successful in producing featured articles on the railways. I would then approach them and ask them to take part in a review of some kind. On the plus side, I would say that this article is very well researched. It could be a fascinating article if the writing matched in quality. CassiantoTalk 12:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

with eight tunnels and fourteen stations, those words are going to occur quite a lot. There are no alternative words available to use, except in the case of Mountfield Halt. Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that, and I'm not adverse to a little repetition where it can't be helped. But I feel it can be helped in some places. If you look at a couple of my copy edits, you will see what kind of repetition can be avoided. CassiantoTalk 15:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I've got time, but am away from home for a few days, so might lack access to a few sources, although I've got Beecroft with me. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Great! Well it was only opened yesterday so you have bags of time. I don't think you'll need many books as my issue is not with content but with the prose. I will of course assist in any which way I can, although not enough to warrant my eventual support biased. CassiantoTalk 19:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm now back at home. Unfortunately a relative has passed away today so I might not be around much tomorrow, weekend looking a little better though. Should be back to normal service by Monday. Mjroots (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I assume "past editors who have been successful in producing featured articles on the railways" is a reference to either myself or User:DavidCane given that 23 of the UK railways FAs(!) were written by one or the other of us. I don't really see an issue with the prose in this instance. An article of this nature is unavoidably going to have a lot of repetition, since one can't really describe the route of a railway line (or road, or canal etc) without a lot of "cutting, tunnel, bridge, tunnel, bridge" repetitiveness. With some articles like Talyllyn Railway or Brill Tramway the lines were built in stages, so it's possible to hide the repetition by spreading out the route description among the sections, but when something was opened all-at-once a long and boring "Route" section is unavoidable. (See Manchester Ship Canal#Route or Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line#Alignment for examples in current FAs.) – iridescent 08:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cassianto: - do you still oppose? Any concrete suggestions as to areas still needing work? Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to have to re-read it. I see that Brian has given a review which, assuming you've taken his advice, should seal my support. I'll read through over the next couple of days and report back. You may want to ping Brian to ask him if he is satisfied with all your fixes. CassiantoTalk 10:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Optimist on the run[edit]

No comments to make, but full support (making it explicit this time, as I hadn't realised a lack of negative comments wasn't enough).  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 06:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

A few preliminary comments:

  • Infobox map: I don't think this is adequate. The railway line is far from prominent in the map – frankly, if you aren't familiar with SE England geography you'll have a job locating Hastings, let alone Tunbridge (Tonbridge) or Tunbridge Wells. Would it be possible to work with a mapper, to get the line highlighted in some way? At present, the dominant, eye-catching line is the irrelevant county boundary.
    I generally accept what you say. The area is "home territory" for me, but someone in Wisconsin might not necessarily know the area. There's no technical reason why a derivative map cannot be created highlighting the Hastings Line. Unfortunately I don't possess the skills to do this myself, Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    I know an excellent mapper. At he moment, he's doing a rather intricate job for me, but when he's through I'll ask him if he can assist you. It's quite a simple task – highlighting the line and enlarging the destination place names – but, as with you, it's beyond my technical competence. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    If ClemRutter (talk · contribs) can't help, you could send it to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. As it's an SVG map, it should be possible to carry out all the mods using a plain text editor; I've had a look, and the route itself is in two sections: path3408 is the line from North Kent East Junction to just north of Wadhurst; and path3440 is the line from just north of Wadhurst to Hastings and on to about Ore. It'll need those paths to be split. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    Clem has done a new map, which means that this issue has now been dealt with. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Still with the map, I found it difficult to interpret the caption: "Note the line's relation with the South Eastern Main Line in the north and other lines around Hastings." How do I identify the South Eastern Main Line?
I've tweaked the map caption a bit, should now be more obvious where Hastings is. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Background: The collapsed diagram is excellent – it seems a pity to "hide" such a useful feature.
The map is collapsed because it can be quite dominant. On my PC,using Firefox, when extended it clashes with the TOC. I'm currently on a laptop using Google Chrome. When extended, the diagram pushes the TOC down and does not clash. Best left normally collapsed IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Construction of a single line branch from Tunbridge to Tunbridge Wells, a fashionable town where a chalybeate spring had been discovered in 1606, began in July that year..." That year!!? (I've heard of heritage lines, but that's ridiculous). Seriously, you do need to reword that sentence; personally, I'd drop the chalybete spring stuff altogether, as it is barely relevant to the railway.
Reworded and clarified the sentence.
The background to TW is important for context. Before the C17th, Tunbrige parish extended as far as the Sussex border. It the town hadn't existed in the mid-1840s, the next settlement of any size would have been Wadhurst. It was the existence of the town that spurred the SER to put the branch in. Without the branch, there was less likelihood of an extension southwards. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of this section has considerable overdetailing, and could be cut drastically. We don't need the detail for each step of the legislation through parliament. I would consider replacing everything after "31 July" with: "The necessary Act of Parliament had passed all its legislative stages by 28 July 1845, after which Royal Assent was granted on 31 July."
I've reduced the detail quite a bit. I left the start date in to indicate the timescale involved in the Act's passage through Parliament. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "it was decided" – who made the decision?
Now stated. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • " The first train, comprising four locomotives and 26 carriages arrived on 19 September" Some punctuation missing. And arrived where?
rewritten and clarified. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Trains from Tunbridge had to reverse before starting the climb to Somerhill Tunnel, as there was no facing junction at Tunbridge. This situation was to remain until 1857, when a direct link was built at a cost of £5,700. The old link remained in use until c. 1913." Sorry, but I'm having great difficulty understanding this.
I've added a diagram showing the development of Tonbridge station. Should be clear now. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't finished the Background section, yet I've identified quite a few problems. The information is all here in the article, but its presentation seems to need quite a bit more work. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: thanks for the above comments, which give me something concrete to work with. I will respond individually to points raised. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm prepared to work with you, to get this up to standard, but it may take me a while, as I have much to do at present. I trust the co-ordinators will be patient. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, as long as there's activity we are fine. It's when things go quiet that the clock starts ticking. Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The map is better, but as mentioned below, could be improved. Leaving that aside for the moment, my chief concerns are with the prose. Rather than cluttering this FAC page with detail, I intend to open a thread on the article's talkpage and raise issues there. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Later comment: I have raised a number of prose and presentational points on the talkpage. Mostly these have been addressed, and I think the article has improved. My remaining concerns, which I have passed to the nominator, are:

  • The over-listy appearance of the article. We have a table of tunnels, a section that is effectively a list of stations (which are also listed within the collapsed diagram of the line), and two sections presented in bullet point format, meaning two further lists. If little can be done about the tunnels and stations, then at least the BPs can be prosified.
  • Too many images: the desire to have an image for every tunnel and every station is misplaced. The article's presentation is seriously distorted; we don't need to know what every station looked like, and if we want to know, there are linked articles for each station where the imagesare shown. I strongly recommend a considerable reduction in the number of images in this article.
  • The article contains the sentence: "The train, consisting the Royal Saloon, two first class carriages and a brake van made the journey from Bricklayers Arms to Tunbridge Wells in 75 minutes". Thinking the omission of "of" after "consisting" was a typo, I inserted it. My correction has been reverted and the original form reinstated on the grounds that it was correct.

Work needed on these points, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed images of all stations except Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells and Hastings. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, "consisting of" is incorrect. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you are right, the Oxford Dictionary of English is wrong! I believe you are confusing this with "comprising" which does not require the "of". Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm persuaded. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Openings section has now been put into prose. I think this now addresses all of Brianboulton's points. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Clem[edit]

Changing the map is trivial- knowing what is required involves thinking. All my svgs are done using Inkscape- which is free on Linux and I think Microstuff. I am doing a few at the moment File:London dial.svg etc. So how do you want it changed? I can't quickly find an similar FA page to see what is required. Maybe this is case of doing a pencil sketch, scanning and sending an external email. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What is needed is the Hastings Line bolded betwen Tonbridge and Hastings. The date 1852 adding between Robertsbridge and West St Leonards, and the built up area of Hastings marking. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As a suggestion, you may want to take the approach I took at Brill Tramway, of losing the backgrounds on the maps altogether, except possibly the coastline, and instead having a series of line-diagrams showing the evolution of railway lines over time, with this particular line highlighted. In the context of the article, it's virtually irrelevant where Hastings, Tonbridge etc actually are (readers either already know, or don't care); what's important is (1) how the line in question line relates to other railway lines and (2) how direct the route to London is. – iridescent 08:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
(adding) I agree that the image currently in the infobox (File:Kent Railways.svg) isn't suitable. The most prominent thing on that is the red line for the Kent border; given that said border runs from London, to Tunbridge Wells, to the south coast, readers are reasonably going to assume that it's the route of the railway line. – iridescent 09:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I have modded the map, but in doing so have to agree it is not of a FA standard. The source was Jessop's page in Kent railways and the lines that tailed off into East Sussex were an afterthought. (Also I cant find either of my copies of Jessop at the moment). It will do as a holding job but if we get a better image- then just ditch it. File:Hastings Kent Railways.svg-- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed that Southeastern (train operating company) has File:Southeastern TOC route map 2010.svg. That is an even clearer map, perhaps a version of it showing only the Hastings line could be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Testing the internet in a l'Arche Cafeteria on the A10 south of Paris! File:Southeastern TOC route map 2010 Hastings.svg may be what you want. Do check the permissions etc- je suis un peu pressé.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: not to denigrate your work in producing these maps, but I think the existing map is better, sorry. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Lingzhi[edit]

  • Color me very irritated. You're transcluding references into your article. It's a cute trick, but only useful for people who are not careless. Every citation in the article should be matched with a reference, and just as importantly, no reference in the references should be there unless it has a matching citation. You're transcluding refs in batches of more than one. If even one of these isn't used in the article, the whole transclusion is a mistake. Please get importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to check for redlinks in your refs. Please do not add refs that are not cited. • Lingzhi(talk) 23:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    Colour me confused. Having checked your edits, which were mostly adding non-breaking spaces to dates, do you mean the use of {{Quail-5}}? Mjroots (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yes. It transcludes three references to Yonge, not one of which was cited in the text. I actually like the idea of transcluding refs. I wish Wikipedia would set up a ref space so editors could type something like {{APA-specific_doi}} or {{APA-specific_ISBN}} and get a perfectly formatted APA reference to a journal and book. But if you're gonna transclude anything, use it. Please. And if three are on one transclusion, you have to use all 3 of them. Please. • Lingzhi(talk) 05:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    The inclusion of that template was not my doing. It is correct to the RDT, and is cited there. Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    What RDT? The only article relevant to this discussion is Hastings Line. Moreover, it is irrelevant who put it there. It is merely relevant that it shouldn't be there. I again encourage you to add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to your common.js, to make it much easier to catch this sort of error. Tks. • Lingzhi(talk) 06:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    {{Hastings Line}} Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, now I see. But the references for that illustration are inside noincludes, which effectively means that they are not a part of this article. You need to work out some other arrangement. A Note somewhere inside the main section of the illustration and a couple ref tags in the Note would work (technically), if other reviewers would accept that format. Or you could do it some other way. But as it stands, even though in your mind the Quail templated refs point to somethng in this article, in fact they do not. • Lingzhi(talk) 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Mjroots: Please note my edits to the template and the article, and see whether they are acceptable to you. • Lingzhi(talk) 04:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    The note is against the statement that milages are from Charing Cross. The only ref that supports this statement is Miles and Chains, so it is possible to lose the other refs and leave them in the RDT. Mjroots (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    It's also given in Quail. See for example third edition, maps 10B, 18A and 18B which all state "miles from Charing Cross via Chelsfield", and map 18C which states "miles from Charing Cross via Chelsfield and Battle". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Redrose64, can you add the relevant page numbers to the refs for Note 1 please? Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done with these edits which also reduced the number of displayed editions from three to one, which addresses Lingzhi's original concern about {{Quail-5}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    I actually intended for that note to have scope over the whole template. :-) Perhaps I'm still thinking within the "paper hardcopy publication" paradigm instead of online format... In a paper publication, if you compile a table a chart from some sources, those sources must be noted somewhere in the article or dissertation or whatever. But if Wikipedia's licensing is OK with attribution within the noinclude of the template itself (it is very plainly visible if you know how to go to template space to look at it, but doing so admittedly requires a small level of wiki-sophistication), then perhaps the note and all relevant refs can be deleted. But if no one knows the answer to that admittedly picky question, perhaps the safest things to do would be to somehow make it visible in the article (as I have attempted to do, via the note). • Lingzhi(talk) 10:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Drive by comment by Nick-D[edit]

The number of photos is greatly excessive, and causes considerable amounts of white space at the end of the article. Please be more selective with the choice of images. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any issues with images causing white space. Try increasing your font size. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm definitely seeing what Nick-D is seeing—the images are so close together they push each other down, creating a huge white space at the end between "Notes" and 'References" with a "tail" of images down the side. When the WMF increase the default image size, as they're likely to do fairly soon, this will only make the matter worse. (I'd suggest losing most of the individual station photos; they aren't particularly interesting architecturally, and anyone who wants to know what they look like will be reading the individual station articles anyway.) – iridescent 13:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I've got 4 lines of text below the image of Hastings station. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Different people will see the layout differently. It depends upon many factors, not just obvious ones like screen width and font size, but also the settings at Preferences → Appearance → Skin and Preferences → Appearance → Thumbnail size will affect it. Different browsers will lay out the page in various ways. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a largish monitor (but not usually so), but the amount of white space is pretty huge - it's about the equivalent of 1 1/2 screens of white space with photos at the side. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Would formatting the stations section into a table (similar to tunnels section) be acceptable? That way, the images would be confined to the table and not stretch past the bottom of the secion for some readers. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I imagine that would help, but reducing the number of photos would be preferable (for instance, what does having two images of the train ticket add?). I'd note that quite a few of the photos are low quality. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried a table, and it doesn't work. Too much text produces lots of whitespace; also the inability to have a caption with a specified image width. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── All images in the article are valid. I appreciate that some of them are not the best quality, but they are the best that we've got. There is one image still needing to be added, I'm in correspondence with Network Rail re filling this gap. The ticket images could be combined into a single image. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D: most of the station images have now been culled. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Iridescent[edit]

I'll come off the fence and support this. There are a lot of things I'd have done differently had I written this, and I would seriously recommend hiving the individual tunnels and trains off into a separate page (c.f. Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway); most readers are interested in when it was built, why it was built and how it has changed since it was built, and don't care about the lengths of each tunnel or the exact distance of each station from London; moving this off below the fold onto a de facto subpage will make the parent article much zippier without significantly impacting on the usefulness for people who do want the specialist detail. However, "not done the way I'd have done it" isn't a criterion, and while parts of this arguably violate the MOS, I think all the violations are marginal and justifiable. (There's also one rather questionable source in the bibliography, but that's only used to cite a non-contententious date for a name change.) Railway articles are inevitably boring for those who don't already have an interest in the topic, as there's so much that needs to be included despite not being of interest to most readers, but this does as good a job as any at making the topic accessible to those who don't know one end of a train from the other, without omitting anything necessary. – iridescent 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Frank Chapman was a senior reporter with the Kent and Sussex Courier for many years, and wrote several books on Tonbridge topics. Probably not very well known outside the area. I wouldn't have used him if he wasn't a reliable source for the info. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

2006 UAW-Ford 500[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton Engineer Works[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your review.

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

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

  • @Vesuvius Dogg: I have tried to address your concerns with new sections on "Personnel" and "The war ends", and have expanded the "post-war" section. Bear in mind that this article is about the installation during World War II, and is not a history of the city. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
VERY happy with that! Your additions deftly reinforce a sense of community and give depth to the social/community contract. That memo, by the way, is fascinating! Good work and many thanks Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added a small section on electric power. I had to remove the bit about 14% of the US's electric power. This comes from Nichol's autobiography (ghost-written), which embarrassed me on the Manhattan Project article. The claim has been refuted by recent scholarship. See [3] and [4]. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

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


Nominator(s): JAGUAR  20:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC) and ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC) (taking a back seat on this as I intended taking a break from FAC)

This article is the sole reason why I began editing Wikipedia. It began with my first ever edit in April 2008 and then the first edit I made with my account in June 2009. Me and Dr. Blofeld finally promoted it to GA in February 2012 after a complete overhaul of the article and ransacking google books and other sources to make it as comprehensive as possible. Now seven years later and after over 600 edits to this article, I'm finally nominating it for FA as I believe the article is reaching the FA criteria.

The article has received extensive comments at its peer review, in which all are now addressed. I never would have dreamed that after seven years this would come close to meeting the criteria! This article is as comprehensive as can be for a small village, and is a prime example of what can be accomplished with the drive and determination of just a few editors. Bentworth is a mythical village, with several large manors and so much history behind all of them. I look forward to any comments and will do everything to address them. JAGUAR  20:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – A fine piece of work by the Doctor and Jaguar. Not sure if this helps: you might link the publishers of references on first occurrence, but this is not mandatory. The only reason behind this is that readers might find it helpful if they want to visit from who the reference is. Aside from that, the article is in excellent shape. Thank you both Jaguar and Blofeld for investing so much of your time and energy on many excellent articles. -- Frankie talk 18:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I'll see what I can do with those publishers. Although some can't be linked as a few publishers here are genuinely from the 19th century and will likely not have a Wikipedia article, but I think there are a few that can be linked. JAGUAR  21:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Cheers FrB.TG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A fine article, which is thorough, focused and well balanced. The prose is pleasing, the references are broad and comprehensive, and the illustrations are excellent. Bentworth is lucky to have such a devoted historian and guide as Jaguar, and Dr. B's guiding hand is, as I have reason to know, invaluable. Bravi! Tim riley talk 20:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tim, your comments and support much appreciated!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tim! I also appreciate your 2012 review of this, which helped this article on its way to FA. JAGUAR  21:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I was the last visitor to the PR and am happy with the article in terms of the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Cheers Schro.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Great article, but one minor quibble. There is a curious lack of data for the 1971, 1981, 1991, and 2 earlier censuses. Is there any specific reason for these omissions? Mattximus (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It is strange, but they're simply not sourced! The 1971, 81 and 91 censuses weren't included in the A Vision of Britain Through Time source for some reason, however there was an unofficial 1991 estimate in one of the parish PDF references that is in this article. I hesitated using it as it's not an official reliable source (it came out in 2007 I think, and censuses in the UK are recorded every ten years). JAGUAR  20:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The archeological section & that on the church are not really FA-standard. Too few links, shaky use of terminology, & lists of factoids not cohering into anything much. Is "Because Bentworth lies on higher ground, its temperatures are lower than in the valleys and on the coast. Due to its proximity to the sea, in winds with a southerly component, humidity is higher and cloud bases are lower than further inland. In summer when cumulus cloud is present, in the late afternoon the sea breeze occasionally reaches the area with a consequent change of wind to south and an increase in humidity." supported by the Met office ref? Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Attempting to sort this one out... JAGUAR  20:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Thank you for your comments, I think I've addressed everything you mentioned. I copyedited the church and archaeological sections, so the prose should flow a little smoother now. I've also added a few more links for accessibility and removed a few non-essential "list jargon" such as naming every wood/copse in the area. I've finally found the correct Met Office ref I've been looking for, so I used that to source the climate paragraph. I put it at the end of the paragraph as I didn't want to do a citation overkill. JAGUAR  21:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment and support by Gerda
I had a long list of points at the peer review which were all addressed. One wish open for FA is "alt =" for all images, explaining to people who can't see the image what they would see, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Good thinking, Gerda Arendt! WP:ALT comes in handy for those who have visual impairment or browsers with images disabled. I've added alternate text for every image in the article, with the guideline being that the text should be short and sweet. Let me know what you think? JAGUAR  17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Jesus (left, in profile, pointing with his right hand) and Nicodemus (facing the viewer, with a turban, with his right hand on his heart) sit at a table, arguing over books
Jesus teaches Nicodemus (seen here in a seventeenth-century painting) was a theme used by both composers and artists.
Thank you for an alt everywhere (but the infobox). Imagine you are blind, - what would you want to have described to imagine the image? The caption will be read to you, no need to repeat that. - Here's an example from BWV 165, I was helped by RexxS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah I see, the alternate text needs to be more detailed in order to benefit those who need them. I think I caught a misunderstanding from WP:ALT which stated that text in "scenery" images needed to be brief - but I was mistaken. I've expanded detail in all instances of alternate text , including the infobox! I hope that this is an improvement. JAGUAR  13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This is an very impressive article overall. There is a few minor errors I noticed when reading the article. Z105space (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Refs 10, 38, 39, 69 and 70 from are expired domains. Is there any chance of finding a archived link for these sources?
Oof, that's horrible. They shut down the domain at the end of June, which is quite disruptive. Thankfully the information on that website isn't essential, and I may be able to use the Wayback Machine to archive most of the links, but I haven't had any luck with saving any PDF files on that website. I'm in the process of archiving the links now, and I'll report back when it's done. JAGUAR  13:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Z105space: Refs 70, 69, 38 and 10 are now archived safely. I had to delete ref 39 and replace it with two new references. domain expired on 15 July - a week ago! JAGUAR  13:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed the support, thanks! JAGUAR  13:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support -- Much improved since the recent peer review during which I played a small part. CassiantoTalk 21:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Cassianto JAGUAR  21:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I don't normally comment at FAC, but the article is well-written and useful, I have found quite a worrying issue with one of the citations which no-one else seems to have spotted. You make the following statement: "To facilitate the growing population in the post-war period, the council estates of Glebe Fields and Glebe Close were built in early 1946. The name "Glebe", meaning "land belonging to the church", was chosen because the land was originally owned by the church." You support this with a citation to Crockford's Clerical Directory from 1826. The book you link to is actually the 1865 edition. Regardless, I am struggling to see how it supports your statements about the 1940s council housing. Perhaps this is a mistake? —Noswall59 (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing that up, Noswall59. I've corrected the 1865 edition and also added a new reference which backs up the claim of the meaning of "Glebe". A Dictionary of Medieval Terms by Professor John James Noel McGurk states that "Glebe" is an "area of land within an ecclesiastical parish used to support a parish priest" (the same text is also in the lead of the article Glebe). In short it means land (typically a farm) belonging to the church, as the term was frequently used in medieval Britain. The two references in that statement support the definition of the word "Glebe" and the name of the council estate - killing two birds with one stone. I hope this is OK. If need be there are no shortages of references for medieval terms. JAGUAR  16:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for replying so quickly and amending the citation. My main concern, however, was that the citation says nothing about the construnction of the Council houses in the '40s. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC).
  • The construction of the council housing itself? I wasn't aware they needed to be sourced, I personally think it's too trivial? The two "Glebe" council estates aren't the only ones in Bentworth, there is another row of council houses further up in the village that were also built in 1946. But for what it's worth, there is a stone plaque of "1946" in Roman numerals on one of the houses, but I don't think that would be valid for FA. I'll try to find something to back up the 1946 construction, but I'm not sure if I'll ever find anything. Regards JAGUAR  17:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar enough with the FA criteria to call this, so you may be right. But I would cite it and if there have been other streets built I might be inclined to briefly mention them. As a reader, it looks at first glance like Crockford's is the reference for their construction. But I am not leaning either way. As for sources, local newspapers are normally good for this sort of thing. If not, the Council records may show up plans, payments or notices about it. Anyway, best of luck with this, --Noswall59 (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

Image review

  • File:Bentworth_Map_1811.jpg needs a US PD tag, and a more specific source would be helpful
  • File:Bentworth_Telegraph_office_c_1905.JPG: the source image has different licensing, but neither tag appears to be supported by given sourcing - do you have more details about this image's provenance?
  • File:Odiham_Hundred.gif needs a US PD tag and more details about the source
  • File:Bentworth_CP_2012b.jpg: what is the basis of this map?
  • File:Bentworth_Hall_about_1905.jpg: any more details about the source?
  • File:Bentworth_-_Ivalls_cott_from_the_Star_1900.jpg needs a source
  • File:GCIves.jpg: without a known creator how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the portrait of Ives, after a lot of digging I found that the image was given to the authors of The Pink Plaque of London by Jay Landesman, and he was the publisher of The Ives Scrapbook that came out in 1980. There are no credits for who took the actual picture though. Since it is allocated to the first decade of the 1900s it is likely that the photographer died before 1915, but I can't find any proof. It was something of a minor miracle that I could find the Ives Scrapbook itself. JAGUAR  16:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • With the 1811 map of Bentworth, I've added a PD-US tag and altered the source a bit. The source is actually Old Maps (sounds simple I know) by Ordnance Survey, which is the owner.
  • With the Telegraph office photo, I know User:Ukiws has physical pictures of the village dating from the early 20th century, but he doesn't know how Wikipedia works and he is inactive at the moment, but nevertheless I've contacted him asking if he could help me with clarifying those images. JAGUAR  16:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've fleshed out both the Odiham Hundred and Bentworth CP images, adding another PD-US tag and fleshing out the source for the first.
  • Finally, Bentworth Ivalls cottage in 1900 is was another scanned image that was publicly displayed but now belongs to Ukiws. I've added appropriate details

I hope that settles everything? JAGUAR  19:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hitler Diaries[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The story of the Hitler Diaries has twice been brought to the screen—both times as comedy/farce. There is much to laugh at, as an inept and bungling forger managed to fox the brains of the world's media, and some heavyweight historians in the bargain. Even when read as straight prose, there are still enough moments of suspended disbelief to make you wonder whether the whole was a work of fiction. Sadly for those at Stern magazine, the diaries were the only fictitious element in this story of incompetence, greed, bungling, ineptitude and mismanagement—with a dash of fraud and some old Nazis thrown in for good measure. A strong cast showed up for an extremely constructive and useful PR, which has tightened this up immensely. I welcome all comments and thoughts once again. – SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Blockquotes shouldn't include quotation marks
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for periodicals
  • Kentucky is typically abbreviated KY not KT. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • All done - many thanks NM! - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Support– I was a latecomer to the PR, by when there was very little I could add. The article sets out a complicated story with great clarity, is well balanced, highly readable, thoroughly referenced, and illustrated as well as one could imagine. Clearly meets the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 13:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks! You may have been a latecomer, but your influence was extremely important to the article's development. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – I've had a quick skim through and see that all my points were addressed at the peer review. Furthermore, the comments given by others have improved this article even more. Based on that, I believe that this article meets every bit of the FA criteria. CassiantoTalk 23:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your comment here, but also for your important contribution at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Very much enjoyed by me, but in need of one more run-through to pick up assorted nitpicks, as listed. I imagine that you will dispose of these with due speed, and I will be revisiting shortly.

  • Lead: "At the press conference to announce the news...." I'd say "to announce the forthcoming publication", as "the news" is a bit vague.
  • Lead: "One of the companies involved was The Sunday Times..." A point of rather petty detail, but I think the company involved was Times Newspapers Ltd, not the ST itself. You could get round this by saying "One of the publications involved was The Sunday Times..."
  • Seraglio: "near what would become the border with Czechoslovakia." Hmm, I think that it was properly the border, despite the 1938 annexation, so I'd say "near the Czechoslovakian border".
  • Kujau: "Among the items smuggled out of East Germany were weapons, and Kujau would occasionally wear a pistol, sometimes firing it in a nearby field, or shooting empty bottles in his local bar." Does this info have any real bearing on our story? I'd scrap it myself, but if you keep it, can you clarify if it was Kujau that was smuggling weapons out of E. Germany?
  • Kujau: "Kujau used modern stationery such as Letraset, which he used to create letterheads" → "Kujau used modern stationery such as Letraset to create letterheads"
  • Kujau: "Hitler, who had genuinely been an amateur artist as a young man" Delete "genuinely"
  • Kujau: "manuscripts" needn't be in quotes. They were, after all, manuscripts.
  • Heidemann: "the couple began to have an affair" → "the couple began an affair". And follow this with "Through this relationship..."?
  • Heidemann: "Heidemann experienced financial problems caused by the purchase of the yacht..." → "The purchase of the yacht caused Heidemann financial problems..."
  • Stern etc: Link CEO? (I know, I know)
  • Producing etc: "...the forger refused to do so for nearly a year" – does this mean that for nearly a year the forger kept on refusing to meet , or that he said somrthing like "I'll meet you in nearly a year"?
  • Producing etc: "made the connection" or "made a connection"?
  • Producing etc: "most of which was still in East Germany" – "was" → "were"
  • Producing etc: "two million marks": note "3 million" (numeric) previously in your text. Also, shouldn't it be DM rather than marks?
  • Acquisition: " the additional lure" → "an additional lure"?
  • Acquisition: "1 million marks" – again the DM question> Important, because East Germany had a different currency.
  • Acquisition: "Heidemann visited Maser in June 1981 and came to a deal that enabled him and Stern, for a payment of 20,000 marks..." Need to clarify "him" – as written it could be Maser
  • Initial testing etc: Should Bundesarchiv be italicised? It's the name of a German institution rather than an ordinary German word. I'm not clear about the standard WP practice, but I see for example that the articles for Deutsche Bundesbank and Bundestag don't italicise.
  • Initial testing etc: "verifying the authenticity of the diaries": "authenticating the diaries" would be neater?
  • Initial testing etc: "They did not mention the existence of the diaries" → "They did not specifically mention the diaries..."
  • Initial testing etc: I would delete the words "but he was lied to in the briefing" and write: "...he became less doubtful; he was falsely informed that the paper had been chemically tested..." etc
  • Initial testing etc: "an additional $750,000 for Britain and the Commonwealth" → ""an additional $750,000 for British and Commonwealth rights"
  • Two semicolons in the sentence beginning "After lengthy negotiation Broyle..."
  • Released to the news: – can something be "released to the news"? Surely what's released is the news? Perhaps "Released to news media2?
  • Released to the news: "He went on to say..." – which of the two is "he"?
  • Forensic analysis: "copied across" → "copied"
  • Forensic analysis: "By the time the Bundesarchiv had passed the news to Stern, the archive had already passed it to the government" Suggest rewrite: "Before passing the news to Stern, the Bundesarchiv had already informed the government".
  • Arrest and trial: "he was bitter that the journalist was still at liberty, and had withheld so much money from Stern" – wasn't his bitterness more that Heidemann had withheld Stern's money from Kujau?
  • Arrest and trial: In your brief trial account, you refer both to a "judge" and a "magistrate". Were these the same person? If so, perhaps the same term should be used. Otherwise, the presidency of the course might be indicated by an extra word or two.
  • Tweaked slightly. For court cases of a possible 3-7 years imprisonment, a judge is assisted by 2 or 3 lay judges or magistrates. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Arrest and trial: I wouldn't say "subsequent" trial when you are reporting after the event.
  • Aftermath: I think "according to" should always precede the relevant quotation rather than appearing at the tail end of the sentence (n.b. Nesser and Hartung, Davenport-Hines)
  • Aftermath: "with his satirical German-language film..." → "in his satirical German-language film..."
  • Many thanks Brian, both here and at the PR. I've adopted all your suggestions above. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: My concerns have all been adequately addressed. Sorry I forgot to sign off! Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • As always I am hugely in your debt for the work you've put in here and at FAC. Many, many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally (not for action), don't you think that Gerhard Weinberg looks suspiciously like the elderly P.G. Wodehouse? See this. Perhaps the old prankster was behind it all – I think Riley should hear of this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • LOL - I'm not sure even PGW's brilliance in producing contrived plots could have cooked up this one - he'd have rejected it fr being too far fetched! - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • With a touch of Archbishop Carey thrown in, methinks. Tim riley talk 12:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support—I had been intending to get to this subject myself eventually, but I am very pleased to see SchroCat has got here before me and made an excellent job of it. I had my say at the peer review and have also made some copy-edits since then. In my view the article is an excellent, well-sourced account and meets the FA criteria. I have no qualms about supporting. Thanks for your work on this, SchroCat. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Cliftonian. Your copy edits and thoughts have been extremely welcome throughout. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • "A photograph of a black and white grey-haired and spectacled man" (alt text) - I think you mean it's a black-and-white photo?
  • File:Sterncover.jpg: would be worth filling in the n.a parameters
  • File:FH_AH_Hitlers_Diaries_01.svg: suggest using {{PD-font}} for this, as I'm not sure on what grounds the uploader could claim copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • One done, one waiting for the block on Commons to lift after a trigger-happy admin objected to me asking one of his chums not to bludgeon comments. I'll swap it over in two days. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • All now done. Many thanks NM - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Support I was hoping to leave some comments, but after reading through the article I find it very comprehensive and the prose is well written. This article definitely meets the FA criteria. Well done on all the work put into this - it was an interesting read. JAGUAR  23:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Jaguar - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support' entertaining read and no prose-clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Only minor quibbles are non-deal-breakers such as:

which were so amateurish that Kujau later asserted that - "conceded" might capture the essence better here.
  • Many thanks Casliber; much appreciated, and I've adopted your above suggestion. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


The Hitler Diaries affair may be my favourite historical and journalistic train wreck, and this article is in excellent shape - thank you for developing it. I have the following comments:

  • "to the Alpine Redoubt" - no such "redoubt" existed (its existence was a German wartime deception operation). In reality, the senior Nazis cleared out to southern Germany as it was unoccupied, but only lightly defended. I'd suggest not using this term.
  • "a replacement command centre near Berchtesgaden in southern Germany" - note that this was the location of Hitler's residence
  • "In January 1973 Heidemann was photographing the Carin II" - the tense and context is unclear here (did he spend the month photographing the ship? Why?). Should this be "In January 1973 Heidemann photographed the Carin II.."
  • " Researching into the history of the yacht" - this wording is a bit awkward
  • "In mid-December 1982 the author and Holocaust denier David Irving was also involved in tracking the existence of diaries written by Hitler" - you could note that Irving had considerable experience in dealing with Nazi memorabilia and document collectors and sellers. His status at the time should also be noted so that the references to him in the "Released to the news media; the Stern press conference" section make sense - he was generally considered a mildly disreputable expert on Nazi history with expertise in assessing obscure documents. His reputation didn't collapse until later.
  • "Jäckel stated that he was "extremely sceptical" about the diaries, while his fellow historian, Karl Dietrich Bracher of the University of Bonn also thought their legitimacy unlikely" - did they voice these views publicly at the time, or where they their personal reflections? The context here is unclear.
  • Unfortunately it's not made clear in the sources either. I suspect it was to the press, but that's just my guesswork. – SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "the genuineness and importance of the discovery" - could this be replaced with something like "the authenticity of the documents and importance of their discovery"? "genuineness" is a bit awkward.
  • "By this stage the historian had growing doubts over the diary" - please state why this was the case
  • Not given. In the source, unfortunately. – SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "and questioned the reporter closely for over an hour.[106] Heidemann accused the historian of acting "exactly like an officer of the British army" in 1945" - it probably should be noted in the body of the article (rather than the notes) that that Trevor-Roper had been a very high performing British Army intelligence officer in 1945, and interrogated Germans to determine the events which led to Hitler's death in the weeks after the war. Part of the reason his views carried so much weight was that he was seen as more than just an academic historian.
  • More material on Weinberg would be useful - he gets left out with his views not discussed, despite being accorded a photo
    • I'd suggest also adding that one of the reasons Weinberg was willing to believe that the "diaries" were genuine was because of Trevor-Roper's endorsement of them; this emphasises that Trevor-Roper was the key expert consulted by the people who made the decision to publish. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, he was the key person for the British papers, certainly: now added. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "That day, when The Daily Express rang Irving for a further comment on the diaries, he informed them that he now believed the diaries to be genuine" - you could note Harris' reasons for why Irving changed his mind (from memory, that the "diaries" tended to support his Holocaust denialist views)
  • That's not what Harris says. He guesses, but doesn't know for certain, that it's because Irving preferred being an infant terrible, and found himself "on the side of conventional opinion", which he didn't like. Harris doesn't make any connection between the change of heart and the Holocaust. – SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • On page 339 he appears to be referring directly to an explanation Irving gave him, which includes Irving's view that (to quote Harris) "the diaries did not contain any evidence to suggest that Hitler was aware of the Holocaust", with this helping to bolster the claims Irving had made in his book Hitler's War. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I didn't read that far on. I am troubled by Harris's explanation of Irving's reasons though, as I think most of this is guesswork: no other source makes the connection and others relate only Irving's published and public explanation: that it was connected to the known medical records of Hitler. – SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Richard J. Evans endorsed Harris' views in his detailed investigation of Irving's claims to be a "historian", and went a little bit further. See paras 2.4.8 and 2.4.9 of his expert report to the Irving vs Lipstadt defamation trial here (this also appeared in the book he developed from the report, Telling Lies About Hitler). Lipstadt also noted Harris' assessment in her book on the trial, so the key sources discussing Irving's work as a "historian" do make the connection. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That shows nothing beyond the fact that Evans uncritically accepted and quoted what Harris wrote on this specific point. To clarify, I will add something suitable on this point shortly, but I am still troubled by Harris's guesswork reported as fact here. – SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's rather uncharitable to Evans, who conducted a broad ranging assessment of Irving's work and appears to have concluded that Harris was correct given the similar problems Evans uncovered (to quote Evans, "If an obvious forgery like the 'Hitler diaries' gives credence to his views, he will use it"); Evans found that Irving had used dubious or clearly misrepresented sources to further his views on Nazi Germany on a number of occasions. The material added to the article looks good though. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "he met Kenneth W. Rendell, a handwriting expert in the studios of CBS. Rendell's first impression was that the diaries were forged. He later reported that "everything looked wrong", including new-looking ink, poor quality paper and signatures that were "terrible renditions" of Hitler's" - how did Rendell get copies of the diaries?
  • "In April 2012, during the Leveson Inquiry, Murdoch acknowledged his role in publishing the diaries, and took the blame for making the decision, saying "It was a massive mistake I made and I will have to live with it for the rest of my life."" - from memory, Harris states that Murdoch regarded the affair as worthwhile after the diaries were found to be a hoax as he made a profit on the deal. I'd suggest also including this. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Nick-D. I've still got one point to cover—on Weinberg—and I'll get round to that shortly. Thanks very much for your comments – they are very useful and I've adopted them all, except where commented on otherwise. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Both the Weinberg info, and Irving's reason now added. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Once again, great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Nick - your comments are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ursa Minor[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

We've buffed over twenty constellations to FA status now - this article is the next in line. I think it is as good as the others. It's had an astronomer (Mike Peel (talk · contribs)) look it over as well as a few astronomy wikiproject folks. (and yes it is a wikicup entry) Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Urania's Mirror should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
italicised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – comprehensible even by an astronomic ignoramus like me. Clear, evidently comprehensive, very pleasingly written and well illustrated. Seems to me to meet the FA criteria. I wondered if there might be a suitable citation for the pleasing line about testing one's eyesight, but it's hardly a matter of great moment. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

SupportComment: I'd expect to see W Ursae Minoris, RU Ursae Minoris, and SS Ursae Minoris all mentioned somewhere; they're all well-studied and interesting star systems. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was deliberating about some of these and how long to make the section. Will investigate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Have added the two eclipsing binaries. The dwarf nova is tricky as, although referenced in alot of articles, finding some specific characteristics of interest to a lay reader is proving elusive (I think we need something more concrete than lots of superhumps and periods....NB: this is best bet and there's not much on SS UMi in it, sadly) - and I need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were addressed and I believe it is FA worthy. Praemonitus (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: It's an enjoyable read and is just about ready for FA status. However, I did find a few small issues that I think need to be resolved:
  • "The star is thought to have undergone a helium flash, a point where the shell of helium around the star's core reaches a critical mass and ignites...": This is a 'helium-shell flash', which occurs later than the 'helium flash' event.[5] (Note the slightly different link.)
it was linked to that spot but I clarified in text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Well the link only redirected to the page; not the section. I've addressed it by adding an anchor to the helium flash article. Praemonitus (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The margin of error format flips between unspaced "487±8 light-years" and spaced "62.2 ± 3.9 years". Can you make it consistent?
removed spaces Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is inconsistent in its format of thousands. For example, "42 000 years", "16300 light-years", and "200,000 K". I personally prefer the comma separator as it is more difficult to misinterpret. But opinions vary.
I prefer the comma too - it's a "val" format that's doing it - removed and comma'ed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively, you can add the '|fmt=commas' option to the {{val}} template. It's a bit of a nuisance though. Praemonitus (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "HD 150706 is a sunlike star of spectral type G0V some 89 light-years distant from our Solar System that was thought to have a planet as massive as Jupiter at a distance of 0.6 AU that was subsequently discounted in 2007": I think this could be written a little better.
I tried this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "It has been characterized as a starburst galaxy, which means it is undergoing a high rate of star formation compared to a typical galaxy": opinion needs a cite.
reffed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is also noted for its radio lobe": opinion needs a cite.
reffed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ursa Minor is rather devoid of many deep-sky objects": devoid of many?
removed "many" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a few issues with the footnotes:
    • Shouldn't "Guilherme de Almeida" be "de Almeida, Guilherme"?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
    • "Ian Ridpath" should be "Ridpath, Ian".
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
    • Benson et al is missing a date (1994).
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Kirkpatrick et al is missing a date (2011).
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Some of the citations have a linked title plus a doi or arxiv. These frequently resolve to the same address. For example, Sato et al (2013)
removed urls from journal cites Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Footnote #66 says only "SIMBAD". It should be made consistent with the other SIMBAD references.
reformatted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

I'm moving to Ursa Minor Beta!! At last, a proper constellation, i.e. one I can see all year round. Just a couple of quibbles before I support this excellent article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • planet orbiting it. It and..— I don't like consecutive "it"s
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ursa Minor is notable as...— "some centuries" is vague to say the least. Three? 40? I think we should be given some idea. How long has it been the pole star?
several centuries - will nose around for a reliable source to tweak (the ref used is vague - will look for a better one) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Sun" inconsistently capped
all capped now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Further study published— "A further study" or "Further studies"
fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak:anything else needs fixing you can see? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Sorry Cas, I thought I'd done this already Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Mascarene grey parakeet[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This short article is about an obscure, recently extinct parrot, which lived alongside the dodo and other extinct Mascarene species. Most, if not all, scientific sources that deal with the bird have been cited and summarised here. As in other FAs about recently extinct species never described in life by scientists, contemporary accounts are quoted in the article, as little else is known about the animal. I have included a selfmade restoration of this parrot based on the sources, which is one of the few (I only know of three others) ever made that depict it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the size of the first engraving. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Made it 300px, too much? FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No, but I'd suggest using upright=1.2 or similar to scale it rather than fixing a pixel size. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. What exactly is the difference? FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
We have the ability to set a default image size in our preferences. If you fix a pixel size, it overrides that preference entirely. If you use upright, it scales the image relative to the preferred size. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy to take a look through.

  • "Apart from their size and robustness, Holyoak did not find the bones to be distinct from those of the Mascarene parrot genera Lophopsittacus, Mascarinus (the Mascarene parrot), Necropsittacus (the Rodrigues parrot), and Psittacula (which had three other species inhabiting the Mascarene islands), and he considered them all to be closely related" The subject of the sentence is "the bones"; presumably you do not mean that he considered all of the bones to be closely related. Can I recommend splitting the point about the relatedness of the genera into a separate sentence?
  • "wide-beaked Mascarinus" Why "wide-beaked"? Do you mean that the MGP could have been a wide-beaked form/taxa of Mascarinus? If so, I think this needs to be clearer. It currently reads that this was possibly a small form of N or a small form of M, but I'm not clear where the wide-beaked comes into it.
Changed to: "or a wide-beaked form of Mascarinus". FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The way the text is sandwiched between the taxobox and the engraving is possibly problematic; also, I'm not keen on the way the range map shows only one of the two islands.
The engraving was originally smaller, but it was requested above that I make it larger. Personally, I don't think it's much of a problem, though I do prefer to use standard thumb sizes. As for the range map, I can try to make a new one, though I haven't been able to find a free high resolution map of the Mascarenes... FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I have spaced out the taxonomy text a bit more and moved the engraving down, which gives a bit more "air" between it and the taxobox (less text is "sandwiched" now), better? FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "from the Mare aux Songes swamp" It'd be good to be clear which island this is on
Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "No live or dead Mascarene grey parakeets are known to have been exported. An unidentified brown parrot specimen housed in Cabinet du Roi was described by Comte de Buffon in 1779. Hume has suggested the possibility that this might have been a discoloured old Mascarene grey parakeet, if not a lesser vasa parrot (Coracopsis nigra). The specimen is now lost.[7][9]" Could this perhaps be rephrased a little?
I merged the last dangling sentence into the second one, not sure if you had more in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
How about something like "While no live or dead Mascarene grey parakeets are known with certainty to have been exported, Hume has suggested that a brown parrot specimen—once housed in Cabinet du Roi but now lost—may have been a discoloured old Mascarene grey parakeet, or perhaps a lesser vasa parrot (Coracopsis nigra). This specimen was described by Comte de Buffon in 1779."?
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Alexandrine parakeet has been proposed as the founder population for all Psittacula species on Indian Ocean islands, during southwards colonisation from its native South Asia." It wasn't proposed while colonising
Changed to "may have been", better?
A bit, but it's still not clear what happened "during" the expansion; how about something like "islands, with original populations settling during the species's southwards colonisation from its native South Asia"? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Took your suggestion, but changed "original" to "new". FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "mandibular symphysis was 2.7-2.9 mm (0.10-0.11 in) thick along the mid-line, the palatine was 31.1 mm (1.22 in), and the tarsometatarsus was" Undefined jargon
Explained in parenthesis under description, but all terms are linked already in taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry; if they're already linked earlier, don't add explanations on my account. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel there's a little bit of inconsistency in the article about whether it definitely inhabited both islands
Anywhere especially? It is considered Psittacula cf. bensoni for now, since it can't be confirmed they were the same species until bones are found on Réunion. This is not explained as such in the source, as the author probably assumed it would be stating the obvious. It would probably be helpful if I added something like "Until subfossils of P. bensoni are found on Réunion, it cannot be confirmed whether the grey parrots of the two islands belonged to the same species", but again, the source does not say this specifically. I have rejigged a bit of text at the end of taxonomy which might make it a bit clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I've found an article which states "Psittacula aff. bensoni — dubois (1674) and Cossigny (1732–55) mentioned a grey parrot on Réunion, which may have been conspecific with P. bensoni. However, no skeletal remains have been found to determine its relationships."[6] May that be enough to source the sentence I proposed above? FunkMonk (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
For my money, yes. That would be a useful addition to the article, especially as the article's so recent. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "the arrival of man" We should probably try to avoid this kind of gendered language
Changed to humans. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "[Pteropus sp.]" If you're meaning to refer to multiple species, I think it would be "[Pteropus spp.]"
In this case, I think it means that the exact species meant isn't identifiable, as there are several types it could have referred to. The source doesn't elaborate... FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "them being excessively hunted" "excessively" is a value judgement which doesn't belong here. "Extensively" may be preferable, but there are other options- you could explain that you specifically mean hunted at unsustainable levels.
Is "overhunted" better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It still sounds judgmental. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned we might get too far away from what the sources say, though, all use terms like "overhunting", "excessive hunting", etc., and are not shy on laying blame. After all, humans really are some destructive bastards... FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Both "excessive hunting" and "overhunting" imply that both that there is some amount of hunting that is "OK", and that this hunting exceeded that amount- this involves value judgements, and so is not something that should be said in Wikipedia's neutral voice. (To drift closer to my own corner of real-world work, some anthropocentric and/or contractarian accounts could hold that any amount of hunting is unproblematic as long as it does not impact humans, meaning that this was arguably not overhunting, while some animal rights approaches could hold that no amount of hunting is acceptable, and as "excessive hunting" and "overhunting" presuppose that there is some level of acceptable hunting, they will be rejected.) If you're opposed to "extensive", you could say "unsustainable"; both seem relatively value-free. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Used extensive. I thiought I had replied here yesterday, but apparently not... FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The French began" Could you be more specific? French soldiers? Settlers? Explorers?
Added settlers. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "but since they were last mentioned by Cossigny in 1759 (published in 1764), they must have become extinct shortly after this time." That's a very strong-sounding claim
Changed to "had probably". FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Great article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support from Josh, unless I've missed something. Very interesting article; you've done a good job with relatively limited literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support from Jim I can't find anything significant I object to, great job, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I came here to do a source review, but here I am with almost nothing to suggest in the way of improvements - all the sources are consistently cited using the {{cite}} template and variants thereof, page numbers are given where available, and every source has a functional hyperlink. My one quibble is that the books cited are not consistent in their ISBNs; some use ISBN-10, others use the newer ISBN-13. I'd suggest converting them all to ISBN-13; there's a tool here that will calculate the ISBN-13 for you from the older version. The Hume (Zootaxa) citation also needs an ISBN adding (it's 978-1-86977-124-9 for the online edition). Beyond that, everything looks good on the sources front. Yunshui  08:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the isbns should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Based on the source review and a read-through of the article (nice job, btw!), I'll throw my support into the ring as well. Yunshui  08:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tyrone Garland[edit]

Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a professional basketball player that closed out high school by posting an exceptional number of points, behind only Maureece Rice and future Hall of Famer Wilt Chamberlain. He started out college purely as a substitute, but became known as his team's hero only two years later in the 2013 NCAA Tournament. A lot of work has been put into making this article meet the GA criteria, and with some more feedback, it should be able to meet the FA criteria as well. TempleM (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the only one of the 88 modern constellations to be split into two separate regions in the sky. It has had feedback from a professional astronomer (Mike Peel), and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Suppport: my concerns were addressed or explained, Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Praemonitus – it looks good overall. Here's a few points that may need correcting:
  • "Notable extragalactic objects include Seyfert's Sextet, one of the densest galaxy clusters known, Arp 220, the prototypical ultraluminous infrared galaxy, and Hoag's Object, the most famous of the very rare class of galaxies known as ring galaxies": There's some ambiguity because of the commas. It might make sense to include semi-colon separators between the objects.
  • "Part of the Milky Way passes through Serpens Cauda"; part of the 'Milky Way disk' perhaps? Or Galactic plane of the Milky Way, for consistency.
  • Changed to galactic plane. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "inverse P Cygni profile": this technical term is red linked, and therefore remains inaccessible to the casual reader.
  • linked
  • "neutron star" should be wikilinked.
  • done
  • "The star's metal abundance is incredibly high" is rather vague.
  • rewritten
  • "The eclipses of the system very erratic": unclear what this is trying to say.
    • I changed it to "The eclipses of the system vary erratically", which appears to be what is covered by the ref. Praemonitus (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The article randomly switches between parsec and light years.
  • The reason I've done it this way is I've used whatever units the source was using, which I think is better just to stay closer to the sources. If you still want me to change it, please let me know. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay. Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I think we should go more for light years, as that is a more common unit for the kind of reader who would look at this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "MKW 3s — NGC 5920 — appears": spaced em-dashes
  • fixed
  • "Gavin White" should be "White, Gavin".
  • Fixed
  • "Spectroscopy and BVIC photometry of the young open cluster NGC�6604" has a non-printing character, at least on my browser.
  • fixed

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

  • There are several uses of the deprecated cite doi/10.1... templates. Hopefully these can be merged into this article.
  • completed merge
  • A couple of references seem to have excessively long author lists, perhaps they can use display-authors to reduce the list.
  • fixed I have set these to 9, but there is still one ref with a couple more
  • the Testa, Vincenzo reference has spelt out formatting.
  • fixed
  • There are a few titles using all capitals.
  • fixed
  • "Thehipparcoscatalogue" needs splitting.
  • fixed
  • "Vasil'Yanovskaya" is incorrectly capitalised.
  • fixed
  • "Van Den" is incorrectly capitalised.
  • fixed twice
  • "3C?317" has ? included.
  • fixed
  • Incorrect capitalisation in "IbanoǧLu"
  • fixed
  • Same reference includes extraneous "★" in the title.
  • fixed
  • "TheGALEXUltraviolet" needs splitting.
  • fixed
  • Journal title "IAU Circ" needs expanding - (nearly every other title is good here though)
  • fixed
  • "Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams" should expand to "Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams"
  • fixed
  • o’Sullivan, Ewan needs uppercasing
  • fixed
  • There is also another use of "★" in error in the "Abell 41" reference
  • fixed
  • Do any planets, apart from Pluto, ever enter Serpens?
  • I was unable to find any sources stating so, and found a few (unreliable) sources stating the opposite (their quality isn't good enough for any inclusion in the article, but in the absence of any source stating the planets pass through, I think they're sufficient enough to omit inclusion). StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Check if Van Dishoeck or Van Dyk should have lower v.
  • I find it hard to believe for a topic like this that we only have one arxiv: reference.
  • Inconsistent ISBN13 format 9780955903700 and 978-1-55407-175-3
  • fixed
  • The coordinates at the top of page do not appear to be in the constellation (17h 00m 00s, +03° 00′ 00″)
  • Ah, that was a relic from before I ever started work on this article; I never noticed it until now! I've now set the template to point to the center of Serpens Caput, but it doesn't seem to be possible to add another to point to Serpens Cauda, unfortunately.... StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Urania's Mirror should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually the alt= text is supposed to give information about what is seen in the picture rather than rewording the caption. This is because people that use alt= text get both the caption and the alt text. See WP:ALT. So for example Hoag's Object could be: "a starry and nebulous ring surrounds a dark circle containing a diffuse yellow ball". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you; I have changed the alt text accordingly. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Good work, but needs some tweaking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Should HII region have a space as in the linked article?
  • I've seen it commonly spelled both ways in academic papers; if you still want me to change it, please let me know. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Asclepius was known for killing a snake that was resurrected because a different snake"—sloppy, shouldn't need "was known" and snake/different snake is vague to say the least.
  • I remember when I was writing this, I spent around 5 minutes just staring at the sentence trying to make it flow better, but couldn't think of a way. I've tried to make it less awkward; how does it look now? StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Sometimes, Serpens was depicted as coiling around Ophiuchus, but the majority showed Serpens"— majority of what?
  • You have a tendency to repeat word in the same or contiguous sentences, "was known/were known being one of many examples, please check this and vary the wording.
  • I caught a problematic instance down in the "tail stars" section and fixed the "was known/were known" example as well. I just gave the article a read-through and didn't notice anything else egregious, so how does it look now?StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • the reason for Serpens' presence with Ophiuchus, the true reason…/ and loosely corresponded to Hydra. Bašmu was a horned serpent (c.f. Ningishzida) and loosely corresponds/ Located near Alpha... located only 12 parsecs away... a binary star[10] located, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • All issues you mention fixed, and more instances of "located" changed to other words as well. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There are still more dups than I am happy with, for example three galactic planes (with differing capitalisation). If you are doing it by inspection, you are bound to miss some Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I definitely fixed that earlier today, and for me there's only one link in the lead and one in the body. WP seems to be having some caching issues today where changes aren't showing up immediately and sometimes appear to go away for a bit only to return later. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The repetition has been cleared and dups are minimal now, so I pleased to support this comprehensive article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I've read through this a few times over the past several months and done some minor tweaks. It's a bit listy but that is unavoidable in these articles. No prose clangers are jumping out at me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Too Much Too Soon (album)[edit]

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

This article is about the second album by American rock band the New York Dolls. A hard rock and proto-punk album, it was released to poor sales but predated punk rock, received critical acclaim, and became a popular cult rock record. I withdrew the first FAC nomination last August because I had opened another FAC at the same time ([7]). It has since been slightly expanded and copy-edited. Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassiato[edit]


  • "Although it was praised by critics, the band was not satisfied" – were all the members dissatisfied? If so, the plural would be better here.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The first subsequently here is redundant and clashes with the second subsequently (also a bit pointless) later on.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlinked in the body. Dan56 (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Recording and production

  • "The New York Dolls recorded Too Much Too Soon with Morton at A&R Studios in New York City. The album was later mastered at Sterling Sound and Masterdisk. During the sessions, he had Johansen..." – whose he?
Morton. Added. Dan56 (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Up to here. I've been copy editing as I've gone, feel free to disagree with any of it. CassiantoTalk 07:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm fine with your changes, just "earlier records" because those were songs they either only demoed or played live, not put on record yet; I don't know if a demo would qualify as a "record", so I changed it to the general "earlier songs". Dan56 (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Release and promotion

  • Looks good.

Critical reception

  • Looks good

Legacy and influence

  • Looks good

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

Comments from Fru1tbat[edit]

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

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

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

Source reviews[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in how you format multi-page refs - FN12 has "p." and two digits omitted, FN53 has "pp." and one
  • Anon 1 has "(New York) (May 11)" but then Anon 4 has "(January 20) (New York)" - check for ordering consistency throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I fixed the first issue. The second has to do with how the citation templates are formatted. For some reason, Template:Cite journal renders a different order than Template:Cite news. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that's by-design, as the |issue= parameter expects an issue number, not a date, but you could ask at Help talk:Citation Style 1 - Evad37 [talk] 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
A thought occurs: putting the full date in the |date=parameter (instead of splitting it between |year= and |issue=) would resolve the formatting discrepancy - Evad37 [talk] 03:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Not all the sources have known month and days, only years, and all the references are author-year. I was kind of advised to do it this way in past FACs, like this one for Misterioso, utilizing the issue field for month/day. Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Source review from Evad37

Note: spotchecks not done.
  • The order of publisher location and dates are inconsistent – eg Anon. (1974b) has "(New York) (July 13)" while Anon. (1975) has "(January 20) (New York)" noted above already - Evad37 [talk] 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Some locations seem to be missing (e.g. Antonia, Nina (2006); Pilchak, Angela (2005); and more): is this because they are not shown in the source (or already indicated by publisher name/publication title)?
  • "U of Minnesota Press" should probably be expanded to the full name, University of Minnesota Press

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

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

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin[edit]

Conditional oppose—I am finding basic grammatical errors in the prose. In addition, there is redundancy and awkward phrasing. With that said, I am willing to withdraw my oppose once all my concerns have been addressed.


  • "The group was dissatisfied with the sound of their 1973 self-titled debut album, which led frontman David Johansen to enlist veteran producer Shadow Morton for Too Much Too Soon."—awkward use of "which", which is strictly used to refer to the noun preceding the comma, but not here. Perhaps "The group's dissatisfaction with the sound of their 1973 self-titled debut album led frontman...".
That seems like a mouthful though. How about "so" instead of "which", as in "The group was dissatisfied with the sound of their 1973 self-titled debut album, so frontman David Johansen enlisted..." Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The word "enthused" is far too inaccessible to be considered plain, elegant English. How about "motivated"?
Sure. Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • " a personal challenge" is vague and unclear.
I disagree. The music industry wasn't satisfying him anymore, so he wanted to challenge himself. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I think removing the word "personal" removes some of the vagueness as "personal challenge" can often mean illness, injury, etc. What do you think? Feel free to argue otherwise. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No, that makes sense. Done @Wikipedian Penguin:. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "... while Morton incorporated a large amount of studio sound effects and female backing vocals in his production."—"amount" should be "number", but the entire phrase can be condensed to "many".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "acclaimed" comes off as too strong a word when there were a few noteworthy negative reviews of the album.
How about "Acclaimed by most critics"? Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I would have used "praised" or "favoured", although they may be too mild for this album's reception in particular. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


  • "He was also more familiar with New York City..."—I don't understand the importance of this point.
Understood. Removed it. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "... and wanted to challenge himself with the band"—awkward, unprofessional wording.
Would this be better: "...wanted to challenge himself by producing the band's second album" Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Perfect. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Recording and production

  • "... incorporated sounds effects such as gongs, gunshots, and feminine choruses to the songs."—should be "in the songs".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "... journalist Lenny Kaye wrote at the time that "they're [were] taking more time [than they had on their debut album], bringing in occasional strings and horns"—removals are in strikes and additions are in italics
revised it to "...wrote that they were taking more time than they had on their first record, 'bringing in...'" Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "... while Johansen was fond of Morton and the 'looser' feel he provided their music on Too Much Too Soon"—need "for" after "provided". And I don't think "on Too Much Too Soon" is necessary here.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "... and had to record both cover songs and re-record some of the band's earlier songs in order to complete Too Much Too Soon"—the placement of "both" here indicates that it is modifying "record", so "re-record" is unneeded and incorrect.
Understood, removed. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "They also recorded demos of two songs written by guitarist Sylvain Sylvain, 'Teenage News' and 'Too Much Too Soon', before working with Morton..."—since this was before their work with Morton, it should be "They had also recorded".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
More coming. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

  • "album of hard rock" -> "hard rock album"?
Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Music journalist Nina Antonia critiqued that because of the band's 'untamable wildness'..."—use of "critiqued" here is awkward. How about "wrote" or "commented"?
Sure. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "...the songs still sounded eccentric in spite of attempts by Morton to 'polish' their sound..."—"in spite of" can be condensed down to "despite".
Okay. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "...such as subduing their otherwise unrefined guitar playing."—missing "by" before "subduing".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "...Archie Bell's 1969 hit 'There's Gonna Be a Showdown'..."—if it were a hit wouldn't it have a Wikipedia article. Was it really a "hit"?
It's a 50 year old single by a soul singer, so doubtful lol. According to the book by Gimarc cited here it was, as well as All Music Guide to Soul Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "On the novelty cover songs, Johansen impersonates different characters such as the high-stepper in 'Showdown' and Charlie Chan in 'Bad Detective', whose nonsensical narrative is set in China."—removal in strikes; furthermore, I'd say it's best to use the full song name for "Showdown" here, since it's the first instance the track is mentioned.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "'Stranded in the Jungle' suggested a theme of 'clashing cultures and the dilemma of preserving one's uniqueness while reaching out to others'."—"suggested" should be present tense.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not link inside quotations, as per the Manual of Style. For the French quote, I suppose you can provide the English translation in parentheses instead.
MOS says to avoid doing so "as much as possible", not necessarily to avoid it always. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "in a way similar to" -> "similarly to"?
Ok. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there anything on "Who Are the Mystery Girls" that could be discussed in this section so that we have a complete track-by-track overview? The Wikipedian Penguin 20:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I added "On 'Who Are the Mystery Girls?', he scolds those who misuse love by wanting to 'kick it on the floor' and 'beat it like a scatter rug'. Other than that, not really. Dan56 (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Release and promotion

  • The current caption of the music sample does not sufficiently explain why the snippet is useful for understanding the subject. Samples are meant to illustrate the sound of a song, so you should focus on that.
Understood. I've looked at Antonia's book and added more, particularly from this page, discussing how the singles were more polished studio version of previously unrefined live concert staples for the band. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Likewise, in the file page of the sound sample, Joe Gross's quote is described as referring to "Stranded in the Jungle", but in the article, it is used as a general quote to describe the album as a whole.
Ditto. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Much of Jon Savage's quote can easily be paraphrased and as a result we can avoid linking inside the quotes.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "For its front cover, the group eschewed the drag image of their first album in favor of a fake concert shot."—why is it noteworthy that they eschewed the drag image of their first album? It's obvious that they wouldn't reuse the cover of a previous album; who does?
They had a reputation in general for wearing drag on-stage. Clarified. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Too Much Too Soon was another commercial failure for the New York Dolls, as it only charted at number 167 on the Billboard 200."—I never brought this up when it appeared in the lead, but that seems like a very subjective assertion, because No. 167 on the Billboard 200 can be interpreted as a success as well.
I assume Gimarc took into consideration factors like the record label, money put into the Dolls by the label, and expectations. Other sources seemed to say the same ([8]), and I've never heard of that low position being interpreted as success tbh. I'll add the source from the link in this comment. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "It ultimately sold less than 100,000 copies."—"ultimately" here is redundant, as is "of them" in "...but neither of them charted".
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "They also embarked on their second tour of the United States, which was marred by cancelled shows, escalating drug and alcohol addictions, and internal strife."—(1) "drug" is inclusive of "alcohol"; (2) the sentence is vague overall (Whose addictions? Whose internal strife? What is meant by internal strife?) The Wikipedian Penguin 20:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I added Hermes' source to clarify all the band members had drinking problems, and previous parts of the article make note of specific drug addictions (Kane and alcohol, Nolan and Thunders with heroin, etc.), so I think the reader will get the point. They all led to conflicts among band members. None of the sources specify what those conflicts were but it doesn't leave much to the imagination considering the problems they had. I specified "hard drugs" to avoid getting into whether alcohol is a drug or not. Dan56 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Alcohol's classification as a soft drug is debatable. Why not simply "addictions to alcohol and other drugs"? The Wikipedian Penguin 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Dan56 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "... accommodating radio audiences with toned-down studio versions of songs the band had performed live in more rowdier fashion."—I understand what you're trying to say, but "in more rowdier fashion" comes off as awkward sounding. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Would "...songs the band had performed more rowdily in concert" be better? Dan56 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception

  • "Too Much Too Soon was acclaimed by music critics upon its release."—(1) see above RE "acclaimed" (2) "music" is redundant, as what other kinds of critics would typically review a music album? (3) linking not needed (4) archaic use of the word "upon"; perhaps remove the "upon its release" expression altogether?
Ok. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Creem magazine's Robert Christgau said the polished sound reproduction retains their raw qualities..."—the use of "retains" here sounds strange for some reason. I would have used something like "maintains" or "preserves". Also, the use of "their" is ambiguous. Maybe "the band's"?
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Robert Christgau is already mentioned and linked above. Unlink here and remove first name.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Robert Hilburn, writing in the Los Angeles Times, argued it is a markedly better-produced album..."—ambiguous "it", and "markedly" is barely crossing POV boundaries.
Replaced with album title, removed "markedly". Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ron Ross from Phonograph Record magazine said the group's 'easy going ironic sensibility' is expressed 'far more amusingly and accessibly [here]' than on their debut."—debut what? Album I'm assuming.
Added "debut album". Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Some reviewers were critical of Too Much Too Soon for what they felt was an insufficient and overproduced sound."—what is an "insufficient ... sound"?
The source called it "underdone" to be exact. I replaced it with "poorly recorded". Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Richard Cromelin of the Los Angeles Times included Too Much Too Soon on his list of favorite records from the decade..."—awkward to use "on his list" with "included". I suggest "in his list".
Ok. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Legacy and influence

  • "Along with the New York Dolls' debut, Too Much Too Soon became among the most popular cult albums in rock music."—debut what?
"Debut" is also used as a noun, short for "Debut album". I'll add "self-titled debut" so "album" is repeated in this sentence. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't disambiguate the term because for all we know, it could be short for debut single, and their debut single was eponymous. I'd suggest just using the album title itself. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "When it was reissued by Mercury in 1987, Don McLeese of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote that Morton's production highlighted the New York Dolls' sense of humor and was rendered 'in vivid detail' by the CD reissue, but felt the album was still marred by inconsistent material and rated it lower than their first album."—awkward repetition of "reissue" and "album".
Replaced "reissue" with "remaster", split into two sentences. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I reduced the quoted material. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You can keep "instant classic", as paraphrasing that to "masterpiece" is a bit far. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Dan56 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "He believed that, although Johansen's best original songs are on the debut"—also, first comma is not necessary.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "That same year..."
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

See also

  • I don't understand the relevance of the links to this article. Perhaps give a brief note in parentheses next to the link? The Wikipedian Penguin 23:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
For the timeline link, it would be wise to note that Too Much Too Soon is included in the list. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Second read—additional comments before concluding review.

Why not? Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Everyone knows New York City; it just seems like WP:OVERLINK IMO. The Wikipedian Penguin 20:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, done. Dan56 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Dan, after reviewing MOS:WTW, I found that "acclaim" is considered a WP:PEACOCK term and agree with this. Can we use a milder alternative?
I don't think that's the point of WP:PEACOCK, to address the tone or strength of words ("milder" for instance) because I've used "acclaim" in numerous other FA and GA articles where a number of sources backed that word up. WP:PEACOCK also lists "hit", which is just a stupid example. In this case, however, Gimarc is the only source who uses "acclaim", so I'm inclined to agree with you when there are a few others who use something milder. Replaced it. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Good point and I am satisfied with the change. The Wikipedian Penguin 20:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "'Babylon', 'Who Are the Mystery Girls?', 'It's Too Late', and 'Human Being' were first recorded by the band in March 1973 as demos for Mercury."—was this before they enlisted Morton? If so, it should be "...had been recorded by the band...". Also, what is meant by "for Mercury"?
Added "had". Demos often function as previews of a band for a record label. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "They had also recorded demos of two songs written by guitarist Sylvain Sylvain, "Teenage News" and "Too Much Too Soon", before working with Morton, but neither were ultimately considered for the album."—"ultimately considered for" -> "included on"?
The songs were given consideration. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Sylvain recalled confronting a hasty Morton about the decision..."—by decision, do you mean dropping "Teenage News" and "Too Much Too Soon" from the album? If so, then "this decision" would be clearer.
No, the decision to not even consider them for the album. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that's what I meant. Yes, "this decision" would be clearer. The Wikipedian Penguin 20:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
More coming. The Wikipedian Penguin 18:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Thunders held a doll in his arm as if to strike it against his guitar to add an element of shock value."—I think "an element of" is just added fluff and could be removed to tighten the prose.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was marred by cancelled shows and escalating addictions to alcohol and other drugs that led to conflicts between the band members."—sentence needs to be slightly redrawn because right now, it could be interpreted as the drugs leading to conflicts, not the addictions to the drugs. Minor point, but important for unambiguous and clear prose.
Rephrased: "It was marred by cancelled shows and conflicts between the band members stemming from their escalating addictions to alcohol and other drugs." Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • the group's "easy going ironic sensibility" is expressed 'far more amusingly and accessibly [here]' than on their debut album."—words in brackets at the end of quotes can just go outside the quotes.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Don Waller of the Los Angeles Times believed the underappreciated album was just as much an "instant classic" as New York Dolls in a review at the time."—when exactly is "at the time"? The Wikipedian Penguin 23:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Around the time of its reissue. I replaced it with "in a review of its reissue". Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm still not convinced that the rationale and caption for the song sample is sufficient. For instance, was there any commentary on the instrumentation or vocal performance of this song? We need more detail. Otherwise, it is of appropriate length and quality. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I made a mention of Morton incorporating additional feminine vocals, which ties into Gross' point about background choruses. Dan56 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A few of the band members in the portrait face to the right, so I think it'd be best to have the image positioned on the left side of the article. The way it is now, there's an ugly amount of white space turning up on my screen.
That may have been from the "clear" template, which I've removed. Do you still see white space? Dan56 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't, but the positioning of the image is still against MOS. Shift it to the left, and bring the quote box over to the right. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I just replaced it. Dan56 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a nitpick (feel free to ignore) but having the bibliography in a certain column width would look nicer: perhaps 50em? The Wikipedian Penguin 20:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Russian battleship Potemkin[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Halifax Explosion[edit]

Nominator(s): Resolute, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The Halifax Explosion was the largest man-made explosion before the development of nuclear weapons. It was also a key moment in Canadian history, one that is still studied and commemorated to this day. This article has successfully undergone a MilHist A-class review. All comments welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor nits: This is a superb article. I found it completely engrossing, I just didn't want to stop reading it. It's laid out well, reading both logically and chronologically. The only thing I've seen so far... so was anyone ultimately charged for the collision? The article mentions some of the charges being thrown out, and an appeal, but there's no direct statement about the outcomes. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Charged yes, convicted no: only Wyatt's charge made it to trial, and "a jury acquitted him in a trial that lasted less than a day" per the Investigation section. Anything you might suggest to make this clearer? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I added a statement noting that no party was ever convicted of a crime related to the disaster. Resolute 14:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess my concern is the 2nd of the 3 paragraphs, the "correctly predicted" part. It is not clear what this is referring to, as there are several appeals? And why is this mentioned here at all? The appeals are mentioned later, and I think moving this part of the sentance out of here improves the entire para - it's sort of jarring now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'm inclined to agree. I've just removed that predicted part for now. Resolute 23:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Excellent article, and I'm leaning heavily to support. A few points to consider first:


  • We have Royal Navy first then British Royal Navy second - perhaps move British to the first mention?
  • "the European theatre": perhaps add "of war" at the end, just for clarity?
  • "to reduce losses transporting goods and soldiers to Europe": to my mind "while transporting", but feel free to disagree


  • "White-hot shards of iron rained down": I'm not sure "rained down" is encyclopaedic.
  • "The shock wave ... was felt as far away as..." The distances are probably understood by Canadians, but some numbers in km and mi would be useful for those of us ignorant of the geography!

Rescue efforts

  • FNs72–75 could be bundled here?


  • "$545 million today": best to put a year date to anchor the inflation calculation.
I have RVed this change. The number in question changes as the data is updated, so someone reading this in 2017 will see the 2017 number, and putting "as of 2015" is decidedly incorrect. I suspect the source text was not examined? SchroCat, comment? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


  • "'street fighter' argumentation": I know exactly what you mean, but I think "street fighter" isn't encyclopaedic, and I'm not sure "argumentation" works, unless it's more common used in Canadian Eng. than I realised.

That's it from me – a fascinating read on a topic I was unaware of before. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of them. I'd prefer not to bundle the references, and I'd really like to keep that "street fighter" quote if possible. I've made a slight change to the wording there - does that work? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – that looks good to me, and I'm happy to support now. Thanks for such an interesting read. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you for reviewing! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

An interesting article on a topic on which I previously knew nothing. A few points struck me:

  • "Halifax Harbour is one of the world's deepest natural harbours to remain ice-free most of the year." - This sentence jars because I would prefer "which remains", but apart from this, there are hundreds of ports and natural harbours around the world where ice is no problem so the statement is rather pointless.
  • "The two main points of departure were on the East Coast at Sydney in Cape Breton ..." - Could add Nova Scotia to clarify where this place is.
  • "... German submarines had resulted in a relaxing of regulations." - Perhaps "relaxation".
  • You mention that Francis Mackey was an experienced harbour pilot. Is anything known about the experience of William Hayes?
  • This came up at the GAN as well - the best we can do given the sources is "many years". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The death toll could have been worse if not for the self-sacrifice" - I would suggest "had it not been for".
  • "They also played a role after the blast, with members arriving ..." - I would suggest that "members" is not an appropriate word here.
  • "... quickly led to rumours of a second explosion." - Perhaps "that a further explosion might follow" or somesuch.
  • "... continued working uninterrupted from the harbour." - Do you mean "at the harbour"?
  • "... pulling people from the harbour ..." - Do you mean "from the water"?
  • Not just that - there were people in the water but also in wrecked ships at the water's edge, collapsed buildings, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "An estimated $C35 million in damages resulted ($545 million as of 2015)." - The phrase "in damages" is normally used to express a settlement awarded by a court.
  • I agree with Nikki. Certainly in Canadian media, "$x in damages" is extremely common when discussing disasters. I've used the same terminology in two other disaster articles I've helped write: 2011 Slave Lake wildfire and 2013 Alberta floods, and there are many historical news articles that use it for other incidents. Resolute 13:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It sounds odd to my British ears, but language changes over time and varies between countries, so I'm happy with your responses. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Many people in Halifax at first believed the explosion to be a German attack." - I suggest you add "the result of" to this sentence.
  • "The Halifax North Memorial Library was built beginning in 1964 to commemorate the victims of the explosion." - This sentence needs additional punctuation.
  • "MacLennan and MacNeil exploit ..." - This sentence is a bit convoluted and could be split.
    • The prose is of a high quality and I only found these two further minor points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The end of the article seems a bit abrupt, leaving many unanswered questions. The war had another nine months to run. Were other parts of the port sufficiently undamaged to continue shipping supplies and men to Europe? What happened to all the shipping that had previously reported to Halifax before moving on to ports in the US? Where did convoys gather subsequently before crossing the Atlantic? Or do you think these points are beyond the scope of this article, which is specifically about the explosion? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The CBC's educational primer for it doesn't go into great detail, but it does make mention. (last couple paragraphs of page.) So I think this can be added. Unless Nikki beats me to it, I will see what else is available, as I imagine what you are looking for could be added as a paragraph in the Reconstruction section. Resolute 14:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The paragraph that has been added about the aftermath of the explosion is excellent; I think it is a considerable improvement to the article and I now Support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Johnbod[edit]

Added, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – Brilliant article, I enjoyed reading it. I couldn't really detect any problem. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment—I probably won't have time to read the whole article, so I'll never get around to supporting (overall it looks good though). However, I do feel that the introductory sentence is rather insufficient in summing up what the article is about. That is to say, it only says when the Halifax Explosion occurred, not what it even is. Perhaps fitting in a brief "was a (maritime) disaster that occurred" in there will do the trick? The Wikipedian Penguin 21:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Done this, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - I read through top to bottom without stopping, found it a fascinating story, no prose glitches to make me stop, just really well done imo. Maybe I like explosions? Who knows. On the trivia side, I always wondered why Boston's Christmas trees came from there. Also, I looked at all the images: each is nicely and appropriately licensed (for a cheap & nasty IR). Well done! Victoria (tk) 20:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. A few quibbles:

  • Lead
    • Is it really helpful to link "fire"?
  • Disaster
    • See the MoS – we don't link the names of major geographic features and locations, which would include the Netherlands, New York and Belgium. (For my part, I don't think we want links to "blizzard" and "Christmas tree" later in the article, but I don't press the point.)
    • "She intended" – is it customary to attribute intentions to the ship itself rather than its owners/officers? (Question asked from pure ignorance.)
  • Collision and fire
    • "propellor" – perhaps a WP:ENGVAR thing, but the OED, Chambers Dictionary and Collins Dictionary all spell the word "propeller"
    • "Towing two scows" – a link to scow would be helpful here, I think.
  • Bibliography
    • Is having this header one level down from that of "Footnotes" intentional?
    • At FAC level perhaps we should comply with WP:ISBN and standardise on 13-digit ISBNs with hyphens. At present we have a mixture. WorldCat and the ISBN converter make this a simple job.

That's all from me. This impressive article meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 11:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I delinked all those words, added the link to scow. It appears that "propellor" is a valid alternate spelling, albeit less used. On the "she intended" piece, it may be a bit of a colloquialism, but the phrase would be used to indicate a decision was made on ship, but we don't necessarily know by who. I'll try to come back to the ISBN bit, but the converter tool seems to be taking the existing ISBN13 numbers and converting back to 10 rather than give me the proper hyphen spaces - which to my understanding are essentially random anyway. Thanks for the feedback and support! Resolute 14:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed the ISBNs. Tim riley talk 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tim! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support -- recusing from coord duties, I copyedited/reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and after checking changes made since then I see no reason not to support here.

  • Image review -- no new images since I checked licensing at ACR, and the one minor issue raised then was resolved.
  • Source review -- all footnote, bibliography, further reading and external links work; formatting generally looks fine and none of the sources appear problematic, but:
    • Per Tim, I'd have thought the Bibliography heading could go up a level.
    • You seem to eschew retrieval dates for web sources that have a publication date but compare FN93 with FN101 -- both Canadian Encyclopedia with publication dates but one has a retrieval date and the other doesn't. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, I've fixed these. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

GateKeeper (roller coaster)[edit]

Nominator(s): Astros4477 (Talk) 01:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a wing roller coaster at Cedar Point amusement park. This article has gone through two nominations with the issues being addressed each time. It was not promoted due to inactivity last nomination. This article matches the format of other roller coaster FAs. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most famous dinosaurs, and the first member of its group of armored dinosaurs to be nominated for FAC. Only incomplete remains of this genus are known, and few scientific papers have been devoted to it, so the article mainly relies on a 2004 monograph, which is the most detailed account of the animal published so far. Some info has also been included from papers about the Ankylosauria suborder in general as well as closely related genera. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

This looks like an interesting, well-written article. A few things I noticed:

  • "Hellcreek" in the lead becomes "Hell Creek" later.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Some terms are glossed, others are not. You could consider glossing entheses, coracoid, centra.
Fixed entheses, the others are a bit more tricky, will try. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Should be fixed now, but these features are almost impossible to describe in few words. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That's better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The feet of Ankylosaurus are incompletely known, but the hindfeet probably had three toes, like in related animals." - this sentence is awkwardly expressed.
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I would prefer "as is the case in related animals". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The dorsal vertebrae (of the back) were tightly spaced, which limited their downwards movement." - I don't understand this sentence.
Better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "... coossified (fused) to them" - why not just say "fused".
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "These horns may have originally been osteoderms (amor plates) that fused to the skull, though the scale pattern on the skull surface was instead the result of remodelling of the skull." - This sentence is a bit complex and could be split.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "a diamond shaped scale (internarial scale) was present at the font of the snout, the two squamosal osteoderms above the orbit, and a ridge of scales was present at the back of the skull." - This is also awkward and confusing.
Better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The mandible of Ankylosaurus was proportionally low to its length compared to other ankylosaurs" - this could be better expressed.
Better now? FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I would put the "compared to other ankylosaurs" at the beginning of the sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "... ranging from one margin to the other on the midline of its osteoderms." - Perhaps "stretching" would be better.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of "Armor" contains a great many repetitions of "may have been" and "may have".
Now has more variation. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In the "History" section, it is useful if you introduce each scientist as you first mention them, in the same way as you have done for Barnum Brown. The first time you mention Carpenter, you don't even give his first name.
Carpenter is first mentioned and linked already under description, but made some more presentation. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ankylosaurus and Euoplocephalus are sometimes thought to be sister taxa, but have also been found in different positions." - This is awkwardly expressed.
Simplified and updated. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • " The researchers also supported the loops acting as a resonance chamber" - did they find the loops very heavy?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "low-tuned resonant sounds" - "low-toned"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "the "dummy head" would lure a predator close to it, where after it could be stricken with the club" - another awkward sentence.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Carpenter has rejected this idea, as tail club shape is highly variable among ankylosaurids of the same genera." - I don't understand this sentence. Do you mean "even those in the same genus"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    • That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A bit of new text about feeding has been added since you read the article, Cwmhiraeth, from a paper published just two days ago. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with the alterations made. The subject of the article is outside my area of expertise and the prose is necessarily heavy going. As far as I can see, the article covers the subject comprehensively and the prose is of good quality so I am prepared to support this candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Ankylosaurus_scale.png: what is the source of the data reflected in this diagram?
  • File:Ankylosaurus_magniventris_reconstruction.png: what image or model is this based on? Same with File:Ankylosaurus_dinosaur.png
All of the above are at least partially based on Carpenter 2004[9][10], want it added to the file descriptions? The last one is maybe based on a restoration by Gregory S: Paul, I'll ping artists Ferahgo the Assassin and Dinoguy2 just to be sure. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Added Carpenter 2004 to file description. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What is William Diller Matthew's date of death?
1930, will add to file description. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Hell_Creek_dinosaurs_and_pterosaurs_by_durbed.jpg: given the source, how do we know this is an accurate representation? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
We (at the Dinosaur Project) have sources we cross check with to see if usermade images match, but we can of course not know exactly which sources a specific artist has used. That particular artist's images were discussed here:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Making my way up the FAC now...reading....

Ankylosaurus (/ˌæŋkɨlɵˈsɔrəs/ ang-ki-lo-sawr-əs or /æŋˌkaɪlɵˈsɔrəs/ ang-ky-lo-sawr-əs, meaning "fused lizard") is a genus of ankylosaurid dinosaur. - damn I wish there was another way to say this as it sounds circular but isn't. sigh....(maybe if you described it as a genus of armoured dinosaur? (Thyreophora)
I think it's pretty important to note it's an ankylosaurid/ankylosaur in the intro though, no? Just too bad the word is derived form the genus name, heh... Thinking about it, I'm not sure though, as other articles simply say "x is a sauropod dinosaur", "x is a theropod dinosaur", etc... Pretty broad groups. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Changed to thyreophoran anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Why I mentioned thyreophoran is that it is synonymous with what laypeople would call "armoured dinosaur and hence is a common reference point - a bit like why we call a sparrow a bird and not a vertebrate or something....I'd use th eterm "armoured dinosaur" and pipe it to the article as a synonym..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but it seems Carpenter uses "armored dinosaur" as a synonym of Ankylosauria, since I wouldn't say Ankylosaurus is more famous than Stegosaurus... FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I just read this by chance: Peter Galton (in "The complete dinosaur", first edition) notes that "Armoured dinosaur" historically refers to both Stegosaurs and Ankylosaurs, because Ankylosaurs where treated as a subgroup of the Stegosauria. The modern meaning however is different. He writes: "The term armored dinosaur now refers to a member of the Ankylosauria" (p. 295). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Aah ok. Alright, the term is nebulous enough to undermine its usefulness as a plain English term. Oh well....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The first para has alot of "ankylosaur-" words in it...if you could even cull one I think it would help make it sound less repetitive.
Changed a bit, is it better? FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
yep. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The three known Ankylosaurus skulls differ in various details, but this is thought to be the result of taphonomy and individual variation. - umm, surely you mean something like, "The three known Ankylosaurus skulls differ in various details, but this is thought to be the result of individual variation and degradation." - taphonomy itself doesn't make the skulls different..?
Well, taphonomy is anything that happens with the animal on its way to fossilisation, so would include distortion and breakage. Carpenter says "There is considerable difference among the three skulls, which for the present, is best explained as taphonomic and (or) individual variation." Perhaps if we say in parenthesis (changes happening during fossilisation of the remains)? It may seem vague, but Carpenter doesn't specify exactly what he thinks would have happened, and taphonomy does not only cover decay. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
True, but taphonomy is the study of these events, not the process. Agree my wording is too narrow. I think you have to use as an adjective - "taphonomic process" or somesuch. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
within the clade Thyreophora, consisting of armored dinosaurs --> "within the clade Thyreophora, commonly known as armored dinosaurs" - indicates the relationship better
Added, but kind of leaves a problem of inconsistency. Carpenter seems to use armored dinosaur as a synonym of ankylosaur, not thyreophoran, which this article has kind of followed. Do we have a source that states armored dinosaur is a synonym of Thyreophora today? I may have circumvented the problem by saying "Ankylosaurus is often considered the archetypal member of its group" instead of armored dinosaur now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the last fix is a good one - interesting question about what the lay term "armoured dinosaur" is equivalent to. Hadn't seen what Carpenter says but clouds the issue definitely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It may have something to do with his use of the term "Ankylosauromorpha" (which includes Scelidosaurus), which is apparently not recognised by newer research. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Ankylosauromorpha is considered invalid. There seems to be a bit of info on the group here. Mainly, ankylosauromorpha was defined twice by Carpenter (2001), one of which makes it a synonym of Scelidosauridae and the other a paraphyletic group. IJReid discuss 04:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Not really, so support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jens Lallensack[edit]

Excellent work. I'm not sure if I am allowed to vote as I already have contributed quite a bit, but I wish to provide some additional feedback:

Thanks, and Jens, there are two issues you may be able to help with: Does "armored dinosaur" refer to Ankylosauria or Thyreophora? Carpenter seems to indicate the former (perhaps due to his use of Ankylosauromorpha?), while the latter maybe seems more widespread. And what does "ankylosaur" refer to, members of Ankylosauria, Ankylosauridae, Ankylosaurus, or all of these? FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk, the first question is tricky, you are right. I think the term "amored dinosaur" in most cases refers to Ankylosauria. For example, Paul Sereno writes in his "The evolution of bird-hipped dinosaurs (Ornithischia)": "Ornithischian dinosaurs comprise an extraordinary radiation of land-dwelling herbivores that include such familiar forms as the stegosaurs (plated dinosaurs), ankylosaurs (armored dinosaurs), hadrosaurs (duck-billed dinosaurs), pachycephalosaurs (thick-headed dinosaurs), and ceratopsids (horned dinosaurs)." However, for example in the book "The Armored Dinosaurs" (edited by Carpenter) the term refers to the Thyreophora. I'm not sure, but I see no problem if we use the term consequently and make clear what exactly we mean with it. For the second question: Ankylosaur refers to Ankylosauria. Ankylosaurid refers to Ankylosauridae, and Ankylosaurine to Ankylosaurinae. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, made a few changes accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • [The] coracoid (which connects the shoulder and arms) – I think this formulation might cause misunderstandings. The coracoid is not the sole link between shoulder and arms, as the arm (the humerus) is connected to the shoulder blade (scapula) as well. Both the scapula, coracoid, and humerus contribute to the glenoid.
Better if I say "which connects the shoulder blade and arms"? FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, its better. I still have concerns about the word "connects", so I just changed it to an alternative formulation. Its a very minor issue (if any), so please revert if you are not happy with it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In the section "description", some bones are described in detail, including the scapula, humerus, and femur, including length measurements. During my first read I wondered why these bones were described while other bones were not mentioned at all. I guess that is because the other bones simply are not known. Maybe you could, before starting with the description, add a little bit more about the fragmentarity of the remains, and shortly state what is known and what is not?
The scarcity of remains is mentioned under history, but I should maybe move it up to description? I have now, and it looks ok. FunkMonk (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
great! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • the complex sinuses of ankylosaurs may have lightened the weight of the skull, housed a nasal gland, or acted as a chamber for vocal resonance. – This formulation might be confusing; I think that the "vocal resonance" theory was suggested not for the maxillary or premaxillary sinuses, but only for the looped nasal passage. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Carpenter says "The function of the sinuses in ankylosaur skulls is problematic. Maryanska (1977, p. 117) suggested the function was to reduce skull weight, house a nasal gland, or act as a resonating chamber." So he does not mention the nasal passage in the sentence, but is he perhaps unintentionally misquoting? FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah ok. I can't find it in Maryanska (1977) though (might be my fault, its a long paper and I did not read everything). She mentiones the pneumatisation of the palatinum, and that the chambers inside this bone might have been resonance boxes. She also compares the nasal cavity of ankylosaurs with hadrosaurs, and mentions that the interpretation of the hadrosaurian crest as resonance devices is "probable, but only as additional and secondary function of that passage". I do not want to say that Carpenter did a mistake (its a bit to complex for me to be sure), so perhaps we should just leave it as it is. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see, Carpenter cited p. 117. Than it is definitely a mistake, as page 117 is about the pneumatisation in the palatine (which has nothing to do with the nasal cavity/sinuses). We should cite Maryanska (1977) directly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Maryanska is cited, so I hope the two are not contradictory... FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way, Jens Lallensack, I think it is alright for you to vote on this FAC, since your additions were only made well after the nomination. Would probably have been different if you had added material before. Reviewers often do some editing of articles during review. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for support, Jens, I've removed the few occurrences of "armored dinosaurs", just to be sure. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A new paper[12] which has some extra information about Ankylosaurus has just been published, and the new info will be added within the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Info from the new paper has now been added, and the new text can be seen here:[13] Pinging reviewers Cwmhiraeth, Casliber, and Jens Lallensack, in case they have suggestions for the new text. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Man Down (song)[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 08:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... Rihanna's single "Man Down" from her fifth studio album, Loud. The song was a massive hit in France, and the song's accompanying music garnered much controversy due to its rape and murder theme. The article has been edited by the GOCE.  — Calvin999 08:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: I will not have access to the internet between 21 July and 28 July, and will be unable to respond to any comments in this nomination for that duration of time.  — Calvin999 17:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support All comments have been addressed, looks great. Azealia911 talk 11:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks.  — Calvin999 11:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. I sense the presence of an accomplished copy-editor. Graham Beards (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you.  — Calvin999 17:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I am withdrawing my support for the moment; errors are creeping in such as here:"According to Mandler, when he was growing up Madonna released music videos that generated controversy and he felt that it being wasted as a medium." Graham Beards (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin[edit]

Conditional oppose—the prose needs a little bit more work, but by the end of this review, I look forward to supporting this.


  • "The fifth single from the album, it was released on May 3, 2011."—label?
  • "Barbadian singer Shontelle and the Virgin Islander production duo Rock City wrote the song with its producer, Sham."—perhaps "with its main producer", since there were vocal producers involved.
    • There's no mention of Harrell in the lead, so I think it was okay as it was, but I added 'main' anyway.  — Calvin999
  • "Inspired by Bob Marley's 1973 song, 'I Shot the Sheriff', it is an electro-reggae, ragga and reggae track. The lyrics involve Rihanna on the run after she shoots a man."—would flow better as one sentence, connected by a "the lyrics of which".
  • "Playing up" sounds like an idiom. Perhaps "emphasizing" or "showcasing"?
  • "Anthony Mandler directed its music video, with Rihanna justifiably shooting a man after he rapes her."—overall an awkward transition from discussing charts to discussing the video. Maybe something like "The music video, directed by Rihanna, involves her...". And the use of "justifiably" has what I feel are controversial implications that could be debated on, so I would recommend its removal.
    • Rihanna didn't direct it, just a note. But I don't really see how just reversing the structure of the start of the sentence changes anything, because it's still saying the same thing. I've removed 'justifiably' though.  — Calvin999
      That was my mistake, sorry; I meant to say, "...directed by Anthony Madler, involves Rihanna...". Beginning the sentence with "The music video..." introduces the next topic more smoothly I think, since the current structure puts more emphasis on the director than the fact that there was a music video. The Wikipedian Penguin 18:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
        • But the next sentence starts with 'the'. I just think starting with his name makes a change to starting 'the' or 'it' all the time.  — Calvin999
          Fair enough. The Wikipedian Penguin 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Recording and composition

  • "Kuk Harrell produced Rihanna's vocal with Josh Gudwin and Marcos Tovar at Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles. "—some context as to who Harrel is (eg. American songwriter) would be helpful here. Also, the use of "with" has always sounded a bit strange to me when talking about collaborators. I feel as though "alongside" sounds better, but since this is a more subjective concern, feel free to disagree.
    • I don't really see the need to add Harrell's nationality and profession, but I've added it anyway. But now it reads "American vocal producer and engineer Kuk Harrell produced Rihanna's vocals". It was self-explanatory before.  — Calvin999
      It's inferable, but rather abrupt as you talk about a person whom we as the readers do not know. You can remove the "vocal producer" part and just have "sound engineer" if that's better. The Wikipedian Penguin 18:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The section should first discuss the inspiration, then writing and then finally recording. This would create a more coherent and chronological flow in the prose.
    • I understand that the inspiration to them comes first and then songwriting, but to us, we always get the processes involved after the song is written and released. So I think it makes sense how I have structured it, because it creates the atmosphere that the people involved are looking back on it and explaining where it come from once it was written.  — Calvin999
      It's certainly not how I would have approached arranging this section, but it doesn't seem to concern other reviewers, so I'll let it pass.
  • "According to the producers, they wanted to create something which would provoke listeners to choose sides..."—I know that Rock City is a production duo, but I think some readers would be confused by this, thinking that they also produced the song. Maybe "According to the duo...".
  • The average nonaficionado will not know what is meant by a "moderate reggae feel". It's true that some technicality in a music article is to be expected, but this may be a bit too blurry.
    • I think it's quite self explanatory. Moderate means that it isn't heavy or as you would expect. The only thing that makes this song reggae is Rihanna's vocal style. The actual melody and beat I would say is more R&B/Hip-hop.  — Calvin999
      Then why is the phrase associated with the tempo of the song? The Wikipedian Penguin 18:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Because it's talking about melodic structure  — Calvin999 18:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
        • You can say "tempo of" but not "feel of", and the linking suggests the two are synonymous. May I suggest "...with a moderate reggae feel and a tempo of"? The Wikipedian Penguin 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I've changed it.
            • Now it's suggesting that it's the tempo that's moderate, a subjective assertion, not the reggae sound of the song. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Yeah but what I said above is just what I think. Perhaps I'm interpreting it differently. But it's not backed up what I said.  — Calvin999 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
                • The source says "Moderate reggae feel", without associating it to the tempo. The feel and tempo are two different things. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • Not done. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
                    • Changed.  — Calvin999 17:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
                      You've restored it to the original version, which is also problematic. Do you have any reservations about my suggestion "...with a moderate reggae feel and a tempo of"?
                      • Sorry I wasn't really following what you was saying. Changed.  — Calvin999 20:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "In its lyrics" -> "According to its lyrics"
More to come. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.  — Calvin999 17:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed everything above?  — Calvin999 08:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've responded to your reply regarding the "moderate reggae feel". Nevertheless, here are more comments. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Release and reception

  • "Rihanna asked fans to help her pick the next single from Loud using Twitter"—"pick" is a tad too informal. I'd recommend "choose".
  • "...the singer said she had narrowed it down to four songs..."—vague use of the word "it". Try "she had narrowed her options down to four songs".
  • "(before the May 13 release of 'California King Bed')"—this is a necessary detail to understanding the subsequent clause of the sentence, so dashes would work better than parentheses as they better integrate relevant information into a sentence.
  • "Some noted Rihanna's Barbadian accent; Jon Pareles of The New York Times said that the singer 'plays up her West Indian accent', and August Brown of the Los Angeles Times described the vocals as '[reasserting] her Caribbean lilt'."—two adjacent clauses terminating with the word "accent" is a concern.
  • "ballad-about-murder" is not a theme. If anything it is a subgenre and one with its own article.
  • by fellow Barbadian-born singer Shontelle..."—I think both you and the reviewer are trying to emphasize Shontelle's nationality. In that case, how about " by a fellow Barbadian-born singer, Shontelle, ..."? This structure puts less emphasis on who co-wrote the song than on where she comes from.
  • "steeped in" is too inaccessible. A simple "with" works perfectly fine.

Chart performance

  • According to MOS:NUM, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures." Chart positions should either be written as figures or as words, regardless of whether they are less than or greater than 10.
  • "'Man Down' debuted at number 65 on the French Singles Chart on June 6, 2011, a month before its official release."—Would write "The song" here to reduce repetition, since the last sentence also had "Man Down". This means "The song" becomes "It" in the following sentence and "weeks; it was" becomes "weeks, and was".
    Not done second half of this point. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "for sales of" -> "for selling"
  • Some more variation in the prose would be nicer when referring to "Man Down". You can also use "the single", "the track" and the simple "it". The Wikipedian Penguin 15:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Addressed all.  — Calvin999 17:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "After a total of 73 weeks..."—73 weeks of the song being on the chart or 73 weeks as in time passed since the song's chart debut? The Wikipedian Penguin 17:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Amended all.  — Calvin999 18:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Music video

  • "On May 1, 2011 three camera phone teaser photos..."—comma after MDY date.
  • "In an interview with MTV News..."—interview for MTV News
  • "Mandler said that "Man Down" is a song which required"—cut "is a song" and "which" should be "that".
  • Avoid fused participles such as "with Rihanna shooting" and "with the singer running home".
    Not done. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Well I don't really know what you want me to do because you haven't explained what it is that you think needs changing.  — Calvin999
      My apologies; try to avoid the noun + "-ing" structure, which is considered controversial in the world of grammar. The Wikipedian Penguin 16:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't really care about if people in the world of grammar think fused participles and noun +ing is controversial to be honest. It still makes sense when you read and it's how everyone talks in everyday life. It's not a rule set in stone that one must adhere by. It's just something someone come up with a while ago just so it has a name.  — Calvin999
          It's understandable, but not quite "brilliant", "professional" prose. You didn't object to fixing a fused participle here. At the end of the day, if all my concerns are addressed except this, I'm not going to oppose solely based on this, as it is a nitpick, but if it is possible to avoid fused participles, I would. The Wikipedian Penguin 19:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
          • It does make sense as it is. I don't see a problem with it.  — Calvin999 20:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The group disagreed with Rihanna's rationale for the storyline: that the video has 'a very strong underlying message [for] girls like me'."—who is "me"?
    • Rihanna, it's the same quote as in the first para of the back and synopsis section.  — Calvin999
      "Me" should be removed from the quote, and the word "her" should follow after quotation marks because this quotation is integrated into the sentence rather than being introduced as something she said (eg. "Rihanna said, ...". The Wikipedian Penguin 13:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to the PTC, if Chris Brown murdered a woman in a video which premiered on BET 'the world would stop' and Rihanna should not be allowed to release the video without repercussions."—again, incorrect use of "which". Also, the two ideas need a connector, something like "...and thus Rihanna should not". Finally, "without repercussions" is not supported in the source.
  • The council's criticism of the "S&M" performance is not related to the music video controversy.
    • I think it is. It was the second time in less than two weeks that the PTC had criticized Rihanna for her choice of visuals. The media noted this too.  — Calvin999
  • "According to Mandler, when he was growing up Madonna released music videos which generated controversy and he felt that the music video was wasted as a medium."—(1) incorrect employment of "which"; (2) repetitive use of "music video(s)", the latter being ambiguous. You can substitute for it "the video for 'Man Down'".
    The current version is more ambiguous. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I've added a bit more back but to be honest there's only so much I can do with comments such as "it's ambiguous".  — Calvin999
        My comment regarding ambiguity was of the revision that Graham points out above; perhaps you interpreted it to be of the rewrite you did. Nonetheless, I've attempted to improve the sentence prosewise, so if you're happy with it, I'm happy with it. The Wikipedian Penguin 16:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Minor point, but on what medium did Rihanna and Union share their opinions on the video's controversy (eg. blog, press release, interview, Twitter)?
    • They both used Twitter, which was then reported on by third party sources.  — Calvin999 07:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
      This would be useful to note in the article. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Live performances and covers

  • "with Katherine Hollisey-McLean of the Brighton Herald complimenting"—fused participle.

Credits and personnel

  • "All recording studios are located in Los Angeles, California"—need a full stop and italics not necessary.


  • Liner notes ref needs page number.
  • Why are Slant Magazine and AllAccess italicized whereas other online publications are not?
    • Slant Magazine Wikipedia article is italicized. I've removed italics from AllAccess.  — Calvin999
      But it is a website and should be formatted the same way in the citations as the other websites. There is one more "All Access Group" that needs to be unitalicized. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
        • But it's italicised on Wikipedia, so I don't see why it wouldn't be italicised in a citation? Done AAG.  — Calvin999
          It shouldn't be. That article's italicization is wrong since purely online works are never italicized. The Wikipedian Penguin 16:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Changed.  — Calvin999 17:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes Idolator a high quality reliable source? The Wikipedian Penguin 00:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    • What doesn't? It's no different to Digital Spy etc.  — Calvin999

Address all.  — Calvin999 07:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My replies have not yet been responded to, although I do understand you will be away in a few days and are probably busy in real life at the moment. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see you'd made any replies.  — Calvin999
Please see my comment above RE "moderate reggae tempo", for which I've offered a suggestion. Cheers, The Wikipedian Penguin 16:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I won't be able to respond to any comments or feedback until Monday 27 now (one week from today). I've addressed everyone's comments above.  — Calvin999 20:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Note to coordinators and nominator—I have struck my oppose and hope to read through the article once more before giving my support. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Second read—additional commentes before concluding this review.

  • " is an electro-reggae, ragga and reggae track, and the lyrics involve Rihanna on the run after she shoots a man."—awkward connection "and the lyrics...".
  • "It was more successful on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, peaking at number 9."—you don't need to tell us it was more successful on the R%B/Hip-Hop chart if you're simply giving us the chart position. We can infer that.
  • "The song topped the charts in France for five consecutive weeks..."—just "chart", not "charts".
  • Keep in mind that in the music video, Rihanna is in character. It is not her who shoots the man, it is a character played by her.
  • The first two sentences in "Recording and composition" both end with "in Los Angeles", which is problematic.
  • "In an MTV News interview, Rock City said they intended to write a song embodying Bob Marley's 1973 song "I Shot the Sheriff" from a female perspective."—read aloud to spot the repetition.
  • "...they later said that although some people interpreted the song literally, others saw it as a metaphor."—"people" -> "listeners" as it is less vague.
  • "...from a low of F3 to a high of E♭5."—"a low of" and "a high of" are redundant.
  • "The song had a limited release in Europe, including France and Switzerland on July 7 and the Netherlands on July 15."—"including" implies there were other parts of Europe in which the single was released. My advice is just to drop the commentary "The song had a limited release in Europe" and get to the point: "The song was released in France and Switzerland on July 7 and the Netherlands eight days later."
  • "...and August Brown of the Los Angeles Times described the vocals as '[reasserting] her Caribbean lilt'."—words in brackets in the beginning or end of quotations can just go outside them (i.e. "...described the vocals as reasserting 'her Carribbean lilt'."
  • A brief explanation about what the song "Deuces" is about (or was interpreted by critics to be about) would be helpful. The article must stand alone after all.
More coming. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Done all.  — Calvin999 21:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "...arguing that a woman murdering a rapist as socially-acceptable justice was impermissible."—this is an example of how fused participles can result in ambiguity. Is a woman being considered justice or is the murdering considered justice? Two options: either "woman's murdering" or remove "a woman". The former is rather awkward but both are grammatically correct. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think this does read awkward and I think it read fine.  — Calvin999 08:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      It's ambiguous and thus poor grammar. The Wikipedian Penguin 11:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Apostrophising 'womans' makes no sense when you read it aloud. I personally don't think there's any problem with how it currently is and it is coherent, but I'll remove 'a woman'.  — Calvin999 11:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Chris Brown's and Gabrielle Union's pictures' positioning are against MOS as they should be facing the article text. Move them, or replace them. The Wikipedian Penguin 11:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Brown's is facing the text; his body is facing it and his face is actually facing neither left or right. Union's is on the right because if it's on the left, it will interfere with the block quote, that's why I put it there.  — Calvin999 13:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      In response to your reply regarding Brown's image, per MOS, "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." As for the block quote interference with Union's photo, today is a lucky day. A user has suggested a solution to this problem, which you can see in their sandbox. See the code in my sandbox. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "...from her fifth studio album, Loud (2010). The fifth single from the album..."—repetitive prose. Likewise: "The song topped the chart in France for five consecutive weeks and reached the top five in Belgium and the Netherlands."
    • It can't be helped that it's the fifth single from the fifth album, and spent five weeks at number one France and the top five in Belgium and the Netherlands. Readers would understand this, there's no other way to get around basic simple facts.  — Calvin999 22:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      How about moving "The fifth single from the album" to the end of the sentence with a comma after the date and "as". You can also replace "the top five" with "number 3". Sure it was number 2 in Wallonia, but the sentence wouldn't exactly be false. If you're still picky about this, "top three" works for me. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "...provoke listeners to choose sides."—"choose sides" is too vague and colloquial.
    • I've changed because that's not actually in the interview.  — Calvin999 22:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      The current version has introduced a typo and is still vague. An opinion on what? I checked the source, and to be honest, I have no idea what Theron is trying to say. An opinion as in an interpretation of the lyrics, or an opinion as in a stance on a debatable topic? The Wikipedian Penguin 23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "However, the releases were switched..."—not sure what you're trying to say here. Can we do without this tidbit?
    • She switched the releases around, it's quite simple. It explains why Man Down was released first when CKB was supposed to be released first.  — Calvin999 22:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "a month before its release as a single" needs to be sourced (cite the French release date ref). The Wikipedian Penguin 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Added.  — Calvin999 22:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      Is it me or does the source say the release date in France was July 11, 2015? The Wikipedian Penguin 23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Rihanna's voice spans one and a half octaves, from a low of F3 to a high of E♭5." That's actually 1 and 5/6ths octaves. Might this sentence be corrected to "Rihanna's voice spans more than one and a half octaves" or "spans nearly two octaves"? I changed it to the latter. — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I changed it to the former.  — Calvin999 21:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

American Pharoah[edit]

Nominator(s): Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC), User:Vesuvius Dogg, User:Tigerboy1966 , User:Froggerlaura

This article is about the first Triple Crown winner in 37 years, a delightful young racehorse with a brilliant future. The team at WikiProject horse racing worked very hard on this article. This is, I think, the fourth or fifth FAC presented by WikiProject horse racing, and we look forward to the review Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Owner_Zayat_Stables_Ltd.svg: do you have a source to confirm this design? It's hard to tell from the lead image, and adding a link to the image description would be worthwhile. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Would a better photo do the job? I'm finding that locating official Jockey Club registration silk designs descriptions in the USA is a booger, as each state registers its own, but then grants reciprocity to others. (the UK is way easier) User:JockeyColours does them up, usually based on photos. I'm open to ideas. Montanabw(talk) 02:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Follow up: Would the stables web site here work as a source? (Has an image of the silks in a graphic and on a t-shirt...) Montanabw(talk) 02:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Shall I source the image and the article, or will the image do?? Montanabw(talk) 04:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Just the image description page is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose[edit]

I know nothing about horses, racing and so on but have happily had a look through at prose, formatting etc. I think this is well written and structured and have tried to help out a little with copy-editing. I am sorry not to be giving a more detailed review but I really feel unqualified to comment on the real content where I am so utterly ignorant of the field. Nevertheless I am comfortable endorsing the prose, formatting etc as meeting the FA criteria. I like the 2015 Belmont Stakes photograph very much; great action shot, really rather majestic. Impressive, like your article. Well done to all concerned, and apologies again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Support by SchroCat[edit]

Nicely put together and well-written. Two minor points for you to consider, which will not affect my support: the link to Littleprincessemma is a circular link back to the article, so it should either be stubbed or the link removed. The second point relates to FNs 31 and 32 with a double set of quote marks because of the horse's name. I think I'm right in saying that we should use a single quote mark within quotes, and this stands true for titles too. – SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • FIXED, make sure I did the fixes to you satisfaction. Montanabw(talk) 00:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me - nice work! - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support with comments (most are preferences) by Victoria[edit]

  • "When he was a few days old, he and Littleprincessemma went to nearby Pretty Run Farm, also owned by VanMeter, where they remained for a few months,[15] then the mare and foal were moved to Vinery, another Lexington farm that stabled Pioneerof the Nile, where American Pharoah was weaned at five months of age.[16][c]" >> I got lost about half way through this sentence, so suggest splitting or somehow rewriting.
    • Split and rewrote. Better? (Montanabw)
  • I added a couple of non-breaking spaces because the day/month were splitting between lines. Can't remember the rules about this, but might be worth taking a look. If you don't think it's a big deal, it's ok to revert, because it's really just a preference.
    • It was helpful, thanks! (Montanabw)
  • I removed a couple of instances of "trainer" in front of Baffert. He's blue-linked and I think once it's been established he's the trainer it's okay simply to call him Baffert without his title (though he does deserve a hell of a lot of credit for training this horse!). Again it's a preference and up to you.
    • Also helpful, thanks! (Montanabw)
  • There's some repetition in the construction of "Baffert commented" >> I have no suggestion for this. It's difficult to work out but might be worth it to improve flow.
    • Fixed, eliminated all but two uses, and only once by Baffert. (Montanabw)
  • The text box is very bright! Again, this is only a preference, but for some reason it's a color that bothers me (I'm prone to headaches)
    • I was trying to get the same shade of turquoise as the Zayat stables' racing silks (see how I used purple and green at California Chrome, it's just for fun) but I'll try to lighten it up a bit, that's fair (I have 50+ year old eyes and so I know how some things can be visually challenging...). Made it several shades lighter, is that better? (Montanabw)
      • I noticed the color matched the silks. It's much better now. Could be that my monitor is too bright! (VE)
  • The sloppy track image is great. Personally I'd boost it way high, and made a test edit here to see what it looks like. Up to you, but we won't see another American Pharoah in a while, so I think it's worth showcasing that shot.
    • That's intriguing! I know that sort of layout passed muster at Richard Nixon's FAC - but I also remember the controversy. Wondering if @Nikkimaria: would think it's OK, she's the image person of FAC. Or perhaps @Wehwalt: could opine, as he was a lead editor at Nixon. I'd do it if it won't cause issues for other reviewers. (Montanabw)
      • At the very bottom of the page in teeny-tiny font is the option to view the article in mobile view - just click there and you can see how it would look. I think it looks nice with the sea of mud, but agree that others should weigh in. (VE)

That's all. Nice work to all of you at Wikiproject horse racing. It's been an exciting year! Victoria (tk) 19:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

    • I'll see what I can do to fix the above. Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC) @Victoriaearle: I think I have addressed all of your concerns, let me know if they are now OK and if there are further changes needed. Montanabw(talk) 22:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yep, thanks. It's all good. Nice job. Victoria (tk) 23:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda[edit]

I like the lively style, showing contagious enthusiasm for the subject, including in many quotes by other enthusiasts. I am not familiar with horse language, so can tell that it's comprehensible to an outsider ;) - Minor points, and just questions you can answer with no:

  • In Background: First we know about the colt, only then about the parents. My feeling for chronology would have it the other way round. - Alternatively, the para might be split in Background and Description/Character/you name it.
  • Can you create at least stubs on the red links?

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

    • It is a standard layout in the racehorse articles to describe the horse and what he or she looks like, then go to parentage. (In many kinds of sales and competitions, they usually describe horses this way: "Foobar is a 2014 bay colt by (stallion) Foo out of (mare) Bar, bred by ..." and so on) I am certainly willing to improve the flow of the prose, though, if you can point out what sounds awkward. Montanabw(talk) 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I killed two redlinks in the endnotes (not super likely to become articles), I already stubbed Littleprincessemma, perhaps we can inquire why @Tigerboy1966: redlinked the others - usually it's because a horse is on the WikiProject Horse racing "to do" list to get an article but just hasn't happened yet. He is in the best position to know if these horses are in the "likely to" meet GNG. In the meantime, I have had articles pass FAC with a few red links. Is this better? Montanabw(talk) 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Annunciation (Memling)[edit]

Nominator(s): Victoriaearle, Ceoil

Hans Memling painted this pretty Annunciation scene around 1480. It's simple, striking, and has interesting iconography, yet someone must not have liked it very much because when a Polish prince found it in one of his family's estates early in the 19th century, it had been pierced through by an arrow. Early in the 20th century it was brought to America, transferred to canvas, and now resides in New York at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Ceoil helped with suggestions, copy-editing, image placement, and encouragement. Victoria (tk) 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Support Maile (talk)

The word "stunning" comes to mind about the images. All images are on Commons and appropriately licensed. Is there a way you could scan "Boucicaut hours visitation" so it's not crooked? The prose is well-done, almost as if walking through a museum and having a tour guide explain it all. — Maile (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maile66, thanks for checking the images. We discussed the crooked Boucicaut hours and decided to leave it as (it's really hard to get scans of these centuries-old books) but I did initially upload a cropped version on the source, and can revert to that if consensus is to be straight. I can't load images at the moment - a thunderstorm came through about an hour after I nominated this and I've had on-and-off internet connectivity since, but when that gets fixed I'll take another look. Victoria (tk) 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
RE the crooked image - the original is here. The margins are lost if cropped, and it's probably worth having the margins to show that it's from a book, whereas the other paintings aren't. Victoria (tk) 00:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, thank you for answering. I'm not going to oppose this nomination based one crooked picture. As far as I'm concerned, you've answered the only issue I had. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maile66, it's straightened now, [14], thanks to Sarah. Victoria (tk) 19:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks really great now! — Maile (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm now happy to be giving this article my support. I just gave it a second thorough read-through. The sources come through credible publishers. The prose and the way you have laid this out visually is good. I was particularly impressed with the close-up of the light shining through the flask, and the detailed explanation of the symbolism. I can find no fault with this and think you made a great presentation of the subject matter. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and thanks for taking the time to revisit. Victoria (tk) 20:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the IR Nikkimaria. Victoria (tk) 20:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I've read this through twice. It's beautifully written and illustrated. The symbolism is explained well and is fascinating. Very happy to support it. Sarah (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Sarah - thanks so much for taking the time to read through twice and for the support. I think it's fascinating too. Victoria (tk) 15:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Chetro Ketl[edit]

Nominator(s): RO(talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the largest Ancestral Puebloan great houses in Chaco Culture National Historical Park. It was recently the subject of a two-month-long peer review, where eleven editors commented, including several of our most prolific and respected writers. One of the world's leading Chaco scholars and Chetro Ketl experts, Stephen H. Lekson, was kind enough to vet the article and give me notes via google docs. He said it was "great" and an "excellent" presentation of a complicated topic. Having benefitted from substantial input from others, I believe this article meets or exceeds the FA criteria. RO(talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Nikkimaria[edit]

  • Maps and diagrams could generally stand to be a bit larger
I'm not sure what to do about this one, because several people have told me to not mess with images sizes. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Generally that is true - you should not fix a px size without good reason. However, MOS:IMAGES#Size explicitly allows for increased image size for "images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart)". You could also play around with using the upright parameter to scale sizes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Alt text should be concise but accurate — for example, File:Chetro Ketl overlook.jpg is not a black-and-white image
Oops. Thanks for that. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Ancestral_Puebloan_territory.svg: what data source was used to create this map?
I'm really not sure, but it looks pretty accurate to me. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, but we do need it to be verifiable...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Where appropriate, it's preferable to use the more specific NPS tag rather than the general USGov - the former links to their particular copyright policy
Will do. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Chacoan_turquoise_pendant.jpg: is a more direct source link available? Same with File:Sandal-12thcentury_ChacoCanyon_NM_USA.jpg, File:Bowl_Chaco_Culture_NM_USA.jpg, File:Jar_Chaco_Anasazi_Obelisk_Grayware.jpg. File:Chaco_Anasazi_abajo_black-on-orange_trade_ware_NPS.jpg
I'm not sure how to answer this one. Maybe We hope can lend some assistance. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Bowl_Chaco_Culture_NM_USA.jpg: because US does not have freedom of panorama for objects, we need to explicitly account for the item's copyright status as well as the photo's. Same with File:Chaco_Anasazi_abajo_black-on-orange_trade_ware_NPS.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to answer this one. Maybe We hope can lend some assistance. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Because of the age of the items, pretty much any age-based tag would work - pre-1923, life+100, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Added "old-100" tags to these photos. We hope (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just added direct links to the photos and their descriptions for all items from the NPS Museum photo gallery that are in the article. The photos were taken by the National Park Service. The dating of these objects is included on their gallery pages. They all seem to be 13th century or before. We hope (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, We hope! RO(talk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Jimfbleak, Brianboulton, and Jaguar[edit]

  • Support My few concerns were addressed at PR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Echoing Jim, above: a most impressively researched article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Before looking at this FAC I had the intention of leaving another review here, but after reading through this again I see that there isn't any need. This is an amazingly comprehensive article! JAGUAR  21:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the support everyone! RO(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments and support from Mirokado[edit]

I also looked at this during the PR. It is a very well presented and thorough article. Just a few further comments:

  • Timber
    • species of tree: perhaps "tree species" would be better?
  • McElmo
    • McElmo black-on-white pottery, McElmo Black-on-white pottery: please decide on a consistent capitalisation (in this section and an image caption)
    • While McElmo Black-on-white pottery was abundant in later contexts at Chetro Ketl, the problematic McElmo style masonry was used in several later additions to the building, including very characteristic Chaco-style kivas. R. Gwinn Vivian (son of Gordon Vivian) notes, "The jury is still out on this question, a problem that poses intriguing possibilities for future work.": I haven't understood from this what is being contrasted by "while" and what the question or problem is...
  • Abandonment
    • Chetro Ketl's great kiva might have been remodeled and used well after 1140: "may", since "might" would imply a following "but". After noticing this I looked at other occurrences of "might have been" and I think "may have been" would probably be better for all of them ("may" if scholars think something but there is no direct proof, "might" if it is a possibility but we go on to explain why it is unlikely).
  • Rediscovery
  • Excavation
    • reverse stratigraphy: I have wikilinked reverse stratigraphy (and added a general reference to that article, but it is still poorly referenced). There can be various causes. Can you add a brief explanation of the origin of the reversal in this case (flooding, mound collapse, previous excavations, ...)?
    • Twined sandals have also been recovered there.[107] Bones from the ferruginous hawk and the great horned owl have been found at Chetro Ketl.[108]: Perhaps combine these two sentences for better reading: "Twined sandals[107] and bones from the ferruginous hawk and the great horned owl[108] have been found on the site."
  • Purpose
    • In-text attribution for the quote "confirming their affiliation with the larger ritual alliance" (presumably James Judge)?
  • General comments:
    • I imagine you have already tried to track down Kern's lithographs? Incidentally, looking at File:Narbona 1849.jpg, it's a great shame he never met Irataba!
      • Yup. He did some nice work alright. I haven't come across anything pertaining to Chetro Ketl, but if I do I'll try and find a way to include it. RO(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Are there any particular museums with collections from Chetro Ketl? If so it would be worth mentioning them.

--Mirokado (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

These are some great comments Mirokado. Thanks for the review! I addressed most of the points with this edit: ([15]), and expanded on the topic of reverse stratigraphy here: ([16]). I've made this edit regarding the Chetro Ketl artifacts and their present whereabouts: ([17]), which sadly explains that "one of the great archaeological mysteries of the Southwest ... [is] the almost total disappearance of the Chetro Ketl materials". Please let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks again! RO(talk) 17:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and additions. All the above now sorted out (with one further copyedit taken from McElmo Phase).
  • One final question: where does the name McElmo come from? The origin is not mentioned here, not in McElmo Phase. We need a brief explanation here, I think.
This is an easy one to answer, but a difficult one to source. McElmo refers to a creek and canyon near Mesa Verde (see: File:McElmo Creek.JPG). The problem is that RSs tend to say it's derived from the Mesa Verde region, but not the specific creek and canyon. I'll keep looking for something explicit, but I've looked at five sources this morning that all say the same general thing. The term was coined by Vivian and Matthews in Kin Kletso: A Pueblo III community in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico (1965), but I can't find a free copy of it online, and I'm reluctant to spend money on this for one point that is quite possibly a misnomer in the first place. RO(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy to support this article. --Mirokado (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! RO(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Dr. Blofeld and Wehwalt[edit]

  • Support I was the one who promoted this to GA during RO's absence a while back but I only had to make minor edits. Not enough to consider myself a co-contributor anyway. I found very little fault with it, and thought it read like the work of a scholar and had FA potential. I'm even more certain of it by the fact that an expert has been consulted to take a look at it and is impressed with the quality of it. I think this really illustrates what a great editor RO is. Excellent job. My only minor quibble is that I don't like the current main black and white image. Even when I click it I can barely see anything I'd prefer a better quality colour one for the main image like File:Chetro_Ketl_overlook.jpg, but I can see why you switched it to cover the site from above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Dr.B! I basically agree about the lead image, but I worried that because the other one was flipped upside down compared to the site map it might confuse rather than enlighten. Maybe I can save some money and next year fork out for a helicopter ride and a much better camera! I've made a request at the graphics lab ([18]), so hopefully they can improve that black and white aerial. RO(talk) 19:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think it would be possible to obtain a grant from wikimedia to cover that. Ask them to fund a trip which also covers some of the poorly photographed areas and tell them you'll take several hundred photographs to benefit the project.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. RO(talk) 16:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns were answered at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt! RO(talk) 16:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

  • Support – A most impressive piece of work, both scholarly (as far as a layman can judge) and readable. It has been further polished since I had the pleasure of reviewing it for GAN. The sources are broad and well cited, the balance of the article strikes me as well judged and the images are admirable. Happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 18:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Tim! I put the better part of four months into this, and I wanted to do the very best I could. Editors like you make the tremendous effort needed to get an article to this level seem worth it. Thanks for your encouragement and advice at the PR and here! RO(talk) 18:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Ssven2[edit]

  • Support – Really impressive article, RO! Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 10:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ssven2! RO(talk) 15:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

Have we had a source review for formatting/reliability? Also I think this might be RO's first solo FAC if promoted, in which case I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tks Squeamish for source review below, I think we just need a spotcheck of a few sources now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Review and support by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

It's nice to be back on the project, and I'm happy to return to my FAC reviewing work by looking at this excellent, (nearly) comprehensive piece. Chaco Canyon is amazing, and I'm happy to see an article about part of it here. This review focuses on sourcing comprehensiveness and reference formatting. I did not perform a thorough prose review.

That was a kick ass review, and thanks for your support, Squeamish Ossifrage! I'll deal with all these concerns by Monday morning, maybe sooner. RO(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Squeamish Ossifrage, I've applied your advice with these edits: ([23]). If I missed anything, please let me know. Thanks again for taking a look and providing these helpful suggestions! RO(talk) 20:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Glad I could be of assistance. All of my concerns have been neatly resolved. I look forward to seeing this with the bronze star. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support by RHM22[edit]

Support (I also made a small contribution to the peer review, for the record.) First of all, I apologize for taking so long to get to this! As you might have guessed, I haven't been very active lately; this time of the year is busy for me and I don't get as much time as I would like to undertake work here on Wikipedia.

Overall, this is a very well-written article and quite informative. As an utter layman in the area of native architecture, I found this informative and easy to understand. I made a few minor changes, which you should feel free to alter or revert at your whim if I have made any mistakes or introduced any inconsistencies. Although I think this is generally up to snuff, I do have some minor considerations. (I don't care for the use of external links in the body of an article, but I believe that is widely accepted now.)

  • Masonry: "Chacoan masons also frequently included intramural beams, horizontal logs completely enclosed in the wall core, which were probably intended to reduce horizontal deformation of the wall." I assume that the portion that I've italicized here is a parenthetical meant to describe the intramural beams. If that's correct, I would suggest using some other method instead of commas, which almost make it seem like you're running through a list of things the Chacoans frequently used. Maybe a pair of em dashes would do the trick.
  • Phases: I'm not a grammar expert, so maybe someone who is could be of some help here, regarding this sentence: "Archeologists subsequently discovered that her second period (1030–90) structure was built directly over an earlier (990/1000–30) one-story tall, two-room wide row of rooms." It seems to me that "one-story tall" and "two-room wide" would be incorrect. I would probably hyphenate all three words, like "two-room-wide", since they all form the adjective, but others might disagree. I would welcome opinions about that.
  • McElmo: This seems to be intentional, but why is "Black-on-white" capitalized as such? Is that a proper name of some type?
"Black-on-white" is capitalized in almost every, if not every, source I consulted. I agree that it looks a little odd, but I think this is the accepted form as a proper name of this specific type. RO(talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Excavation: "In 1937, W.W. Postlewaite..." I believe it is preferable to include a space after each period in the initials of someone's name.

That's all I've got! It looks quite good overall, so even considering the minor quibbles above, I think this is perfectly suitable to be a featured article.-RHM22 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support, RHM22. I agree with your edits, and I've made the suggested changes ([24]). RO(talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks by Nikkimaria[edit]

  • Some of the pagination from the NPS survey appears to be incorrect. For example, FN188 is to page 7, but the "pace of dissolution" quote appears on page 6
You're right. Thanks for correcting me. That's on page 6, not 7. RO(talk) 23:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1982 Robert Powers theorized that the road network "suggests an intercommunity organization and settlement system of regional extent".[173]" - can't find this in cited source
I had that sourced to Powers 1984, but it's in Powers et al. 1983. RO(talk) 00:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Because "Chaco Canyon is the convergence point of all presently documented extra-canyon roads", the area might represent a locus of regional control, or "the apex of the hierarchical system".[174]" - don't see this either. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The PDF pages and the source material pages are different. In Powers, page 32 of the report is page 44 of the PDF. RO(talk) 23:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I had that sourced to Powers 1984, but it's in Powers et al. 1983. Sorry about that. Thanks for taking a look. RO(talk) 00:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
These are fixed now. RO(talk) 00:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge[edit]

Nominator(s): BollyJeff | talk 03:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a film that has been running in a theater in India for nearly 20 years, making it by far the longest running film ever in the country. It helped propel to stardom an actor who is now arguably the biggest movie star in the world. I have put a lot of work into this article in hopes to get it promoted to FA, and possibly make TFA on its 20 year anniversary. I look forward to your feedback. BollyJeff | talk 03:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • "also known as DDLJ" → "abbreviated as DDLJ" or "also known by its acronym DDLJ".
  • "Kajol Devgan (known mononymously as Kajol)" – redundant. Write simply as Kajol (better be on her biography).
It was that way before, but I was told by another editor in a peer review to add this, for readers not familiar with Indian cinema. BollyJeff | talk 14:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Whoever be that "another editor", I think he has not understood Wiki fully. If Madonna Ciccone, Adele Adkins and Beyoncé Knowles don't have to be referred to by their full names in most articles, then even Kajol doesn't. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay fine. BollyJeff | talk 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • An alt text might be added for the poster.
  • "Earning ₹1.06 billion (US$17 million) in India and ₹160 million (US$2.5 million) overseas" – was the dollars exchange the same when it earned 1 billion?
  • Not sure "one of the biggest hits" is encyclopædic.
Origin and scripting process
  • "Aditya Chopra assisted his father, the director/producer Yash Chopra" – slash should be omitted per WP:SLASH.
  • Somewhere you call him Aditya while there are places where he is called by his surname. Be consistent.
  • Again, "Yash Chopra", "Yash".
The reason for this is that there are 4 people named 'Chopra', and 5 or 6 named 'Khan' mentioned in this article, many times in the same paragraph. I did as best as I could without mentioning their full name each time, which would seem excessive. BollyJeff | talk 14:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know that, and what I am trying to say is that mention their full names the first time. After that, you can refer to him simply as Yash. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if that is appropriate either, because people are usually referred to by there surnames when they appear multiple times in articles. I would like to wait and see what a couple other reviewers say before I change to all first names. BollyJeff | talk 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "causing Chopra to continue pursuing Shah Rukh.[17][a] Chopra and Shah Rukh Khan had four meetings over several weeks" – "Shah Rukh" or "Shah Rukh Khan" write one and stick to it.
  • "She and Shah Rukh Khan had previously worked together in Baazigar (1993) and Karan Arjun (1995)" – perhaps a "successful" word be added. You can use this source.
  • "Although Chopra was assigned Sameer Sharma as the assistant director" – error.
Sorry, what is the error? BollyJeff | talk 14:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
"Chopra was assigned Sammer Sharma". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The table needs to meet MOS:ACCESS for row and col scopes.
Done. I patterned it after the FLC List of accolades received by American Hustle. BollyJeff | talk 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know so much about the FAC process so that's all I have to say. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I have fixed everything except the names now, thank you. BollyJeff | talk 21:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I have now used first names only after the first mention for all the Chopras and Khans in the Production section. I think it's okay elsewhere as there is minimal repetition. BollyJeff | talk 12:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dwaipayan[edit]

  • This sentence in plot "Although both value their Indian origins, they have experienced different parenting styles" sounds editorial. The plot remains same even if you delete this sentence. And, having seen the film, I doubt whether Raj was as dedicated to "Indian" values as Simran.
  • I think the next sentence in the plot can be slightly modified like "Simran was raised by her strict and conservative father, Baldev Singh (Amrish Puri), while Raj's father (Anupam Kher) was very liberal in his upbringing."; or , just liberal (minus the "in his upbringing" part).
  • "One evening, Raj enters Baldev's shop after closing time and feigns a headache to persuade Baldev to sell him beer. Baldev refuses and Raj grabs a case of beer, throws the money on the counter and runs away. Baldev, infuriated, calls Raj a disgrace to India." This episode is taking unnecessarily large chunk in the plot, given it's non-importance in the overall story of the film. You can easily remove this episode.
  • "Baldev accepts Raj, but insults him and tells him to leave after he discovers a photograph of Raj and Simran together in Europe" Is that what happens? Baldev discovers a photograph? I have not seen DDLJ in the last few years so cannot really remember.----Dwaipayan (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is. I shortened as you suggested, but also clarified the reason for the beer scene. BollyJeff | talk 22:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Punjab in plot should link to Punjab, India.
  • " Baldev lets her go to see the world before her marriage, but tells her not to betray his trust" Trust regarding what? IMO it is difficult to grasp for non-Indian readers if you are meaning in general trustworthiness; or are you meaning that she should not break his trust that she would marry Kuljit? (I do not remember the film exactly). May be replaced by "reluctantly agrees".
  • " The next morning, Simran is reunited with Raj in the fields" comes abruptly and somewhat peculiar : "in the fields"? Consider replacing with more generic words such as, Raj arrives in India and meets Simran. (otherwise you will have to give unneeded details like Simran wakes up to the tune of a music that Raj used to play, runs towards the source of music, and finds Raj etc).----Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. BollyJeff | talk 20:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

  • Soundtrack: a few c/e suggestions here: can you drop "that were" from the opening sentence and can you clarify who consists the duo (third sentence; I assume it would be Jatin Lalit and Anand Bakshi, but it doesn't hurt to ask).
I corrected it to show that Jatin Lalit is a duo. I could hyphenate their name if I knew which dash style to use. Do you know?
It reads fine now.
  • Box office: I don't know what's the criteria for a film to be called a Bollywood hit, but I suggest using a more neutral word. The rest of the sections seems fine,
  • I'm not sure if the accolades fall under "Release"; it seems closer to "Legacy" in my opinion, and I often see tables and non-prose sections at the very end of the article. I'll leave the decision to you, since this is not an urgent issue.
I think it should be under Release since many of those awards happened the same or following year. Legacy is things happening years later. BollyJeff | talk 17:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "People return not just to see the film, but to be a part of an experience." I'm little concern about the second clause. What do you mean by "experience"? This sounds like some person or critic's opinion rather than a fact, and might unintentionally take a side (favoring the film's projection as a cult experience).
It was in the source, but I guess I understand your concern, so I removed it.
  • I'm not sure about film credits, but I know that albums usually cite the source right after the sub-section title.
  • Well, you have my support on the prose. I can't provide full support because I'm not very knowledgeable in movies (thus I can't comment on criteria such as comprehensiveness or being well-researched), but good luck with the rest of the comments.--Retrohead (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Support. The prose in this article is, I think, the best of any I have seen in an article on Indian cinema. There is no excess of detail, the facts appear comprehensive and are set out logically and with due regard to balance. I think this article meets the FA criteria. A few tiny quibbles:

  • Links
    • There are a couple of duplicate links: non-resident Indians and Jatin Lalit.
    • The MoS bids us avoid links to well-known geographical locations: this includes London.
  • Box office
    • "it has been showing for more than 19 years" – we need to avoid WP:DATED here, just as it has been successfully avoided in the lead, by saying "as of 2105". If the run continues past October this year I imagine we can take it for granted that the nominator will change 19 to 20.
  • Impact
    • re-issued – it may be a matter of WP:ENGVAR, but the OED doesn't hyphenate this word.

That's all from me. The article is focused, readable and well-sourced: a fine piece of work, in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words. I have fixed your issues. BollyJeff | talk 12:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

Support. Continue the good work, Bollyjeff, Looking forward to Mary Poppins next. Face-smile.svgSsven2 Speak 2 me 06:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Agua Dulce[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Central Commission for Discipline Inspection[edit]

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC) · contribs), Colipon (talk)

My first FAC! ... The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection is the Communist Party of China's main anti-corruption agency. Its been in the news lately, most notably in the form of apprehending Zhou Yongkang. --TIAYN (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by R8R[edit]

On my first look, this is an interesting article. However, there are some issues to be solved:

  • Done As a general note, I suggest this article should written in either American English or British English. Spelling differences are covered by this online tool (it is not unwise to check other issues this online tool highlights), plus add (for AmE)/don't add (for BrE) serial commas, and if you decide to move to AmE, use the "MMMMMMM DD, YYYY" date formatting. Plus check the comma usage in "In 2009 the CCDI..." (no comma, BrE) vs. "In late 2013, Zhou Yongkang" (comma, more like AmE). There are other differences between the two, these are just the basic ones; in general, as a non-native speaker, I won't focus on prose quality much
    • British. I'll work on it. --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • communist vanguard party -- two separate wikilinks should not immediately follow each other (see WP:SEAOFBLUE); remove either link or add a non-linked word/phrase between them
  • CPC party -- At best, spell it out on the first occurrence of this acronym within the body of the article (article text minus the lead section) just like you did with "CCDI"; from that moment on, "CPC" will, however, be enough
    • It says "Communist Party of China" (CPC) in the lead.
      • Yes, it does. However, in my personal experience, it is favorable to treat the body separately from the lead section. Lead is just a short summary of what will be described in the body, and the lead is independent from the rest of the article, unlike regular sections, which may depend on each other to some extent. So if you know you want to read the whole thing, you may skip the lead because it doesn't have any info you can't learn by reading the rest of the article. (Also, note you did just that with a few other acronyms, re-introducing them to the reader after the lead, such as "CCDI" or "MOS")
        • Done But it also says communist party in the "Before the People's Republic" section... --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, I added that one. :)
  • Despite this -- "however"?
    • What do you mean?
      • The text had that "despite this" in it, but I think, "however" is better in the context of English language. I'll change that. (somehow, this did get me so I commented, in general, as I said, I don't plan to focus on this)
  •  The 1927 control system -- it's clear what control system is being discussed, no need for that "1927"
  • they expanded on the theoretical reasons for its existence -- I suggest this should be rephrased, I don't understand it (what/who are "they"?)
    • Chanted to "the party leadership expanded [...]"
      • Aha. Now I see what you were saying with that sentence.
  • The 1949 Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) -- I'm confused. up to this point, I was explained where new institutions came from
    • No English sources I have actually discuss this.. @Colipon:, would you be willing to check this out? --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Note you are allowed to use non-English sources if there are no English sources of similar quality. (WP:NONENG)
        • I wrote this article in collaboration with Colipon... I'm not very good in Chinese. I'll find something... --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Central Control Commission (CCC) -- this term has already been spelled out, the acronym would suffice
  • until the Cultural Revolution -- for a person unfamiliar with the history of Communist China, a brief mentioning of when the said revolution took place would be really helpful
    • wrote, in the body, "Cultural Revolution, a socio-political movement which lasted from 1966 until 1976".. Enough?
      • Just enough.
  • Guangzhou Red Guards -- who is that?
    • wrote " Red Guards, a revolutionary youth movement", good enough?
      • I'd specify the movement is related to the CPC. (It would help those who aren't familiar with China, so they won't deter from reading for a single second to think whether the movement is related to the state, or is in some opposition to it)
  • 11th National Congress -- which took place in... when?
  • (in its journal) -- what journal are we talking about? Also, do we need to mention the journal at all ("Although the institution declared it was doing a good thing, someone else disagreed" -- it makes little sense to mention a committee-controlled journal supported the committee, doesn't it?)
    • Removed. --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • bourgeois democracy -- this is not a neutral term; use quotation marks?
    • Why? Its just a term Marxists use.. No different from people referring to democracy as liberal democracy.. By using quotation marks we are in fact saying that the Marxist premise is nontrue, and that is non-neutral. In addition its the term they use to describe supporters of liberal democracy. I don't see the problem. --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean. My initial opposition came from the fact I've never heard the term "bourgeois" outside of communist propaganda, especially the propaganda related to Lenin and the period of late 1910s and early 1920s. However, I'm not exactly sure this is still the right way. I will stay away from discussing the term "liberal democracy" (I've heard it a couple of times, but I'm not all that familiar with it). But, still, if only Marxists use this term, I'd rather stay away from it because Wikipedia is supposed to be universal, and if the term "liberal democracy" means more than just regular "democracy", the two shouldn't be used interchangeably either.
          • The term bourgeoisie democracy stems from the writings of Marx, but you're correct that the term "bourgeoise democracy" was invented Soviet ideologists. Being Russian, you will probably also know that propaganda in the Soviet Union were synonymous for the most part with ideological campaigns (but also blatant lies). Liberal democracy pretty much means democracy as practiced in the Western countries.. Russia for instance, is sometimes characterized as a Illiberal democracy. --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Aha. Let's put it this way, I'd put quotation marks there, but I can see your reasoning and won't object not including them. (For a second, I misread the part on Russian democracy and thought someone classified it as a liberal democracy... "Illiberal democracy" feels more like what we have around now, what a great term)
  • Ministry of Supervision (MOS) -- introduced three times
  •  11th National Congress in 1977 -- so now I'm told when that congress took place (also, no double linking needed here)

I'm stopping here. More to follow--R8R (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: Thanks! --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (see below) -- this is not a strict requirement, but I suggest you give a specific link to the section where it is discussed (I think the section is "Petition system, investigative procedures and Shuanggui", so the link would look like "see [[#Petition system, investigative procedures and Shuanggui|below]]")
  • Hu Jintao -- I'd specify he was elected during the 16th National Congress (for the first time)
    • He was elected by the 1st Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee... Wrote "The Hu Jintao-led leadership, which lasted from the 16th–18th National Congress," ...
  • general secretary Xi Jinping -- timing is a thing, don't ignore it
    • Wrote "Xi Jinping, elected in the immediate aftermath of the 18th National Congress"
  • for the first time in its history -- a huge portion of events described in this article happened for the first time in the history of CCDI, do we need to specify that?
    • Removed
  • Office for the Supervision of Disciplinary System Officials (纪检监察干部监督室) -- the name in Chinese? a striking difference from the rest of the article, which is doing fine without original names
  • "1977–1978" or "1978–87"?
  • "Zhao Ziyang [...] Zhao's reforms" "Hu Jintao [...] Hu Jintao's term" -- so if we say a name of a person, do we refer to them using just their family names or complete names?
  • After the 12th National Congress it was required -- by who?
    • Changed to "The 12th National Congresss required"
  • CCDI is not in session -- could this be rephrased?
    • Done Changed to "when the CCDI is not convened for a plenary session" .. Workable?
      • OK
  • Done Offices, Institutions subordinate to the CCDI -- if this was some spreadsheet, then the presence of those lists would be justified, but in an encyclopedia article, how are these needed? I suppose this is what the "List of..." articles are for?
  • DoneEven those who shared the Soviet fascination with [...] did not share its fascination with -- rewording is needed here (besides, "its"?)
    • Wrote "Even those who shared the Soviet fascination with organisational self-correction, like Liu Shaoqi and Dong Biwu, did not share their obsession with "scientific administration"."
      • Done I would go with a softer word for the second case, such as "attitude," but, as I said, I won't be too harsh on prose quality
        • OK, but attitude doesn't work here grammar wise. --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
          • If you're talking about "attitude with"... I take the fact the preposition would need to be changed for granted (but, again, I consider this solved)
  • Doneish commissions for discipline inspection (CDI) -- this term has already been introduced. However, it can be justified we're talking about the CDIs in detail here, so it can be re-introduced, but in that case, the same would apply to the MOS, and you would need to re-introduce it as well.
    • Reintroduced Ministry of Supervision in the MOS section.
  • Done a level above it -- "next superior"?
    • wrote "superior to it"
      • Will do, I guess
  • Done "It is difficult for CDIs to carry out their responsibilities", "it is nearly as difficult to obtain authorisation from the investigative committees" -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that attempts to describe things without judging or giving opinions (quoting opinions of some other people is possible, given we're clear on who those quotes belong to). You could say, "obtaining authorisation from the investigative committees is, however, a re-occurring problem" or smth. like that. Another question is, why is it so difficult? Corruption within the anti-corruption system? Bureaucracy?
    • wrote "Before the 2014 reforms it was difficult for the CDIs to carry out their responsibilities;[56] although they no longer needed approval from the secretary of the corresponding-level party committee, CDI officials were often appointed to positions of power within the institutions they were tasked to supervise (see "Institution-building (2002–present)" section)."
      • Done Great, things are now clear. :) One very minor issue is linking: you have "(see below)" and "(see "Institution-building (2002–present)" section)." I think it would make sense to either name the section "below" or replace "Institution-building (2002–present)" section" with "above", and either link the whole parenthesized note or contract linking to just "below/above" or the name of the section you refer to.
        • see above. --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Donethere are weaknesses -- affecting what exactly? still not clear to me
    • Wrote " Despite this, there are several weaknesses to its institutional design in the sense that certain informal aspects of CPC rule compete with formal procedures (that the CCDI and its lower-level organs are tasked with supervising) for hegemony; examples are, as outlined Xuezhi Guo, "vague institutional positions, incrementally declining effects as time goes by, vulnerability to patron-clientelism or guanxi network at the grassroots level, and the dilemma of 'open' or 'undercover’ investigation"." ... Good enough? --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Done Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Central Military Commission (军委纪委; Junwei Jiwei; CMCCDI) -- first of all, do we need the name in Chinese, second, the English name suggests the acronym should be "CDICMC", or is there a particular reason to use the current one?
    • Great. Nonetheless, could you explain why the current acronym is used? (There may be some reason behind it, like, say everyone refers to the commission by that acronym, but in that case, I'd like to know it)
      • Done Changed to CDICMC.. never noticed. The acronym is normal used by non-Chinese scholars. --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed, but work in progress (but I'm not sure if you're correct about "led" and "lled"...) modeled -- in BrE, this is spelled "modelled"; note there are other verbs throughout the article that would require a re-spelling from "-led" to "-lled"
    • I checked this issue, there was also the verb "signaled" (which I changed to "signalled")
  • Done PLA's General Political Department -- what's a "PLA"? it's clear, but you never introduced the acronym before
  • Done information on what was supervised (and why) was -- this is grammatically correct, yet it confused me for a second. could we rephrase this?
    • Expanded to "While member supervision was not new, information on what was supervised (and explanations for why things were under supervision) was.".. Alternately "While member supervision was not new, information on what was supervised (and the explanation for why certain areas were supervised and others not) was."
  • Done "Inner Supervision Regulation" -- be consistent with quotation marks usage
  • Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI)[note 1] -- again, is there a reason for the Chinese abbreviation?
    • It would argue for its inclusion since its in a note it doesn't disrupt the reading flow (its in a note)... --TIAYN (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Probably I wouldn't even care if the latter was included because it makes sense to give the original name in the lead. But I was surprised by the fact you mention the short Chinese name for the commission, but you don't include the full Chinese one.
  • Done It was disbanded during the Cultural Revolution. -- add that "in 1969"
  • Done beginning with Hu Jintao's term as party leader -- + "in 2002"
  • Done CPC should be consistently referred to as either "a party" or "the Party"
  • Done The Secretary of the CCDI has, since 2009, also served as the leader of the Central Leading Group for Inspection Work and, since 1997, has been a member of the Politburo Standing Committee. -- logic dictates the mentioning of the "since 1997" responsibility should precede the "since 2009" one

Overall, an interesting article. Final comments to follow.--R8R (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've finished reviewing the article. I had some final thoughts, but I can see they've been covered in one way or another. I don't think there are serious problems with this article (leaving prose quality, which I'm not all that good to judge, aside); after the raised issues are fixed (which seems doable to me), I'll gladly support the article.--R8R (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Carrow Road[edit]

Nominator(s): Dweller (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Following the disappointment of this year's Football League Championship play-offs in which bitter and long-standing rivals Canaries and Tractor Boys faced off for a place at the final at Wembley, Dweller thought it would be a good idea to rub salt into the wounds by suggesting we get Norwich's home stadium, Carrow Road, up to FA quality in time to celebrate its 80th birthday. So we had a stab up getting it up to snuff, and humbly submit it to the community for scrutiny and criticism. We both appreciate any time and energy commentators spend on this nomination, thanks in advance and we'll both do our best to get to any actions as soon as we can. COYB/OTBC The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TRM. Just to be clear, the anniversary is Aug 31, and we're hoping for a Main Page appearance then, subject to reaching the required standard in time. --Dweller (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I would like to have had a chance to pre-review this, as I don't think it's quite up to FA standard at the moment, although there's no reason why it can't be ready for a 31 August TFA. I have read it through rather quickly, and have so far picked up a few issues:

  • General
  • In the History section, there are too many very short subsections. Bits like the "Thorpe corner" information don't need subsections to themelves. The effect is to destroy the flow of prose.
  • This should now be fixed, assuming you meant the section about the stands, rather than the history. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In the "Stadium's name and initial construction history" section the use of the blockquote format in the sentence beginning "The original stadium was described as..." looks inappropriate. Blockquotes don't work for very short quotes – they simply break up the prose even more – and it's not clear in this case what the quote consists of – the whole line, or just the words in quotes?
  • There is a large amount of white space between the "Music" and "Rodeo" sections which is disfiguring. I'm not actually convincd that the rodeo information is wrth keeping, but if it is, it should be connected with the main text.
  • Fixed. Unencyclopedic. Hope the photo looks better now, too - there's still a smidgen of white. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Referencing
  • The format of ref 16 is confusing – can you clarify/simplify
  • Ref 27 – what makes this a reliable highy-quality source?
  • I know what you mean, but the claims supported by the source are extremely uncontentious and fall very much in line with WP:V's comment: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves ... They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." The information is about something pitchcare were involved in. I could cut <sorry about the pun> the subsection, but it'd be something of a shame. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 32 – R G Carter Construction: same query
  • Same response! --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 42 – not properly formatted
  • There are several uncited statements:
  • "In the wake of the Ibrox stadium disaster in 1971, safety licences were required by clubs which resulted in the capacity being drastically reduced to around 20,000"
  • "The current stadium consists of four stands; the Barclay (the north-eastern stand), the Norwich and Peterborough Stand (the south-western stand), the Geoffrey Watling City Stand (the north-western stand) and the most recent addition, the Jarrold Stand (the south-eastern stand)"
  • Done. Got rid of directions as the source missed one of them and I didn't think it was essential anyway. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Floodlights are supported on both corners of The Barclay and the Norwich & Peterborough stands, which are the ends behind the goals"
  • This doesn't strike me as a massively reliable source, but maybe it does the trick, as per comments above re WP:V? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The club has therefore periodically stated that it has plans to significantly increase the capacity of the stadium"
  • Hmm. Really it's a matter of what follows in the rest of the section, but I've cited two such instances. Hope that does the trick. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and look at the prose in more detail, a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks. I'll crack on with that lot soon. --Dweller (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I am carrying out a detailed prose review. Rather than cluttering this page with detailed comments, I am leaving them on the article's talk. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Following the talk page review and your responses, these are my final comments:

  • I don't think there is MOS justification for italicising Thorpe Corner
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The purchase of the 20-year lease is mentioned twice in close proximity
    Ooh yes. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Although the number of unnecessary direct quotes has reduced, there are still several in the paragraph I'm reading. " "17 August most of the stands and terraces had been completed" – why is that quoted? Likewise " on 31 August Carrow Road football ground was opened for the Second Division match v West Ham United" and "the more vociferous of the home and away supporters".
    Splendid. Nuked. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You mention the reduction in stadium capacity to around 20,000 after the Ibrox disaster. On the face of it this sounds a crippling blow, but I rather think that the club's average attendance, at league matches anyway, was probably below that figure. It would be useful to have a sentance summarising the impact, if any, of this reduction.
    We could get into OR here. I can find no published average attendance records, but shows a crowd of 43,984 in 1963. I'll try to take a look at Canary Citizens, which I think has attendances for every match, but I'll be careful with OR. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Verbosity: "The South Stand was replaced in 2003 when a new 8,000 seat stand, subsequently renamed the Jarrold Stand, was built in its place". Try: "In 2003 the South Stand was replaced by the new, 8,000 seat Jarrold Stand." Same info in 14 words rather than 24.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Eightieth anniversary: I recommend that you begin this section: "In anticipation of the ground's 80th anniversary on 31 August 2015, a rematch of the original fixture versus West Ham, was arranged for 28 July 2015" (the match will be over before this leaves FAC).
    I like that, because the clever use of tense means it's still valid now (ie the arranging was done in the past). Done --Dweller (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd also reword the Section's final sentence thus or similar: "Fans could buy tickets for a celebratory dinner with the first-team squad, the menu provided by the club's joint majority shareholder, the celebrity chef Delia Smith". You need to get rid of the implied future tense
    It hasn't happened yet. Tweaked and done. --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Stands section, why are the four stands presented in a different order from that in the introductory sentence?
    Done --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "dubbed 'The Snakepit' by supporters" is not a worthy quote.
    correctamundo. Done. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nor is "unusual in having not one, but three separate television gantries suspended beneath its largely perspex roof."
    Unusual, in having non-encyclopedic tendencies, so scrubbed. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nor ""New York-style diner" – a straightforward description
    I have no idea what it means. Is a New York-style diner much different to a San Francisco one? Rephrased. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The club has therefore periodically stated that it has plans to significantly increase the capacity of the stadium." I'm looking again at this sentence, which I raised in my initial comments. Two split infinitives in the same short sentence, with "therefore periodically" especially awkward. My feeling is that this whole rather clunky sentence is redundant, since you go on immediately to discuss the expansions plans. I would zap it.
    I think I've helped address this now. --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The stadium has also occasionally..." Delete "also" (not needed)
    Was done already by someone. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The John and Michael concerts..." This wording temporarily threw me. Who the hell are John and Michael, I thought. The two stars have never in my experience been referred to as "John" or "Michael", so please add the Elton and George, to avoid confusion.
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There is one important outstanding issue. The original 20-year lease from Colmans ran out in 1955. We need at least a sentence or two explaining how the ownership of the ground has evolved since then. Was the lease merely extended, and if so for how long? Has the club acquired the freehold – if so, when? These are rather basic details that need to be included.
    Interesting. The sources are a little quiet on the matter, but I found one saying the freehold was purchased in 69/70: [25] Looks like an RS, but I have no page number. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think you can use this source without access to more text. All I can see is an undated "While the club was negotiating to buy the freehold to Carrow Road", which is inconclusive. Someone needs to read the full text and find some page numbers – I think this could be done post-FAC, and accirdingly won't hold up my support. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's all I have, and if you can deal with these remaining issues I'll be ready to support. But you really need to get some more eyes on the article, bearing in mind your TFA target date. There are editors around who are much more knowledgeable than me about sports stadiums, and it may be worth making them aware of this FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Right, I made some tweaks, see if you're ok with them. Agree with Brian about dequoting and did some more. Left a couple that has some wittiness/tongue-in-cheek aspect to them.

  • Overall the paras are a bit smaller than I would have them but not grossly so, so not a deal-breaker per se.
    Thanks for these comments and the tweaks. I'll keep reviewing this particular one between now and shiny star time, to see if anything can be done. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pitch measurements should be in the prose somewhere, and also if there are any details over whether it is particularly big/small/narrow/wide compared with other league pitches.
    Really? It's in the infobox, but it's such a dull matter. I've not heard Carrow Road's pitch being referred to as particularly large/small/wide/narrow, so it's probably fairly humdrum, other, of course, for being sacred. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    Ok then, if it's just average then that's not notable...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No local non-league clubs have ever used it? Just asking.....
    No idea. Never heard of it. It's a rural part of the country, so grounds are easier to come by, I suppose. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall looking ok....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC) ultimately its a tentative support from me as it is a fair read and I can't see anything left out nor any clangers prose-wise remaining. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Stanley Price Weir[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first commanding officer of the 10th Battalion of the 1st Australian Imperial Force, the first battalion of that force raised wholly from South Australia. He commanded the battalion at the Landing at ANZAC, at the Battles of Pozières and Mouquet Farm, and only requested relief when he was one of the oldest commanding officers of the original Australian force. He was relieved at the age of 50, and returned to South Australia to lead the public service before retiring as a brigadier general. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment/Weak oppose I'm a bit uncomfortable with documentation of the lead image:
    1. The fact that it is cropped from the original is not mentioned, nor is the original source uploaded and linked to. Indeed, given {{CSS image crop}}, I'm not quite sure we need an uploaded cropped image in the first place. A CSS-cropped image has the advantage of directly linking to the full image. That, however, is a highly technical solution, so having a crop is fine, but not an undocumented, "secret" crop.
    2. It seems strange to crop it, quite tightly, no less then immediately surround it with copious white space. A more generous crop would make the infobox look far less strange.
The other two images are fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Uploaded an uncropped original. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Alright, that deals with that. Image check passed. Thank you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Actually.. hold that for one moment. Let me check something: Australian photographs prior to 1955 are out of copyright, and he died in 1944, right? So what's preventing use of the rather more detailed image at ? It's a nice, big image, and I honestly can't figure out any way it could be in copyright barring some strange rule. @Crisco 1492: you see any issue with that being {{PD-Australia}} / {{PD-1996}}? For that matter, any reason we couldn't grab his official record from the same link? The Governmental copyright expired 50 years after its creation, and, as Price died in 1944, his copyright expired in 1995 - (see commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Government-produced_works and the section below - the increase to 70 years was not retrospective) so URAA is perfectly fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I'll wait for confirmation from Crisco before substituting. Cheers for the find! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
            • G'day @Crisco 1492: do you have a view? Just wanted to check before actioning the above suggestion. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Sorry, I didn't receive the ping last time. Adam's right: Australian copyright for photographs taken before 1955 does not require a publication before 1955. That the images were (obviously) created in 1944 or earlier means all photographs of the individual are free under Australian copyright laws. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────G'day, Adam Cuerden, could you have a look at the licensing I've used here and tell me if it ok? Once it is renamed, I will replace the pic in the infobox. Thanks for your help here! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox pic replaced with the one suggested above, using PD-AustPD-URAA licenses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments -- just a placeholder for now, I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and plan to recuse my coord duties and look it over here, but would like to give others a chance first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2015‎ (UTC)

  • Rather than check changes since I lasted edited/reviewed at ACR, I looked at the article afresh from top to bottom, and just tweaked the odd thing. I think it's only improved since ACR and am happy to support.
  • The only minor thing I'd raise is that, although the new infobox portrait is excellent, the original picture was interesting in its own way and I'm a bit sorry to lose it entirely -- I wonder if it could fit under the Westert Front heading, though I realise that's not strictly chronological. Just a thought. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you ordering References?
  • The Advertiser ref needs some format changes - the publication title is not the author, and the first parenthetical should be omitted
  • Similarly, AWM cannot be all three of author, work, and publisher - it's definitely not author, so pick one of the latter two
  • ADB is the work not the publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I reviewed this at ACR and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. I made a few additions, though, so please check that you are happy with these and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • I was a little unsure about this: "making him the first South Australian to be commissioned in the AIF. He was also made an honorary colonel..." Specifically I'm confused by the honorary colonel part. Does this refer to the honorary colonel appointment he received for the 10th Battalion post war which you mention later in the article also? Given that this info appears in a paragraph starting with "On 12 August 1914" I tend to interpret the paragraph as saying the honorary colonel appointment occurred around this time also and therefore that it relates to something other than the 1921 appointment but I'm unsure and couldn't really envision why or how this would occur (honorary colonel of the battalion at the same time he was also its CO, was that common or even possible? I guess he could have been honorary colonel of the AIF unit in 1914, and then in 1921 the CMF unit which carried on the lineage of that unit so perhaps it does make sense). I'll admit I'm no expert on how this system worked at the time (and the lineage of the Australian Army at this time is also fairly confusing), but it just doesn't sound right to me and I wonder if it is actually referring to the 1921 appointment instead and that its just the proximity to the statement about 1914 and its appearance in the World War I section that is making it sound like it occurred then (to me). If that is the case I would suggest only mentioning it once (retain the later instance for chronology would probably be best). At any rate could this pls be clarified (at least here)?
      • I admit it is a bit quizzical. Lock says "He immediately accepted same (command of the 10th Bn), and on August 17, 1914, was appointed a lieutenant colonel in the A.I.F., and subsequently was made an honorary colonel." Now, I take this to mean that he was an honorary colonel in the CMF while serving as a lieutenant colonel in the AIF. I think this implies he could not hold a substantive position in both forces at the same time, but retained the level of his former substantive rank in the CMF (on an honorary basis) while serving in the AIF. Given he returned to the CMF as a colonel, that sort of makes sense. The Honorary Colonel of the 10th Battalion is the position we are familiar with, almost like a patron. My thinking is that the earlier "honorary colonel" was a rank only, not a formal position in a regiment or unit. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I wonder if the ADB volume should be included in the citation (i.e. volume 12) and the location of publication? Come to think of it I'd even suggest using the {{cite book}} template for this one but its obviously a judgement call (suggestion only - up to you, I can see why you have made the choice of cite web etc here).
      • Volume and loc added.
    • This caption seems a bit "wooden" or "rigid" as a result of using his full name: "The grave of Stanley Price Weir at West Terrace Cemetery, Adelaide, South Australia." Might the same not be achieved with something like: "Weir's grave at West Terrace Cemetery, Adelaide, South Australia..."?
      • Good suggestion. Done.
    • Otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Anotherclown have adopted the suggestions, and tried to address the query. Interested in a better way to explain the honorary colonel, Honorary Colonel dealio. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Gday, your thinking may well be correct (i.e. LTCOL in the AIF, but retained his rank of full COL in the CMF) so not what we understand by the term "Honorary Colonel" (i.e. position of patronage). If there is a source which says it in those terms I'd ditch the term "honorary colonel" in the first instance and word it like that. If there is no source and the only one you have uses "honorary colonel" I'd almost consider just deleting it altogether as it is a loaded term that seems to be being misused by the source. Its a minor point though so I'm happy to leave it up to you. Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: I think this one is very close to being over the line. Can I have approval to nominate a new FAC while the wheels turn? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • As I'd always planned to recuse and review here (and have done now) I'll leave this to Andy or Graham. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As Wikipedia's resident expert on penis comics, I hereby present the grandaddy of all penis comics—and the work on whose shoulders squarely lays the blame for the 40+-year fad in confessional comics that at times threatens to glut and drown the whole field of English-language arts comics. The work's protagonist-author unknowingly suffers from an obsessive–compulsive disorder which results in intrusive thoughts that make him see everything even vaguely phallic—including his own fingers—blasting every religious object in sight with sinful "pecker rays". This editor's last "penis comics" nomination somehow survived an initial onslaught of sensible opposition—hopefully the sheer proliferation of penises in this one will ensure the community will not allow another such error. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by bluerasberry[edit]

This seems close to being an FA.

  • The content of the lead does not match the weight of the content in the article. Perhaps something about style could be added to the lead, or perhaps the synopsis is overly detailed in the beginning. Or perhaps it is fine as it is.
    • Hmm ... I'm not sure how best to sum up the visual style. Did you have anything in mind? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Justin Green (1972) Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary splash page.jpg needs information about the appropriateness of the resolution.
  • I would like to see the number of pages in the book in the infobox.

I do not wish to review this further, but after reading the article for fun, it seems to me to meet Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Another reviewer should do fact checking and think about what could have been added but is not present. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:TreasureChestvol12no12.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Kill 'Em All[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) and Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Kill 'Em All is Metallica's debut and the album that heralded the forthcoming thrash and extreme metal scenes. I've presented the events that preceded its creation and the atmosphere during recording. There's also the music and lyrics analysis, as well as the tour that occured after the album's release. Though the album did not have a successful commercial run in its initial days, it aged well and is regarded as one of the best representative of thrash metal's early days. Hope to receive positive feedback from my peers.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by DannyMusicEditor[edit]

Support (at the moment) - It does not seem to miss anything essential. Beautiful work on the prose. Sources are all good. I'll check images and certification refs in a moment, because I see Master of Puppets had some problems in that area, but I'm liking this so far. I'm confident that this is going to go very well. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay, I don't know if I'm missing something, but I'm not finding anything mentioned about this album charting in the UK or Australia according to the refs provided. Seems the only problem I can see at the moment. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Danny, thanks for the support. Unfortunatelly, the album didn't chart in the United Kingdom and Australia, therefore they aren't in the charts.--Retrohead (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Well if that's true, then I think I'll go ahead and remove the positions that were provided for those territories. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I misunderstood you. I see now that you were talking about mentioning the charts in the prose. I have little information on how the album performed in those territories (sales on a week-to-week basis, year-end charts, etc.) so don't see where/why would I put it.--Retrohead (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
No. What I'm saying is, the references provided for the UK and Australian peak chart positions say nothing about those spots. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I copied the positions from Metallica discography. I don't know why Kill 'Em All isn't present on the British chart, but my guess would be that they only rank the top 100. This album unfortunatelly didn't break into that area.--Retrohead (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I found alternative sources in the discography. Apparently, they have a book citation[1] for Australia's position, and for the UK position, they have a Chart Log tracking sales from 1994-2010.[2] DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok Danny, I've applied the sources you provided to the article (big thanks for that!).--Retrohead (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem! Best of luck! DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

Image review
Ok, the sections are now filled.--Retrohead (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Went with the same format as "The Four Horsemen" sample.--Retrohead (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Background and recording
Remember that this section is about the background of the album (how were the songs composed, how was the lineup formed, how was it recorded, etc), not about all the history of Metallica at the time. For the most part, both things are the same, but some portions (such as Mustaine breaking a string during a tour, or who gets to play with Saxon) go a bit off-topic, as they are not related to the creation of the album. The captions of both photos should be shorter, and should link the name of the person seen in them (this does not count for the limits on links to a same article). Besides, if the captions mentions two people, it must be clear who is the one of the photo (that, or rewrite the caption to mention only the man in the photo). You and me can easily recognize Ulrich and Mustaine even in a photo without context; but a featured article will be read by many people, including people with limited or no knowledge about thrash metal. Cambalachero (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
See what you mean. I've corrected the image descriptions, writing the band members with full names and adding "pictured" in brackets.--Retrohead (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Bollyjeff[edit]

  • References 13,22, and 47 do not link properly to their bibliography entries.
Thanks for the note Bollyjeff, it is corrected now.--Retrohead (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference 27 has incorrect date.
  • Reference 31 does not say anything about "fake crowd noise". Can you find a source that does?
Found a Metal Hammer article that mentions that information.
  • Why isn't ref 45 a book source in the bibliography?
I moved it there.
  • Reference 47 can have a date of 1983 at least; it says issue 1.
Added the release date of the first issue (August 1983)
  • Reference 49 is dead.
Replaced it with a book reference.
  • The images of Ulrich and Mustaine have long unsourced captions with unclear wording.
Sourced them. What did you find awkwardly worded?
"picked the band's name from his friend Ron Quintana, who had a list of names" maybe could be "picked the band's name from his friend Ron Quintana's list of names" and "Ulrich suggested [the name] Metal Mania". "Mustaine brawled drunken" is perhaps not the best grammar. Drunkenly? "Was involved in a drunken brawl" is perhaps better.
Ok, did the copyediting as you suggested.
  • "New Wave of British Heavy Metal" -> "New Wave of British Heavy Metal (NWOBHM)" and/or provide the link at first occurrence of NWOBHM.
  • Song clips also include un-sourced text.
Sourced them.
  • Music and lyrics - switches from talking about "Hit the Lights" to "The Four Horsemen" mid-sentence. I got lost reading that. Please separate better. Same thing on "Motorbreath" and "Jump in the Fire". And "Phantom Lord" and "No Remorse". And every other song; a really awkward style to my eyes.
Separated them with fullstop.
  • Touring - "In late June," Year is needed. Last year mentioned was 2010
Added year.
  • Any way to get a picture of that alternative album cover?
This would be the alternative cover. However, I'm not keen on uploading non-free images because everything I've uploaded so far (except front covers) has been deleted, and I don't really know how to justify its use.
Yes, I see that they usually get rejected. You do have significant commentary on the subject though; I wonder if you could use the t-shirt picture instead? And is this the bootleg release that you discussed: [26]
I'll ask an editor who's more knowledgeable than me in that area, and see what he recommends. Here is the discussion. If you think the alt cover is essential, I will upload it, but I personally prefer not to. About the bootleg-yep, that's the one.
  • All of my points have have been addressed, but I find the prose to be lacking slightly. For example, I have often seen the word "opined" and other such flowery words called out at reviews because of WP:SAY. Can you find an experienced edit to give it a quick copy edit? Then I would feel better about giving full support.
Do you want a copyedit on the "Reception", or on the entire article? I believe Greg Fasolino can handle the duty.
Entire article please. Another example from the Touring section: "along an early version of...".
Ok, I replaced "opined" with "observed", and I think there aren't vague words such as that. About the second part of the note, is it better to replace "along" with "in addition to", "accompanied", or a better suggestion if you have?
I fixed it myself. What about the rest of the article? Greg hasn't touched it since mid June. BollyJeff | talk
I guess he has nothing to change or perhaps he has other more important duties. He went through the article in early June, and Curly Turkey also copyedited the artcle in that period. Turkey also did a peer review, and I don't want to bother him again with this article. Can you point some issues that I can correct myself to avoid the standard c/e procedure at WP:GOCE? I've read the text today and doesn't look particularly bad to me.
I will check it again soon. I have the same problem with my articles. I give it to GOCE; then FAC reviewers say its not good enough, but I have nowhere to go for additional help. BollyJeff | talk 19:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Background and recording - ""This was mortgage money I'm spending, not something I've got put by I'm going to invest," later he said." This looks weird. Could you replace "put by I'm going" with ellipses? Could you re-word "later he said"?
Slightly reworded the non-quote part. Regarding the Zazula's statement, it looks weird, but we can't alter weird statements. Ellipses are mostly used when there are few meaningless sentences that aren't important in making the point.
  • I would move some of the Mechanix text such as: "Mustaine wrote "The Mechanix" during his tenure at Panic, with lyrics about having sex at a gas station" up into the Background and recording section, where the song title is first mentioned, with no explanation.
Could fit there, but I'll lose the point on how Metallica changed the lyrics.
How about just mentioning ""The Mechanix", which Mustaine wrote during his tenure with Panic"?
  • Music and Lyrics - "he was working at." Ending a sentence with 'at' is not good.
I've seen that word construction in newspapers. You have an idea how to modify it if you don't find it appropriate?
"where he was working."
  • "inspired by Diamond Head's "Dead Reckoning"" is confirmed in source 29, not 26. Perhaps put both sources together after both sentences.
Cite 26 confirms it is the first song recorded during the album sessions, and ref 29 says it was inspired by Diamond Head and Hetfield wrote the riff in the truck factory.
  • Source 52 - Is Muze somehow related to CD Universe or Q Magazine? In what manner? Fix with correctly formatted citation.
Dropped Muze, think it looks good now.

--BollyJeff | talk 03:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thunderbirds (TV series)[edit]

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

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

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

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

Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

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

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

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

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

Samuel J. Randall[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Samuel J. Randall, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, half-hearted presidential candidate, and a long-serving politician from my hometown, Philadelphia. The last biography in my long-running 1880 series, it contains a lot of tariff and monetary disputes that no longer fascinate the nation as they once did, but should (I hope) be an enjoyable read. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Coemgenus, is this a WikiCup entry? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry for the omission. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Coemgenus: Given he's not the main subject, let's go with that one. If you're interested in Blackburn, I'll do a full restoration of him for you, but he's not the main focus of the article by any means, after all, and we don't need a featured picture for every person mentioned in an FA, right? =) That said, I bet that lead image could be made an FP... But! We're going off-topic. Image issues sorted. . Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Only thing - and this is easy to make it work either way: CSS crop Blackburn (as now) or upload a crop as a new file? Normally, I'd say it doesn't matter, but we've cropped pretty heavily, so it might slim a few hundred kilobytes off the page if we did crop. On the other hand, I do like the functionality of clicking on the cropped image leading to the uncropped. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've seen CSS cropping, but I don't know how to do it. If you want to have at it, though, that's fine by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice. Really emphasises that magnificent mustache. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now. WIll make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently guff the meaning) and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

he did not follow his father into the law - "the" law? We'd just say "law" here in it different over there?
In the United States, "the law" is usually how lawyers describe our profession. A AmEng/BrEng difference, I guess. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting - I feel smater now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Worsening health also curtailed his power until his death in 1890. - makes the subject sound like an active agent...another verb for "curtailed" would be a better fit though an alternative does not immediately spring to mind....
If the sources have some dates to add about when he father and grandfather were active in politics, I think they'd be useful to add to give some temporal context.
None of the sources mention years, exactly. I'll look around for more and see what I can find. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I found a Philadelphia history that narrows it down a bit. I added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
In the meantime, the divisions in the state party harmed Randall's chances at the Speaker's chair - given the next sentence, something more definitive than "harmed" might work better - "proved ruinous for" or somesuch.
That makes sense. I changed it to your wording. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Rest of it reads well, without any prose-clangers leaping out at me, and its sounds comprehensive, so it's a tentative support pending a bit of investigation above....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments leaning support. Sorry if any of these are outdated, am doing this offline.
  • The father's last name seems misspelled.
  • Fixed.
  • Why is Randall listed as a Whig based on what seems only a slight amount of campaigning, and not a Know Nothing when he was elected as same?
  • I wouldn't call him a Know Nothing, but more of a Whig with some Know Nothing leanings. None of the sources suggest he actually joined the party, which actually involved some initiation rites, I think.
  • "the President of the United States" I would cut the "the"
  • Done.
  • "political family of Whig leanings," this seems awkward. I suggest "family active in Whig politics"
  • Done
  • The second paragraph could be divided.
  • Done
  • "raised his profile within the House Democratic caucus, and they elevated him to Speaker" "they" refers to "caucus", which would probably get an "it" in American English. Suggest tinkering.
  • I changed it, should be OK now.
  • " the Democrats lost the House in 1881" perhaps "control" after "lost"
  • Done.
Early life
  • "Center City, Philadelphia" I would not use the comma, based on how we would have referred to it at my time at Penn, not too long after that of Ben Franklin.
  • You're right, I'm not sure why the article on Center City lists it that way. Fixed.
  • "a school connected" perhaps "affiliated" for "connected"
  • Done
  • "counting-house" the hyphen feels 19th century, would go without it. Do we have a suitable article to pipe to? And do silk merchants have counting houses?
  • I actually had intended to change that to "bookkeeper" a while back, since that's really what the job was, I think. Fixed.
  • The Randall who is elected as councilman is, I assume, Samuel?
  • Yes, fixed.
  • "as all of the county's townships and boroughs were consolidated into one co-terminious city" I would strike "co-terminous", as it adds nothing (it doesn't make it clear that city and county are coterminous). And the reader may not know what county.
  • Fixed and linked.
  • "State Senate". Not sure "State" is capped. Ditto with State House of Reps.
  • You're probably right. Wikipedia's eccentric capitalization continues to flummox me. Fixed.
War, etc.
  • The final sentence, the second 'Johnson' could be changed to "him".
  • Done.
  • " and Randall saw them as a back-door method of overspending what Congress had legally permitted" Well, they were, weren't they? Does this really need to be stated? (again)
  • Nah. Fixed.
  • Grant administration is not linked on first use.
  • Done.
  • "sought to have one implicated politician, Vice President Schuyler Colfax, impeached" maybe "sought to have Vice President Schuyler Colfax, implicated in the scandal, impeached." It might be worth stressing that the problem was not so much that they owned stock, but that they had been allowed to buy it at bargain rates, per Garfield, etc.
  • Yes, fixed both.
  • The description of the 1876 election contretemps may be a bit too long, given the limited connection with Randall.
  • Trimmed it a bit.
  • "agreed to let the House vote on repeal, which narrowly passed." I think you need a "its" before "repeal" or else change the "which" to something more involved.
  • Done.
  • "Pelton telegrams" Might be best to include Pelton's name when you mention the nephew (I assume he was?)
  • Good point -- done.
Reelected Speaker
  • You should make it clearer in the first paragraph that the the candidacy you are mentioning was for Speaker.
  • Done.
  • The image caption says Blackburn challenged Randall. That's not what it says in the text.
  • Should be more accurate now.
  • " bowed out of " perhaps "withdrew from"
  • Done.
  • " meaning Randall's time as speaker was at an end" well, except for the lame duck session. Why the lower case on speaker?
  • Fixed.
  • "provided only a 10% reduction" probably need a "for" before "only". Also, I think percent signs are frowned upon in prose.
  • Fixed both.
  • "who unfamiliar with Randall" missing "were"
  • Yup.
  • That's the caucus vote, right?
  • Yes, added that.
  • "allowed Randall to keep charge of Appropriations" except he didn't control Appropriations before this, he was in the minority.
  • Changed it to "take charge of..."
  • "Cleveland's defeat" you haven't mentioned the nature of his defeat.
  • Fixed.
That's about it. Good job on an obscure figure. Sorry to be so slow to review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. I'll get to these over the next couple days. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Just ping me when you are done, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been traveling. I hope to get to the rest today. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, @Wehwalt: that should be all of it. Thanks for the thorough review and sorry about the delay in responding. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Well done--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Money Inc.[edit]

Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a professional wrestling tag team. It has been a Good Article for several years, and it should be featured because it is complete, reliably sourced, and well written. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

    • Since I'm the only one around, it's okay if I turn up the volume on my music, right? 🎼♯♪♩♩♭♬♩!! GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Right, I'll take a look and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm, in the Formation it sorta jumps straight into it. Can we have some context? How did these two folks get together? Whose idea was it? (I'd put the last sentence of the para first, which would help, but it still doesn't give me any background...) yeah that's better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thinking about it some more - I still don't know why they are a team - the company just decided they were having tag teams so paired everyone up? Or what? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

''Money Inc. defended their title against The Natural Disasters at WrestleMania VIII and lost the match by countout. - a date would help give some idea of time related to the previous section - was this days, weeks or months later?
This result repeated itself on television and at house shows. - I have no idea what this means here. now needs a cite
...the Legion of Doom got a rematch... (too casual)
Ted DiBiase wrestled a match against Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake. - sounds weird, why not just "Ted DiBiase wrestled against Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake."
fter failing to regain the WWF Tag Team Championship, Money Inc. went into a feud with Razor Ramon. - too casual - "began a feud with.."
the In wrestling section is uncited. Would be better as prose and the moves discussed and elaborated upon. ok, if that's the format so be it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall, I'm reading it and it jumps around - there is not enough context in several bits to give me an idea of what's going on. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I added a bit to the "Formation" section, but very little behind-the-scenes information is ever shared. I added a date for WrestleMania, and changed the rematch "wrestled a match against", and "went into a feud" parts. It is standard in all professional wrestling articles for the "In wrestling" section to be in list form. I'll try to add a bit of context to improve the flow. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I rephrased the "result repeated itself" statement and sourced the "In wrestling" section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by starship.paint[edit]

Here we go - in return for your comments on WK9: starship.paint ~ KO 09:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Rewrite last sentence in lede ... ... have made one-off appearances on special episodes of Raw?
  • Source needed for The teams faced each other in rematches on television and at house shows with the same result.
  • Rename second subsection to Initial Tag Team Championships?
  • Rename third subsection to Feud with The Mega-Maniacs?
  • From reading Brutus Beefcake#Parasailing accident and return (1990–1993), it seems that it was not true that Beefcake was wrestling his first match in over three years
  • 2007 reunion's source has changed - exact page needed.
  • 2010 reunion needs sourcing.
  • For the signatures ... the source doesn't mention explicitly that they are signatures. Just says that they performed the moves.
  • DiBiase is listed as holding the Million Dollar Championship... but the article never actually says how the belt relates to the team.
  • Picture of Jimmy Hart please.
  • is acceptable as a source, GaryColemanFan? starship.paint ~ KO 03:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Last sentence rewritted, source added for repeated result, third subsection renamed, Beefcake statement changed, 2007 reunion cited with archived link, Million Dollar Championship explained, Jimmy Hart picture added (if someone wants to move the images around, I'm not offended). Wrestlecrap is a reliable source, as R.D. Reynolds has published multiple wrestling-themed books with ECW Press (no relation to the other ECW) and is an accepted industry expert. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

With that said, I will be away for about a week. I would like to make the remaining changes, so I would appreciate it if this candidacy could be kept open until I have a chance to get back to it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an ambitious and capable Turkish soldier, whose tumultuous career in the collapsing Abbasid Caliphate led him to become the ruler of Egypt in 935–946 and founder of a dynasty that ruled much of the Middle East until 969. The article relies heavily on Jere L. Bacharach's 1975 monograph, which is the most comprehensive study to date, but complements this with several other related sources. It passed a thorough GA review and had a very smooth MILHIST A-Class review, with only minor additions/tweaks since then, so I feel confident that it meets FA criteria. Constantine 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned, though the maps are a bit difficult to read at that text size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comment -- recusing from coord duties, I reviewed/supported at MilHist A-Class Review and, having checked all additions/changes since then, reiterate the gist of what I said there:

  • Although I know very little about the period in question, the content seems well-written, comprehensive, neutrally presented, and reasonably easy to follow.
  • Image licensing looks good to me.
  • Source-wise, again given the caveat of not being an expert, the references seem reliable enough.
  • Just one thing re. a post-ACR addition: He played a major role in the Qarmatian attack on Damascus in 903; although defeated in battle, he held the city for seven months thereafter until the arrival of reinforcements from Egypt that defeated the Qarmatians -- not sure I quite follow this so pls confirm for me and perhaps we can reword a bit... he was defeated in his particular battle of the Qarmatian attack on Damascus, but the attack as a whole was successful, and he was the given charge of Damascus with a Qarmatian garrison that was eventually defeated by the Egyptian reinforcements? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello Ian and thanks for the review! I've rephrased the section in question: the Qarmatians defeated Tughj in battle outside Damascus, but he was nevertheless able to hold the city against them until such time as reinforcements arrived. Constantine 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah-ha, I'd got the impression he was on the side of the Qarmatians! I think your wording when it was at ACR, mentioning him "repelling" the Qarmatians, made clear whose side he was on ("major role in the attack" is ambiguous at best). Your latest reword is a bit clearer but could it be tweaked thus and still reflect the sources: "He played a major role in repelling the Qarmatian attack on Damascus in 903; although defeated in battle, he held the city for seven months until, with the help of reinforcements from Egypt, he drove the Qarmatians away"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've rephrased it again. It should be clear now. Thanks a lot! Constantine 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Works for me! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Support this excellent article, with a few quibbles:

  • In "Takeover of Egypt": "This view is reinforced by the fact that after the fall of Mu'nis..." "By the fact that" always stands out as clumsy to me. Maybe this could be "This theory also explains why, after the fall of Mu'nis, al-Qahir sent a eunuch called Bushri to replace Ibn Tughj in Damascus as well." Or something like that? If you can't make it work, don't worry about it. Just a minor point.
  • Under "Conflict with Ibn Ra'iq": "Once more, the Egyptian ruler led his army in person to battle" probably doesn't need "in person". Similarly, in "Conflict with the Hamdanids", "The latter immediately responded by leading an army in person into Syria." -- "leading" assumes "in person," doesn't it? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for taking the time to review this. On the first point, how about "The fact that al-Qahir sent a eunuch called Bushri to replace Ibn Tughj in Damascus after the fall of Mu'nis reinforces this view."? On the second, indeed it does. I've removed it. Cheers, Constantine 17:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
That's good, but you could even lose the first two words, I think. "That al-Qahir sent..." --Coemgenus (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, now it doesn't sound to good to me ;). I'll change it per my suggestion above. Constantine 20:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • I would move one of the maps up so that it is immediately below the infobox.
  • " the autonomous ruler of Egypt and parts of Syria" and "al-Ikhshid was engaged in conflicts with other regional strongmen for control over Syria, without which Egypt was vulnerable to invasion from the east". I find these comments puzzling. Syria is distant from Egypt, so did he rule two separated areas, or are you using a different medieval definition of the location of Syria? If so, this should be explained. What does invasion from the east mean? From Turkey?
  • " Although he was initially in control of the entire region, he was forced to cede the northern half" This is also confusing? The entire region should include northern Egypt, but in the next sentence you seem to be referring only to northern Syria.
  • " managed to obtain for himself an appointment as governor of Palestine from Baghdad; the incumbent, al-Rashidi, fled the governor's seat at Ramla for Damascus, whose governorship he assumed" I am not sure what you mean here. Was he appointed to expel the existing governor? Was Ramla the capital of Palestine? If so, this should be clarified.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a successful Argentine telenovela. It has been selected as a good article, and improved even further since then. The previous FAC was closed simply by lack of reviews. Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by SuperMarioMan

  • Infobox image caption: This is almost as large as the image itself, and arguably overlong given that Template:Infobox television contains a "Starring" parameter. Is there any way that it could be shortened?
  • Past/present tense: A recurrent (but minor) issue is the article's use of past tense to describe in-universe detail. Example sentences include "The resulting parental dispute, the love triangle of the main characters and 1980s nostalgia were frequent plot elements, and story arcs related to school bullying and LGBT rights were also featured." (in the lead section) and "The plots included characters and situations for all ages, and the series' general tone was family-friendly." (Reception). As with the plot section, these should really be in the present.
    • Other examples: "although it was primarily a comedy" (Production); "also suggested that the show's structure invited viewers to compare their lives with the plans they made when they were younger" (Production)
  • "Graduados was broadly successful, prevailing in the ratings over the blockbuster competitive dance program Showmatch and the telenovela Sos mi hombre." (lead section). For "broadly", do you mean "widely" (they're not synonymous)? "Broadly", meaning "largely" or "generally", seems ill-fitting given the stated ratings and awards successes. What does "blockbuster" mean in this context?
  • "Although Graduados (written by Ernesto Korovsky, Silvina Frejdkes and Alejandro Quesada) was primarily a comedy ..." (Production) – reads awkwardly. It would be better to state the writers' names elsewhere, outside brackets.
  • "Los Pericos sent a cease and desist letter to the production team and complained on Twitter about the episode, with Bahiano dismissing their reaction as jealousy." "with ... -ing" is an awkward construction. This may work better as two sentences.
    • Presumably they complained because the show featured their music without their consent. Is that correct? This point could be made a little more explicit.
  • Reception section: There is plenty of useful information about viewing figures and awards, but very little about critical reception. Are there any print or online television reviews of Graduados that could be summarised and presented here?
  • Audience ratings: Do you know how many viewers (in thousands or millions) a "point" equates to? (If this kind of information isn't available, no worries.)
  • "This was the first fictional same-sex marriage on Argentine television since it was legalized, reflected the growing acceptance of sexual freedom in Argentina." When was it legalised?
  • Cast section: This consists solely of a table, which should probably be re-written as prose using the "actor as character" style. Also, shouldn't this section be further up the page? Its positioning between "Reception" and "Other media" is a little unusual; immediately after the plot section seems the most natural place for it.

I'll post some other comments and suggestions after re-reading the article a few more times. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Images. Overall, these seem fine. However, I would recommend that File:Graduados2.jpg be resized, as 804 x 533 pixels / 146 KB is not really low resolution. (This can be done automatically if you apply Template:Non-free reduce.) The fair-use rationale looks reasonable enough (because the make-up seems worthy of illustration), although I do wonder whether some editors might object to the appearance of two non-free cast photos (this plus the infobox image) within the same article. I don't think that there's any problem, but more opinions are needed.
  • Is there any relevant information that could be moved to the top of the "Features" subsection, between the headings "Features" and "Drama"? Empty subsections look a bit out of place. On a side note, "Recurring elements" may be a better title.
  • How long was each episode? (This should be added to the infobox.) SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 07:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Done most things, except for the Cast table. If I write it as prose, I would be basically rewriting the "plot" section (which is already a general description of the characters and their relations). Cambalachero (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Giant mouse lemur[edit]

Nominator(s): – Maky « talk » 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a little-understood genus of nocturnal lemur form Madagascar. This is my second attempt at FAC with this nomination, after the first one was suspended due to insufficient feedback. Hopefully more people will take interest this time. – Maky « talk » 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - My comments during the last nomination were solved, so I have little to add, but I will contribute with an image review below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • All photos appear to be selfmade by Wikimedia or Flickr users, and have appropriate licenses. The two illustrations are also appropriately sourced and licensed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Thanks for the review! Btw, I added one more photo if you want to check it off. With the announcement of a study showing M. zaza has the largest relative testicle size of any primate, I contacted the researchers and they uploaded photos for our use. Everything should still be good since she uploaded and released the photos herself. – Maky « talk » 15:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, sourcing looks fine, but I'm wondering if the caption should perhaps mention what's being done to the animal? FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I had put it in the alt, but I will try to rework it. – Maky « talk » 16:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

This is a well prepared article by an experienced editor and I can't find much to criticize. I do not have access to the two heavily cited books and thus cannot check the content. I've made a few edits to the article - please check that you agree.

Thanks for the review and help on finding all those typos! I really appreciate it. – Maky « talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "further to the north in the Sambirano and Sahamalaza regions." I don't think you should use the word region - for administrative purposes Madagascar is divided into 22 regions and these don't include Sambirano and Sahamalaza.
Hmmm... That's what the sources call them. The sources may be referring ecological regions or botanical regions. I've done my best to fix it. – Maky « talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "and around Ambato in northern Madagascar,[8][15] part of the Sambirano region.[8]" I cannot find this Ambato. There is a district of fr:Ambato-Boeny more to the south. Is it near the town of Ambanja on the Sambirano River?
All I know for certain (per one of the sources) is that it's in northwestern Madagascar. (I fixed the article from saying "northern".) Sometimes finding towns in Madagascar is like trying to find Springfield in the United States... but without online or comprehensive print sources. – Maky « talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't see it here. Aa77zz (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I've tried finding towns in Madagascar using online maps, and it is very difficult to find anything with absolute certainty. I did a search and found a few maps that pinpointed regions in the northwest, but "Ambato" was not named on the map. Other maps point to an Ambato near the Antananarivo, near the center of the island. It seems like there's also one or more Ambato rivers, so it might be referring to the region around one of those. It's hard to say. – Maky « talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence "The southern limit of its range is the Maeverano River and extends to the Mahavavy River in the north." sounds odd to me. Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Are these articles useful?
This source appears to reiterate everything already noted in other sources and this article. – Maky « talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This article goes into slightly finer details about the social structure of the northern giant mouse lemur. However, because this is a genus-level article, I think it should be saved for the species article. – Maky « talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk) 08:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those articles, though! – Maky « talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - the article satisfies the criteria. Well done. Aa77zz (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Another article that has just been published:

  • Rode-Margono, Eva Johanna; Nekaris, K. Anne-Isola; Kappeler, Peter M.; Schwitzer, Christoph (2015). "The largest relative testis size among primates and aseasonal reproduction in a nocturnal lemur, Mirza zaza". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22773.  See also undated BBC article here. Aa77zz (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw that yesterday. I'll add the information after work. – Maky « talk » 19:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The material has been added. Please let me know how it looks. – Maky « talk » 06:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

  • read through this the other day, was on a smartphone and forgot to log in and comment...returning now.....looking good....
Giant mouse lemurs are relatively small cheirogaleids,[9] though they are more than three times larger than the smallest members of the family, the mouse lemurs - I think the "Though" works better at the front of the first clause rather than the second.
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Their tail is bushy and long, measuring around 300 mm (12 in), which is longer than their head-body length, which averages 233 mm (9.2 in) - the two "which"s are a little disconcerting, could be reworded to something like, "At around around 300 mm (12 in), their bushy and long tail is longer than their head-body length, which averages 233 mm (9.2 in)"
Great catch and excellent suggestion. – Maky « talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The northern giant mouse lemur also has a shorter tail, shorter canine teeth, and is generally larger. - you'd generally say it was larger first (the most obvious attribute) and then the other traits.
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

These are just quibbles though and easy to fix. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your helpful comments. – Maky « talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok all good - support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

The article seems comprehensive and well written. Apart from making a trivial correction, I had to read a third of the way through the article before I could find anything to quibble about!

  • "Like other cheirogaleids, the dental formula for giant mouse lemurs is × 2 = 36; on each side of the mouth, top and bottom, there are two incisors, one canine, three premolars, and three molars—a total of 36 teeth." - This sentence seems to state the same thing twice.
Yes, I agree. However, this stems from a long-standing debate where scientific lingo is seen as too technical, so it supposedly needs to be explained. (Wiki links aren't enough, apparently.) I was asked to add this at some point... probably in another recent lemur FAC. Personally, I'd like to remove it, too. Maybe some other reviewers can comment to help establish some consensus on this matter. – Maky « talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to include the new population reported by the WWF in 2010 on the distribution map?
I would, but I'm not 100% sure where Ranobe is, and I don't trust web searches since many villages of the same name exist all over Madagascar, and often within 100km of each other. I just don't have any map to work off of. – Maky « talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you mention where the "Duke Lemur Center" is located.
Done. – Maky « talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although vocalizations are a primary form of social communication." - Perhaps this should be "the" rather than "a".
Done. – Maky « talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Females start reproducing after ten months, while males develop functional testicles by their second mating season" - It might be better to state these time durations in a more comparable way, "second mating season" being rather imprecise.
The source isn't more specific. It may be safe to say 21 months of age (two years minus the 3 month gestation), but I feel uncomfortable stating it that precisely given the differences between the two species. I also have to consider that the source used for this statement was written at a time when the genus was considered to have only one species. Your thoughts? – Maky « talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "insect excretions" - Do you mean excretions or secretions? They are not the same thing.
The insects produce excess sugar water as waste (out the back end), so I'm pretty sure excretion is correct. – Maky « talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "cochineal insects" - Cochineal insects live on cacti in Central America as far as I know.
Hmmm... That's what the sources say. They don't give scientific names. However, cacti have been introduced in Madagascar and are invasive, particularly in the southern part of the island. Looking around, it looks like Dactylopius coccus was introduced to the island in the 1920s to control the cactus populations. If we can find a reliable source, it might make for a good addition to the Cochineal FA. – Maky « talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What happened in connection with the captive breeding program at DLC? Were individuals released into the wild?
The sources don't say, but from my own personal knowledge, I can say that Mirza is a classic example of the potential short-sightedness of captive breeding programs. It was initially successful, but at the time giant mouse lemurs weren't considered endangered. Since they risked flooding available space at breeding facilities, and since other species were considered more critical, their captive breeding program was probably shelved. Now that they're facing extinction, it's simply too late. Most of the population died off from old age. It's one of several of the DLC's failed breeding programs, though this one was due to poor planning and mangement, versus simpona breeding (large-bodied sifakas like the diademed sifaka and the golden-crowned sifaka), which failed because the species are too specialized to live in captivity. Needless to say, the DLC does not publish anything about these issues. In fact, they have threatened me in the past over simply discussing their breeding programs on Wikipedia, despite using reliable sources, including their own website. – Maky « talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! – Maky « talk » 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your full responses. The unresolved points I raised above are unimportant and I have no hesitation in supporting this nomination on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review and spot check[edit]

A'coming along....

references all formatted consistently
offline book sources accepted in good faith
material faithful to (and with no close paraphrasing of) ref 2 (all 6 cites)

more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. I'll be watching for any issues you find. – Maky « talk » 06:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Whoops! Forgot about this...ok now where was I......
material faithful to (and with no close paraphrasing of) ref 16 (all 4 cites)
material faithful to (and with no close paraphrasing of) ref 33 (2 cites)

Right, spot checking of three online refs (and 12 items) looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Dave Gallaher[edit]

Nominator(s): Shudde talk 11:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Dave Gallaher, the Irish-born captain of the first New Zealand national rugby union team to tour the British Isles and France. He was subjected to considerable criticism during the tour for what the British press considered unsportsmanlike play. Prior to playing international rugby he served in the Second Boer War, and later served in France during the First World War where he was killed at Passchendaele. Shudde talk 11:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Dave_Gallaher.jpg: per the tag, you'll need to indicate what steps you've taken to try to establish the author's identity. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I have done what I can to identify the photographer, and have fixed that caption. -- Shudde talk 05:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Only the lede image has alt text - these should be fixed. Also fixed a few citation links using Checklinks but 1 is dead. ww2censor (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Ww2censor: I'm confused. All images have alt text ([27]) and the deadlink tag you've added is not a deadlink for me ([28])! -- Shudde talk 11:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Very strange. I was using Maxthon and the alts did not show up in edit mode, so apologies, scrub that. I'll have to see if that is a brwoser issue. Now the "dead link" connects for me too so maybe it was just a temporary server issue; forget that comment too. Thanks for pointing that out. ww2censor (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
And now when I use checklinks, the link to [29] and even clicking on your direct link above, it gives an error message "Backend not available", so I don't know what is happening there. You may want to keep an eye on it. ww2censor (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure what is going on. Both [30] and [31] work for me. But I've removed the deadlink tag and added an archiveurl to wayback machine just in case. If anyone else has any problems getting either of those pages it'd be good to know. -- Shudde talk 11:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts from Cliftonian[edit]

My apologies for taking so long to get to this, Shudde. I'll have a look through and note any thoughts as I go through.

  • I'm not sure we need to put the name David Gallagher in bold in the brackets—we effectively give the same name twice (only one letter is different) and I think it's a bit much. "David "Dave" Gallaher (born David Gallagher)" would do just as well I think. This is a minor enough point it could even be relegated to a footnote, in my opinion; after all the spelling was changed when David was four years old.
    • Done.
  • Why italics on "Original All Blacks"?
    • Removed
  • "first ever Test match" perhaps clarify that we mean the "first ever rugby Test match" (the term is usually used for cricket, in my experience)
    • Many sports have Test matches (including rugby league and netball). And the term is common outside of cricket. I've left it as is, especially as NZ didn't play Test cricket until the 1930s. I would also hope it's obvious this refers to rugby from context.
  • "contested against Australia at Sydney in 1903" don't need "contested" here; also think "in Sydney" is better than "at Sydney"
    • Changed.
  • The chronology of the lead seems to bounce around a bit. I would try to make the first paragraph a brief summary of why he's so noted (captain of Original All Blacks, near-perfect record in 1905–06 tour, etc), then a more smooth chronology from the start of his life to the end over the next paragraph or two. The last paragraph of the lead is very good as it is; I would probably leave it exactly as you have it apart from adding "the" before "New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame."
    • I've reorganised the lead. Please let me know if this is acceptable.

Early life

  • "James was a widower who had married Maria a year after the death of his first wife." when?
    • My source says seven years before his birth (the marriage). So I've added a year.
  • Is the "First Ramelton Meeting House" a church? Seems an odd name for one, particularly in 1874. The Gallahers were Roman Catholics, presumably?
    • No. He was baptised a Presbyterian. Later in life he attended an Anglican church. I'm not sure at what point he changed denominations or why he was baptised in one church but attended another. He definitely wasn't Catholic.
      • Ah, okay then—good thing we clarified this as I had assumed he was Catholic simply because the family came from Ireland. Attending a different church isn't that unusual, particularly among Protestants. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

More later. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: -- Thanks for the comments. Hopefully everything has been addressed.
  • Any idea why the infobox has the "Rugby union career" header twice?
    • See my reply to Resolute below. -- Shudde talk 05:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Early rugby career

  • Did the Parnell rugby team in Auckland take its name from the Irish nationalist of that name? Considering the Gallahers' Irish origins a connection seems likely to me. The point I'm trying to make is: was this an "Irish" team?
    • Parnell is a suburb of Auckland.
  • "In 1897, Gallaher's Ponsonby club won eight of their nine matches, and also the Auckland club championship." Wasn't the second a consequence of the first?
    • The source doesn't specify. I'm not sure that championships were purely decided on a win-loss record, or whether their were finals etc. I would assume there were not finals in those days, but it'd be an assumption.
      • Forgive my terrible English there. -- Shudde talk 05:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Later Gallaher was selected for Auckland's three-match tour where they defeated Taranaki, Wellington and Wanganui." when?
    • clarified.

More later —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Cheers. -- Shudde talk 05:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cliftonian: Hey mate. Any chance you've got some time to continue with your comments. They've been very helpful so far. Cheers. -- Shudde talk 00:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Early rugby career, continued

  • "The following season was less eventful for Gallaher—he played much of the season for Ponsonby, but injury prevented his selection for Auckland" you have an emdash here, but endashes elsewhere. Either is fine (in fact I prefer emdashes, but you should be consistent in whether you use one or the other.
    • Good spot. Changed.
  • "After missing the 1898 season for Auckland, Gallaher continued to be selected for his province throughout 1899 and 1900." I know you've already made clear Auckland was his provincial side, but the lay reader will still think of Auckland as being a city rather than a province. I would change "his" to "the" here, to make clear the "Auckland" mentioned in the first part of the sentence is the province being referred to in the second.
    • Changed.

Anglo-Boer War

  • "When enlisting he put his birthday as 31 October 1876, back nearly three years" Are we sure this was down to him? It could have been a mistake by someone at the recruiting office. Also "back nearly three years" is not that clear; I would put "three years later than the actual date" or something. And "date of birth", not birthday. And we use variants of the word "enlist" twice in two sentences. Alternative ways of putting it include "Gallaher mustered into", "Gallaher attested into", and the simple "Gallaher joined". Enlisted in, not enlisted with. Perhaps put a word or two to make absolutely clear for geopolitically unaware readers that this was within the British Army, on the British side or similar
    • It was not an error, as it was never corrected by Gallaher himself later in life. It's still unknown why he did this (see my comments to Resolute below on this).
      • Perhaps clarify this in that case. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Clarified
    • Are you really sure we need to specify that Gallaher was on the British side of the conflict? The alternative was that New Zealand was on the Boer side of an Anglo-Boer conflict. Surely this doesn't need to be spelled out (and if readers are interested, there are a number of wiki-links in that first sentence).
      • This is a peripheral point I won't make a big deal out of, but keep it in mind as some people may not know what the two sides were in the Anglo-Boer War. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Gallaher was given a send-off by his Ponsonby club" what kind of send-off? Was he the only one in the team to get one—didn't any of the others want to render service to their Queen and Country? (do we know Gallaher's motivations for enlisting? was he simply patriotic or was there some additional or other motivation? the wording seems to imply that there was no conscription in New Zealand for the Anglo-Boer War—is this correct?)
    • There was no conscription (see List of New Zealand units in the Second Boer War). Nothing is written about his motivations (Elliott does frequently quote letters written by Gallaher, so I assume if he had found something he would have included it in the biography). It was a dinner, and doesn't specify whether other club members served.
  • The picture on the right here indicates that the held the rank of corporal before they left for South Africa. Is there a reason he had this rank rather being one of the rank-and-file privates? And why don't we mention this in the body?
    • I haven't found anything in my sources elaborating on this.
  • "After arriving in East London on 14 March 1901" we should probably make clear that we mean East London in South Africa and not the eastern part of the British capital. Perhaps "After disembarking in South Africa at East London" or similar.
    • Done
  • we wikilink "Northern Transvaal" to the South African Republic, but this was actually the whole Transvaal, not just the northern part.
  • "Gallaher's contingent immediately embarked for Pretoria,[39] and it was there that, under the command of General Herbert Plumer" this seems to imply that Gallaher's contingent constituted the entirety of the force under Plumer's command, when so far as I know they were just part of a much larger force under his command.
    • Clarified
  • "A member of the contingent's 16th (Auckland) Company,[42] he served as a scout of the advanced guard[36] – who rode ahead of their column to look for threats." perhaps "A member of the contingent's 16th (Auckland) Company, he served as a scout in the advanced guard, that part of the column that reconnoitred ahead of the main force."
    • Are you sure we want to use the word reconnoitred? I'm unsure how many lay readers will be familiar with the term.
      • Perhaps "A member of the contingent's 16th (Auckland) Company, he served in the advanced guard, which scouted ahead of the main force." —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Changed
  • Clarify Charlestown is in Natal.
    • Done
  • Perhaps add to the military part of the infobox in which years he was in each unit, for clarity.
    • I'll give this a go.
  • "he had several enemies in his sights" careful regarding POV. Perhaps "had several Boer fighters in his sights" or similar.
    • I don't think this is particularly POV (comrade could be viewed in the same way). They were were his enemy. I've changed it to your wording, but I hope it's still clear that Gallaher felt he could have fired upon them in that situation.
      • Well, yes, since we say they're Boer fighters after making clear he was not on the Boer side in the war. (having spent time in the military myself I always try to be careful about this kind of thing.) —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Hope this helps—more anon. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Cliftonian: It definitely does. Hopefully I've addressed those comments that I can. Cheers. -- Shudde talk 01:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Cheers. More soon. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Resumption of his rugby career

  • "English and Colonial forces" not British? and why capital c on "colonial"?
    • Changed
  • Copyedited
  • What's the Ranfurly Shield?
    • I've added something on this. Hopefully I've got the balance right and provided enough information without going into excessive detail.

Hope this helps. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Great. Hopefully everything's been addressed. -- Shudde talk 05:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Resolute[edit]

  • Support. I was involved in the peer review of this article as well, and it has continually improved. I'm happy to support at this point. Resolute 14:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

    • Body text needs nbsp between the dd and mm of ddmmyyyy• Lingzhi(talk) 07:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I see you've done some of this. I'll go through again and see if any have been missed. -- Shudde talk 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • In my opinion the lead goes into excessive detail.• Lingzhi(talk) 07:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The punctuation of the sentence that begins with "Since the selection" (mixed dashes and commas) is a bit difficult to parse• Lingzhi(talk) 07:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I think this has been addressed. -- Shudde talk 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Please explain why being "unsuitably dressed" was important.• Lingzhi(talk) 08:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Clarified. -- Shudde talk 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • In direct quotes that are full sentences, the period goes inside the quotation marks."• Lingzhi(talk) 08:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I was aware of this as I added the quotes. Hopefully I didn't make any errors so I'll go through and double check. -- Shudde talk 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I double checked them all and corrected where necessary. -- Shudde talk 08:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I know nothing about rugby, but it seems that their training and strategies had as much or more to do with their success as anything else...but this point is not strongly developed, and their innovations were not detailed. Am I wrong in these perceptions?• Lingzhi(talk) 08:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Lingzhi: Thanks for your comments. I'll deal with the lead in the next couple of hours. Regarding your last comment. There are many factors that contributed to their success. The Original All Blacks#Innovations and tactics goes into some detail (but it's not comprehensive). I tried not to go into excessive detail regarding tangential elements of the tour, and instead attempted to focus on Gallaher's role and experiences. It's a hard balance to achieve, and maybe I've swung the pendulum too far in one direction. If the article has given the impression that Gallaher's leadership was the main, or sole reason for their success, then I'm going to need to clarify that. It was important, but there were other important factors as well. What is the impression you got? Thanks for your comments. Hope to have them all address in the next 24 hours. -- Shudde talk 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I have added a link at the beginning of the Aftermath and impact section that will hopefully direct readers to a place where there is more information on this kind of thing. -- Shudde talk 08:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Lingzhi: I'm now reasonably satisfied with the changes I have made (diff). I've trimmed down the lead and added enough to hopefully satisfy you regarding why the All Blacks were so successful on their 1905–06 tour. Shudde talk 06:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Shudde:I have free time only in spurts. Haven't looked at all your changes yet (sorry!), but please see the article's talk page for a first stab at a Lead section. You are NOT required to adopt my suggestions; don't feel intimidated just because this is a FAC and I am reviewing it. Plus please do tweak my suggested Lead at will; I was in a rush when I put it together. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
        • @Lingzhi: I've rewritten the lead using your suggestion. I've made a few changes and corrections. I think it's important to open with the fact he captained the Originals -- many people would only know that about him (and that he died in the First World War). Anyway give it a read and let me know what you think. -- Shudde talk 04:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I chenged your version again for the sole reason that I'm trying to avoid mentioning 1905 twice.... look again and see if it's OK... Additionally, when I made the changes I knew that you would revert to putting Originals first, because (I assume) you're an NZ editor and a fan, and that is what NZ fans (and maybe all rugby fans) think of first. And that's OK. But from the perspective of a non-UK, non-NZ, non-fan of rugby, "The Originals" mean exactly nothing to me, whereas being in three different Halls of Fame is notability written in flaming sky-high letters. But again, it's OK. It is not an important point. I am just explaining why I moved the Halls from the nether regions of the lead to the peak. So look at my changes again and see if they are OK. Tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Lingzhi: I'm happy with the changes. I can see why you introduced him in that way, but I'd rather make explicit why he was inducted into those Halls of Fame nice and early, rather than say he was honoured for something and then state what that something was. Anyway I'm comfortable with how it reads now. -- Shudde talk 07:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • See if compromise position of HoF mentions is OK with you. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In the original quote, is there intervening text between "spoke rarely about football or his own achievements" and " I never heard a soul..."? If so then my edit is wrong, and can b corrected in a couple of different ways. But the way it was before was wrong too. If there is no text between them, my edits are OK. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Lingzhi: There is text between those two statements (the quote is found here [39] near the bottom of the article). I've made a change. Take a look. -- Shudde talk 02:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Good. I'm leaning Support but regrettably it may even take a couple of days, because I have only intermittent free time, and many irons in the fire. Sorry for the slow pace. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No. 450 Squadron RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) & AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This was the first fighter squadron raised by Australia under the Empire Air Training Scheme during World War II, and Rupert and I hope to make it the first such article in WP to achieve FA-Class. Operating P-40 Kittyhawk fighter-bombers, No. 450 Squadron saw action in North Africa and Italy before its disbandment at war's end. In the former theatre it earned its nickname of The Desert Harassers thanks to none other than Lord Haw-Haw. The article history and talk page speak to the number of people who've helped get it to this stage, and we thank them all, along with our Milhist A-Class reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Well done. Very few comments.
  • This seems to be something of a sandwich of material related to No. 450 on either side of a fair amount of background. Would it be feasible to bring the 450 material together?
    • Fair enough, have started with 450 and then moved onto EATS, but it could be the other way round if that seems like it would work better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Middle East
  • "the troopship Queen Elizabeth" granted, but would it be possible to note that she was a converted passenger liner?
    • Can you suggest how you'd put it, as it might be a mouthful to get "troopship" and "converted passenger liner" in there together? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Rommel" should probably be linked.
    • Nicely spotted, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "which dropped incendiary, anti-personnel and high explosive bombs, for more than an hour. " Not sure the final comma is really needed.
    • Agree, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Because the personnel camp had been placed some distance from the operations facilities, " this strikes me as unnecessarily jargony.
    • Had a go, let me know if you think it can be improved further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "became covered with seawater" in other words flooded. See above comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talkcontribs)
    • Agree, done -- tks for your review/support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 10:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:450SqnRAAFCrest.png: bit confused here. You've got an older, black-and-white version of this badge which is claimed as PD - when did the design change? Its overall appearance is quite similar. Also, source link is dead
    • Tks for reviewing the images, Nikki. Boy, that one didn't take long to go dead -- anyway, Rupert's updated with an archived link now. Re. design change (or more exactly going from rough design to 'official' design) I don't know, so I opted for for the usual FUR for crests on the latter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:No._450_Sqn_RAAF_Ops_Tent_1942.jpg: am I correct that this is the first publication of this image? If so, the given licensing is not correct. See Works created but not published. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Well I think the Australian PD notice is still correct because it was taken before 1955, so I guess you mean the issue is satisfying all three PD-1996 clauses? Correct, this would be the first publication, so what licensing would you suggest? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
      • It's an interesting case in that the Australian notice is correct, but despite the fact that this would have been PD in Australia before the URAA date the American copyright is still problematic. The easiest solution would be to find out who holds the copyright. If we don't know who owns the copyright, or if the copyright holder is not you and did not die over 70 years ago, quite likely we can't use the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Hmm. Well I own the photo through right of inheritance but I can't say with any certainty who took the photo, so though he might well have died 70+ years ago given the vicissitudes of war, we can't say that for certain. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
          • American copyright is not problematic. It was in the PD in Australia before 1996, so is PDF in the US under URAA. It meets all three of the URAA criteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Not the second, as it is a previously unpublished work - see Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Unpublished_works. Since this is its first publication, we can consider it to have been first published in the US after 2002, so URAA does not apply - life+70 would. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Well if we have to remove the picture so as not to hold up the review's progress, then so be it. OTOH if you have advice on how we might best be able to use it under a different licence them I'm all ears, otherwise I guess I'll just be donating it to the Australian War Memorial... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
                • I've removed the image for now at least to expedite things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support
    • I reviewed at ACR so am comfortable with its content and prose etc. Regardless, I've looked over the changes since then and couldn't see any errors or typos that might have crept in, and re-read the article in case I spotted anything I didn't see the first time.
    • Ref spotchecks:
      • I completed reference spot checks on Barnes, Eather, RAAF Historical Section, Gillison and Herington (both 1954 and 1963), as I have access to these in my collection. All references to these works seem to support the information as presented without any issues of close paraphrasing that I could see.
      • I added an archiveurl via the Wayback Machine for the AWM squadron page here [40] as the page that was used in 2013 when this article was first written now seems to have been reworked by the AWM and didn't include some of the information used anymore (specifically squadron casualties of 63 killed etc). The archive link provides a version of the page which does support this information now.
    • Otherwise fine in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Many tks AC -- the AWM has changed the links to the official histories as well (must be about that time of year!) so updated those too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review

  • Probably worth footnoting the attribution of the crest design in that caption
    • Added a citation to the AWM website. Please let me know if I misunderstood. Thank you for taking a look. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:LAYOUT, Further reading should be its own level-2 section. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 427[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 00:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the second busiest freeway in Canada. I recently put subjected this to ACR so it should be pretty polished. Hopefully it will attract more attention than my previous nomination Floydian τ ¢ 00:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Procedural note -- Floydian, per FAC instructions, when a review has been archived you're expected to wait two weeks before nominating any other article (not just the same one), unless given leave to do so by a coordinator. We hadn't caught this one before it attracted some commentary so will leave it open, but pls follow the instructions in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I apologize, as you'll see on my talk page I did not notice that stipulation, but when I was informed, I requested a hall pass since my last FAC only failed due to going stale. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this at the mentioned ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 00:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Noting that I did an image review at the ACR - Evad37 [talk] 13:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per my ACR review, though I wish the shields and labels had been added to the map, so users not familiar with the area know what they are looking at. --Rschen7754 16:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cobblet[edit]

  • How does one define "four-level interchange"? This only appears in the lead and isn't explained in the text, and looking at the interchanges themselves I'm not sure how one arrives at such a conclusion. Is there a source for this terminology? Stack interchange suggests that there's only one such interchange in Canada, the 407-400 interchange. And if they're not four-level interchanges then I'm not sure they're all that notable as the construction of the Allen Road-401 interchange (for example) predates the 1967-1971 timeline given (although the History section seems to suggest these interchanges did exist earlier in perhaps a less complex configuration – perhaps this could be clarified).
  • I simply reworded this to say they are two of the largest in the province. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Run-on sentence in the second paragraph of the lead (the second sentence). Rexdale refers to northern Etobicoke, not western; the reference to it should be removed. Also is Claireville big enough to be worth mentioning? Maybe the newly built suburb of Ebenezer, Brampton is a better choice?
  • Reference 2 (the MTO AADT counts pdf) is broken.
Route description
  • "QEW / Gardiner Expressway" does not always appear with a spaced slash. Frankly I'm not sure this construction is necessary in the situations where it's used in this article – is there a problem with referring to them as two distinct expressways? If you're trying to allude to the fact this section of the Gardiner used to be part of the QEW, I'm not sure that's necessary either.
  • the 427 is the dividing line between the two, so I'm not sure what would be a simpler construct. Any thoughts? - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • While the statement at the end of the second paragraph is undoubtedly true, pointing to a road map as a reference for the intentions of the people who designed the highway is inappropriate.
  • Actually, unlike the 401, the design of the 427 inherently limits vehicles to the appropriate carriageway because there aren't numerous transfers between the two. I do see what you mean however, and I'll see if I can find a good source for this. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Whenever I've heard the expression "The Basketweave" on Toronto traffic radio it's always referring to the one on the 401. I think MapArt maps also explicitly label the 401 structure as such, but not the 427 one. Suggest removing if no reliable source can be found for referring to this structure as "the Basketweave", particularly since the wikilink redirects to the article on the 401.
  • "from express to collector lanes, or vice versa" seems clumsy. How about "between express and collector lanes"?
  • Avoid the use of "complicated" and "sprawling" to describe interchanges unless there are reliable sources for these labels. The complexity of these interchanges can be expressed without resorting to peacock words – for example it could be noted that the 427-401 interchange is essentially a six-way interchange between the 427, 401, Highway 27 and the Richview Expressway stub. Also the source for the size of the 427-401 interchange given in the History section should be given here too.
  • By "demarcation line" do you mean the municipal boundary? This is also mentioned at the beginning of the next paragraph.
  • "as it drains" should more precisely be "where it drains". Also this is the West Humber, not the Humber itself, as noted in the History section.
  • "undeveloped area" – judging from the latest satellite maps this no longer seems accurate.
  • Expressions like "two-lane" and "four-lane" should be consistently hyphenated.
  • I removed the hyphen, as I've been told it should only be used in instances such as "four-laned" or "four-laning", but not "four lane". - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • For clarity, "minister" should be "Minister of Transportation".
  • The heading "Upgrade to Collector-Express" might be better phrased as "Upgrade to collector-express system" or simply "Widening".
  • Done, used "Expansion". - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "the largest interchange in Canada" – at the time, or is this still true?
  • AFAIK, haven't seen any claims raised otherwise. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Dixon/Airport Road" should take a spaced slash.
  • What does "defaulted" mean here?
  • I don't think "left-turn" needs a hyphen.
  • Weird that you mention the dates of construction of the interchanges with the 409 and 407 in the lead but not in this section.
  • I believe the construction of HOV lanes is currently ongoing, so use the present tense.
Exit list
  • "north (700 m (2,300 ft))" - maybe "north for 700 m (2,300 ft)" to avoid the double parentheses.

Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Made a number of fixes, with replies presented indented above. Still have a few points to address yet. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a short article about a very rare substance that does not naturally exist; 15 atoms have been synthesized in total since 2010, all decaying away in less than a second. The article is short, yet quite complete. The subject is quite technical, but I hope the article is readable; some efforts have been applied to assure that. The previous FAC highlighted problems in prose quality; this article has been copyedited (and updated) since then, so it should be okay in that respect now. Your comments are very welcome.--R8R (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Reading the summary above revealed the interesting detail about the number of atoms that have been synthesized, which I had missed in a couple of read-throughs of the article. I have added this to the lede. YBG (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Here we have the most recent element to be discovered. I am certain that the global criteria (1d, 1e, 3 and 4) are satisfied; the prose criteria are mostly OK, though I have some qualms with the weight given to the two major topics (while 2c follows from citation templates, 2b is satisfied if the naming section is subsumed into history and 2a seems questionable given the higher weight on history rather than characteristics in the lead, though I'll pass over this for now). Criteria 1abc I haven't looked over yet; I have made some unifying edits in the meantime. Parcly Taxel 03:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. Your edits have been good so far; thanks for them as well. Naming was a separate section mainly because that's how things are in ununoctium, which is an long-standing FA. In general, I agree it belongs with after-discovery recognition. Regarding weight on topics in the lead, I think the history part is just the right size, but we have little data about this element, and while I'd like to expand this part, it's hardly possible. I mentioned the relativistic effects and added one sentence on oxidation states, but there's nothing more to say. We have too little data on chemistry (so we can't add generalized info, and adding separate bits of info is, you know, going into detail, not the right thing for the lead), and about physics, the situation is basically the same (we could add a couple of figures, but that is just going into detail as well).--R8R (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


  • "only eight atoms have been synthesized," I think this is inaccurate. The synthesis of 8 has been recorded and reported. In theory more were possibly synthesized but detectors didn't catch them.
    Fair enough. I went with "have been synthesized and reported."
  • "The original experiment was repeated successfully in 2012" but 8 atoms were from 6 in 2010 and 2 in 2014. if it was successful why weren't any produced in 2012?
    A great one. Seven more atoms were produced in 2012.
  • "The beam is made in Russia " shouldn't this be past, or "would have been made"?
    Sure, let's go with past.
  • "The resulting nuclei become " there is something wrong with either the tense of the linking of this to the previous sentence
    I agree; I'll check the article history.
    I changed wording a bit; hopefully it's okay now.
  • "target would no " => would have?
    I agree; as a side note, this sentence has always been phrased somewhat differently, this must be a recent change I missed
  • "would remain " => would have remained?
    Same as above
  • "the world's most powerful for the synthesis of superheavy elements" is this true?
    Actually, this statement is intended to mean, "world's most powerful as of the experiment", I'll use another wording.
    I think I originally saw this statement in the press release dedicated to the discovery, but I can't find it, so I removed it. The current source only says, "one of the most powerful."
  • "matching their previous results" => how many new atoms did they get?
  • side question: how much "weaker" is the Darmstadt accelerator?
    I don't exactly know, but I'll check that. I remember reading some plans from the Darmstadt team to get a still more powerful accelerator; maybe their 2014 experiment was conducted using it.
    I can't find an exact answer. I've found that the Dubna accelerator deals with energies within the range of 3–29 MeV/nucleon; I can't find the press release, I think it may have to do with total maximum energies rather than per-nucleon ones, but since it can't be made sure (for now, at least), we'll go without it.
  • the chart image should clarify that known isotopes are those in framed squares
  • can the eV scale be rotated vertically?
    Yes: File:Valence_atomic_energy_levels_for_At_and_Uus.svg. The image was originally vertically aligned, and the change for horizontal aligning came later. It was made because the original image is disturbingly long, so it may not even fit into screen if your monitor resolution is low (unless we consider low scale, but then labels would be hard to read). Not great, really.
It is an svg, so all it needs is scale all the text 3x and it will look ok. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I just updated the file. I doubled the font size; however, I am somewhat doubtful if a change from the current horizontal file to an update vertical one would be an improvement at all. However, if you wouldn't agree with me, feel free to make the change or just let me know.
  • "The +7 state has not been shown—even computationally—to exist" if you put such atoms in very high fields you can ionize them beyond their valence electrons. I think the statement before should be fine-tuned a bit. Unless the ionization energy is so high that you break the nucleus apart (which should be way higher in energy imo) it does exist at least in theory
  • what is the ionic radius of Uus anion?
    Do you have an answer in mind? I generally agree this article could use more data, too bad so little is available at all. I'm sure that if I had seen a figure that important, I would've included it.
  • the decay chart in inaccurate since it is missing the Lw-266 path
    I sincerely believe it's better to show just the decay chain we already have (so it could support the text, since it is located near the part on discovery), and change the caption to match the context. So I went with "Decay chain of the ununseptium nuclei produced in the original experiment."
Meah, it is fine but see File:Ununoctium-294_nuclear.svg for a model to include both if you change your mind. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the fact these isotopes are not really needed, such updates would need to be made each time someone synthesizes another isotope the original nuclides, Uus-293 and Uus-294, could decay to. Like, say, Mt-277, which was first synthesized in 2012 as a decay product of Uus-293. So, to make sure the article is correct, someone would need to keep track in news on superheavy isotopes, especially now that ununseptium news won't be as important as they used to (the element is not as new as it was in 2010 or 2014 anymore). Sure, I get it we would need to keep track on news on whether the 2012 Dubna application is recognized by IUPAC or not, because it's an important part of the story for the element. The exact end of the alpha decay chain isn't.

Nergaal (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Great comments, thanks for taking your time. I'll try to reply to them sometime soon, hopefully tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by TIAYN[edit]

  • IUPAC is mentioned six times throughout the article, and IUPAP once, but only in abbreviated form.... What about International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)/International Union of Pure and Applied Physics Joint Working Party, or alternately the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics?
    That's true; I went with "the Joint Working Party (JWP) of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics"
  • What about removing "so" in ""Once it is so recognized".. "Once it is recognized" reads easier, and "so" doesn't contribute anything to the meaning of the sentence.
    Sure, why not
  • "The Russian team desired to use berkelium"—while its not grammatically incorrect, desire is an emotional term. You can desire someone emotionally.. It seem strange to desire to use berkelium; what about "The Russian team sought to use berkelium"?
    A good one, changed to "sought"
  • "After this period, half of the target would have no longer been berkelium"... "would have no longer been berkelium" seems awkward, but since I don't know anything about this, that might be the best way to explain it?
    The idea is, each type of radioactive (IOW, decaying over time) atoms has a period called "half-life", after which one half of those atoms would decay and therefore no longer be the type of atoms they used to be. (After a second half-life, a half of the remaining half decays away, so only a half of the remaining half---one quarter---is left, and so on.) If you think there's a way to rephrase this, I'm open for suggestions
    • What about, "After the given period, half of the targeted berkelium would have decayed"? --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      Yeah, I used that.
  • "As of 2015, no official permanent name has been suggested for ununseptium" -> As of 2015, no official name has been suggested for ununseptium or As of 2015, no permanent name has been given for ununseptium
    I used the first suggestion
  • You explain island of stability twice.. First as " island of stability, a concept wherein some super-heavy atoms can be relatively stable" and then "This concept, proposed by University of California professor Glenn Seaborg, explains why superheavy elements last longer than predicted"... One would suffice...
    Agreed; I introduced the term to the lead and focused the explanation on the second section. Thanks for bringing my attention to this
  • "Ununseptium is the second-heaviest element of all created so" -> Ununseptium is the second-heaviest element created so far
  • "It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move much more quickly" — why use "especially"?
    The effect discussed in this sentence does occur for other elements, and it becomes stronger as atoms become heavier. It could be said these effects are strong for the heavy elements (as opposed to the "superheavy" elements, like the one this article is about), such as lead or mercury, because they affect their properties (for example, this is the ultimate reason why gold is yellow or mercury is liquid); they are supposed to affect the superheavy atoms even stronger. In general, this is the reason why some properties/actions have a degree in the text, while they wouldn't have one in most other situations
      • OK... Reword from "It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move much more quickly" ->The superheavy elements are especially strong because their electrons move much quicker". ... The sentence is grammatically incorrect... I would also like to remove "much".. Its a filler word, and really, since as a reader you don't inform how much quicker it is, quicker would suffice. --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
        I see your point regarding "much." As for "quick," I just consulted a dictionary, it suggests "faster" should be better, so it becomes "because their electrons move faster."
  • You still have not fixed the sentence, it still reads "It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons"; that is grammatically incorrect. Should be "The superheavy elements are especially strong because their electrons move much faster"... --TIAYN (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    I need to make it clear: it's not about the elements being strong, it's about the effect being strong. Here's the sentence in context: "Significant differences are likely to arise; a large contributor to the effect is the spin–orbit (SO) interaction—the mutual interaction between the electrons' motion and spin. It is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move faster—at velocities comparable to the speed of light—than those in lighter atoms." I would say it is quite clear the "it" in the beginning of the second sentence refers to the SO interaction; if you disagree, please suggest a way to rephrase this.
  • "Because the 7s electrons are very stabilized, it has been hypothesized that ununseptium has only five valence electrons" -> "Because the 7s electrons are stable, it has been hypothesized that ununseptium has only five valence electrons"
    I'm somewhat reluctant to make this change. This is not some binary "stable/unstable" we're talking about (unlike, say, atoms: they may be either stable or unstable/radioactive, although the latter term also allows some differentiation based on how quickly they decay); moreover, this is a theory (as you can see from the title "Predicted properties"), it matches the current data and is totally believable by current measures, but no one has actually checked if that's true because no one can at the moment (although some want), and "are stable" seems somewhat even less tolerant to objections that the current line. Not to mention it was explained just before this sentence what might've stabilized the electrons in question.
      • Fine, but "very" doesn't sound scholarly at all. --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
        Well, you're right. "Greatly" should be better?
        • it still prefer using none, but fine.
  • "This molecule is significantly stabilized by the SO interactions" -> This molecule is stabilized by the SO interactions
    Again, I wouldn't move to the binary "stabilized/not stabilized" because this effect exists even for much lighter atoms to a much smaller degree, and there is some difference between those cases
  • What's an SO interaction?
    At the moment, we have "the spin–orbit (SO) interaction—the mutual interaction between the electrons' motion and spin," and I'm afraid to go deeper into this, because this may scare readers away and could actually be a little off-topic here
  • Notes a, b & c are not referenced.
  • :I wonder why the unreferenced note d is okay with you :) But there is a reason. This is not the first time I'm asked to provide references for phrases like this. But the problem is, it is very difficult; as you can read from those notes, they're not discussing some facts (unlike the note e, which is referenced), they're discussing some nomenclature, they explain what some complex terms/symbols mean. One by one:
    • a: says two terms do not denote the same set of elements by definition. This one is difficult to cite; I've tried this before and didn't succeed. Give me a couple of days to see if this is doable.
      I have finally found the kind of info I wanted, so I added a ref.
    • b: some readers may not understand these reaction equations, so an explanation how to read those is provided. I argue no ref is needed. The reference for equations themselves is provided.
    • c: this note is just explaining what the ns2np5 construct even means. However, it's good you brought my attention to this; I just added a reference for the formula itself.
    • d: this note is explaining (very briefly, because that would be a long and somewhat off-topic text if it were to be completely explained) the concept of the azimuthal quantum number. I argue no ref is needed. The fact this note is helping explain is referenced.
    • What I don't get is, lets take note b, you say its referenced by ref 10, but why don't you include ref 10 in the note?
      I'll try to explain the idea behind this, but have in mind I don't pretend to be a qualified expert at this (so if you're reading this and saying, "Well, then you're certainly using ref placing wrong!", I won't argue).
      Suppose we have a quote from, say, Henry VIII, and we list it. We provide a reference, but then we realize English was quite different back then from Modern English, and not all readers may be able to understand it or it's just too hard, and we're providing an translation into Modern English in a note. This is basically the same thing: those equations are the information we're discussing, but since we may expect not all readers will be able to read them, a note is providing info on how to read these lines. I didn't add the ref to the note because that information is just common knowledge in the area. It is not directly supported by the ref; just everyone who works with this is super common with this, they even teach this at schools. I mention this because not everyone remembers what they were taught at schools (including myself in some other subjects).--R8R (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As for the article's content, it seems good (but I don't know, this isn't exactly my field of expertise). --TIAYN (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall, its a good article—I've learnt something new by reading.. I'll take a second look at it tomorrow (or Saturday–depends when I have time) to make sure I didn't miss anything... --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Great, that's exactly the kind of reaction I wanted to get from a reader not all that familiar with atomic physics or chemistry :) --R8R (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response, other problems pilled up.
  • Using the term "original experiment" alot in the lead. How about spicing up the language?
    Yeah... better now?
  • The discovery of ununseptium was first announced in 2010; synthesis was claimed in Dubna, Russia, by a Russian–American collaboration, making it the most recently discovered element as of 2015. → "The discovery of ununseptium was first announced in 2010; synthesis was claimed in Dubna, Russia, by a Russian–American collaboration. As of 2015, it is the most recent discovered element."?
    I think this would kind of break the chronology. "Ununseptium was synthesized in 2010. It is the most recent as of 2015. One of its daughters was created directly in 2011. The synthesis was repeated in 2012 and 2014. No comment on recognition by IUPAC as of 2015." The current wording isn't perfect either, so I tried to follow the hronology of the events we cite; should be OK?
  • "Once it is recognized, the discoverers will receive the right to give the element a permanent name" → "If recognized, the discoveres will be empowered to give the element an official name (ununseptium" is a temporary systematic element name)?"
    I can agree on the wording thing, but I don't want to parenthesize the part regarding the current name... it's important to explain where the current name came from, too important for parentheses
  • You explain Island of Stability both in the lead, and the body... What about just the lead, or the first place its mentioned in the body?
    I've always held the lead for comparably separate from the rest of the article (a reader may either skip the lead, if they're going to read the whole thing anyway, or skip the body, if they just need to get the basic idea of what the article is about), so I give a super short description in the lead section (which could have easily been skipped if the term was self-descriptive, like Ministry of Supervision), and then go into detail in the part of the article where the whole concept of stability of the element is discussed in detail.
  • "Ununseptium may be located in the "island of stability", a concept in which some superheavy elements may be more stable than expected otherwise; the synthesized ununseptium atoms have lasted some tens and hundreds of microseconds. " → Ununseptium may be located in the "island of stability", a concept which tries to explain why some superheavy elements are more stable than expected. The synthesized ununseptium atoms have lasted some tens and hundreds of microseconds
    I think it's okay for colloquial speech, but in a serious text, I wouldn't say a concept tries to do anything. And I think it's great we use a semicolon, because the two facts ("ununseptium may be located in the island of stability" and "the synthesized atoms have lasted tens and hundreds of microseconds") are super-closely related; the Dubna team believes these results serve as definite proof of the existence of the "island of stability," as we say in a caption to a picture
  • Unlike the halogens, ununseptium is likely to neither commonly form anions nor achieve high oxidation states → Unlike halogens, ununseptium is likely to neither commonly form anions nor achieve high oxidation states
    Why? We did mention the word "halogens" just a sentence ago, and it's a small finite set of elements.
  • In 2004, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) team in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russia, proposed an experiment to synthesize element 117—so-called for the 117 protons in its nucleus—that required fusing a berkelium (element 97) target and a calcium (element 20) beam. .... Did the JINR propose a joint experiment with ORNL? It could easily be mentioned here.
    Yeah, a great suggestion, added.
  • However, the team at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in the United States—the world's only producer of berkelium—could not then provide any, citing a lack of production of the exotic material → However, the American team at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)—the world's only producer of berkelium—could not provide it, claiming they hadn't produced enough. ... The last sentence is also awkward, but at least I understand it...
    see below
  • "The Russian team sought to use berkelium—an element they could not access—because calcium-48, the isotope of calcium used in the beam, has 20 protons and 28 neutrons; it is the lightest stable or near-stable nucleus with such a neutron excess." → The Russian team sought to use berkelium since calcium-48, the isotope of calcium used in the beam, has 20 protons and 28 neutrons; it is the lightest stable or near-stable nucleus with such neutron excess" ... You've already stated that the Americans were unwilling to send berkelium to the Russians...
    A reader might ask, "Then why wouldn't they try some other reaction with an element they could access?" I'm trying to emphasize the importance of calcium-48 by this.
  • "Thanks to neutron excess, resulting nuclei became heavier and closer to the sought-after island of stability." → Due to neutron excess, resulting nuclei became heavier and closer to the sought-after island of stability, (explain it here maybe?)"
    I never actually had the idea. A great suggestion, I'll try to do that after I'm done with the other points.
    I gave it a try, I hope I made it understandable (although you might have ideas on how to improve prose).
  • Suddenly you write "In 2008, the American team resumed producing berkelium and contacted the Russian team".. So with this "citing a lack of production of the exotic material" you were trying to say that However, the American team at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)—the world's only producer of berkelium—could not provide it, stating they had temporarily ceased production."?
    That'll do. Also, I added the town the ORNL is located in to the sentence.
  • "The berkelium was subsequently cooled in 90 days and in another 90 days was chemically purified" → They cooled the berkelium for 90 days, and used another 90 days to chemically purify it.
    I won't fight for this to death (so if you still disagree, I'll easily follow; actually, this is true for many points I meet with some initial doubt), but this seems somewhat illogical. If we make the change, the fragment would be "In 2008, the American team resumed producing berkelium and contacted the Russian team.[5] The production resulted in 22 milligrams of berkelium; enough to perform the experiment.[12] They cooled the berkelium for 90 days, and used another 90 days to chemically purify it.[13]" That "they" seems to be somewhat far away from defining what the pronoun means
  • The berkelium target had to be quickly transported to Russia because the half-life of berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium produced, is only 330 days.. → The berkelium had to be transported to Russia as quickly as possible, since the half-life of berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium produced, is 330 days.... What does ", the isotope of berkelium produced" mean? Are you saying that the berkelium produced isotopes have a half-life of 330 days?
    All isotopes of an element are named by the name of the element, followed by its mass number separated by a hyphen. "Berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium produced" means "berkelium-249, the isotope of berkelium that was produced," but that just seemed to be too wordy to me. I'll try "berkelium-249, the produced isotope of berkelium," it should be clear?
  • "If the experiment had not begun within six months of the target's departure, insufficient quantities of the quickly decaying berkelium would have remained for the experiment" → For the experiment to succeed, it had to begin within six months of its departure from the United States since to much of the berkelium would have decayed during the given period."
  • Despite advanced preparation for the journey, Russian customs officials twice refused to let the target enter the country because of missing or incomplete paperwork. → Despite preparing the journey in advance, Russian custom officials refused the target to enter the country twice because of missing or incomplete paperwork."
    Agreed, done
  • The target traveled over the Atlantic Ocean five times over a few days → Over the span of a few days, the target traveled over the Atlantic Ocean five times... Why?
    If I correctly understand the question "Why?", then here's the deal. The target was first transported to Russia (first travel over the Atlantic Ocean), then in a Moscow airport, Russian customs didn't permit the target's entrance into the country because of bureaucracy, so it had to fly back to New York (second), the scientists worked on documents so this would not happen a second time, and gave it a second try (third), Russian customs again didn't allow the target to enter the country, and it had to fly back again (fourth), then in NY, scientists worked on documents again and gave it a third try (fifth), and finally the customs were documents were okay with documents, and the target was successfully imported into Russia. (If I got it wrong, please, specify the question.)
  • On its arrival in Russia, the berkelium was transferred to Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Oblast, to be fixed on a thin titanium film → On its arrival, the berkelium was transferred to Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Oblast, to be fixed on a thin titanium film.... I don't understand what "fixed on a thin titanium film" is, care to explain in the text?
    I tried to do so in the body
  • It then went to Dubna where it was installed in the JINR particle accelerator... Its not a mammal, it can't move... → From there it was transported to Dubna where it was installed in the JINR particle accelerator.
    Ha ha, you're right! Except I used "It was then transported to Dubna..." because "from there" seems to be a somewhat redundant phrase to me
  • "On April 9, 2010, an official report was released in the journal Physical Review Letters identifying the isotopes as 294Uus and 293Uus, which were shown to have half-lives of order of tens or hundreds of microseconds, formed as follows" → On April 9, 2010, a report by the journal Physical Review Letters identified the isotopes as 294Uus and 293Uus, which were shown to have half-lives of order of tens or hundreds of microseconds. They were formed as follows
  • All of ununseptium's daughter isotopes (decay products) were previously unknown,[11] so their properties could not be used to confirm the claim of discovery → All of ununseptium's daughter isotopes (decay products) were previously unknown,[11] therefore their properties could not be used to confirm the claim of discovery.
    Yeah, I agree.
  • In 2011, when one of the decay products (ununpentium-289) was synthesized directly, its properties matched those measured in the claimed indirect synthesis from the decay of ununseptium → In 2011, when one of the decayed products (ununpentium-289) was synthesized directly, its properties matched those measured in the claimed indirect synthesis from the decay of ununseptium"... I'm not sure what you mean about "its properties matched those measured in the claimed indirect synthesis from the decay of ununseptium"...
    The thing is, after they synthesized ununseptium in 2010, ununseptium-293 decayed to form ununpentium-289 (which was not known at the time as well), and after ununpentium-289 decayed, the scientists were able to measure some of its decay properties (how long ununpentium lasted, type of the decay, amount of energy released after the decay, etc.). After they created ununpentium-289 directly in 2011 and then it decayed, its decay properties matched those measured in 2010. I don't know how to reword this, I thought it was clear; please make some suggestions.
  • "The discoverers did not submit a claim for the discovery of ununseptium in 2007–2011 when JWP was reviewing claims of discoveries of trans-copernicium elements (elements with atomic numbers greater than that of copernicium)." ... You really like the word discover, don't you? .. Let's try: "The discoverers of ununseptium did not submit a claim for their findings in 2007–2011 when JWP was reviewing claims of discoveries of trans-copernicium elements (elements with atomic numbers greater than that of copernicium)." It still one discover to many, but better..
  • The Dubna team successfully repeated the experiment in 2012, creating seven atoms of ununseptium. The results of the experiment matched the previous results;[17] the scientists have since filed a new element registration paper → The Dubna team successfully repeated the experiment in 2012, creating seven atoms of ununseptium. The results matched the previous outcome;[17] the scientists have since filed a new element registration paper... What are " a new element registration paper"?
    Good one, thanks. The paper is a formal paper for the IUPAC, in which the authors declare they've synthesized a new element, try to prove the results they got could not mean anything else, and appeal to the committee in order to get recognized as the discoverers.
  • On May 2, 2014, a joint German-American collaboration of scientists from the ORNL and the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany, claimed to have confirmed the element's discovery → On May 2, 2014, a joint collaboration by the American ORNL and the German GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research claimed to have confirmed the element's discovery
    I think it would be somewhat unfair to neglect the GSI location, because we mention the locations of both Russian and American institutes, and because "Darmstadt" is often used as a specifier for GSI in the field, similarly to how "Dubna" is used as a specifier for JINR.
  • As of 2015, no official name has been suggested for ununseptium → As of 2015, no official name has been given for ununseptium
    Suggesting a name to be used as official is not equivalent to establishing it as such, and the two may be separated by years; for example, there are suggested names for ununtrium, none of which is official, and there were the so-called Transfermium Wars, which was a long-lasting debate between American, Soviet, and German physicists on who synthesized some elements first and, therefore, how they should be named.
  • According to IUPAC's current guidelines, the permanent names of all new elements should end in "-ium"; this includes ununseptium, even if the element is a halogen, which traditionally have names ending in "-ine → According to IUPAC's current guidelines, the names of all new elements should end in "-ium"; this includes ununseptium, even if the element is a halogen, which traditionally have names ending in "-ine
    • I'll take a look at the "Predicted properties" section when you're finished with this. Regards, --TIAYN (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Tank Girl (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 1995 science fiction action comedy film. Truly one of a kind; people either love it or don't get it at all. I've loved it since the first time I watched it as a child. Freikorp (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Freikorp, is this a WikiCup entry? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel like the critical reception section is too short. It needs to be expanded. (By the way, I hated the movie, though that's just me.) ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: Yeah good point, I added four more reviews. Better? (Haha yeah you either love it or hate it, you don't find many people sitting on the fence about this one lol)Freikorp (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

    • Do you have any more information on the box office performance? If not, I think you should merge the section with another. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 12:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Editorofthewiki: Found a tiny bit more info, specifically what it grossed in its opening weekend, but it wasn't much. I've merged it with above section. There's plenty of sources that give the box office results a line or two of comment, saying it "tanked at the box office' or something similar etc, do you think I should add a sentence like that or just leave it as the raw facts? Freikorp (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Let me know if you have any other comments. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as the box office performance is concerned, it's a small problem that only the US gross is listed. The IMDb gives a figure for the worldwide gross, and while I know we can't cite that page it does at least tell us that the information is out there somewhere. Fortunately, Variety has something I don't think would be synthesis to include if carefully worded. I think we can use that, plus the remaining tidbits from Box Office Mojo, to at give a narrative to the theatrical run in terms other than, "it was released, made x, bombed." Try something along the lines of this, which foregrounds the important part (it bombed) before going into the fine detail (such as it is) for those so inclined:
In the United States, Tank Girl "sank like a stone at the box office". Opening in 1,341 theaters, the film made $2,018,183 in its first weekend, towards $2,684,430 in its first week of release. By the end of its second week, Tank Girl had made only $3,668,762. Its final gross in the United States was $4,064,495. Internationally, the film added approximately $2,000,000 to that total, against a production budget of $25 million.
All with cites in the appropriate places, of course. Steve T • C 20:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks so much for your comments and finding that source Steve. I've added that reference to the infobox and changed the gross revenue there to be "Approx $6 million". If you have any further comments i'd love to hear them. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: @Steve: Hi guys, just pinging you both here one final time to see if you have any further comments or concerns. Freikorp (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Cliftonian. Have capped all my input below. Well done Freikorp. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Tank_girl_poster.jpg should explicitly identify the copyright holder
  • File:Tank_Girl_open_casting.jpg: if this image is to be included, it should have a more extensive FUR - "how casting for the film was sought" can easily be expressed in text. We'll also need to know the copyright holder, and original publication details would be very helpful.
  • Added as much justification as I could think of. Let me know if it's not enough, or if you could think of further justification. The add features both the logo's for MGM and United Artists, so I have mentioned that copyright for the image would belong to one, or both, of these companies. Original publications details are unknown but I have narrowed it down as much as I can. I can have a look through microfilm next chance I get, and see if I can find the exact date, if that will help keep the image. Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Tank_Girl_film_tank.jpg also needs a more extensive FUR, as the current one does not identify the purpose of use beyond "informational"; it too should explicitly identify copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Done, though let me know if this one needs more. Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Let me know if this addresses your concerns. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Better, but I think the tank could say a bit more - why is it important for the reader to see the modifications? (Connect it to what is being said in the article). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've specified in the description that the modifications are "outlandish". I could go into further detail but I think it's clear from the image that these are not the modifications that would typically be made to a tank. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Bollyjeff[edit]

Soundtrack section:

  • No need for a review table with only one entry.
  • Sources for most of the additional soundtrack songs?
  • Do you think I can just cite the film's credits for this? I dare-say that's the only place the information would be. The Shaft theme is currently cited to the director's commentary. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes you can. BollyJeff | talk 00:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hold on i'll get to this, just want to make sure each song actually appears in the credits first. Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Credits verify each song. I've added the event time as 1:42:35, when the first one is verified, though the others gradually become verified over the next 60 seconds or so. Freikorp (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Production section:

  • Four duplicate links found in second paragraph.


  • Refs 62 and 63 are identical.
  • Fixed. Unfortunately ref 63 gives no page number in the google books preview, so I don't know what page the information appears on, though I can certainly link to it. Freikorp (talk)
  • Ref 67 Who interviewed her? When? Audio, video, print?
  • Specified it was during her interview that appeared on the Blu-ray release. Whoever interviewed her is not actually specified (or even heard). The questions appear in text on the screen then Petty simply replies. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Please then cite the bluray and which special feature using 'cite media' and at what time it occurs during the feature using |time= . BollyJeff | talk 00:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The blu-ray was already cited, though i've formatted the reference to specifically say it is the blu-ray. I didn't bother adding times for any of the featurette sources. I no longer have access to the Blu-ray, so I can't add the time of the specific quote in the interview, though I deliberately left them out even when I had access to it. For starters it meant I would have had to reformat the same references several times to quote different times in a featurette, as opposed to just citing it once for all quotes from an interview. Plus I wan't asked to do so at my last sci-fi FAC (Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within) so I didn't think it was a necessity. Plus the featurette is only a few minutes long and if anyone feels the need to verify it i'm sure they'd be interested in watching the whole interview, rather than just skipping forward to that particular bit. Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, its fine now. BollyJeff | talk 12:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Why no link to the Wynne book? According to Open Library (and Amazon) it was published on May 4 1995.
Thanks for getting the exact date, i've added that to the article. There's no google books link because unlike the other books there is no preview available. Would you like me to link to this [43] anyway? Freikorp (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, so its consistent with the others. BollyJeff | talk 13:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Freikorp (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Peter Milligan wrote an adaptation comic in 1995,[61] and a novelization of the film by Martin Millar was published in 1996.[62]" Could these be listed as book citations under a 'Further reading' section? Also can the citations in this sentence be given via Open Library, instead of commercial site Amazon? BollyJeff | talk 13:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed the citation to Open Library. Further reading section coming soon. Freikorp (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Further reading section added. Freikorp (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Why aren't 63 and 64 listed in the bib like other books instead of inline?
No reason. Done now though. As previously mentioned 64 unfortunately doesn't have a page number though the url links to the exact spot in the book. Freikorp (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead seems too short to me. There is nothing about Themes and too little about Production and Legacy. It should summarize the whole article better.
Still not addressed. BollyJeff | talk 23:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bollyjeff: Sorry I missed this one, i've addressed it now though. Have a look now and tell me what you think. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Themes: "In her 2006 book The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women On-Screen". Italicize all book titles.
  • "as shown her repeated emasculation of Kesslee". Shown by her? Her who?
  • Yes, by her, fixed. Freikorp (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • " The studio was unhappy with the choice of Hardwicke, who was relatively unknown at the time, over more experienced designers; Talalay had to meet with producers to persuade them to allow Hardwicke to work on the project" Perhaps: The studio was unhappy with the choice of Hardwicke over more experienced designers. Talalay had to meet with producers to persuade them to allow Hardwicke, who was relatively unknown at the time, to work on the project.
  • Changed, thanks. Freikorp (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "skeptical that the open casting was a publicity stunt" Skeptical that it was a stunt. Don't think so.
  • I'm not seeing the problem here. What do you want me to change it to? Freikorp (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As evidenced by the above finds in just a couple of paragraphs, this article needs a copy edit before I can support it, sorry. BollyJeff | talk 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bollyjeff: The article has had a fair bit of a copyedit in the last couple days, can you take another look at it? Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Even the lead is still not good enough:
    • ", originally published in Deadline magazine". The comic or the film? Perhaps remove the preceding comma and insert "that was" to fix this.
    • "antiheroine" appears nowhere else in the article.
  • Antiheroine doesn't appear, but " anti-hero" does appear as a direct quote. I'll change it to "antihero". Freikorp (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I am not sure that I would say "Winston's studio insisted on being given the project", especially in the lead. What, did they threaten them somehow?
  • I actually used to have an example of who said it in the body, though another FAC reviewer removed it. I agree with the removal, however, as I don't think it adds anything to the article to say which author said this and the book in which they said it in. This fact that it is said to have a cult following is very well cited in the body, and it's hardly an outrageous claim. Freikorp (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bollyjeff: Sorry to keep annoying you but any chance you can have another look at the lead and my responses now? Freikorp (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Initial screening and box office - "as well as Rebecca De Mornay, Lauren Tom, Brendan Fraser and Jason Simmons." Why is this significant?
  • Well it gives a good idea of the kind/class of celebrities who thought this was a premiere was worth attending. If you disagree let me know. Freikorp (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Tank Girl "sank like a stone at the box office"" - Unattributed POV quote.
  • One of the other FAC reviewers encouraged me to add that quote. Freikorp (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - There is just too much wrong here, and I still have not even read the whole article yet. BollyJeff | talk 12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Bollyjeff: Well I must say that's not very helpful. I've made an attempt to address each concern you've raised or explain why I disagree with you, and now you're opposing without giving me anything specific to fix. As per the guidelines, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." You're not giving me anything to address here. Freikorp (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Query: Jet thrusters, working jet thrusters, were actually added to the tank prop? This seems incredible. • Lingzhi(talk) 23:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What's in the article is pretty much what the 'Making of' book said - jet thrusters were added as the tank was required to travel faster. However the book only said it in passing, and nothing is mentioned in the director's commentary about it. After reading the Making of book first I was surprised to not hear anything about jet thrusters in the director's commentary, especially as the director lamented how slow the tank was without saying adding anything about thrusters. I'm now thinking this information should be removed unless a second source is found. Freikorp (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Mixed date styles, e.g. "Retrieved February 9, 2015." and "Retrieved 9 February 2015." The second style seems far more common, so probably should stick with that one. Don't forget nonbreaking spaces between month and date. Hang on... why do I see {{Use mdy dates}}? • Lingzhi(talk) 00:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed all to 'Retrieved 9 February 2015' style . Looks like a novice editor slipped in the mdy date tag for some unexplained reason and I never noticed the addition [44]. I've changed that now, since there was no basis or justification for it's addition. Freikorp (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Are we using BritEng or AmerEng? I see a lot of the former but also "favorably"• Lingzhi(talk) 00:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I intended to use British English, though I obviously slipped up a couple times. Freikorp (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sometimes sources have two authors but the cite lists only the first one (e.g., Mathijs 2007, p. 9.) • Lingzhi(talk) 03:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a boilerplate for the organization of film articles? It... seems to me that "Themes" should be lower in the article (?), but I won't insist.
    • WP:MOSFILM palces 'Themes' directly after 'Cast', but in this articles case 'Cast' has been merged with 'Plot'. Freikorp (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder why "Alan Martin and Jamie Hewlett have since spoken poorly" is in the legacy section? Perhaps that is the correct section, and I am not insisting on a change, but to me at least it seems slightly mismatched.• Lingzhi(talk) 04:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lingzhi: Hmm I suppose that information could be moved to critical reception; that's the only other place it would fit in. I'll wait for a third opinion on the matter. Anyway please let me know if you have any further comments or concerns. Freikorp (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Support With one minor nit pick

  • Shouldn't numbers less than ten be represented with words?
  • @Tomandjerry211 (alt): Yes normally they should be, though there are a couple exceptions. Can you point out where this number(s) is so I can take a look at it? Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(Mind reviewing this?) Thanks--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Master of Puppets[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, acclaimed effort by both critics and fans. I think it meets the FA criteria and hope to receive positive feedback.--Retrohead (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maury Markowitz[edit]

Support: Left my comments two rounds ago, has only improved since. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Teh Thrasher[edit]

Support: The article is well written, plus Retrohead has put a lot of effort into it.-Teh Thrasher 12:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff[edit]

Support: All of my points have been addressed; good job. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • "The April 2006 edition of Kerrang! was dedicated to the album and offered readers the cover album Master of Puppets: Remastered" - The source is a forum post from an anonymous source stating that the album is coming. Can we get something more substantial here? Also, it looks like the albums were actually given away, not just 'offered'.
Replaced it with and corrected the wording.
  • "The album was less successful on international level, entering the top 40 on the German and Swiss album charts in its inaugural year" - on an international level. Also, doesn't the source show top 40 on several other countries as well?
Copyedited it and added other countries.
  • I still believe now, as I did during another review, that the second paragraph of 'Commercial performance' belongs under 'Accolades and legacy'. I also think that 'Accolades and legacy' should be a full section,coming after 'Commercial performance'. If this is not clear, I can make the change myself if you want.
Thank you.
  • Source 11, "Ulrich bored Hammett in Metallica's Puppet sessions" is dead.
It seems the website is under reconstruction. Is this appropriate for use?
I fixed it using wayback machine.
  • The 'Background and recording' section could use a link to underground music for American underground scene.
  • How are you getting the years 2004 and 2008 etc for the international chart peaking from the given source? I can understand certifications happening years later, but chart peaks??
If you click on any flag, you can read the information related to the album in that country. For example, the album peaked number 67 in 2010 in Italy and stayed on the chart for 1 week.
Thanks, its hard to believe, but I guess its true. One more thing: Given the high total sales in Canada, did it ever make the charts there?
Yes, thanks for reminding me. Peaked number 52 in 1988.
  • I cannot confirm all the certifications in the table. For example, ARIA shows Death Magnetic, not MoP; New Zealand is a dead link.
I think New Zealand works now. Check number 33, the album is marked as platinum with a silver bar. I removed Australia, it seems MoP is not certified there yet.

BollyJeff | talk 15:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

There are a few small issues from my previous review:

  • "at 220 beats per minute" is this a lot? unless you are an expert in the field this says little. Give some comparison to mainstream music.
220 bpm is a metronomical measure for tempo; I've linked beats per minute to provide the reader further information. Fast and slow are relative terms (depends what you compare). For example, Slayer's "Necrophobic" is 248 bpm, and Metallica's Hit the Lights is about 160 bpm.
I wasn't talking about me. I was pointing out that a reader going through the article would have no idea what 220 bpm means. Consider having a footnote or something that gives a reference point. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright, further information is provided at the link.
  • "off-kilter 5/8 time signature on each fourth bar" what do kilter and bar mean? jargon should be at least wikilinked
  • "1986 is" never start with a number => please show me a couple of FAs with numbers starting a sentence
I've asked Greg Fasolino, who works as a professional copyeditor, and he said there's nothing wrong in starting the sentence with a year. 1986 is not used as a number, but as a year, which counts as a noun.
Even if it is ok, does the sentence have to start with a number? Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You want me to write "Nineteen eighty six is seen as a pinnacle year for thrash metal"?
  • accolades section should mention the years when the lists were put together => I have a feeling that many of the acknowledges this album received were put together more than a decade after the album came out. this would be worthwhile clarifying in the text because it shows a long-term impact, as opposed to just trendiness of the likes of People's Awards and crap
Well, I can insert years if you insist, but they are already given in the "date" field of the references.
People reading the text wont check for date in the reference. I think giving some sense of when were these accolades given would put the awards in perspective. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Professional ratings" table is a bit short imo => still think the same. there can be reviews listed in the table that are not discussed in the text
The reviews by Spin, BBC Music, and Popmatters didn't grade the album, therefore they are not in the table.
  • how come the certifications list is only 4 entries long? I would have guessed to be much much longer
  • "after having been retired for a number of years" => why were "Battery", "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)", and "Damage, Inc." were retired?
I assume because Metallica was promoting Load and Reload back in 1995–1997 and had to drop some of the older songs from the setlist.

Nergaal (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Blastmaster11[edit]

This article has defiantly come a long ways now and I salute the work put into it. I noticed though that on several album GA's, such as Aaliyah (album), the Background and the Recording sections are separate. Perhaps the same could be done here? --Blastmaster11 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Could do it, but it would be some five or six sentences into a section, which might give the reader a perception that it's not well researched.--Retrohead (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Borsoka[edit]

Upon Retrohead's request I read the article. It is well-written, interesting, neutral and well-researched article which also present media. I hope that it will be presented as a TFA on the main page after its promotion. My lack of knowledge of arts, music and heavy metal albums is the only reason that I do not state that I support its promotion: I cannot decide whether the article is comprehensive. Sorry, for it. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from L1A1 FAL[edit]

Overall, seems very well written! In fact, I learned something while reading the article (regarding the Mustaine/Leper Messiah controversy).

  • Kind of nitpicking, I know, but I think that the first sentence in the body should be perhaps toned back a bit (re: Kill Em All laying thrash foundations, other bands could arguable make that claim (i.e. Motorhead)), but it is sourced, so I don't see reason to remove it. Only thing for me is, change it to "American" thrash metal... its a little more consistent with the source, and there were earlier pioneers of thrash elsewhere.
  • In "Touring", in the first paragraph, the Osbourne stuff seems kind of broken up. Instead of:
" The group used to play Black Sabbath riffs during sound checks, which Osbourne perceived as a mockery toward him. Metallica was noted by the media for its excessive drinking habit while touring and earned the nickname "Alcoholica".[2] The band members occasionally wore satirical T-shirts reading "Alcoholica/Drank 'Em All".[7] The band usually played a 45-minute set often followed by an encore. Referring to that occasion, Ulrich stated that Metallica was honored to play with Osbourne, who treated the band well on the tour.[7]
Maybe it would be better like this:
" The group used to play Black Sabbath riffs during sound checks, which Osbourne perceived as a mockery toward him. Referring to that occasion, Ulrich stated that Metallica was honored to play with Osbourne, who treated the band well on the tour.[7] Metallica was noted by the media for its excessive drinking habit while touring and earned the nickname "Alcoholica".[2] The band members occasionally wore satirical T-shirts reading "Alcoholica/Drank 'Em All".[7] The band usually played a 45-minute set often followed by an encore."

Just seemed like the "Alcoholica" bit kinda broke up the middle of the paragraph there...

I'll probably add a couple more things as I see them, but that's all I got for now. Overall, seems very well written, it explores the background of the subject in-depth and seems to be well-sourced.

Additionally, it appears to meet all featured article criteria. Tenative Support, pending discussion of my commentary above.

--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey L1, thanks for the comments. I've switched the two sentences in "Touring" as you suggested. As for the first note, the second sentence states that "the album revitalized the American underground scene", implying that the first sentence is referring to the American thrash scene. I can add another "American" in the first sentence if you require, but I think it's not that necessary.--Retrohead (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, the American thing... it is probably okay as is. You've done a very good job on this one. I fully support FA for this article--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992[edit]

Sorry for the long awaited review.. You did a fantastic job with this article and I applaud your hard work! I now support the article's promotion to FA status. Best, jona(talk) 16:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • What is tempo? Readers who do not know music terminology would not understand, even if its a term that you may believe is universal. A link would suffice.
  • A lot of repetition of the word "song" (Music and Lyrics) and "album" (Accolades and legacy)
Tried to compensate with "track" and