Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)
Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose and Sarastro1—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Flora of Madagascar[edit]

Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The land of the 900 orchids, the baobabs, the spiny thickets, and the traveller's tree, which suffers so much economically and ecologically, deserves a decent article on its flora! I've been working on this on and off for nearly two years. Did some last checks and think that it's not too far off from meeting the FA criteria now. Looking forward to your comments and criticism! Tylototriton (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Osbert Lancaster[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 09:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Osbert Lancaster had three careers at once: cartoonist, stage designer and architectural historian and polemicist. I've expanded his article and, I hope, covered all three aspects appropriately. I have had the benefit of expert guidance here and here on the use of unfree images showing the three areas of his work, and have had a peer review from colleagues including some of Wikipedia's leading producers of featured articles. Further comments on text and images will be most welcome. Lancaster was a very English phenomenon, but I hope readers from other countries will find him interesting. Tim riley talk 09:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi[edit]

  • what is "prowenochess"?
    • A typo, now corrected.
  • are you averse to using {{sfn}}? It makes everything so much easier, esp. including providing a link between notes and references, and the ability to cross-check them... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I find sfn hideously difficult, ugly and inflexible. I have used it when collaborating with editors who prefer it, and follow it as best I can when adding to an article that uses it, but in none of the FAs for which I have been flying solo have I used it, and hope never to have to. Tim riley talk 11:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said:

  1. Now I have to go through a process of copy/pasting your refernces onto a text file, massaging them in various ways, copy/pasting from there to a word doc, sorting, and then manually eyeballing each and every one, one by one, to compare them with your sources. That would be almost OK if I find no errors, but for many editors I find many very egregious errors. In that latter case, it is difficult for me to consider their actions as anything other than simply selfish.
  2. Moreover, as I also said, sfn creates a clickable link between references and sources – a service to the reader...

I'll start copy/pasting now. I'll check back in a while. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This has never been raised as a problem by any reviewer in any of the 30+ FACs I've taken articles to. Perhaps you might leave reviews of non sfn articles to reviewers who do not object to them as you do. Tim riley talk 12:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Done checking. I do not object about yours; yours are perfect. I am unhappy (as I said) when people use "I hate templates" as an excuse to leave large numbers of egregious errors on the page in hopes that either a) no one will see them, b) someone else will see them and clean them up, or c) someone else will at least save them the trouble of finding all the errors. I humbly suggest that you might chew your pencil tip in frustration if you had to check that kind... I don't think I could point out examples, as that would of course fluster the editors. But there are some repeat offenders. No problems in formatting or reliability here. Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
That's a relief, anyway. Thank you for the check. Tim riley talk 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. With the addition of the extra information into the reputation section, this now rounds out the only area I thought lacking at the PR. This is an excellent article, fully within the FA criteria and a pleasure to read. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, SchroCat. Input at PR and here much appreciated. Tim riley talk 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Participated in the PR, and all points raised there were resolved. Very nice work indeed. Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ditto on the PR, ditto, ditto. Well done as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm most grateful to both Ceoil and Wehwalt for excellent input at PR and for support here. Tim riley talk 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure[edit]

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In 1996, audiences were taught that a Mario could wall-jump. Now, it was time for them to see what a Sonic could do. Sonic Adventure, released for the Dreamcast in December 1998, is one of the most significant video games of all time for several reasons. For one thing, it was the first 3D Sonic game (there was an attempt that ended in disaster a few years before); therefore, expectations were high. It is also one of the first sixth generation video games and showed players the potential of a 128-bit system.

I've been nurturing this article for a few months now, when I managed to restore its good article status over three years after it was delisted. Ever since then, I've greatly expanded almost every section of this article, making it the most complete resource about the game on the Internet. I'd also like to thank TarkusAB, czar, and Adam9007 for providing me print resources that I wouldn't have had access to. Now, I think this article is of (or close to) featured quality. I'd like to have it up to standards by December for its 20th anniversary. Thanks! JOEBRO64 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll start with images and sources, because that's what I do best. I'm not the greatest prose reviewer, but I'll try to look at some prose a little later.
    • File:Sonic Adventure.PNG - looks to be appropriately licensed and used.
    • File:Sonic Adventure Dreamcast.png - Just nitpicking here: no such free equivalent exists because the game itself is a copyrighted work and therefore no free equivalent can exist.
      • Done.
    • File:Sonic design for Sonic Adventure.png - Looks pretty good, but also no free equivalent can exist because the character is a copyrighted character. I do think this would meet the qualifications to justify fair use in this article.
      • Done.
    • File:Sonic Adventure compared.png - Same as above.
      • Done.

Will filter sources a little later. Red Phoenix talk 23:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources - spotchecks not done.
    • Missing dates on some sources. Source 8, for instance, is dated June 20, 2003 on the article, and it's far from the only one missing a date. It's preferable to have the actual article date whenever you can, even if you have an archivedate and retrieved date; it can provide relevance to how recent the reviews or information was in relation to the game's release.
      • I've gone and done all of this. Damn, I love the Visual Editor. Some, like certain 1UP and AllGame didn't have dates, so I left them out.
    • Source 10 has the publisher and date in the link, but not cited as the magazine or the date itself. Check the formatting here.
      • Fixed.
    • What kind of source is #13? It's hard to tell, or where I can find it to review.
      • It's citing a video. The source is a video interview Sega released in 2003 to promote the GameCube/PC re-release. The problem is... it was added to the article a long time ago, and the original video link has been dead for years now. You can find a re-uploaded version here.
    • List publishers whenever you can. Retro Gamer, for instance, is Imagine Publishing (except for a few of the earliest and latest issues). Having publishers listed helps readers to establish the reliability of the sources.
      • All refs have publishers now.
    • Keep your sources consistent as well. IGN is linked several times at random, and not linked elsewhere. It is also italicized in various places as well; it should always be as the website, then either IGN Entertainment or Ziff Davis as the publisher. Take a scan over and look for consistency in your sourcing.
      • Consistent now—all have links.
    • Is #78 necessary? "Sonic Team (November 14, 2006). Sonic the Hedgehog. Sega. Level/area: Wave Ocean." What specifically is this reference to the video game itself citing? If the other source says Wave Ocean is based on Emerald Coast, that's all you need.
      • The source doesn't explicitly call it "Wave Ocean", so that's why I added it. I'll remove it though—I'm now realizing it's not necessary
    • Same for #84 and #85.
      • The first one is actually necessary. I couldn't find any secondary sources that provided the detail that Chaos is in Sonic Battle, so I just cited the game itself. I have found a Nintendo Life source that mentions the Chaos recreation, so I've added that.
    • I'm unfamiliar with #91; what makes this YouTube video a reliable source?
      • It's an interview with Sega associate brand manager Ken Balough from 2012, so it's acceptable as a primary source. The quote that supports what he's saying is "I know Iizuka-san has officially retired Big the Cat".

Sources all look reliable based on my knowledge of WP:VG/RS, so let's look at what's above and we should be good on sourcing. Red Phoenix talk 00:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: I'll finish with fixing up the sources tomorrow. I've responded to a few of your points above. JOEBRO64 01:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Red Phoenix: I think I've resolved all issues with referencing. Responded above. JOEBRO64 21:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Since you reference Tails by his full name (i.e. Miles “Tails” Prower) at his first mention in the body article, do you think that you should do the same for the first mention of the character in the lead for consistency?
    • You're right. I've done this.
  • For the final sentence of the first paragraph of the “Gameplay” section, I am not sure if the use of the semicolons are grammatically correct (i.e. the use of semicolons in a list). The same comment applies for the end of the second paragraph in the same section. It could be correct, but I just wanted to draw attention to this.
    • I've changed them to commas. I looked at other video game FAs and they didn't use semicolons, just commas.
      • Actually, the semicolons are the correct way to go here. Each item in these two lists is actually a complete sentence, so using commas would make the entire thing a run-on. I have changed them back. Indrian (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (As they explore the hub, players find entrances to), I am uncertain about the use of the word “players”. To the best of my knowledge, this is a single-player game so I think it would be more appropriate to say “the player”. The “they” pronoun would still work with the singular as it would be gender neutral. Is the reference to “players” appropriate for this section? It is a nitpicky comment, but just wanted to raise this to your attention.
    • I've changed it to "the player".
  • I have a clarification question about this part (Action Stages; some of which have to be opened using a key that is hidden in the Adventure Field). The current word, specifically the reference to “using a key that is hidden in the Adventure Field”, makes me think there is only one key to unlock all of the entraces. Is this true? If not, then I would substitute “keys” for “a key”.
    • I've used your suggestion.
  • For this part (Chao can be taken with the player), I think you mean “Chaos” plural.
    • Actually, within the Sonic games, "Chao" is one of those words that can be single and plural, like "deer".
      • Makes sense to me. It has been a while since I thought about those little guys so I forgot about that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you thik you should be put the GBA acronym after the first mention of Game Boy Advance?
    • Yeah, I've done this.
  • For References 30, 31, and 32, the titles should not be in all-caps.
    • Fixed.

Wonderful work with this article. I remember playing this game when I was younger. I only had a few brief comments. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate help with my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1) if you have the time and energy. I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for commenting! I've responded above. I'll take a look at your FAC later. JOEBRO64 21:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Eliza Acton[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Eliza Acton was an English poet and food writer extraordinaire. She produced one of Britain's finest cookbooks, which, even 170 years later, remains fresh and engaging. The book is also important for being the first to provide a list of ingredients for each recipe, and timings for each step of the process. She was also a passable poet, and provided a later, scholarly work on the history and culture of bread making in England. This has been through a bit of a re-write recently and a very useful PR; any further comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Eliza_Acton_1799-1859.png: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No idea, I'm afraid! I'll have a hunt round to see if I can find it, but if not, I presume we're all good to have it as a non-free (only one, up in the infobox, etc)? Thanks Nikkimaria - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Gone for plan B after SarahSV established that this isn't Acton (the second time we've added an image and then found it wasn't the lady herself!) – SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Humble, Nicola (2006). Sort error, expected: Hughes, Kathryn (2006-);
Done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • David, Elizabeth (1968). CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list; Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Ray, Elizabeth (1968). "Preface". CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list; Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand some of these two, but what I have done is add the page numbers for both and put in the right ISBN (ISBNs were introduced in 1966, so this 1968 book wasn't too early). This is the original year of publication, so doesn't need the extra parameter, and an OCLC isn't needed because of the ISBN. If you could explain what the CS1 bit is,about, I'll see if I can sort that too. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, ISBNs introduced in 1970, unless Wikipedia is wrong. Your isbn is from a 1974 reprint of "Ray (1968) The best of Eliza Acton". Which source did you use, 1968 edited version or 1974 reprint? OCLC of 1968 is 123755053, but pagenums may be different, so pls verify. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, the infobox has brilliantly given an incorrect date, as the history section makes clear; some books in the late '60s carried the numbers. I'll check my copy later to see which one it is. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I think "a bit of a rewrite" is unduly modest; 504 words to 3,859 is rather more than that! I was a peer reviewer, and had my few, minor, queries dealt with then. One additional point that I must have missed (sorry!): in the Legacy section, last para, first and second sentences: "...indebted to Acton and her work. In her work...". Two points here: first there is a bit of a jingle in the repetition, and secondly the first "her" is Acton and the second "her" is David, and at first reading this is not clear till one gets well into the second sentence. I think you need to bring Mrs D in at the start of her sentence, like this or something similar: "Elizabeth David wrote in 1977 that The English Bread Book was a major influence on and source for her own English Bread and Yeast Cookery." That's all I can find. This is the third time I've read the article, and it has been a pleasure once more. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 16:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim, I'm much obliged for your comments at PR and here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt[edit]

I also was a peer reviewer. Seems fine for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Wehwalt, for your comments here and at PR, they are always extremely useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for another interesting woman! I missed the peer review, and found only so minor points (which you may consider or not) that I can support right away.

Lead

  • "The first recipe for spaghetti" would be surprising, - first in England? Or first mentioning of the word in English*
  • "admired by and influential with" sounds (to me) like a phrase that is correct but perhaps not the most elegant way to put it.
    • Quite right; both done - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Early life

  • I'd move the image down a little, more to the context.
    • I work on a relatively wide screen, and if it moves down, it forces the next image down, which affects the triple image down. I know we can't mitigate for all screen sizes in the world of tablets and mobiles, but this is the way that affects least people. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Cookery writer

  • St John-at-Hampstead: is she buried in the church, or on the church graveyard?
    • It's not clear from the sources, but as we say "at" the church, rather than "in" the church, we cover both possibilities. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Cookery

  • Imagine someone who goes from the TOC directly to there: "O'Brien", the first word. Who is that? Perhaps one line of summary before?
    • We outline who is is in the section just above (about poetry), so we should be OK as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I hear you, only I thought - and said so - of a reader who comes via the TOC. Our readers have different interests, and not all read an article sequentially. Example: in a longer article about a composition, I repeat links in the Music section, because some readers may read there only, without background and history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacy

  • I suggest you move the last line (1974) in chronology, to end on (2000) Seafood Lovers' Guide.
    • Yep, done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I love the flavour of the article, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, understood, fine with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Chetsford[edit]

What a fascinating article. The only possible complaint I have is in this sentence: In 1861 Isabella's husband, Samuel, published Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management which also contain several of Acton's recipes. I'm not sure if "contain" should in fact be "contains" or "contained"? Maybe not. Chetsford (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Chetsford, I've tweaked the point you raised, so it should be ok now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil[edit]

  • lead: Well structured, and written in an engaging prose' - I dont think this phrasing is worthy of the lead, though I have no issue with the substance. Should be toned down and broken into specifics - ie describe the structure, which was certainly innovative.
    • I've removed it: we outline the structure in more detail in the opening para, so it doesn't need repeating. - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • lead: 'the book was successful - Better might be that the book sold in the region of x copies, and mention how this was way above numbers for anything previous and similar. Ceoil (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I've removed this too. It would mean going into too much detail if we outline numbers sold, etc, and the following line says it was reprinted soon afterwards, which sums up the situation enough. Many thanks Ceoil - much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim[edit]

Only one thing struck me in this excellent piece Modern Cookery was not reprinted in full until 1994, and The English Bread Book was reprinted in 1990. since the later item is listed first perhaps link with although instead of and Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Jimfbleak - much appreciated; I've tweaked as you've suggested. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

A great topic; very much worthy of the star.

  • You use several different names for the The English Bread-Book (I use that title because it's apparently on the title page!) and it may be worth taking a quick look at the article on that book, if you find a few minutes; at the very least, the title and the (apparently not a) picture of Acton may need changing. (for shouldn't be capitalised, I think?)
  • "Hardy considers the story as apocryphal" Is the as really needed?
  • Is "invalids" the best term? I worry that it's a little archaic. I may be wrong.
  • "referred in her preface that she was" Are you sure that works? I would have thought that she wrote in her preface that x, or referred in her preface to the fact that x?
  • "bread making" Dash? For that matter, what about "well received" in the lead? And "left over"? Maybe I'm wrong.
  • "The food writer Alan Davidson considers that Modern Cookery "is" Surely he considers it to be, or says that it is?
  • The final paragraph of "Cookery": is your use of speech marks around recipe names consistent?
  • "The food historian Bee Wilson considers that many modern cookery writers are indebted to Acton and her work." How about "The food historian Bee Wilson considers many modern cookery writers to be indebted to Acton and her work."?
  • The second sentence in the final paragraph contains two semicolons; is that deliberate?

A really great read; I may not be back to look again (my time on Wikipedia is currently very limited), but I hope these comments will be useful. Finally: I made a few small edits; please double-check them. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Alex Owumi[edit]

Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Nigerian basketball player Alex Owumi, who is best known for being the star player of a team owned by the family of Muammar Gaddafi on the cusp of the Libyan Civil War. He was trapped in his apartment for weeks during the conflict and struggled to keep himself alive. Owumi's story reveals the very best and very worst of being a professional basketball player outside the NBA. This is a very in-depth article on a subject that would interest all readers, not just basketball fans. Since its first nomination, which did not get enough attention, the article has gone through thorough improvements and should be able to pass FAC quite easily. TempleM (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from EricEnfermero[edit]

I found this to be a very interesting article. I am relatively inexperienced at FAC, but I thought I would leave you some feedback to try and get this article to the next level. My impression is that it's not quite ready for FA, but it looks like you are making some steady improvements.

  • It looks like ref #1 (FIBA) has a broken link and it's not archived. You might use the GA Toolbox on the article's talk page to check your other links.
  • "Owumi currently plays..." - I know it's prevalent in sports articles, but "currently" may leave the reader wondering how current things really are. See WP:WTW.
  • Per MOS:COMMA, make sure you put a comma after the state or country when you have a city/state or city/country combination. In the first instance that I noticed - Boston, Massachusetts - I think you could just go with Boston by itself because it's one of the most famous U.S. cities.
  • "Immediately after college, Owumi failed to attract any attention..." - I think you could leave out "Immediately after college". Most players are attracting said attention during college. And the reader would probably assume that the next step occurred immediately after college.
  • "accepted a lucrative offer with Al-Nasr joining the Libyan team..." - comma after Al-Nasr
  • "British Basketball League (BBL)" - The full term and the acronym both appear twice in the league, and the article is wikilinked twice.
  • In the early life section, I don't think you need the comma after wealthy because wealthy and Nigerian Catholic are different classes of adjectives.
  • Why are there quotes around Prince?
  • In the college career section, what is meant by "did not officially play the position"? Do you mean that he didn't appear in a regular-season game at the position?
  • "began attending the Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI) for the next year" - I don't think you need "for"
  • "the team did not bring one of its best defenders to the tournament" - This wording leaves the reader wondering. (Did they leave him behind in the airport terminal and not notice? Did they run out of plane tickets? :) )
  • "A two-star recruit, and the fifth-best junior college recruit in New York according to 247Sports.com, Samuel West and Jason Cable" - This is not grammatical because "recruit" refers to Owumi, not West or Cable.
  • "44–103 loss" - I think it's a little more common to list the higher score first, even referring to losses. In either case, pick one and stick to it. In the next paragraph you have a loss written with the big number first.
  • You end the college section and start the pro career section with sentences describing Owumi's hopes for an NBA career. Maybe combine those into one sentence?
  • "he worked out in Boston with the Celtics and in Orlando, Florida" - This is an odd word order if both workouts were for the Celtics; if not, specify the second team he worked out for.
  • Did he skip a practice to attend the Cannes Film Festival, or did he attend the Cannes Film Festival during the time he was benched? The wording is not 100% clear.
  • "did not have a future with the team" - Never signed with them? Signed but didn't appear in a game? Appeared a few times but didn't become a starter?
  • "... convinced him to find a new team immediately" - I am a little confused on the timeline. In the lead, I think you're saying he left at the end of the year. I'm not sure how close to the end of the year the event occurred, but maybe take out immediately?
  • "Owumi witnessed the deaths of about 200 people during the day" - maybe "deaths of about 200 people that day"?
  • "Going against his family's wishes, Owumi chose to follow his coach..." - Did Azmy go to El-Olympi? I don't think you specified that. Or by coach, do you mean this former player of Azmy's?
  • I'm confused by the sequence of events starting with the camp in Sallum. You refer to him being placed in solitary confinement, being released, sleeping outside, then escaping the camp. So he was released from solitary but still held at the camp (but outside) until he escaped? Could you clarify?
  • In this section, there are at least a couple of times where you refer to Owumi as "the Nigerian" or "the Nigerian guard" and it feels unnatural to begin referring to him that way this late in the article. I know that it can be boring to alternate between "Owumi" and "he" a thousand times, but his nationality is obvious by this point.
  • In the last paragraph of the Worcester Wolves section, I think Cheshire Phoenix needs to be linked unless I'm missing it earlier.
  • In the Surrey section, "He was strongly encouraged to join" - Did someone encourage him to play on Raftopoulos' team? Or are you just saying that he liked Raftopoulos' coaching style and decided to play for him?
  • In the personal life section, "After returning to the United States from Libya, his mother suggested" - Should be "After Owumi returned to..."; his mother did not return to the U.S. from Libya.
  • Link Daniel Paisner.

Good luck to you as you continue working on this entry! EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

German destroyer Z39[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a German destroyer that served during World War Two. This is the second review of the article, as previously it had issues with context, which I believe have now been resolved. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

Notes/References formatting is looking pretty good:

  • Whitley 1988, pp. 56-57. Hyphen in pg. range;
  •  Done
  • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (21 with; 4 without): Friedman, Norman (2014); Grooss, Poul (2017); Stern, Robert C. (2015); Zaloga, Steven J. (2011). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • Again, as per the coin article, below – is this a sources review? Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sovereign (British coin)[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... One of the world's longest-lived coins, which widely circulated over it in its time and is still popular as a bullion and collector's coin. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Clancy, pp. 47. P/PP error? pp. 47.;
Fixed.
  • Journals of the House of Lords. 52. 1818. p. 515. Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
I can't find an OCLC for this, Google doesn't mention it and Worldcat turned up dry. I'm open to suggestions.
  • Clancy, pp. 64—67. P/PP error? pp. 64—67.;
Looks OK to me?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
it's an emdash or two dashes, prob the latter
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Cuhaj, George S., ed. (2009). missing location Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Location added. Thank you for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: Is this a full sources review? Please specify. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't sure. Lingzhi?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Source review: All clear here, captain! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support. A most enjoyable article, well and widely sourced and referenced, and evidently comprehensive. A few suggested BrE tweaks: percent → per cent (4 times); channeled → channelled; and Lloyd George is not hyphenated. And just checking that "enobled" in the Prince Regent's proclamation is so spelled in the original. The two notes, a and b, are to my certain knowledge accurate in every respect, but could nonetheless do, I think, with a citation apiece. That's all I can find to quibble about and I'm very pleased to support the elevation of this excellent article. Tim riley talk 14:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for the review and support. I've done those things. Regarding "enobled", it is how they spelled it in the House of Lords Journal, but I find that most other contemporary sources spell it as "ennobled", so I will assume their Lordships ere in error.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Their Lordships are never in error. I was at ENO's new Iolanthe last night, where we were reliably informed by the Earl of Mountararat that 'if there is an institution in Great Britain which is not susceptible of any improvement whatever, it is the House of Peers.' But I digress. The added cites to the two footnotes are exactly what were wanted. I look forward to seeing the article on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 15:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, all this did happen in good King George's glorious day ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim[edit]

Excellent, can't find anything to criticise. Now, where did I put that Edward VIII sovereign? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Avenue Range Station massacre[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

While this is not the first article about an atrocity I've brought to FAC, it is the first one from the Australian Frontier Wars that I've nominated. At Avenue Range Station in 1848, two white settlers massacred at least nine Aboriginal people, mainly women and children, including a baby. The main perpetrator, James Brown, was charged with the murders, but it didn't go to trial due to settler solidarity and legal restrictions on evidence being given by Aboriginal people. Years later, a "pioneer legend" arose about Brown which downplayed the murders. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

The sources are in good order, and are of appropriate quality and reliability. My one issue of concern is that a number of books listed as "References" are not directly cited at all. An example is Cook 1965. The "Later account" sections gives various details from this book, including a direct quotation, but they are all apparently covered by a single citation to another book. Likewise, later, Newland 1893, Cockburn 1927, Hastings 1944, Banks 1970 and Durman 1978. Is it not possible to cite any of the material in these books directly – are they all impossible to obtain? Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day Brian, I cited them to provide the full information in case anyone wants to refer to them. I thought that was a useful addition, given they and their role in the development of the legend are discussed. The conclusions in the article that are drawn from those sources are made by others. Do you think they should be listed as "Further reading" and not cited? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll leave that to you. It would have made more sense to me, but I dare say the general reader won't be fazed either way. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll take a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the infobox have dates?
  • The caption to the old image could be clearer. I wasn't even sure who it depicted from reading the caption, so would be good to say something like "James Brown (pictured here in 1927)". The date also gives context.

Sonic X-treme[edit]

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sonic X-treme is more than a canceled video game for the Sega Saturn - it's also in many ways a cautionary tale of corporate politics and the effects they have on a company. It's a captivating story of game development, I believe, whether you are a video game fan or not. I'm nominating this article because I feel it's a great read that meets the FA standards, and since its GA has undergone a major expansion to make it as comprehensive and well-sourced as it can be. It is the first article I've worked on since returning from a three-year absence on Wikipedia, however, so I welcome all the feedback I will receive and will do my best to address any concerns that arise. Red Phoenix talk 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

Woohoo, another Sonic FAC! I'll finish reviewing this within the next day. JOEBRO64 23:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Just as a general note for the article, there seem to be a lot of quotations (excluding the quote boxes). While this isn't a bad thing, I'd recommend paraphrasing most of these.
    • It tends to be, mostly because Senn and Wallis provided so much insight into the game development. I've actually already paraphrased a lot before we ever got to FAC, but I'll take a look over it and paraphrase some more where I feel I can without taking away meaning.
  • Lead designer Chris Senn states that he modeled and textured four main characters, as well as designs for 50 different enemies and an hour of music.[2] Later builds had Sonic, Tiara, Tails, and Knuckles as playable characters.[1]—were the four characters Senn modeled Sonic, Tiara, Tails, and Knuckles? From the way this is written, it sounds like you're talking about different characters.
  • You mention STI in the premise section, but you don't explain what this stands for until the background section.
    • Oops. I restructured this article over and over so many times that I must've missed it. Fixed.
  • In 1991, they began development on several titles that would lead to the creation of Sonic the Hedgehog 2—several games were merged together into Sonic 2? Proposed change: In 1991, they began development on several titles, among them Sonic the Hedgehog 2
    • Used your wording, thanks.
  • David Houghton of GamesRadar described the prospect of "a good 3D Sonic game" on the Saturn as "a 'What if...' situation on a par with the dinosaurs not becoming extinct."[9] IGN's Travis Fahs called X-treme "the turning point not only for SEGA's mascot and their 32-bit console, but for the entire company", although he also noted that the game served as "an empty vessel for SEGA's ambitions and the hopes of their fans".[8] Dave Zdyrko, who operated a prominent website for Saturn fans during the system's lifespan, offered a more nuanced perspective: "I don't know if [X-treme] could've saved the Saturn, but ... Sonic helped make the Genesis and it made absolutely no sense why there wasn't a great new Sonic title ready at or near the launch of the [Saturn]".[30] In a 2007 retrospective, producer Mike Wallis maintained that X-treme "definitely would have been competitive" with Nintendo's Super Mario 64.[3] Senn has expressed his belief that a version of X-treme built by him with Alon's engine could have sold "quite well".[2]—this "A of B said C" structure should generally be avoided, since it's a bit dull and repetitive. See WP:RECEPTION.
    • I gave this a shot. Let me know what you think. I agree with WP:RECEPTION where it says, "even good writers have trouble with these sections".
  • I recommend archiving your sources.
    • Done. Wow, that was easy. I'd never heard of that bot before; definitely a tool I'll have to save for future article writing.

Overall, this article is in fantastic shape. I think this is an interesting story, and it's weird to think where Sonic would be if this game was released. Once my comments are addressed, I will support the promotion of this article. JOEBRO64 12:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you've addressed my concerns, so I'm happy to support this article's promotion. I found this article outstandingly comprehensive and informative; I'm sort of wondering if Sonic Adventure (which might be at FAC soon, wink wink) would have ever existed had X-treme been released. JOEBRO64 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, just a question: which version of the game engine is this? JOEBRO64 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll respond to this one on your talk page. No reason to clutter up an FAC with this :) Red Phoenix talk 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Please include ALT text for the infobox image. The other images in the body of the article should also have ALT text.
    • Done. Forgot this was a thing; it's been a while.
  • For this part (then eventually to the Saturn and PC,), I am not sure if the “eventually” part is necessary.
    • Fixed.
  • I would use Knuckles’ full title (i.e. Knuckles the Echidna) on the first use of the character’s name in the body of the article.
    • Done
  • For Reference 1, Destructoid should be linked.
    • Oops, not sure how I missed that. Fixed.
  • Game Players should be linked in References 5 and 6.
  • I have been given this note in the past, but all of the work/publisher should be linked in the citations format. For instance, IGN is not linked in several of the citations.
    • Grouping the last two together: That's actually not what I was ever taught to do in any of my previous FA's. Past direction I have been given and I've used in all of my articles since was to link the site and publisher for the first reference that uses it on the list of references, but not to repeatedly link it in references beyond the first use due to overlinking. If it's something you've been given as an FA note, however, maybe we can ask for a second opinion on this one? Red Phoenix talk 04:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I will leave this up for other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article! Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

1867 Manhattan, Kansas earthquake[edit]

Nominator(s): ceranthor 22:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This article has been a long work-in-progress. I recently expanded it a great deal, and it received an insightful peer review from Eddie891, FrB.TG, and Pseud 14 here. Besides one broken external link (waiting on the USGS to get back to me about restoring the page), I think this is ready. I look forward to feedback! ceranthor 22:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I'm a simple person. I look for little in a article. Besides great quality, comprehensiveness, and good prose. Good work! Eddie891 Talk Work 22:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. ceranthor 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support an interesting article. I had never heard of it. Just a few comments.

  • "According to a report in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, the frequency between earthquakes within the state is between 40 and 45 years.[11] " do they give a lower limit on the Richter scale for this?
The article says "There were 2 moderately strong ones—on April 24, 1867, and January 7, 1906. A frequency plot reveals that a moderately strong earthquake occurs in the state approximately every 40 to 45 years." So it doesn't look like they explicitly define the limits. ceranthor 00:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I might find some way of conveying to the reader that minor quakes don't count.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I added "moderately strong". ceranthor 03:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "interfered with the stability of " I might simplify to "otherwise damaged".
  • " newspaper cases" What is a newspaper case?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The source refers to "cases" that "shook in a newspaper room". I changed to "cases holding newspapers". ceranthor 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I've encountered the term in connection with typesetting, which may or may not be relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "sunk by 10 degrees.[25]" can you clarify? Did it become tilted at 10 degrees? A whole acre?
Changed to "sunk by 10 degrees, forming a perpendicular wall tilted at 10 degrees on each of its sides." Source says "a whole acre sank 10', leaving a perpendicular wall of 10' on all sides." Could mean inches, I suppose? ceranthor 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
That makes more sense. I was thinking that if an acre of land is flat but tilted at 10 degrees, one end is going to be at least 70 feet higher than the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Reference 13 is missing its newspaper. I'd update the 2010 accessdates throughout.
Thanks for the support. I am working through your comments now. ceranthor 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Everything that I didn't reply to should be addressed! ceranthor 00:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, swell. Good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my peer review. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the peer review, and for your support. ceranthor 22:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. ceranthor 23:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments at the peer review. --Pseud 14 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Pseud. ceranthor 16:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Minor comment: Haven't read through the article, but happened to notice a sentence beginning with "Originating at 14:22 local time, or around 2:30 local time". Did you mean to say "Originating at 20:22 UTC, or around 2:30 local time"? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That seems like something I messed up. I will double check that now. ceranthor 22:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: I think I fixed this. Good catch! ceranthor 22:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks good! --Usernameunique (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 7: March 2 1867 – year should be 1987, surely?
  • Refs 13 & 15: require page numbers in lieu of links
  • Ref 26: is returning 404 error

Otherwise the sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton, first two comments have been addressed. For the third, I'm assuming you mean ref 15 for the 404 error. I have contacted USGS about the page and am awaiting a response. If I don't hear within the next few days, I think I can pull the same info from other sources. Thanks for your comments. ceranthor 00:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I got my knickers in a twist – it was 13 and 26 that required page numbers (now supplied) and 15 that returns the 404 error. Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries - I understood your intention. Haven't heard from USGS yet, so I'll probably end up replacing ref 15. Will keep you posted. ceranthor 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Replaced, as it appears the USGS site was taken directly from the existing Stover & Coffman 1993, p. 236 source. Should be taken care of, but please let me know if I missed anything else. ceranthor 03:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about a dinosaur that was made famous by the movie Jurassic Park, and is therefore one of our most popular articles about a dinosaur genus. The movie also took great "artistic" liberties with the dinosaur, so this article is a good place to set the record straight. Most of the other dinosaurs that featured in the movie are already FAs. I think this is a pretty definitive account, which may educate people who come here by way of the movie about what the real animal was like. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Inconsistent use of Location (11 with; 4 without); Holtz, T. R. Jr. (2012); Paul, G. S. (2010); Glut, D. F. (1997); Gay, R. (2005).
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Harshbarger, J. W.; Repenning, C. A.; Irwin, J. H. (1957). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
Don't know how to find it, and anyhow, if I add it to one, wouldn't I have to add it to all? FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be kinda nice, but not at all required, to use |display-authors= for cases like "Xing, L.; Bell, P. R.; Rothschild, B. M." [B.M.! What an unfortunate set of initials. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
What does "display-authors" do? FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The preview says one of the sources has double "pages" fields, but doesn't specify which. Maybe your script could show which sources that have duplicate fields, Lingzhi? FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It was just removed with this[1] edit. FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @FunkMonk: Duncan, J. (2007). Missing Publisher;
Whoops, added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll try to see what error msg you were looking at earlier... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose, which is excellent here. Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Excellent article, but a few nitpicks to show I've read it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, we still expect multiple refs to be in numerical order
Haven't seen it brought up during source reviews before, though? Is there an easy way to do this? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The two most complete of these were collected in 1942, with the most complete later made— since it's in the lead, I'd try to avoid the repetition of "most complete"
Said "best preserved" the first time instead, better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • even thermoregulation as well— lose "as well"
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The high degree of pain it must have experienced in multiple locations for long durations— speculative to say the least. Many fractures and other injuries heal without long-term pain
Yeah, the source says this, though: "It is also a testament to the hardiness of an animal that doubtlessly experienced an agonizingly long duration (or durations) of high degrees of pain in multiple locations." I've changed "must" to "might" for now, or what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Taphonomy—arguably the least inviting heading I've ever seen. Surely there must be something more intelligible?
Hmm, not sure what that would be, it is a very specific term that doesn't translate easily without using a whole sentence. I could also just remove the section header entirely? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I commented on that here[2], maybe say "like what has been proposed/claimed for the Komodo dragon" or something? I've done that for now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Point du Sable[edit]

Nominator(s): Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Jean Baptiste Point du Sable, a trader living on the frontiers of empires in North America. He is regarded as the founder of Chicago. Although I have been involved in the article for years, now retired editor and former administrator JeremyA (talk · contribs) did much admirable work to get the article to Good Article, and made the prior nomination, here. In North America, February is Black History Month, and in January, I thought it a good time to review this article, again. I looked at the last nomination and thought I might honor Jeremy's work by completing the FA he wanted for this article. Corinne (talk · contribs) kindly responded to a request I made for review at the Guild of Copy Editors. Wehwalt (talk · contribs) has generously provided some peer review. Thank you. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • As noted, I weighed in at the peer review. On re-reading a few more comments about what is an exellent article.
  • "In 1779 he was living on the site of present-day Michigan City, Indiana, when he was arrested by the British military on suspicion of being an American sympathizer during the American Revolutionary War. " I would move the name of the war to the start of the sentence to better separate the two "Americans".
  • "In what would become the city of Chicago, he established an extensive and prosperous trading settlement. " I would reverse the two clauses.
  • "though it is likely they were married earlier in the 1770s in the Native American tradition." I would move "in the 1770s" to the end of the sentence and delete "earlier"
  • " were seeking to assert control in the former southern dependencies of French Canada and the Illinois Country. [14]" I might toss an "in" before "the Illinois Country".
  • "In August 1779 Point du Sable was arrested as a suspected spy during the American Revolutionary War at Trail Creek by British troops and imprisoned briefly at Fort Michilimackinac." I might move "during the American Revolutionary War" to just after 1779, and enclose it with commas.
  • "Drawing of the home of Jean Baptiste Point du Sable in Chicago as it appeared in the early 1800s" I might say "former home" as he no longer owned it.
  • "public assistance" from the government or the parish?
Thanks for asking -- in trying to pin down his last very elderly years, we run again into the vagueness and opaqueness of the record (including in the source used, there) - at some point, it seems his family are no longer in the picture, and he may have sought assistance either due to poverty or the ravages old age - I have changed to 'may have sought public or charitable' to give it a wider latitude, which would also be a fair summary of the source used. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "fraudulent land claims" you use this phrase shortly before, so I might change to "such false claims" or similar.
  • "A plaque was erected by the city in 1913 at the corner of Kinzie and Pine Streets to commemorate the homestead.[67] " I assume you mean Kinzie but I'd clarify.
  • " Previously a small street named De Saible Street had been named after him.[44]" If it still is, I'd add a comma after "Previously".
That's it. A fine article on a neglected topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt, I have incorporated all your, again very fine, suggestions in the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 4: I'm a little uneasy about this source. It states that the website is based on a self-published book. The essay that forms the basis of ref 4 is said to be "currently undergoing revision based on new information and documents found since 1999" which raises issues of its stability. There is no information on the author of the essay, named as "John F Swenson" – is he an expert? The source is also the basis of refs 50, 58 and 59. Can you give any further information that might establish its quality and reliability?
Thanks. Yes, I once talked to Jeremy, who used Swenson, and then I looked into him, myself, awhile ago. Swenson and his essay are cited on Du Sable in this University of Chicago history here. He is cited as an authority by the New York Times on Du Sable here. Swenson published in this scholarly journal on Chicago history here. The book that is the basis for the website is world cat held by several libraries, including university and scholarly instititions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 15: Paywall, so you should add the (subscription required) template.
  • Ref 51: IBSN missing: it is 978-0-89792-140-4. For consistency, the existing 10-digit ISBNs can be converted to 13-digit form via [3]
  • Ref 60: "Liette" is mis-spelt
  • Ref 68: page ref missing
  • Ref 73: Typo "retrieved" → "Retrieved"
Oddly enough the template generates that and won't let me change it, or I just don't know how. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 76: Give the site publisher (Smithsonian National Postal Museum) rather than the web address. Also, keep to the established retrieval date format
  • Ref 77: Retrieval date format.

Otherwise, the sources appear to be in good order and of the requisite quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I have now made your ref corrections or responded as noted above. Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

All images are used appropriately and are appropriately licensed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I shall be supporting the promotion of this excellent article, but first a couple of quibbles about WP:OVERLINK: we have the Chicago River linked twice in the lead and Fort Michilimackina linked twice in the main text. Other than that, only two more comments. First, there is a statement in the lead that does not quite tally with the equivalent statement in the main text: "he was arrested by the British military on suspicion of being an American sympathizer" and "Point du Sable was arrested as a suspected spy": not quite the same thing. And secondly, in footnote 2 I am uneasy about "Quaif notes", the verb seeming to me to imply endorsement of his statement, whereas something like "comments" or "remarks" would be more neutral. If you disagree with me on the last point I shall not press the point. Tim riley talk 19:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim, very helpful. I have made all the corrections/clarifications, you have requested. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Happy to Support the promotion of this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 16:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Support by Coemgenus[edit]

There is little here to quibble about. This is a well-written article about an historical figure about whom little is known--a difficult task. I made some minor tweaks to hyphens and dashes, but otherwise this article looks to me to be qualified for the bronze star. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The 18th Infantry Division was a British army formation that is best known, if not largely forgotten, for fighting in the Battle of Singapore. Prior to that infamous battle, it had been raised and formed in 1939 and spent the next few years being deployed around various parts of the UK. Due to mounting political needs for additional British fighting troops in North Africa, the division was deployed in a roundabout way to the Middle East. However, with the Japanese entry into the war, it was diverted to Malaya and Singapore. One brigade fought in Malaya, and the entire division (although mishandled and committed piecemeal) fought in the disastrous defense of Singapore and joined in the general surrender. Due to the conditions of Japanese camps, over 1/3 of the division's men never returned nor was the division reformed after the surrender. The article has been given the once over by the Guild of Copyeditors, and has passed both its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:18_inf_div_-vector.svg should include a date for the original design
    Was this in regards to the PD-UKGov tag that was in use? If so, I have updated in favor of PD-Shape. Other than that, I do not believe any work includes a date the design was actually conjured up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Japanese_troops_final_stages_to_conquest_Singapore,_Johore_Bahru_(AWM_127900).JPG is missing info on first publication. Same with File:British_troops_surrender_in_Singapore.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    In regards to these two, the AWM (link and link states the copyright has expired on both works. It does not, however, provide information regarding when it was first published. So, how do we proceed from here?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

A few minor points:

  • Ref 21: Pedantically, IWM is plural ("Museums" not "Museum"). Also you should use "publisher=" rather than "website=", which will de-italicise IWM
    Quite! Also, amended per your comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 48: The hyphen in the p. range needs to be a ndash
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to differentiate in the short citations between the two "Playfair et al 2004" sources.
    Would a simple "a" and "b" tacked on the end of the year suffice?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, the sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Ditto. All citations & references formatted well. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5 Here am i again the page look good let see i have some comments.

  • See an American English organization or is it a name of an organisation and if it is a name of an organisation then please link it then.
    I rechecked the Gazette, and they use the "z". I have been unable to locate an article about this position, so have red-linked it per the above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Link the units 135th Field Regiment, 287th Field Company and Japanese I/5th Battalion.
    British artillery and engineer units generally do not have articles, and in particular these two. Likewise, no article exists for the Japanese battalion. In all cases, however, the relevant parent organization is linked to soo after.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Switch this units.

Australian 22nd Brigade --> 22nd Australian Brigade

Japanese I/5th Battalion --> I/5th Japanese Battalion

Australian 2/29th Battalion --> 2/29th Australian Battalion

Japanese 5th Infantry Division --> 5th Japanese Infantry Division

Australian 2/30th Battalion --> 2/30th Australian Battalion

  • I would feel more comfortable if additional editors could chime in on this one. My personal preference, based I guess off a British POV, would to be use the style you have suggested. The current style is one that seems to more favored on the wiki, it would seem.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Link this please.

Middle East in this line "on 10 November destined for the Middle East"

  • I have added the link to the first mention, a few sentences before this point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Nova Scotia in this line "continued to Nova Scotia"

Muar–Yong Peng road in this line "troops on the Muar–Yong Peng road back under the command of Westforce"

  • Linked to Muar, and added a link to Yong Peng at first mention.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Canada in this line. "American ships and left Canada bound"

United Kingdom in this line. "which led the United Kingdom to secure"

  • This has already been linked to, in the first line of the background section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Please change this two.

south-west --> southwest

11 weeks at sea --> eleven weeks at sea

  • Who's Wavell? I mean i don't see his first name and rank or job.

This line is the first time i see the name in the page.

"On 20 January, Wavell visited Singapore to discuss the defence of the island"

And for the rest i don't see his first name and rank or job if it is there please tell me where and if he isn't linked then link him/she then.

  • Introduced in full, in the Transfer to Middle East section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • who were the original uploaders of this two images? File:Japanese_troops_final_stages_to_conquest_Singapore,_Johore_Bahru_(AWM_127900).JPG and File:British_troops_surrender_in_Singapore.png
    User: Muffin Wizard uploaded the first, and I uploaded the latter. If you are referring to the "unknown" author, that is based off the information available at the Australian War Memorial.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Put please the category Military units and formations disestablished in 1942 in the page.
    AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Which government in this line?

"the British Government sought"

Which government the Chamberlain war ministry or the Churchill war ministry?

  • I, personally, do not feel that this needs to be clarified upon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Support by CPA-5 So i hope this will help you i did reviewed the A-class before and i hope this page will get a FA-class goodluck further on. CPA-5 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Once more, thank you for your time and review. I have attempted to address several of your comments, and have left comments of my own for a few others.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Presidency of George Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): Orser67, Drdpw & Eddie891 Talk Work 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the presidency of George Washington. After going under a thorough Good Article Review by Display name 99, and a Peer Review by both Wehwalt and Ceranthor, I feel the article about the presidency that shaped America perhaps more than any other meets the Featured Article criteria. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Coat_of_Arms_of_George_Washington.svg should include an explicit copyright tag for the original design
  • File:Washington's_Inauguration.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:WhiskeyRebellion.jpg, File:Little_Turtle.jpg, File:Treaty_of_Greenville.jpg, File:Washington's_Farewell_Address.jpg
  • File:Prise_de_la_Bastille.jpg needs a tag indicating why the original work is in the public domain
  • File:Pinckney's_Treaty_line_1795.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I'm inexperienced in image licensing, but I believe I have addressed most of your problems. How does one source the data in a map? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Basically, include on the image description page a source that verifies that it is accurate. When/where was File:Little_Turtle.jpg first published? Same with File:Washington's_Farewell_Address.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, think I've got it all. If I made a mistake, please forgive me.Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, just want to clarify - are the dates on those two images when they were created, or when they were published? Where was first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Little_turtle is from a lithograph held in the Smithsonian, It is thought to be based on a portrait by Gilbert Stuart in 1797 or 1798. Washington's Farewell Address is from a digitation by the Library of Congress. It does give a publication date, but it is almost illegible. I'll see if I can find a way to in the next week. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, up, listed date is date of publishing. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Nice article. Sorry I can't give a full review but perhaps you could add some information on Washington's Indian Policy besides the wars. Here's a source and i can provide more for you if you like. LittleJerry (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

LittleJerry: I feel it's adequately covered in Presidency of George Washington#The Northwest Indian War. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
We probably could add something about Washington's attempts to co-exist with the Southwest Indians, including the Treaty of New York and the Treaty of Holston. Orser67 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Or this "civilizing" and assimilation missions. LittleJerry (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Added. I think mention of the Treaty of New York and Holston should be added as well. Aside from that, I have no major objections. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi[edit]

  • McDonald 1974 pp. 164-165 Hyphen in pg. range; McDonald 1974 pp.169-170 Hyphen in pg. range; Chernow 2010 pp.770-771 Hyphen in pg. range;
  • Inconsistent use of Location parameter (42 with; 17 without);
  • 15 files Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC.
  • Howarth 1999, pp. 49–50 Harv error: link to #CITEREFHowarth1999 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Bordewich 2016, pp. 108 P/PP error pp. 108; Morison 1965, pp. 325 ; Chernow 2004, pp. 341. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Lingzhi got them all. I added ISBN's to the books w/out identifiers, except *Kilpatrick, James J. (1961). The Constitution of the United States and Amendments Thereto. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government." I couldn't get it. Let me know if I should add OCLC. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
If there's no ISBN, go with OCLC.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Read this reference carefully. Can you spot what's wrong with it? McDonald, Forrest (1974). The Presidency of George Washington. American Presidency. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kansas.
  • Page Smith (1962). Missing Pub. Location; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Is Ellis, Joseph J. (5 instances) the same person as Ellis Joseph (4 instances)?
    Yeah, fixed
  • Inconsistent format: Page Smith vs. Smith, Page... other similar errors?
    Took care of this one at least
  • Allen, Gardner Weld (1905). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Beer, Samuel H. (1987). "Chapter 6: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Boyd, Steven R. (1994). "Chapter 5: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Crew, Harvey W.; Webb, William Bensing; Wooldridge, John, eds. (1892). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Ifft, Richard A. (1985). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Spaulding, Matthew (2001). "Chapter 2: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Bassett, John Spencer (1906). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Orser67: I'm having trouble with the chapter page #'s. Thoughts? Might Just remove them? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I got two of the three, but not Boyd. Maybe you could find another source for that one? I imagine Forrest McDonald's book probably mentions something along the lines of what is cited to Boyd. Orser67 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

  • First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
  • On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
  • Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck can be verbose. Reading the explanatory page will help. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link;. Archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review.

  • I used your tool. I think I got all of the ref issues except for missing archive links. Orser67 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    Don't worry even for a moment about the archive links. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with those myself! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    Ok cool, good to hear. Nice programming tool by the way, I hope to one day be able to program similar things myself (currently taking an intro to Javascript course). Orser67 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I Think the Further reading section should be farmed out in its entirety to Bibliography of George Washington. That's my two red cents. But other than that... All clear here, captain! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I peer reviewed this article. I have the following additional comments. "made use of an opportunity provided by a chance encounter with Hamilton to an informal dinner meeting at which interested parties could discuss a "mutual accommodation." "encounter ... to" doesn't really work. It might be "encounter at", but if the dinner was to discuss a compromise, how did it come as a surprise?

  • rephrased.Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "He also proposed redeeming the promissory notes issued by the Continental Congress during the American Revolution at full value." weren't these more land warrants than promissory notes?
  • My understanding of the matter is that they were often similar to IOUs, although serving as land grants occasionally. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Oliver Miller Homestead" Why the cap on Homestead? Similarly "This was the first Special Congressional investigation under the federal Constitution.[142" "Special" should probably be lower case.
  • changed. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "The embargo was later renewed for a second month, but then permitted to expire." I think you need a "was" before "permitted"
  • "and a repudiation of the 1778 treaty and military support with France" The "and military support" doesn't seem correct grammatically.
  • "might work in consort" should the last word be "concert"? If so with whom? Britain?
  • Changed it to concert; I can't imagine it was meant to be anything else. And yeah it's britain, so I added that to be clear Orser67 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Agricultural produce could now flow on flatboats down the Ohio River to the Mississippi and on to New Orleans and Europe." this sort of implies the flatboats went on to Europe which is likely not the case.
  • Some mention of Martha Washington in this article and what she was up to during her husband's presidency might be good. You refer to a "first family" Who else accompanied GW?
  • "which upon leaving he promptly arrived in Georgetown, South Carolina, " It might be worth mentioning that he took a ship, if he did.
  • He didn't. I'll look into making a map of his trips. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "After South Carolina, Washington arrived in Georgia, going to (among others) Augusta. In late May, Washington turned around, stopping at many Revolutionary War battle sites. On July 11, 1791, they arrived back at Mount Vernon.[236][237]" Who is they? You've just mostly mentioned Washington.
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Wehwalt: got most of them. I'll get back to you when I finish the others. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Support per my comments at the peer review. Engaging, well-written, and comprehensive article as far as my non-expert self can gather. ceranthor 03:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack[edit]

First I must admit that I am not American and have quite a poor idea of this part of US history (which is part of the reason why I started reading in the first place). The article reads extremely well, and is fully comprehensible, so thumbs up on the prose! I had, however, the slight impression that it is not completely neutral. Parts of it read like a eulogy to George Washington. As I am not into the topic, I can only give some examples for this matter:

  • It is a bit weird to read about "Indians" fighting "Americans". The "Indians" should be named "Native Americans", consequently.
  • The paragraph detailing St. Clair's defeat, it is mentioned three separate times that the US force was "poor" ("poorly trained", "poor defenses", "poorly prepared"). This leaves the impression that some justification is attempted here. One "poorly" would be enough.
  • The only piece of criticism of Washington in the article was, as far as I remember, this bit in the Historical evaluation section: had often opposed the best measures of his subordinates, and had taken credit for his achievements that he had no share in bringing about. – I can't find any examples where he "opposed the best measures" in the article, and such information should not be left out.
  • Despite this more equivocal judgement of McDonald, the article closes with a prominently placed quote of Chernow, who finds Washington "simply breathtaking". This quote is essentially a song of praise, and as such does not say very much except for "Washington is great". I strongly suggest to replace or remove this quote.
  • It might be a good idea to also cite a non-American in the "Historical evaluation" section. Such historians perhaps tend to view the topic from a larger distance, and might help to generate a more differentiated view.

I furthermore have two additional points on structure:

  • There seems to be no obvious reason for having the section "First presidential veto" without also describing his second veto.
  • The "domestic affairs" and "foreign affairs" sections treat the whole presidency from 1789 to 1797." So why is "Election of 1792" placed only at the end of the article, while the first election comes right at the front? Both elections might be better discussed together. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Design A-150 battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] and Sturmvogel 66

Hey folks, this is a short but good one. The Design A-150s, known by some as the so-called "Super" Yamato class, were a planned class of Japanese battleships that were never built due to wartime pressures. For those interested in comparing between countries, they would have been the contemporaries to the US Montana class—but unlike the Montanas, much information about the A-150s has been lost, thanks to the deliberate destruction of documents towards the end of the war. The loss of these primary sources has severely limited what can be gleaned from reliable secondary sources about these ships. That said, we do know that the ships would have mounted 51 cm guns, a size that would have made them the largest naval gun ever deployed. On Wikipedia, this article dates back to my early days of writing articles, and has recently been spruced up by co-nominator Sturmvogel 66. I'm looking forward to your comments! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi[edit]

All sources well-formatted & reliable. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Image is appropriately justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Iry-Hor[edit]

I have a question regarding the length of the article. I wonder if it might just be too short for FA, or is there no minimum length to reach FA ? The question is related to the wider the problem of whether or not there are topics which cannot possibly reach FA because too little can be said about them (typically, I have in mind obscure pharaohs). What is the consensus on length ? Are quality and completeness the only criteria when deciding FA ? Iry-Hor (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

FA's need to be comprehensive, but that doesn't meant that they need to be long. Some topics are simply obscure (like this one) or simple. According to the (very dated) statistics at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, this would be one of the shortest FAs though. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

  • The shortness of the article is a concern for me too. I'd like to see more context on the topic - for instance, some of the details on Japanese battleship design present in the Yamato-class article would be useful here (thinking specifically of the Japanese concept that since the USN would be able to outbuild them in terms of numbers, their ships should be qualitatively superior - their insistence on superior ships is touched on briefly in the article, but not explained). It would also be useful to get some of the strategic context present in the Yamato article - that Japan planned on conquering European and US colonies in the Pacific, and needed a powerful navy to accomplish that (and defend it).
  • " for most intents and purposes" - what are you getting at here? The plans were complete as far as we know from the records available? Or there was some minor work to be done?
    • G&D say "essentially complete," which I read as some minor work needing to be completed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "these were destroyed at the end of the war, along with most of the other documentation relating to the class." - this begs the question "why"? I know why, but the average reader won't.
  • "With war on the horizon in early 1941..." - this could use some context too - something along the lines of "as war with the United States became increasingly likely over the Second Sino-Japanese War, and particularly after the Japanese seizure of French Indochina..."

All for now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

It's good to see a short article being nominated for FAC - a bit of a blast from the past! From having consulted various works on related topics over the years, there probably isn't a great deal which can be said about this design. The massive destruction of records by the Japanese military and government at the end of the war means that the historical literature on this kind of topic is limited. I have the following comments:

  • I agree with Parsecboy that material on the Japanese Navy's strategy and the principles which guided its warship construction could be noted
    • We figured that you guys would tell us if the background and context needed to be expanded and the vox populi have spoken! Working on it all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Material on the flaws of this strategy (eg, the Yamato class battleships under-performing throughout the war, and being a waste of resources which could have been better used on carriers) could also be noted.
  • Can dates be provided for when the planning described in the 'Background and design' took place?
  • "two layers of armor plates would have been used, despite its decreased effectiveness as compared to a single plate of the same total width" - 'decreased' in this context is a bit confusing. 'Lessor', 'inferior' or similar might be clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp[edit]

Just working my way through the article, only one comment so far:

  • The article seems to be inconsistent about how lengths are written "48-centimeter (18.9 in) gun" vs. "51 cm gun". I changed one but then noticed there were others. I wasn't sure if there was logic there that I may have missed. Thanks, I will continue with my review very soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Another instance: In the background and design section you have "90,000 long tons (91,000 t)" but in Armament you have "2,780 tonnes (2,740 long tons) and each gun would have massed 227 metric tons (223 long tons)". In the Specifications section there is "70,000 metric tons (69,000 long tons)". Those seem to be three different units of measure used as the "base" (first mentioned) unit (long tons, tonnes, and metric tons). Also the wiki-link for long tons is after 223, but probably it should be after 90,000 earlier in the article?
  • In the Specifications section there is "and the belt armor was probably going to be 46 cm thick" which does not seem consistent with the spelled out instances of "meters" throughout the Armament section. Moisejp (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "They fired 13-kilogram (29 lb) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 1,030 m/s (3,400 ft/s), although the resulting wear of the barrels reduced their life to only about 350 rounds. They were able to fire 15–19 rounds per minute." I know very little about warships, but this means the guns were only good for 20 minutes of firing? How did warships survive with such limited firing power? Moisejp (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Sometimes they didn't. Several British ships shot themselves dry of anti-aircraft ammunition during the evacuations of Greece and Crete in 1941 and were sunk. What this bit means is that accuracy is degraded after exceeding barrel life and that the barrels should be replaced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

We decided to split the logistics of the campaign off into its own article. I think the results justify the decision. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi[edit]

  • P/PP error: Kelly 2003, pp. 354.
  • Allied Geographical Section (1943). . Missing OCLC or similar
  • [I've never noticed an LCCN before. are they a good substitute for ISBN or OCLC?]
  • Casey, Hugh J., ed. (1951). Volume VI, Missing OCLC;
  • Coates, John (1995). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Dod, Karl (1966). Missing OCLC
  • Horner, David (1995). Sort error, expected: Horner, David (1978);
  • Horner, David (1978). Sort error, expected: Horner, David (1995);
  • Milner, Samuel (1957). Pub. too early for ISBN; perhaps needs |orig-date=; Missing OCLC;
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot (1947). Pub. too early for ISBN; perhaps needs |orig-date=; Missing OCLC;
  • Paull, Raymond (1958). Pub. too early for ISBN; Missing OCLC
  • Watson, Richard L. Jr (1944). Sort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. (1948).. is this the same person, or his son?
  • Watson, Richard L. (1948). "TSort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. (1950); Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Watson, Richard L. (1950). "The Papuan Campaign". Sort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. Jr (1944); Inconsistent Location (41 with; 1 without) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I think I have corrected all of these. There is no such parameter as |orig-date=; could you change your script to say |orig-year=? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha my face is red. :-) I'll look again at the article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi-Level[edit]

Nominator(s): Mackensen (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Hi-Level is a bilevel intercity railcar which ran in the United States from 1954–2018. It entered service in 1954 with the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway's El Capitan. It was the first type of bilevel intercity railcar in the United States. The Hi-Levels remained in service with Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States, from 1971–2018, after the end of most private sector passenger service in the United States. Their design influenced the Superliner, which entered service in 1978 and remains the backbone of Amtrak's fleet west of the Mississippi River. The article was promoted to GA status in February 2016; I've just finished a major expansion. Mackensen (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2[edit]

Nice article. I don't know too much but there are somethings that might be worth checking:

  • Are the notes in the infobox necessary. Unless we are dealing with controversial information I would advise removing them.
  • The background section uses a single source. Is it possible to use another one? I know it's an introduction to another article though.
  • "Summary" sounds a bit redundant. Reference 13 and a possible other one could also serve as a source.
  • Archived the five online sources. FAs need them in case the url ever gets deleted.

That's all I have to say. Ping me or mention me when you think that you are finished. I'm not too used with these types of articles so some comments I made might be wrong. Also, a fellow user and me made this FAC and I would appreciate your feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Tintor2: Thanks for your feedback. Notes in the infobox are common with rail transport articles because some information isn't in the main text, and unsourced information has a habit of creeping in. Background could easily be sourced from multiple places; Flick and Krogan simply told the whole story. I'll add some sources. The "Summary" section is modeled on Superliner (railcar)#Summary and I think a useful callout. The road numbers, in particular, aren't elsewhere in the main text but there are readers who will want them. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll support it then. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tintor2: I've added some sources and expanded the background section a little. Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice work.Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 9: The main link isn't going to the headlined page of the Chicago Tribune – how does one get there? Also I'm getting timeouts on the archive link.
  • Ref 13: A similiar problem: neither main nor archived links go to the headline page.
  • Format issues: please choose a single format for archive dates. Also as to when you add retrieval dates.
  • Ref 29: Why is this source reliable? There are no publisher details; the site contains the message: "Site not affiliated to Amtrak"
  • Ref 55: Harvard error ("Welch")

Otherwise sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your feedback, I've tried to address all your points:
    • Reference 9: It appears that the Chicago Tribune has moved to Newspapers.com for its archives. I've clipped the article and re-done the reference.
    • Reference 13: I made a deliberate choice to link to the metadata instead of the PDF, because it'll download directly from Amtrak's website without context. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.
    • Reference 29: The site isn't affiliated with Amtrak, but the diagrams almost certainly came from an Amtrak source at some point. You can see a refreshed version on an official site; it's the same style. I've replaced it.
    • Reference 55: gah, fixed.
    • Format: all dates are consistent now.
  • Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about probably the least well-known President of Burkina Faso, back when it was called the Republic of Upper Volta. He began his career as an army medic, and was elevated to the presidency of this small West African country on 9 November 1982 following a coup that toppled a military dictatorship. He was shortly thereafter given charge of the Ministry of National Defence and Veterans Affairs. The country remained unstable under Ouédraogo's reign, and the latter half of his tenure was overshadowed by the popularity of his prime minister, Thomas Sankara. Concerned with his socialist sympathies, Ouédraogo fired Sankara and arrested him. This resulted in a national political dispute that culminated in another coup on 4 August 1983, bringing Sankara to power (he would go on to become something of an African legend) and confining Ouédraogo to the brig for two years. Upon his release Ouédraogo mostly kept out of politics and devoted his time to establishing a medical practice. He only returned to the public sphere in the 2010s to mediate several national political disputes. This article has passed GA and a WikiProject Military history A-class review. There's not a lot of material about this guy, but a constructive FA review could make a dent in our systemic bias problem. And I do think that if this passed FA, it would be the first WikiProject Burkina Faso article to have ever done so. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - any possibility of an image to illustrate? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: As I explained at the GA nomination, I have found no free use photos of the subject (and none of Zerbo, Sankara, and his colleagues either) and the fact that he is still alive means I'd be unable to fulfill the fair use criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "He attended Mogho Naba Kougri's funeral in December and placed a wreath at the Mossi leader's coffin, apparently convinced that in order to achieve success he would have to respect the traditional power structures valued by the public.": I think reviewers might have problems with this sentence, possibly with its length, or possibly with the lack of attribution for the opinion word "apparently".
  • "He lives next to the clinic and serves between 400 and 500 patients a month.", "He is the president of the Fédération des Associations Professionnelles de la Santé Privée": WP:DATED is tricky. These two probably need a (single) "as of"; other kinds of present-tense statements might not need it.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Changed the opinion to a direct quote from the book and moved it to a footnote.
    • Done.
    • Thanks for the review.

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 31 is currently returning "unable to connect". Please test – the fault might be temporary.
    • Link repaired.
  • Refs 34 and 35: could you clarify publisher details? As far as I know, the Weblogy group is a web facilitator and designer rather than a news publisher.
    • It would appear that you are correct, but their own website describes them as "publishers" and they are shown as the copyright holders at the bottom of each news site. The former article is attributed to aOuaga.com (presumably a web staff writer) and the AFP is credited with writing the latter report (which I've added under the author= parameter). I cannot find any more details beyond that. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Apart from these issues, the sources appear to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Vesna Vulović[edit]

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Vesna Vulović was the sole survivor of a 1972 plane crash that killed almost 30 people. She is recognized by Guinness World Records for having survived the highest fall without a parachute. I look forward to any and all constructive criticism so that the article meets FA criteria. 23 editor (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment What an extraordinary person. The article is in excellent shape, and my only comment is to ask whether we know why the crew of JAT Flight 367 might have been so fatalistic? Had there been other attacks on aircraft? Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there were quite a few aircraft hijackings/bombings in Europe and North America in the early 1970s (mostly by Middle Eastern or Latin American "freedom fighters"). Around the same time, a number of terrorist attacks were carried out in Yugoslavia and against Yugoslav targets abroad by exiled nationalists. This part of the article is more or less told from Vulović's perspective. I don't want to speculate as to why the crew acted as she described, but I feel this passage provides valuable insight into their activities/overall disposition the day leading up to the crash. Of course, I can trim this section if it's overly confusing. 23 editor (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest working that in (perhaps as a short para in the 'JAT Flight 367' section?), as the crash and terrorist attacks is also part of the story here - especially given that Vulović was perceived to be at risk while recovering and what seem like absurd claims were made about the incident late in her life. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, you want me to mention that there was an uptick in Croatian nationalist attacks before and after the bombing? 23 editor (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Something like that: whatever's needed to provide context for the attack on the aircraft (if only Croatian nationalist terrorist attacks are relevant, then limit it to them). Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added some context . What do you think? 23 editor (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
That looks good, but starting the next sentence with 'the same day' is unclear, as it's not obvious which day is being referred to. Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Has this edit remedied the issue, Nick? 23 editor (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that looks good. I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment Support Very nicely written. I had to pause only twice reading it through:

  • "Nobody ever expected me to live this long," she recounted. - Begs for the year in which she recounted this to be added
  • It's stated that she disputed the assertion that she was discovered in the fuselage, then goes on to quote her as saying "...I was in the middle part of the plane...", which seems somewhat contradictory.

Factotem (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Factotem. I've addressed the discrepancy you brought up (good catch!) and added that the quote is from 2008. 23 editor (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 10 lacks publisher information
  • Ref 20: Clarify which part of this source is supporting the article.

I'm not able to check the foreign language sources for reliability, but they don't appear to be problematic. Otherwise, all sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ref 10 is from the Czechoslovak Civil Aviation Authority. Ref 20 is from the official Discovery Channel episode guide. The results of the Mythbusters' experiment is mentioned by this website , whose reliability I'm unsure about. The fact that her case was tackled by the Mythbusters is also mentioned in this article by Serbia's state broadcaster. 23 editor (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be anything in the Discovery Channel source that supports this statement: "In 2005, Vulović's fall was recreated by the American television program MythBusters, which concluded that surviving such a plunge was unlikely but plausible". This statement is supported by the alternative source you mention, but I would not classify this as reliable. Unless the Serbian source makes specific reference to the plausibility of survival, I would recommend that you drop the statement from your text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I've trimmed this part to only mention her case was featured on the show without explicitly stating the team's findings. 23 editor (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • I've been fascinated by this woman's life for years. I intend to post some comments when I get the chance. ceranthor 04:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "She went on to make an almost complete recovery" - Have never liked "went on to"; I think it's redundant. Better as "She made an almost complete recovery"
  • "The airline apparently felt that her presence on flights would attract too much publicity. " - why apparently?
  • "The final years of her life were spent in seclusion and she continued to struggle with survivor's guilt." - You haven't previously mentioned this survivor's guilt in the lead, so it's confusing to say that she continued to struggle with it
  • "Srbská Kamenice" - needs an WP:NBSP
  • "Vulović was fired from JAT in 1990 or 1991[e]" - for consistency's sake, when the marriage date was different among sources, you only listed one of the years. why do you list both here?

Otherwise, the prose is fantastic. Support on 1a. ceranthor 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

All addressed, Ceranthor, except for the NBSP. In which spot does it need to be added? 23 editor (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Just fixed it. ceranthor 20:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jimfbleak! 23 editor (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - convinced by the above arguments, article still might need one or two minor fix ups in some areas but overall seems fine for a potential FA. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi , Inter&anthro! What improvements did you have in mind? I'd be happy to address any concerns. 23 editor (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi 23 editor, I think that the opening early life section, while adequate, could perhaps be expanded a bit more, and that further on in the article many of the sources are in the Serbian language. While there is nothing inherently wrong with either aspect (and neither should hold this article back from becoming a FA) it would be nice to see the early life section a bit more fleshed out and if possible some more English language citations. But that is just my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
As far as her early life is concerned, I couldn't find the names of her parents, despite my best efforts. In the Aviation Security interview, Vulovic mentions that she studied languages in university, hence her desire to travel to the UK to learn English, a language she was interested in due to contemporary pop culture. She stayed in an English town with a family friend before going to Sweden. Her parents forced her to return to Yugoslavia because they perceived Sweden to be too sexually liberated. I can add this info to the article if the Early life section as it appears now seems a bit thin.
As for the Serbian sources, most are news reports published following her death. These go into quite a bit more detail about reactions to her passing than their Western counterparts, which merely rehash old English-language articles that were written about her. 23 editor (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Loss of MV Darlwyne[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on this on and off for about 18 months – the desperately sad story of a joyous, celebratory sea trip that went tragically wrong and claimed 31 lives. The boat was unlicensed, overloaded and ill-conditioned, and carried minimal lifesaving and emergency equipment, a man-made disaster if ever there was one. Yet nobody was prosecuted, and the general British public, intoxicated by the country's World Cup football success that weekend, scarcely noticed – except in Cornwall. SchroCat and Linghzi have helpfully added key locations to the Cornwall map, and others provided helpful comments at a recent peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review All references appear to be of appropriate quality and are consistently cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Support I gave my comments at the peer review. The article is of high quality.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Another from the PR, where my comments were satisfied. A further readthrough shows no remaining issues for me. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Yet another peer reviewer checking in. My comments at PR were few and minor, and after rereading for FAC I find no more points to query. A comprehensive and v. readable article, well and widely sourced. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my opinion. (Later: now signing my comments, a day late. Thank you Linzhi for mentioning the omission.) Tim riley talk 09:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • S What Tim riley said. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

My thanks to all the above for their help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support this moving and beautifully written article. I was not moved to suggest any prose suggestions during my read through, this is high quality and emotively written prose of the first order. Ceoil (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Two small points, can we say who John Phillips is/was, and the coroner reopened the inquests - should this be singular. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Banks does not give further information as to who this John Phillips was – I can't find any internet presence for a designer/sculptor who would fit the circumstances. As to inquest/inquests, both are technically right. There was a single session, but as required by law, 31 separate verdicts were recorded. I'm inclined to leave it. Thank you for your interest and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I also searched around on John Phillips and didn't find anything. Ok to assume "local artist" as is implied. Ceoil (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Darlwyne.jpg: is any information provided about the provenance of this image in Banks' book?
  • Unfortunately, there isn't. This seems to be the only authentic image of the Darlwyne and it appears on several websites as well as Banks's book. For example BBC, Telegraph], both published online after Banks's book. The image on the front of the book, showing a boat similar to Darlwyne wallowing in heavy seas, is a pastiche. On the evidence available the image is not free, hence the fair use rationale. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Cornwall_UK_location_map_placenames.png: could the lab cut down the amount of bluespace in this image? This would allow easier reading of the placenames without inordinate scaling. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I will take this up with my helpful associates. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I have read it and reviewed. I find a fully sourced, comprensive article. Excellent.BabbaQ (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I am most obliged, and glad you appreciated the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Note to co-ordinators and anyone else passing by. I shall have very little if any online access during the next few days, so in the unlikely event of further comments being added here, there'll be a delay before I can reply. sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Pyramid of Neferirkare[edit]

Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Pyramid of Neferirkare, the monument of the Fifth Dynasty pharaoh Neferirkare Kakai –yes that other candidate that you can read about below this one. Eye-catching facts: It's the largest of its period, and about the same size as Menkaure's pyramid–the short one with the big gash in the middle of it's north face– at Giza. Underneath it's exterior true pyramid face, lies the heart of it's step pyramid design; a design deprecated in the Third Dynasty and famously used first in the original Egyptian pyramid, that of Djoser at Saqqara. It's also the best article I've written to date, hence my nominating it. For Egyptologists, however, it's most important for the Abusir paypri archives discovered in the adjoining mortuary temple which gave insight into the daily workings of the royal funerary cult. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Strong support Comments by Iry-Hor[edit]

It is nice to see this topic coming up at FAC. I believe there is currently no featured pyramid article on wikipedia so this is an important addition. I will add what I see here as I read along. I will then do a source spotcheck.

  • Ref 49 should be pp.

Leaving this here for the rest (likely tonight).Iry-Hor (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  • First mention of the Old Kingdom in the body of the article should be linked.
  • One sentence on the necropolis of Abusir could be welcomed in the first section. The article says "The Pyramid of Neferirkare is situated at the necropolis of the site Abusir, located between Saqqara and the Giza plateau." I think this could nicely be followed by a sentence recalling that Abusir was, at the time, the royal necropolis as Sahure had built his pyramid there. This is likely the reason why Neferirkare chose Abusir as a site for his pyramid (following in his father's footsteps). If you don't find a source corroborating this latter hypothesis, owing to the very recent establishment of Sahure as Neferirkare's father, don't say it but keep the observation that Abusir was the royal necropolis due to the location of Sahure's pyramid (who in turn may have chosen the place because of Userkaf's temple).
  • Done - Brilliant idea. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any source which discusses the reasons why Neferirkare chose Abusir? At least one must mention Sahure's pyramid as a driving factor.
  • From what I've read Sahure's pyramid is considered separately from the pyramids Neferirkare, Neferefre and Nyuserre. Verner and Zemina state: "At the same time the latest archaeological discoveries in Abusir indicate that apart from Sahure's pyramid all the other pyramids in this cemetery make up a whole that is architecturally and functionally very closely connected with Neferirkare's pyramid." There doesn't seem to have been any change is this perception despite the recent discoveries. Even newer research such as Dodson's 2016, Verner's 2014, and Barta's 2017 works didn't bring up any connection between Sahure's pyramid and Neferirkare's pyramid. It's either hiding somewhere I haven't read or as yet unknown. I'm hoping you know something I don't. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I am guessing this is because of what happened after Neferirkare's rule, with Neferefre and Nyuserre wnating to be so closely associated with their father (in the case of Nyuserre, likely to further legitimise his rule). However I am surprised that Neferirkare did not attempt to align his pyramid on the line formed by Sahure's and Heliopolis. But well, if no source discusses the relation Neferirkare / Sahure, then we shall remain silent on it.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I figured the same thing, but, I thought somebody would at least mention that Neferirkare's pyramid is south-west of Sahure's. I'm sure Neferirkare made the alignment for heliopolis intentionally, but, it's only mentioned in the context of all three pyramids together. Not that any individual pyramid was intentionally placed there. I'll add it in if I find something though. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Would you believe it, I found a source stating that the pyramid complex may have been intentionally located to draw a line to heliopolis, but, and this is important, Neferirkare may also have been motivated to distance himself from Sahure and for this reason he founded his own cemetery and redesigned the mortuary temple to differ from Sahure's. Or, alternatively, that slope between his and Sahure's pyramid complexes might have been in the way. Krejčí, 2000, pp= 475-477 (source is in article). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "The pyramids at this site hold the tombs of kings from Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom", I think it could be made clearer that at the time of Neferirkare's reign, only one pharaoh had been buried in Abusir.
  • It would be good if I could get a sentence in between that goes something along the lines of: "following his father's footsteps, Neferirkare joined the newly founded necropolis with his pyramid complex". Though I may have to settle for; "Sahure's successor, Neferirkare, joined the newly founded necropolis with his pyramid complex". Mr rnddude (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "(transl. inbw-ḥḏ)" would fit nicely in a footnote but it is up to you.
  • "Providing that the location of ancient Memphis is accurately known, the Abusir necropolis would have been no further than four kilometres from the city centre" Very nice what you did here ! I am very happy to see that you have been cautious on this complicated subject.
  • Done - should I drop the German name from the article and just leave "German oriental society" or leave both? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It is up to you really.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • First mention of Sahure in the text is linked to his pyramid so you need to wikilink the second mention of him to his article. This mention is in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the layout section "These two conceptual changes had developed by the time of Sahure's reign at the latest."

More to come.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  • "as the second member" I like the sentence you wrote about why Abusir and what was Abusir at the time. However I think it would be more precise to say "as the second ruler" rather than member. After all at the time of Neferirkare many people had already been buried there: courtiers of Sahure, his queen etc.
  • True, true. Done although I've rephrased it slightly to avoid the impression that Nefrirkare was the second to rule over the necropolis. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Extremely nice section on the layout !
  • Thank you. That's one of the sections which was reworked for GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "cult pyramid" : Unfortunately, there is no wikipedia article on this concept at the moment, so I think this needs some explanation. A single sentence or a footnote would do. Indeed, I don't think most readers know what this is and what the purpose of this was. EDIT: I just saw that later in the article you give such an explanation as to its possible function. I think this needs to appear in the first mention of the concept (e.g. you could put a footnote to avoid disrupting the nice flow of the article and keep the second mention in the text).
  • Done - I've added a footnote. I tried to keep it from being an exact replication of what's already written. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Food for thoughts: The fact that the pyramid of Neferirkare was originally meant to be a step one is strange but perhaps less so when one considers the position of Userkaf's own (next to that of Djoser). For the latter article to be written on the Fifth Dynasty, it might be good to look for sources talking about the influence of the 3rd Dynasty during the 5th.
  • If I recall, Neferirkare is put as the founder of the Fifth Dynasty on one of the king lists or maybe by Manetho. In any case I'd read somewhere that the step pyramid design might have been an attempt to emulate the founding of the dynasty by mimicking Djoser's step pyramid. Or something along those lines. I'll see if I can dig up where I read that. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Improtant this was written in the article on Neferirkare before I started working on this but I found no source backing up this claim so I removed it. In addition I had a good reason to be suspicious : the concept of Egyptian dynasties was invented in the Aegyptiaca of Manetho in order to adhere to then prevalent Greek concepts, as was required by his patron Ptolemy. On a deeper level, Egyptologists and Hellenists have argued that this is a result of a phylosophical change in the perception of time, with the Greeks of the classical periods adopting a linear vision (which we have very much retained) while the Ancient Egyptians had a cyclical vision of time. In the latter, dynasties have no sense. In any case, it remains true that no Egyptian king list predating the Hellenistic period explicitely uses dynasties. Even the Turin canon, which does have tallies of reign lengths at some places, do not place these tallies where we now place divisions between dynasties. Therefore the claim that Neferirkare was the founder of a dynasty in a source can only either be : 1) a misunderstanding of the placement of Neferirkare's name in an ancient Egyptian list (e.g. beginning of a column or row); or 2) given as such in the Aegyptiaca, but at least in Africanus version this is not true and Userkaf is given as founder. Of course if we can find a serious source saying Neferikare is a founder I would be happy to include it but I very much doubt that a source can be found. To conclude, we should be warry of our own preconceptions on the organisation of history and royal lineage. Egyptologists have argued that while dynasties are handy for us as historians, they do not reflect the truth of the time. For example, the transition from Unas to Teti is likely not have been perceived as a dynastic change by the contemporaries, being no more special to them than the transition from Djedkare to Unas.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok there is possibly one exception to that, the Den seal impressions dating to the reign of Den of the 1st Dynasty and which present Narmer as the first of a list of kings. So it seems the Ancient Egyptians did recognise Narmer as a founder of sort.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I had read that Dynasties as we refer to them are concepts useful to us that don't reflect Egyptian views. I've also read that the First Intermediate Period is effectively an invention of our own to help explain the transitional period between the Old and Middle Kingdoms. It doesn't really exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Iry-Hor, I found where I'd read it. It's on p. 297 of Verner's The Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture and Science of Egypt's Great Monuments (2001): "Why did Neferirkare decide to break with earlier tradition and to return, after about two centuries, to a tomb in the form of a step pyramid? Were the reasons connected with religion or dynastic and power politics? In the Nineteenth Dynasty king list on the famous Royal Canon of Turin, Neferirkare is considered the founder of a new dynasty. Is there some connection between that view and the unusual character of the original project for Neferirkare's pyramid?" He ends by saying that to answer that question and others, new sources would be required. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Holy hell. Well this is contradicted by a number of sources who argue that the canon does not follow dynasties. Malek explicitely says that such breaks in the Turin canon coincide with change of location of the capital between the various settlements that flourished near Saqqara and would later fuse into Memphis. I don't know what to think.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • First appearances of Neferefre and Nyuserre in the body of the article should be wikilinked. These are in the 1st paragraph of the mortuary temple section.
  • Eh, actually the first mention of Nyuserre is in the last paragraph of the layout section, but, Done for Neferefre. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • First apppearance of Khentkaus II in the body of the article should be wikilinked. It is also in the section on the mortuary temple.
  • "which would have otherwise long ago disintegrated buried under the mud" this reads weird to me, maybe a comma is missing between disintegrated and buried ? I am no native speaker though so I will let your native sense of English be the judge here.
  • Done I've added the comma. I actually wrote and rewrote that sentence twenty times, originally, till I got it to say what I wanted. I think the comma works. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "tomb construction in the Abusir necropolis appears" do you mean royal tombs or all tombs ? I doubt this is true for "all tombs" but in any case you need a citation here. If you only mean royal tombs then there are plenty of sources confirming that Nyuserre was the last king to be buried in Abusir.
  • Done - I meant royal tombs. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Activities by the cults, however, had ceased by the First Intermediate Period" this is explicitely contradicted by Morales and to a lesser extend by Malek, at least in the case of the cult of Nyuserre. See the article on Nyuserre for a summary of this problem. I think you could use a less sweeping statement, e.g. by making it clear that you talk specifically about Neferirkare's cult and not about royal cult in Abusir in general.
  • Hmm, that one is on Verner's head: "During the First Intermediate Period, there were no royal mortuary cults at Abusir" Although I'll be fair to him and note that Morales work is newer. I'll notify when I've fixed this. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Then we must state everyone's opinion on an equal footing. I don't think Morales should win only because he published the latest on the subject. We could say : "Verner believes that royal cults at Abusir stopped during the First Intermediate Period, but the Egyptologists A. Morales and J. Malek argue that Nyuserre's cult did continue during this era."Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Done - I've presented the views of Verner, Malek and Morales in a small paragraph dedicated solely to that discussion. Morales' paper should be very handy for the article on Nyuserre's pyramid. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Section "Pyramid of Khentkaus" Raneferef is wikilined but this should be removed in favor of the earlier mention of Neferefre in the section on the mortuary temple. In addition, I think it would be better to either write Neferefre or Raneferef throughout and not change in the article as this might cause confusion.
  • Done - I can't think why I'd written Raneferef there. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Section "Pyramid of Khentkaus": Nyuserre is wikilinked but this should be removed in favor of the earlier mention which appears in the section on the mortuary temple.
  • "a primeval mound" this might need a one sentence explanation (possibly in footnote). This was notably asked in the FAC on Neferefre. You can use what I wrote there.
  • Done, but, differently - this seems like a topic that is better expounded upon at Pyramid of Neferefre (and indeed it will be). I've converted "primeval mound" to the universally acceptable "square mastaba". Mr rnddude (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "and far away from the Nile delta." I think you mean "Nile valley" or more specifically "Abusir lake" and not "Nile delta".
  • Done - You are correct, it's Nile valley. The point was to illustrate the cost of moving material and people over land and into the desert for the construction. I'll see if I can dig up something on the materials and where they were quarried from. That might be a nice addition to the Pyramid of Nyuserre article. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Fine quality limestone was invariably quarried from Tura. I don't know about the granite and diorite for sure, but I know that during Djedkare's time quarries for these were exploited in Lower Nubia.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Tura is a place?!?!, every time I read that I thought it was a type of limestone "Tura limestone". Oh my... I am a muppet. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Ahah! Yes it is a place, with the quarries still visible and they can be visited ! This kind of misunderstanding happens to me all the time with spoken expressions in English. This shows that we should wikilink Tura whenever possible.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "the Abusir plateau fell into disuse" this sentence is actually in the article on the Pyramid of Nyuserre. I just wanted to mention that while sources may say things like this, this is not quite correct see e.g. here for a recent discovery (Ptolemy IV)! I just wanted to mention that we should be careful with statements regarding the end of Abusir as a necropolis.
  • Fair point and I've revised it to just say that burials took place in the late period. Believe me, that section needs a whole lot of work before it's ready. I still haven't worked out whether Ptahshepses mastaba, which is near to the pyramid, deserves just a mention or a dedicated section. I also need to get some appropriate images for the article, which coincidentally, I've been working on translating inscriptions from a granite column found by Borchardt (pl. 13 I think). The work is in my sandbox. I've managed to crack Cols 2–4, but, I can't make heads or tails of Col 1. I'm wondering if you have any clue what it says. I figure it would be a nice addition to the article: an image with translation provided. Overall I'd say the article is about 70% of the way to GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
THe problem is the article needs to stay on focus so I would be more inclined to say that Ptahshepses' mastaba cannot be given a whole section for itself in the article on the Pyramid of Nyuserre (of course you can always edit the article on the mastaba to have more info). I will take a look at the sandbox inscription, however I don't think we can really put up the translation on the article as this would clearly be original research. PS: Ptolemy IV is actually after the Late Period, being the Hellenistic Period.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I had considered the OR problem, and my strongest defence is that "nobody would accuse me of OR for translating a work from English to German... how is this any different?" Though I doubt that defence would hold up "in a court of law". I used a dictionary for most of it, though the cartouches with pharaoh's names are obviously available translated from many different sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Well you can always put up the translation and see what people say. However, you have to admit that knowing Germand and English is a lot more common than being proficient in English and Old Kingdom Egyptian so you might not convince everyone with this. I personally wouldn't make a fuss over it since I agree with your translation (I added the 1st column as well).Iry-Hor (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This is all !Iry-Hor (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a deep pleasure to read your pyramid articles and therefore to support the article reaching FA status. In fact, it fills me with joy to see these monuments get the treatment they deserve at last, here on wikipedia. This article is not only of FA standard, it is amongst the best FAs I have read. I hope you will continue to produce this kind of work!Iry-Hor (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I am humbled to receive such praise. I look forward to working with you in future and getting the pharaohs, pyramids, and the Fifth Dynasty as a whole to FA. Thanks for your review. Let me know if there's more work to be done. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Well not on this article, I think you really nailed it. There is definitely a lot of work that could be done on other pyramid articles while I bring Sahure to FA standard from its current GA status. Once I have done Userkaf as well, I will start the article on the Fifth Dynasty and I hope you will agree to contribute to it, especially a seciton regarding pyramid building.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this soon. Is it a coincidence that you two were working on such closely related articles at the same time? FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This moment is the result of a whole saga of coincidences. It started just after the new year. We lost two of our long time contributors. One who had their TBAN extended on a technicality that was unclear in the TBAN. The other was given a TBAN from AP2 for conduct that did not transpire in that topic area. They were being hostile at AN/I and AE. The TBAN was purely punitive. I went to a former admin and experienced editor for some advice on what could be done to overturn the AE decision. In the interim I received a notification, on that admins talk page, that we had in fact lost a third editor: Tony1, the same Tony1 who wrote a guide for writing at the FA level. Via a fourth discussion I end up reading that guide for a few days. It's a very good guide. I was wondering if I could apply what I'd learned to an article. I figured an FAC would be the most appropriate venue for this exercise. Looking through the then current FA noms I read the name "Neferefre" and immediately figured out that he had to be an Egyptian king –my interest is in ancient history. I was correct, and after reading just the lede of the article, I was interested enough to do a full prose review for it. Coincidentally, Iry-Hor had put up Neferirkare Kakai for a GA review. When I finished the prose review for Neferefre I took on that GA review as well. I was struggling to follow the pyramid section of the Neferirkare Kakai article; couldn't make heads or tails of which phase of construction was which – the rest of the article was impeccable save for a few phrasings and an NC CC-by-SA image that had to be removed. I ended up going through the sources and doing some research to get the full picture and then decided why not write the article? Originally the plan was to just clean up the article somewhat, but, that's snowballed out of control as you can see and now after a GA review and some more prose work, I find myself here. Not entirely coincidence, but, not at all pre-planned. In fact we're going in opposite directions. Iry-Hor will be working on Sahure next (predecessor) and I'll be working on Pyramid of Neferefre (successor) Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Heh, that's quite a convoluted series of events. I'll continue my review when the one above is over, so there won't be potential overlap in observations. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pixel size forcing for images is discouraged, so should be removed. You can add the upright parameter to vertically long images, though.
  • Done - take your time, thanks for taking on the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There are various seemingly important people, places, and other terms (especially under " location") which are not linked at first occurrence outside the intro.
  • Done - I've added many links, and dropped resulting redundancies. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Not all units are converted yet, for example "four kilometres".
  • Done - I believe. Just a note that "linear metres" and "linear feet" are incompatible with the convert template. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Not all historians, writers, etc. mentioned are presented yet. Some get an occupation listed, some get nationality, others get nothing.
  • Done? - I dealt with the obvious ones under "location and excavation", and I didn't notice any others I had missed while adding links. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "His findings were published in the Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Abusir: 1902 - 1904 (Band 5): Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Nefer-Ir-Ke-Re (1909) part of Volume 11 of Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft written in German" Why do we need this long title listed? Other publications aren't listed in-text. I presume you could give an equal amount of details for other publications, so this one seems arbitrary.
  • I was actually asked to add this in at GA. It's a rather important work and the first properly in-depth excavation work conducted at the Abusir necropolis. I can reduce the title to it's shortened name, if that's preferred. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
In that case, you should state the importance of the work, and simply give its title(s)? Not sure why we need volumes, journals, and language listed in-text. It doesn't really help the reader, especially since it isn't even in English. Maybe Iry-Hor can chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I was the one who asked this at GA, although to be precise I only asked for the title of the work to be mentioned in the text because it is still the reference on the pyramid of Neferirkare. I would back the idea of simply stating that Borchardt published his findings in Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Nefer-Ir-Ke-Re and remove the rest from the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I've shortened to just the title and date. I originally included the journal as well because Verner cites the journal by name. I'll do the same at the other two articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Are there any theories as to why it was changed from being a step pyramid? Or why it was supposed to be a step pyramid to begin with?
  • To your first question, not that I've read. To your second question, Verner has a speculation, but, even he says that further evidence is required. I'll have a look and leave a new comment here when I'm done. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I'll be ready to support afterwards. Could be interesting to mention, while noting it is speculation. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Done I've added in a couple sentences on it and a long footnote explaining a contested issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "ad a slope of about 74 degrees" Why not use the symbol, like you do elsewhere?
  • It seems slightly misleading to use a coloured version of this[5] image instead of the original. I also find the sourcing a bit questionable, but I'll leave that to an image reviewer.
  • Removed - you're right, I think it's very dubious. I'll see if there's a replacement available. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "published by Paule Posener-Kriéger" Present.
  • Should the "Significance" section be changed to "papyri"? This seems to be pretty much all it's about.
  • Done - I think "significance" wasn't misleading, but, if we want to be technical, yes that section is dedicated to the papyri.
  • Support - everything looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Source Review by Lingzhi[edit]

  • sort order of sources is a bit off. Names are in alpha order, but articles by the same author are sometimes ascending by date and sometimes descending. Or something like that. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Lingzhi I went alphabetically by author name followed by article/book title. Should I go by author then date? I can do that in a jiffy if preferred. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No not necessarily, not according to Wikipedia's rules. The rule here is consistency, and if everything is arranged consistently as you say, then it is OK. I just didn't notice they were sorted by title after name, mainly because I have never seen that method used before.. If you have seen that method used in publications, then don't change anything. If you haven't, and you just did it that way yourself, then it might be kinda nice if you sorted by name-date (that is the most common way out in the real world, I suppose), but it still is not required. No one could oppose over that. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In which case, Lingzhi, I'm an inventor... and as I just said on AN/I you must adapt your work to suit the encyclopaedia. Wilco. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Done - I believe, notify me if I missed one. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent use of Location parameter (15 with; 17 without);
  • Done - I believe I've got all of them. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Missing date(s) for Bárta, Miroslav. "Abusir in the Third Millennium BC"
  • It... doesn't have a date. It's a web page. Do I add n.d. or use the copyright date? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've always used copyright myself, but to be on the safe side I double-checked with Nikkimaria. Turns out he/she thinks it's OK as well. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Altenmüller, Hartwig (2002). Missing isbn
  • Done - Added an ISSN. It doesn't have an ISBN. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Fakhry, Ahmed (1969). The Pyramids. Pub. too early for ISBN (probably reprint, use |orig-date=) ; Missing OCLC; 
  • Not a source I used, and it's redundant to other citations. So I've gone ahead and removed it. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Verner, Miroslav; Zemina, Milan has an error message; "CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown" and a link to Category:CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown, which has a bit of explantory text... I have never seen that error before and am not sure how serious it is. I clicked your linked pdf twice and couldn't get the download to complete, but that may be my slow internet or whatever... I read the dead-url stuff in the documentation for {{cite book}} and didn't find a clear answer. I dunno... but just for the sake of completeness maybe you should do something to fix it... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I checked the pdf link, it still works. It just takes a while to load. The error is a result of "deadurl=bot : unknown" in the citation. I'll see what should be done about it. I think I've fixed it, but, check anyway. It seems to be a result of archiving. A bot couldn't work out if the link was dead or not, or something. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Lingzhi, are you doing a sources review for this article? If so, could you head your comments accordingly, in bold? Otherwise I, or someone like me, may think such a review is necessary and do the work all over again. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: I apologize; I was never doing actual source reviews. I am using all these FACs and Milhist A-reviews as guinea pigs for my source-checking script. If you would like me to help with source review load, i can do that later today, bt my better half is sweetly calling me at this very moment. So let me know if you want me to chip in with some full source reviews. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Help with source reviews is always welcome. If you could manage this one – when your better half allows, of course – I would be very grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Lingzhi is more than capable. I'd give him a week of doing the washing up and buying flower before he can re-engage. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Noting that Donald B. Redford is blue liked twice, neither time in the first instance. Mr M this is actionable. Ceoil (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed the two redundant links. The editor is linked at first mention. Also it's r n, not m. Though this is a common misconception. Now that, is actionable. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ive always thought you have had of the most confusing, and therefore best user names in this literal godforsaken hell on earth website, Mr rnddude. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I should create an alternative account: User:Mr mddude and just alternate between the two. It had crossed my mind to capitalize the r. But, that would ruin it. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Dont. Ceoil (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I added |display-authors= to the topmost source and and |language= to Krejčí, Jaromír (2015). "Abúsír". Are any other sources in a foreign language? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Borchardt's source is in German, but I've already added that in. The rest are all in English. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • chapters of books, when listed in the Sources, should include page numbers. Forex, Lehner's "pyramids (Old Kingdom), construction of" seems to be 644-46, tho the Index says his contributions start at 639. Other examples found. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Done - I believe I've caught them all. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Verner & Zemina 1994, Hyphen in pg. range Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil[edit]

Support

Reading through, gripping stuff. Comments shortly, mostly around prose. I expect that I will eventually support this excellent article. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead:

  • the unusual circumstances in which it was built - give some indication
  • Give some indication of what? the circumstances? Cause I kind of wanted to end the paragraph on a cliffhanger... silly as that may seem. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The 'unusality'. Cliff hangers yes are good, but too little meat here yet. Ceoil (talk)
  • like this? - I've summarized the basic facts which I expound on in later paragraphs. Death -> rush -> no cult pyramid. Courtesy ping: Ceoil. I added pyramid town, since that's where the archives would normally be kept. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Have trimmed that a bit. Happy if you are; obviously you are allowed to dissent. Ceoil (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought about removing the latter half of the sentence myself. If I may say, you're very good at tightening prose. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Shucks Ceoil (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • known to the Old Kingdom - during
  • Neferirkare's pyramid deviated in construction from its contemporaries - deviated isn't right. Do you mean the design or the build. Also, "Neferirkare's pyramid's construction" is better.
  • Revised - Please check and tell me what you think. I meant that the design of the complex differed from those of his contemporaries: Sahure and Userkaf. Granted, the construction was a departure from standard practice in parts as well, not least of all because it took at least three pharaoh's lifetimes to build: Neferirkare's, Neferefre's, possibly Shepseskare's, and Nyuserre's. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • originally erected - how many times was it erected. Nine times out of ten the word 'originally' is redundant.
  • Twice technically. It was built as a step pyramid, and then effectively encased in a second step pyramid which was to form the base template of the final "true pyramid". Refer to the image in "Main pyramid" for clarity. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thats a nugget, so say so. Ceoil (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Later alterations were intended to convert it into a true pyramid - All alteration are "later". 'True pyramid' should be explained here rather than blue linked. "were" is redundant.
  • Revised - Dropped "later" and "were", but, how exactly do you want me to explain what a "true pyramid" is? It's really just referring to the geometric shape that we call a "pyramid". You're effectively asking me to explain what a sphere or cube is. The term "true" is used to distinguish it from the step pyramid. Effectively what I'm trying to say is: it was converted from a stepped pyramid, into an actual pyramid. Except step pyramids are actual pyramids, but, they aren't pyramid [shaped] pyramids? you catch my drift? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
*Dont assume that readers know the technical difference between a sphere and cube, not to mind that the term "true pyramid" refers to purity of form. We should aim to write for the comprehension level of reasonably intelligent teenagers, so I'd spell it out here, no disrespect to reasonably intelligent teenagers. Ceoil (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added a footnote next to the first mention of "true pyramid" clarifying that the term refers to pyramids with a basic pyramid geometric shape. I've also described the shape: square base with four triangular faces converging at an apex. I've also dropped the link as no longer necessary. Tell me what you think. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thats good; like. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • untimely death - all deaths are untimely; early maybe. Unfortunate I could live with if there was a timing issue.
  • Revised - It's an issue of timing. He died before the pyramid was completed, leading to a rush to finish it so that it could hold his mummy. I don't like "unfortunate" because it implies "regrettable". I mean sure, most deaths are unfortunate, but, that doesn't really have anything to do with "bad timing". Malapropos?... I'm kidding, how about: inconvenient? The central point here is how well-timed it was, not how sad. If he'd died the day it was completed, while probably regrettable, it would have been perfectly timed. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • and a "cheap" outcome - "cheap" is not the right word, too modern, and vague as to the intended meaning.
  • Depreciated, devalued, reduced... I don't know what do you think? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It is to this fact - "Because of"
  • Revised, tentatively - Already used in the same paragraph once, how about: The discovery of the Abusir papyri in the 1890s is owed to this happenstance or... what about fortuity or fortuitous situation? I've never used the term before, but, I think it fits. Not to mention it sounds better than "because of". Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Like the suggestion Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • discovery....in the 1890s and early twentieth century - I'd leave it as 1890s; presumably you mean evacuation but it was only discovered once. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Done - I did actually mean that it was discovered more than once. Graverobbers found some fragments in the 1890s in the storerooms, Borchardt found an entire archive in the 1900s while excavating elsewhere. Two separate discoveries. There's been more discoveries since then: one archive in Neferefre's complex and one in Khentkaus IIs complex. The sum of these discoveries all refers to the Abusir papyri. Though I get what you mean. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Location and excavation

  • the second ruler to join the necropolis - to be entombed in - "join" sounds like modern romance
  • Done - I didn't like "join" either, though for different reasons. I don't know what you're thinking about, but we're not talking about sexual embraces here. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • proposes a number of hypotheses explaining - if the propositions were hypotheses, they were proposing rather than explaining
  • Done - switched "explaining" for "for". A hypothesis is a proposed explanation (based on limited evidence) in itself, so "explaining" was both incorrect and redundant. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • particularly the presence of a slope between.. - suggest particularly the slope between.
  • Another practical reason for choosing the site is the presence of a limestone. The phrase "Another practical reason" could be cut. Its clear you are developing arguments, so no need to labour. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that leave me with a sentence fragment? I've rewritten the sentence as: The site allowed workers to exploit the limestone quarry present just to the south-west of Abusir. I can also drop "just to the" if that's preferred as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes you will be left with a fragment. I think you need some sentence and fact placing restructuring here. Ceoil (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Done - here: I've made the central point first, tied it into the comment about resources from the previous sentence, and removed some repetitive material. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Valley Temple:

  • Only the foundations of Neferirkare's intended valley temple and causeway had been laid at this time of his death.[45][70] The causeway's foundation was specifically laid about two thirds of the way from the valley temple to the mortuary. - Can you rephrase "at this time of his death". "Neferirkare's intended..." could be more along the lines of "the valley intended for Neferirkare's". "was specifically" could be "planned to be", or such - there is no doubt that the architects were precise in their calculations. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Revised - "At this time of his death" was meant to be "at the time of his death"; I can't tell if you want me to rephrase the whole thing differently or just fix the error. If you want to drop the rephrase I can replace "at the time of" with "prior to". I've made the second change as requested. With regard to "was specifically" to "planned to be": there was no plan, the thing had been laid two-thirds of the way when he died. I've changed it to "had been laid". Let me know if these changes, and my proposed alternative fix, meet your expectations. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
From the lead, its ancient name translated - from what language, would be interesting to know. Ceoil (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Done - it's Egyptian. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • ORLY, Can you link the specific branch, is what I mean. Ceoil (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh... it'd have to be Old Kingdom Egyptian, better known as Old Egyptian. Unfortunately the source doesn't say that. It can't, however, be Middle Egyptian since it wasn't spoken until about 500 years later. I'll see if I can find a suitable reference specifying the dialect. If not, then, per OR, no. Can I invoke WP:BLUESKY? Because it's not controversial and it's not going to be from a dialect that did not yet exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I am happy with the revised wording if you are. Ceoil (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm satisfied. Keep it as is. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Abusir papyri document contains details" - don't like "contains details", maybe just "details"; next sentence "attestation", dont like that either.
  • Done - Dropped "contains" and switched "attestation" for "testimony". Mr rnddude (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A second record in the papyri - "in the papyri" is repetitious given the preceding sentence
  • two of these boats - "two of which"(given the preceding sentence)
  • Done dropped "of these boats" (boats wasn't needed given the first half of the sentence. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • are located to the North and South of the pyramid itself - drop this second instance of "located".
  • Will take another look during the week, hope these are helpful. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Take your time, thanks for the review so far. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies for delay in coming back to this, got side tracked. Given the all the work since my last comments, aided by the evident willingness of the nominator to engage in the threads above and below, this now certainly cuts the mark. Support, with enthusiasm. 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is an interesting, and as far as a layman can see, comprehensive article, but the prose needs a bit of work if it is to achieve FA standard.

  • General
    • Dash style – not compliant with the manual of style. You have some en-dashes with a space on one side only. What you should have are either en-dashes with spaces on either side of them – like this – or em dashes with no space—like this—. I noticed this defect only in the lead and the footnotes, but you should check the whole article.
  • Done - there was a bunch that needed fixing. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • "pyramid's deviated" – should, I think, be "pyramid deviated"
  • Done - It used to be pyramid's construction deviated, hence pyramid's. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "pyramid, however" – if you must have "however" here you need a stronger stop than a comma – a semicolon would be usual. I think the sentence would read better if you had a full stop after true pyramid, dropped the however and started a new sentence with "The pharaoh's…"
  • Semicolon added - 99% of the time, I'll get rid of the "however". But I really like it here because it forces a pause. I got rid of all other instances though. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "owed to this fortuity" – I had to look that one up. It is in the OED, but is a most obscure word, and I think the sentence could do very well without it, finishing with "this".
  • Aww... and just above I was complimented for thinking of it. I'll think on this one. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Location and excavation
    • "Egyptologist Jaromír Krejči" – rather clunky false title, which I see you have avoided in the next paragraph with the desirable definite article in "The Egyptologist Miroslav Bárta"
    • "dominated over the surrounds" – not quite sure what is meant here. Does it mean "dominated the surrounding area"?
    • "owing to the fact that" – rather a wordy way of saying "because"
  • Sigh... Done - but differently, "considering" that who likes "because". Such a plebeian term. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "In 1838, British Egyptologist" – he and his Prussian confrère suffer from false titles as Krejči does earlier.
  • Done Confrère? and you say I'm using obscure terms. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "long term excavation project" – I'd hyphenate "long-term"
  • Substructure
    • "two turns, but, maintains" – not sure why the comma after "but"
  • Done - a result of ", however," syndrome. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "The roof of the corridor is unique and not found in any other Old Kingdom pyramid" – tautology: if it's unique it can't, ipso facto, be found anywhere else.
  • Done - tautological end of the phrase removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "the passageway preventing collapse" – I'd be inclined to put a comma after "passageway"
    • "width, however, the" – as with the earlier "however", you need a stronger stop than a comma before it, and in my view it would be better as "width; the antechamber"
  • Mortuary temple
    • "a less impressive aesthetic, despite that" – not clear what is meant here. Is "despite that" meant to mean "although" or do you mean that despite the less impressive aesthetic the the layout etc are analogous to the other structure? I'm not sure what a less impressive aesthetic is, in any case. Less aesthetically impressive?
  • Done - Well I did something to it, you tell me how it looks. It used to say "cheap", but, that was too chic, mode. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "columns, however" – once again, I'd replace the comma and unnecessary "however" with a plain semicolon.
    • "Fascinatingly, it wasn't found" – two things here. You really, really need to lose the editoralising adverb, and we do not use contractions such as "wasn't" in the text (except in quotations).
    • "which: two" – why the unexpected colon?
  • Done I've put a comma in the interim but I'll check with you. Comma or semi-colon to replace? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "North and South" – not capitalised earlier and should not be capitalised here.
    • "such columns, however, these" – this is the fifth "however" of a total of ten, and like the nine others it is unnecessary verbal clutter. Blitz the lot and, where appropriate, replace those in mid-sentence with semicolons is my advice.
  • Done - I only left the one. The rest... gone. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Later history
    • "uncertain, but, may" – another inexplicable comma, after "but".
  • Pyramid of Khentkhaus II
    • "By consequence, Borchardt" – I think you mean "In consequence, Borchardt"
    • "It wasn't" – "it was not"
  • Nyuserre's pyramid
    • "beared heavily the construction" – not English. I'm guessing you mean "bore heavily on the construction", though whether one bears heavily I'm not certain. Perhaps something less flowery such as "seriously affected" or "badly affected" might be safer.
  • How about "burdened"? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "it need to have been located" – a word missing by the look of it: "it would need" or some such?
  • Replaced with "It would have needed to be" Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Significance
    • "French Egyptologist Nicolas Grimal" – another unbeautiful false title.
  • Done another beautified title? (I mean I added a definite article). Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "states that; "[t]his" – you could have a comma or a colon here but you can't have a semicolon.
    • "Importantly, the papyri" – a touch editorial, though I don't press the point here. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Does that mean you approve of the "touch" of spice, or that you're hoping I'm going to correct the course without prompt? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh dear god that's hilarious. Sorry Tim, I accidentally overwrote your signature. The above is the result. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "the fragmentary evidence of the papyri indicate" – singular noun (evidence) with plural verb.
  • Done - Indicate -> indicates. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "The full extent … are unknown": ditto.
  • Done - changed to is. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Those are my comments on the prose. I'll look in again once you've had time to consider them. – Tim riley talk 16:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for helping with the cleanup. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Support. The content seems to me of FA standard, and the prose will now pass muster. Happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Alan Wiggins[edit]

Nominator(s): EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Early in his professional baseball career, Alan Wiggins stood out because of his blazing speed; he looked like he might even become one of the game's great base stealers. In 1980, at the age of 22, he broke the professional baseball stolen bases record, and he was playing in the major leagues by the following season. Before long, however, Wiggins was wrapped up in a cocaine addiction. Though he enjoyed his best season in 1984, he was out of baseball by 1987. Less than four years later, he became the first major league baseball player known to have died of AIDS.

I started contributing to this entry in 2015, and I received a very helpful GA review that year. I returned to the article several weeks ago and decided to prepare it for my first FAC nomination. I secured a peer review and a GOCE copyedit, and I put a lot of work into establishing strong sourcing. While much of the available coverage of Wiggins has detailed his tragic death, this entry is comprehensive, discussing his early life and the impact of his baseball playing career. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

Mainly minor formatting points:

  • ISBNs should be consistently fomratted – compare e.g. 1 with 6, 30, 40. Also the 10-digit isbns in 32 and 61 would be best converted to 13-digit form. The respective numbers are 978-0-06-199981-9 and 978-1-62368-734-2
  • Another inconsistency is in your use of archive links. For most dated newspaper/journal sources you don't archive, but in a few cases – 3, 10, 23, possibly more – you do. Is there a particular reason for these exceptions?
  • Ref 8: requires access date
  • Ref 13: the main link goes to a GoDaddy logon page. The archive link is working – suggest you use the archive url in the main link
  • Ref 41: newspaper title should be italicised
  • Ref 47: Paywall, therefore add (subscription required) template
  • Ref 62: requires access date
  • Ref 63: If "Real Health" is an online source, it shouldn't be in italics

Other than as noted, all links are working, the sources are well ordered and are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this review, Brian. I think I addressed most of your concerns. I did find a few more dated periodical/website sources that were archived and I removed the archiving to be consistent. I left the archiving on Baseball-Reference.com pages (like ref 10) and similar sites, because those are websites that don't have publication dates (as far as I can tell - but if I'm incorrect or if there's another way to handle this, let me know). It turns out that Real Health is a print magazine with some of its content also published online, so I changed that reference to Template:Cite magazine. If I mishandled any of this, just let me know. There's one reference to the UPI.com site (ref 20); it does have a date but I can't figure out where it was published in print, so I left it archived - let me know if this is okay. Thanks again for your time! EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
It's counterproductive to remove a few archive links for the mere sake of consistency. Per WP:DEADREF: "consider archiving the referenced document when writing the article". Preventing link rot inasmuch as possible is a good thing. It's a step backwards to remove these links, and would be torturous and artificial to mandate that an FA archive all of them.—Bagumba (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I noticed a discussion about this stuff at WT:FAC last week and started to remove much of the archiving from the article based on a post in that discussion. Then more people responded and it seemed like I should restore many of them. I'm happy to go either way on this, but I'd just like to be reasonably sure that there's some agreement before I make widespread formatting changes again. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion to which you refer was precicely that – a discussion, an exchange of views, not an explanation of policy. There's not likely to be any general agreement on this issue, beyond that a consistent practice should be adopted within an article. It is acceptable, for example, to argue that archive links should be added to all website sources, but that links to dated print media or to Google books don't require archiving. On the other hand, some editors choose to cover their bases by archiving everything. I'm neutral about this, but whatever practice is followed, FAC criterion 2c ("consistently formatted inline citations") needs to be observed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Brian - I appreciate your feedback. I went ahead and archived everything that I could see, except for Google Books, Google News Archive and Newspapers.com sources (because I had trouble getting those pages to display correctly when I tried to archive them). I think I've caught all of them, but let me know if not. Thanks for your work.

Neferirkare Kakai[edit]

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Neferirkare Kakai, an Egyptian pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the 25th century BC. Neferirkare's reign lasted around a decade and he left his pyramid unfinished. Neferirkare is unusual as one of the very few pharaohs explicitely depicted as a benevolent ruler by his contemporaries. Read the article to see what he did to save his courtier from facing immediate death and how he reacted when his vizier had a stroke! This tabloid material is provided to you with a 4500 years delay.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Borchardt_Sahure_17.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Borchardt_Sahure_32.jpg, File:Borchardt_Sahure_34.jpg, File:Borchardt_Sahure_33.jpg, File:Borchardt_Sahure_47.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk (support)[edit]

  • I'll review this soon, first thing I noticed is that some of the image captions don't really explain what is shown. For example the images of Neferefre and Ptahshepses, the images are here to represent these individuals, but it would be nice to present the objects in the same way as the other captions do. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the king list image might fit better in the otherwise empty sources section, where it is also mentioned? Now it is kind of cluttered with the ritual vase.
Done You are right, done! Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "dating to the reign Ramses II" Reign of?
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You only identify some writers as egyptologists, would be good to introduce the all.
FunkMonk I have added the required description to Ogden Goelet, Mark Lehner and Herbert Ricke, let me know if I have missed more. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The first one noticed is Miroslav Verner, who still isn't presented at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "As of 2018", twice. The source used is from 2008, so though I know what you mean, the wording seems slightly inappropriate. You don't have to be that specific, something like "as of the early 21ist century" would be enough, otherwise you'd have to update the sentence every year henceforward...
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "no pieces of the sarcophagus of the king had survived" Why past tense?
Done changed to "have survived". Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "and sotre-rooms" Store?
Done it is a type and should read "store-rooms". Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In the intro you write "Ranefer (A/B)", whereas you just say "Ranefer A/B" in the article body
Done I removed the parentheses. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You mention an "unexpected early death" in various section, but there is no elaboration on the circumstances, or why it is considered unexpected.
Done the death in question is that of Neferefre, which is detailed in his article. Here I have simply explained with "who passed away in his early twenties after two years on the throne".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "circa 120 years earlier" Only explicitly stated in intro.
Done this is now also in the article body. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The changes look good, the last issue is that Palermo stone should be linked at first occurrence, whereas it is now linked at the third.
Done Well spotted ! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - everything nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Mr rnddude[edit]

Here are my findings: Yes. All of them.

  • Alright, in the Sources and Citations sections you variously use endashes (–) and emdashes (—) to cite multiple pages. For example: "Goelet, Ogden (1999). ... pp. 85–87. ISBN 978-0-203-98283-9." versus "Krejčí, Jaromír; Kytnarová, Katarína Arias; Odler, Martin (2015). ... pp. 28—42." It's a minor issue, but, it's a bit distracting. (You also did this with Neferefre, I just didn't notice it at the time). Otherwise the sources are very nicely presented.
Done Wow I had not noticed until now. I used to use endashes and switched to emdashes at some point. Anyway, fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "This also underscores the dependent position of the king with respect to the Ra" - The Ra? wouldn't it just be with respect to Ra. Ra is referring to Ra (god), yes? You wouldn't, for example, say "the Jesus" or "the Zeus". There's only one as it is. Though, conversely, "the sun god" in the next sentence is fine.
Done This is a remnant of an earlier sentence. I remember hesitating between "the sun god Ra" and "Ra". I finally opted for the latter to avoid a repetition, but must have forgotten to remove the "the".Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "... "hall of the "Sed festival"." - Eh, I think it should be "hall of the 'Sed festival'" since there's a quote within the quote. Though I am not 100% sure on proper punctuation here.
Done ok why not. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Another inscription in Aramaic and dating to the Fifth century BCE reads "Mannukinaan son of Sewa"." - Minor point, but, the second inscription was found on a limestone block. When you read the sentence within the paragraph it may give the impression that it was found on another gravestone.
Note sure wasn't the second inscription on a different block than the first ? Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, indeed it was. The first inscription was found on a gravestone, the second on a limestone block in the mortuary temple. I was merely pointing to the difference in what it was found on i.e. gravestone vs limestone block. My concern was that a reader may interpret it to mean that the second inscription was found on a different gravestone, when it wasn't found on a gravestone at all. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Done I see, I have clarified by specifying that it was on a limestone block.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "... an University of Prague ..." - This is one of those annoying exceptions. While you normally put "an" in front of words starting with a vowel, you should actually put "a" in front of University. This is because of the way it's sounded out "yew-ni-ver-sity". It's a phonetic j. Here's a link if you'd like to confirm. Try sounding it out as well, that sometimes helps.
Done yes! I should have known. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "... was located on its the north side." - Either the "its" or the "the" needs to go [read: needs Tah go]. Preferably drop the "the".
Done what the hell another typo. Apologies, I should have double read more carefully.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "There, a descending corridor with a gable roof made of limestone beams led into a burial chamber, but no pieces of the sarcophagus of the king have survived." - This is a non sequitur. That is, fact A (the lack of a sarcophagus in the burial chamber) does not [logically] follow from fact B (there being a descending corridor leading to the burial chamber). I think what you wanted was to mention that the gable roof of the burial chamber collapsed and that no evidence of the sarcophagus was found under the rubble. Though I can't be sure.
Fixed, the source does not say why no pieces of sarcophagus have been found. Thus I really only wanted to mention two facts: the gable roof and the lack of sarcophagus (which contrasts with most other pyramids of the 5th Dynasty, where at least pieces of the sarcophagus have been found). I have split this into 2 sentences. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "... has pointed out, that such statues ..." - What's the comma there for?
Done I don't know either.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "... record their biographies onto the walls of their tombs." - This one's entirely optional, but, if you want to avoid repeating "their" twice in the same sentence you can change "their biographies" to autobiographies.
Done nice.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "... at least another ..." - at least one other
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "... by the presence of a small pyramid besides that of Khentkaus ..." - Any clue on this second pyramid's location? or do you mean beside as in next to?
Done I meant "next to". Dodson & Hilton don't say much more on this, and I must say that I am a bit curious. Could they have gotten a cult pyramid wrong?Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I actually meant for you to drop the "s" from besides as besides means "aside from", whereas beside means "next to". It's fine either way though. My first thought was the cult pyramid as well, it wouldn't surprise me if it was mis-identification. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "... column-19th row, unfortunately ..." - The comma should be a semi-colon.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Byzantine scholar George Syncellus reports that Africanus relates that the Aegyptiaca mentioned the succession..." - So a guy, heard from some other guy, who once read in a book, written by yet another guy ...? Sorry I couldn't resist.
Aha! yes it is this weird. But I like how it traces the history of passing down some knowledge from the Ancient Greeks to us, through Roman and Byzantine scholars.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree it is quite cool. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The eldest son of Sahure with his consort Meretnebty known as Ranefer A before his accession to the throne, he succeeded his father the day following his death and reigned for eight to eleven years, sometime in the early to mid 25th century BCE." - The first comma should be a period, and the following word capitalized. A concrete example of a run-on sentence.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with the article. Only a few minor nitpicks to deal with. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Thank you for both of your reviews on this!Iry-Hor (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem Iry-Hor. Thanks for going through the nitpicks, I'm happy to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Whast does "pl" (in refs 1, 104 and 158) signify? If it's "plate", you spell this out in ref 47, and should do so elsewhere to be be consistent.
Done Yes it means plate. I have corrected throughout. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There several instances where "p." should be "pp.": 36, 108, 127, 128, 135, 142, 156 and possibly others
Done corrected, I have checked all references and changed a number of them as required. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For most page ranges you are using mdashes – these should be changed to ndashes
Done ARRR! I have changed all recently to mdashes, now reverted.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In the sources there appears to be inconsistency over the inclusion of publisher locations. I haven't checked throughout, but Altenmuller 2001, Baker and Clayton are all examples and there are probably more. Please check through.
Done all references checked and corrected accordingly.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Other than in these minor matters, sources are in good order and appear to be of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton All done! Thanks for your input.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
All well now. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
So this is now 2 Supports and completed source and image reviews. Brianboulton could you possibly indicate whether you support or oppose the nomination ? Iry-Hor (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
When I'm only concerned with checking sources, I don't register either supports or opposes. Be patient and I'm sure further supports will come. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Just a few small drafting points:

  • Lead
    • To avoid the (theoretical) ambiguity about whose death "his death" was, I might recast this on the lines of "known as Ranefer A before he came to the throne. He acceded the day after his father's death..."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "and the ephemeral rule of the poorly known Shepseskare" – "ephemeral" seems a bit strong. "Brief" might be safer.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "after a mishap or a stroke" – careful with "stroke". Readers may think you mean a cerebrovascular accident. I think you could safely end the sentence with "mishap".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Historical sources
    • "is in good agreement " – I'd remove "good": "is in agreement" would be more usual English phrasing.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Parents and siblings
    • "foretells Khufu" – I don't think you can foretell someone something. I'd make this "prophesies to Khufu".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "who passed away in his early twenties" – we do not use genteel euphemisms: he didn't pass away, pass over, or pass out: he died.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Consort and children
    • "heightened status" – heightened doesn't feel quite right. Perhaps "enhanced"
Done enhanced is definitely better.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "likely younger" – if, as appears, the article is in BrE, I'd avoid this AmE phrasing, and go instead for "probably younger".
Done so is "likely" only AmE ? I am really curious about this, it is true that I heard it far more when in the US than in the UK but I had no idea it was really an American wording.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
When "likely" is used as an adjective rather than, as here, an adverb it is as normal in BrE as in AmE. It's only in the particular adverbial construction "xxx, likely yyy" that it is AmE where BrE would have "xxx, probably yyy". There's nothing logical about this: it's just a matter of usage. In the first paragraph of the lead you have "He was himself very likely succeeded", and for no reason that I can find, the addition of "very" makes this perfectly normal BrE whereas "He was himself likely succeeded" wouldn't be. Nobody ever accused English of being a logical language. Tim riley talk 10:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Duration
    • "but this now considered an overestimation with regards to the archaeological evidences" – this goes off the rails grammatically (no main verb) and is in any case a bit woolly. Perhaps something like "but the archaeological evidence now suggests that this is an overestimate."
Done a remnant from the previous version.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "further vindicated" – a bit combative in tone: I wonder if "substantiated" or "corroborated" might be better.
Done ah I really like more diverse vocabulary. Thank you, I will keep these two in mind for future articles as well! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "20-years long reign" – I'd make this "20-year-long reign"
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Administration
    • "had been excavated" – not sure why the pluperfect; I think the plain past tense, "was excavated", is wanted here.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "wide entrance columned porticoes and, family" – I wasn't quite sure of the exact meaning here. Are they wide entrance porticoes with columns? And the comma between "and" and "family" seems superfluous.
Done changed in a recent review. Changed back. They are indeed entrance porticoes with columns.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "onto the walls" – I'd make this just "on the walls"
Done again changed in a recent review. Changed back.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Modification of the royal titulary
    • "Indeed, he was the earliest" – this is the fourth "indeed", and one begins to notice it. I'd blitz at least a couple of them: the prose will read clearly enough without them.
Done. Indeed, I can now see that there are too many of them in this article.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Trade and military activities
    • "Smith has pointed out" – I'd be cautious about "pointed out", which rather suggests an endorsement of what he is saying. I recommend something more neutral, such as "commented".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Personality
    • "You may well find some stickler for the Manual of Style objecting to your decorative quotation marks, which are, for some unfathomable reason, not supposed to be used in the main text. They look fine to me, and I'd leave them there and hope for the best if I were you, but don't be surprised if someone gets shirty.
Ok I will keep them for the time being but should a storm arise, I will remove them faster than the time it takes to say crunchy carrots. (I heard this idiomatic expression recently, but it was from a farmer in a farm context, so I am not sure I can use it everywhere).Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Second paragraph: I'm not sure of your rationale for capitalising job titles: "king" doesn't get a capital but "Vizier" does. Seems a bit odd. I didn't spot this inconsistency elsewhere in the article, but it might worth your while checking.
Done this is a mistake dating back to the earlier version of the article. Corrected!Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. The above quibbling is too minor to prevent my adding my support. Excellent stuff. – Tim riley talk 18:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Tim riley Thank you once more for your precious review.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

South China Sea raid[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The South China Sea raid was among the most successful aircraft carrier operations of World War II. In mid January 1945 the US Navy's main strike force, the Third Fleet, ran riot in the sea. While its primary target was two Japanese battleships wrongly believed to be in the area, the Third Fleet's carriers conducted a series of devastating attacks on Japanese convoys, ports and airfields. The Americans didn't have it all their own way though, as a raid on Hong Kong ended in failure and the US Government had to pay reparations to Portugal for attacking Macau. The end result though was a significant American victory.

Despite the importance of this operation, we didn't have an article on it until I started it in December 2016. The article was assessed as GA class in February 2017, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in October. I have since expanded the article, including by drawing on sources I spotted during a recent trip to Hong Kong, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this nomination and comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

Should these be archived:

  1. "Remains of US airmen killed..."
  2. Craven, Wesley... The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki
  3. Spector, Ronald... Advice and Support Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what the policy is, but the second two are references to hard copy books published online at highly stable URLs so I'd rather not. The links are all OK at present. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Sorry, just a quick note at this stage (will try to come back later, it is late here):

  • "File:1945-01-15JapWW2BattlefrontAtlas.jpg": I wonder if the caption should clarify what the red area indicates? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I've just made this change. Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "meeting at Ulithi": perhaps clarify where this is here? For instance, maybe this might work "meeting at Ulithi, in the Caroline Islands"?
    • Done (I tend to forget that the totally obscure islands and inlets used as fleet bases during the war aren't common knowledge to normal people!) Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  • some of this probably could be tightened: "was reduced to a strength of six..." --> "was reduced to six..."
  • "authorised" --> "authorized" (three instances)
    • oops: fixed
  • "launched at 7.32 am", per MOS:TIME the full stop should probably be a colon
    • One day I'm going to nominate an article for FAC which is actually consistent with MOS:NUM. Not this time though! Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Citations, # 9 "Dommen" should have an endash
    • Well spotted! Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Works consulted section, is there an ISSN that could be added for the Bailey ref?
    • It doesn't seem to have an ISSN, but I've added a stable jstor link as the next best thing. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Works consulted section, "Allied Intelligence and Indochina, 1943-1945": probably should have an endash
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Further reading section, the CNO source probably needs a location of publication and an OCLC number (if possible)
    • I've added the location. It's in Worldcat, but it seems to be taking the day off so I can't see the OCLC. I'll add it when Worldcat is up and running again. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
      • No worries, Nick, thanks for your efforts. I reviewed this at MILHIST ACR and having reviewed the changes since then, am happy to support it for FA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the strategic situation map. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for the review Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot Dank Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

Except for one minor format point which I fixed myself, all sources are in regular order and look to be of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Brian Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this at A class, and believe that it meets our FAC standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting article and one that, from a prose point of view, meets the FAC criteria. One query: this seems to be about a US action, but the date is in a non-US format. Is there a reason for that? (I don't press the matter either way, and leave the choice to your discretion). As I'm not an expert in this area, I'll leave a caveat to my support to cover my ignorance on subject matter. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Oops, fixed. Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      What are you doing Nick? You now have a mix of US military format (DDMMYY) and civilian format (MMDDYY). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      I was messing about with a date format I'm unfamiliar with, forgetting that US military format is a thing and I used it quite successfully in the Battle of Morotai, Air raids on Japan, Operation Kita and probably other successful US military-focused FACs! I've reverted myself. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, and have looked over the changes since October. The only thing I have a query about is the lack of coordination between 14th AF and the fleet. Can anything be said about the disconnect? Was it conscious, ie were they putting their main effort into different things, or was it just a case of left-hand/right-hand? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The source doesn't say why, unfortunately. The official USAAF history covers the topic slightly, noting that the pre-invasion planning the 14th Air Force participated in specified that the Third Fleet would remain to the north of Luzon. As I understand it, the security arrangements for US units located in China was considered unsatisfactory, so that might explain why the 14th Air Force wasn't briefed. Inter service rivalry and communications problems also wouldn't have helped. I've added a bit more material placing this in context. Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Pioneer Helmet[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The boar-crested Pioneer helmet was made for battle. Utilitarian in design, it was discovered along with a pattern welded sword in the Anglo-Saxon grave of a man of about 25. Yet as plain as it is—compare it with the Coppergate helmet, which is almost identical in its underlying structure but much richer—it is both rare and significant. The helmet’s 1997 discovery marked only the fourth time an Anglo-Saxon helmet had been unearthed, and the boar atop its crest evokes the world of the epic Beowulf, a tale that lies in the ephemeral haze between fiction and reality.

This article is concise and complete. It covers the helmet from its discovery through its conservation and display, and contextualizes it with a discussion of its typology, and the boar’s iconography. All the known literature is covered: sometimes provided, kindly, by those who excavated and conserved the helmet. Twenty years after the helmet’s discovery, this article is ready for FAC. Usernameunique (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your edits and support, Dank—good points all around. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Gerda[edit]

Support, I came to make the usual list, but found only three so minor points that I don't care if you follow or not:

  • In the caption for the Coppergate, I'd do without "exceptionally".
  • It says "extremely", not "exceptionally. Do you still suggest changing?
Sorry, I should not have written from memory ;) - yes, same, why not just "is similar"? For me, an image caption should be as much to the point as possible, but it's a matter of taste. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Done.
  • "ritual killing" is normally identified with human sacrifice, but obviously means something else here.
  • It's also associated with objects, such as swords, which were bent to make them unusable prior to deposition. Here are some examples (haven't read the blog post, so no idea if its correct/reliable or not, but it has lots of good pictures). At a guess, it may have been a combination of ritual—the sword rendered dead with its owner—and practicality: don't go looting this grave, guys, its contents are worthless. I'll do some research on this and try to add a line explaining it.
  • The image in the Beowulf section is in the way of displaying the poem exactly line by line. Could it be moved? That's all. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It looks fine on my screen; there are a few inches of white space between the English translation and the picture. On yours, does it push against the English translation, taking what should be one line, and making it display as two, or do something else?
On a wide screen, all seems fine, until you notice that in English, we have one line more. Can you try to match them exactly? Try to move your right side in and see what happens. I'd write more introduction, to make it fit with the it, or move it up, or make it smaller. But again, just my taste.
That's a byproduct of Heaney's translation—he gained a line here (Heaney line 1 is only half of Beowulf line 1), and then lost it somewhere later on.
  • Another point: perhaps note somewhere on the talk that parts (like the Beowulf) are "copied", even if it's your own. Doesn't hurt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Any chance of a less shadowed main image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, the best way would probably be if someone in Leeds could take another picture. The Royal Armouries sent over a few beautiful and massive photos, but is unwilling to license them in any way. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

  • Two quotes lacking citations in the lead fill me with panic, but maybe that's my problem.
    • Good point. Cited the Beowulf quotation. The other ("crested helmet") is more a term of art than a quoted phrase, so I've left it without a citation.
  • I find the use of the past tense in the description section is a little jarring; has anyone else picked up on this?
    • It's used in the sense of how the helmet was made; particularly since half the helmet is now missing, present tense does not work for parts. Not opposed to reworking what can be reworked into present tense, however.
  • ".15 m (0.49 ft)" False precision. 0.5 ft! (Also, would "15 cm" be more natural?)
    • Done and done. The source says "0.15m", but since that's exactly 15cm, which sounds more natural, I've made the change.
  • "marks the grave as one of high social status" A high social status grave? Surely it marks it as a grave of a person with high social status?
    • But only the coolest graves can get into The Sepulchre on Friday nights... Changed to "marks the grave as one for a person of high social status."
  • I suspect I know the answer, but do we have any pictures of the other artefacts found around the helmet? They'd be a great addition to the article.
    • Good thought. There are some photographs of the sword and hanging bowl, although none with an appropriate license. I'll email a few of the organizations with them and ask.
  • "the adhesive HMG" Wikilinks and/or spelling this out would definitely be useful, I feel
  • "the surviving cheek guard was reassembled from eighteen fragments alone" If I am understanding your meaning correctly, would "the surviving cheek guard, alone, was reassembled from eighteen fragments" be a little clearer?
    • Done.
  • "gapfilled and inpainted, and in the last step, the boar was affixed to the apex using epoxy" Jargon
    • Changed to "were then filled in and painted". Linked epoxy, which is a type of glue, and I think broadly recognizable.
  • "The helmet was unveiled to the public on 23 December 1997." Where? In what way?
    • Changed to "The helmet was placed on public display". I believe there was a press conference beforehand, but I don't know most of the details (including whether the helmet was actually displayed there).
  • What sort of company is Pioneer Aggregates UK Ltd?
    • It made construction aggregate. I thought the line "Excavations in the area had taken place for years on behalf of various aggregate companies before the land was exploited for gravel" took care of it, do you think I should add something specific to Pioneer Aggregates?
  • "Currently it is on display at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, West Yorkshire." I think Currently will quickly go out of date. Also, ref?
    • This would perhaps work for the ref, but it makes it sound as if it is a temporary exhibition. My understanding is that the helmet is on long term loan, and the Armouries indicated in an email last month that "the helmet is on display in our war gallery here in Leeds." The Armouries does not have a page about the helmet or associated grave goods, however, which is probably precisely because it is a loan item.
  • "and lamellenhelm (de)" I know others have complained about the use of this template in FA candidates, and I agree that it is a construction that seems to exist nowhere other than Wikipedia. Perhaps I could suggest (going against my usual support for redlinks) that you create a quick stub on the English Wikipedia for this style?
    • Will do. Done.
  • "Gaulish" Link?
  • "The boar nonetheless persisted in Germanic tradition during the nearly 400 years of Roman rule in Britain," Maybe this is my mistake, but I initially misread this to mean that Germanic peoples in Britain kept a boar tradition alive during Roman rule, when (I now take it?) you mean that there was a continental tradition that persisted on the continent while the Romans were in Britain. Perhaps this could be tweaked slightly? Or maybe this is my problem.

I really enjoyed this article; I think the topic's great, and what could be better than finishing with an extract of Beowulf and the observation that literary analysis and archaeology can be mutually enlightening? Two closing thoughts: 1) Please check my edits. 2) Midnightblueowl may be able to offer some valuable insight, as she has brought topics related to English archaeology and the Anglo Saxons to FA status before. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, J Milburn, which as usual is thoughtful and thorough. I've incorporated most of your suggestions, and placed comments above. Will create a stub on lamellenhelm later today. Appreciate your edits; undid the two re: logical quotation, as in those instances the punctuation marks are in the original sources (the comma in the Beowulf line can actually be seen in the block quotation at the bottom). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Another quick thought: I wouldn't bother including the publishers of the journals, but if you are going to do so, please do so consistently! I'm also unclear on when you are and are not providing closed access icons. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Also: You could probably be a little more consistent when it comes to the capitalisation of article/book titles. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
J Milburn, made capitalization consistent, and added publisher data (though still can't figure out who the English Studies publisher was in 1957). Closed access icons are provided when there is a link to a source but it has some sort of paywall (e.g., on jstor); the rule of thumb is if there is a link, there is an icon of some sort. On Firebrace's good advice I've gone through and differentiated between {{open access}} and {{free access}}. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from me; everything looks good. I'll be watching the page in case someone points out something I've missed, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

One tiny adjustment required: in ref 62, "p." should be "pp". Other than that, all sources appear to be in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the review, Brianboulton. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

All Souls (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Even though Halloween passed several months ago, you can still find some thrills and chills with this nomination. This article is about an American paranormal hospital drama, created by Stuart Gillard and Stephen Tolkin, which originally aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from April 17, 2001, to August 31, 2001. Based on the Lars von Trier miniseries The Kingdom, the series revolves around the medical staff of a haunted teaching hospital, and includes fictional characters and events from the American Civil War. All Souls suffered from low viewership, and was placed on hiatus following the broadcast of the fist two episodes. The show was canceled after the remaining four episodes were broadcast. Critical response to All Souls was primarily positive, with commentators praising its use of horror and paranormal elements.

This is my fifth FAC nomination for a UPN television show, with the other four being Love, Inc., Eve, Mercy Point, and Chains of Love. It is part of my interest in working on short-lived television series and hopefully, it will inspire other users/contributors to work on more obscure subject matters. I believe that everything for this article meets the FAC criteria, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve it further. Thank you in advance and I hope that everything is having a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Source Review by Lingzhi[edit]

All web cites seem to be missing retrieval dates; a few are missing archive urls and dates. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Lingzhi: I have been told in the past that retrieval dates are not necessary for archived resources as the retrieval dates are primarily used as a point of reference if/when the link dies. I personally do not find a use for retrieval dates on archived resources as it just creates more clutter in my opinion. I have used the iabot in the past for archiving resources on articles, and I believe that the references/links that are not already archived may not be work on citation machine (as that site does have difficulty with certain sites). Hopefully that answers your concerns, but let me know if further clarification is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mike Christie: I never use web resources... is the argument above valid? If so, I'll try to add it to the script Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    Lingzhi:I believe that's right; archived web pages don't need access dates. As Aoba47 says, the access date gives you a reference point, but the archived URL is already tied to a date so the access date doesn't matter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Terrace (2008): pp. 254-55 Hyphen in pg. range; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Lingzhi: Thank you for the note. That source is already archived though, and I just tested out the archive link and did not have any issues with accessing it. Since the link is dead (and marked that way in the article), it should not be an issue due to the archive version/link being available. Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2[edit]

Not too experienced with this project but I will give it a quick support. However, there seems to be some free images for some characters so I would advise you to add one of them and also trimming the caption of Adam Rodriguez's image. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support; I have trimmed down the caption as suggested, and added an image of McCouch to the "Characters" section as he is the lead actor playing the lead character on the show. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • "created by Stuart Gillard and Stephen Tolkin, which originally aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from April 17, 2001, to August 31, 2001." Maybe it's just me, but the way it is phrased, "which originally aired for" means "Gillard and Tolkin aired for.."
  • I think that this is a rather standard way of phrasing it, so I am not entirely sure on how to change it, but I am open for suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Based on the Lars von Trier miniseries The Kingdom, the series revolves" - I find "Lars von Trier's miniseries" better than "the Lars von Trier miniseries" (it's your call). Also, series ... series.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Critical response to All Souls was primarily positive, with commentators praising its use of horror and paranormal elements." "with + noun + verb + ing" is best avoided at FA articles.
  • Good point; revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The hauntings at All Souls started during the Civil War" - why isn't All Souls in italics here? Is it the name of the hospital? If so, this should be clarified.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The exact nature of De Brae's loyalty is called into question, with Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle wondering if she will serve as a love interest or be revealed as one of the hospital's spirits." Same as above.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Media outlets found the pairing of Spelling and Frost producing a television show "strange"" - no need to put strange in quotes.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "It was one of three series UPN ordered as mid-season replacements during the 2000-2001 television season" - endash between 2000 and 2001, not hyphen.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps wiki-link hit-and-run.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The John Doe is revealed to be the real" - "The John Doe"? Also, I never like the use of "reveal" in Wikipedia. It's so soap opera-esque. FrB.TG (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @FrB.TG: Just wanted to ping you to let you know that I have addressed your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Support on prose. These are my edits. Well done. FrB.TG (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I greatly appreciate your help. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Bcschneider53[edit]

Glad to see this here at the final step after I reviewed it at GAN. The prose is even better than it was last time I gave it a run-through, and the article is as comprehensive as it's going to get. I happily support this FA candidate. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support and kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte[edit]

I found some time to look over this, so here are some comments. After they're fixed, I'm happy to support.

  • Media outlets found the pairing of Spelling and Frost producing a television show strange is a bit odd. I think it'd read better as Media outlets found pairing Spelling and Frost for the production strange (or similar)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • the statistic that roughly 80,000 people die in hospitals every year due to unknown causes surprised him.he was surprised that roughly 80,000 people die in hospitals every year due to unknown causes
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • All Souls was developed from the Lars von Trier miniseries The Kingdom. Pardon my possible ignorance, but what does "developed" mean in this context? Does it mean it's based off The Kingdom or it's a spin-off (or neither)?
  • Revised, as they are separate entities. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Frost had said that the showFrost said the show

Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

I believe it passes already considering:

  • All sources are reliable.
  • Every reference is formated.
  • Archives are used for every url.
  • Every citation is wikilinked consistently.

If possible could you also do a source review in Flowerpiep's and mine FAC? Good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the source review! Unfortunately, I do not believe that I am qualified to do a source review, and I would be more comfortable with a more experienced user doing it instead. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Popcornduff[edit]

As it happens, I've seen The Kingdom, but never knew this show existed. A few general points:

  • "Media outlets found the partnership between Spelling and Frost surprising given their differing styles and approaches to television." This doesn't sound important and is kind of clunky; is it worth including in the lead?
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You have a paragraph in the lead talking about where the concept of the show came from, but if it's based on an existing show, this is confusing. Can you clarify?
  • In the sources provided, they mention that the show was based on the miniseries. However, they mean "based on" as inspired by, not as in remaking or setting itself in the same universe as the other show. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Revolves around" is kind of a weird, clunky metaphor when you think about it. Prefer something simpler and direct if possible - "follows" is usually good.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Is "insane asylum" how such facilities are referred to today? Is this the correct term?
  • Changed to "psychiatric hospital". Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd like some sentences to be simpler. For example "All Souls was canceled after the remaining four episodes were broadcast." sounds like a roundabout way of saying "All Souls was canceled after the season was broadcast." Is that correct?
  • It is somewhat the same meaning, but I honestly preferred my current wording as it emphasizes that the show was cancelled after the final four episodes were pretty much burned off. I have used your suggestion though. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Be strict about every word you include. For example "Some spirits include..." can become "Spirits include"... without losing any information. Likewise, "which Frost said added a sense of realism to the series" can become "which Frost said added realism". These small things add up to make articles significantly more readable. I recommend reading every sentence and scrutinising every word - be strict with yourself.
  • Revised parts mentioned above, though I do think it is approaching on stylistic differences. While I understand and respect your preference for more concise language, I do not share that approach and do not see how the current way that I have worded the article is any worse. I do not necessarily agree going through the article for a style that I do not necessarily agree with or care about. Again, this is just my personal opinion and I do not mean to come across as disrespectful. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you should care about writing concisely. This isn't really an issue of personal style, and we're not writing poetry here; the "Some" in "Some spirits include" adds absolutely no information to the sentence, and that's not really up for debate, as far as I can see. I won't support or oppose this nom - these are just suggestions - but those are my two cents. Perhaps other reviewers will agree or disagree. Popcornduff (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter. To be completely honest, I do not plan on going through the article on this point, as I am happy with its current state. Again, I do not mean to be disrespectful or rude, but it is just a difference of opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten the final paragraph of the "Development and casting" section as an example of how you can tighten up the prose by removing unnecessary words. I'm not necessarily saying my rewrite is the best possible version of the paragraph, and there might be things about it you don't like, in which case of course by all means revert. But I hope it demonstrates how there is fat to trim in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the revisions. Aoba47 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant[edit]

I'll take a look tonight. VedantTalk 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

First set:

  • "All Souls suffered from low viewership, and was placed on hiatus following the broadcast of the fist two episodes." - first.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "It was originally paired with the reality television show Chains of Love." - I am not too sure if I know what paired with implies here.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "All Souls medical program" - is there a need to italicise here? I see an instance in the following sentences when you don't. I think that you don't have to italicise unless you're referring to the show, so make sure that you're consistent with that.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You could replace "Spelling and Frost" with "the duo" at the last instance in the opening paragraph of the production section.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Although I completely get how a show can be inspired by more than one preceding shows, it would help if you could expand on the what show really inspired what part of the series. That, if at all you can find in any sources.
  • That is a good point. Unfortunately, there is not much in the sources other than All Souls being inspired by these shows. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any more information on the casting? Other than Rodriguez?
  • Unfortunately, I do not believe there is more information on the casting. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "called the series "paranormal fun,[7] and Lawrence.com's " - missing closing quotes.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The opening paragraph of the critical reception section is a little disjointed IMO. It moves from the horror to the pilot to the actors, with direct quotes that might not be the most informative: "a classic Aaron Spelling production" (I don't know what that implies, as I am not familiar with Spelling's work and the quote does not necessarily mean a good or bad thing). You could move things around a little here maybe. The other two paragraphs read more seamlessly.
  • I have reorganized it to read a little more coherently. Let me know if more work is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Although this might as well be the standard practice (or so I've noticed), the episode-specific directors and writers are rarely referenced throughout the television-related artciles. Do you have that is so? I mean shouldn't they have a source too? Ideally?
  • To the best of my knowledge, these tables are normally not sourced, with the information cited back to the primary source (i.e. the episode). The only source that I could really add to this would be directly back to the episodes, which I can do, but I am not certain about the value of such additions. Let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you could mention that Gillard directed a majority of the episodes in the production section.
  • Unfortunately, since there is not a source for this, I don't think it would work. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks in great shape other than my minor concerns. Fine work, as always. VedantTalk 19:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Numerounovedant: Thank you for the review so far! I believe that I have addressed everything. Let me know if anything else can be done to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It is common to have some sort of discussion on the viewership statistics of a show in either the broadcast or the reception section, buy I am guessing that would be difficult for a short-lived series. Other than that it is thorough and well written. I can support this for promotion. Good luck Aoba47. VedantTalk 12:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Status Update[edit]

  • @Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: I would greatly appreciate it if either one of you could provide an update on this nomination. It has received a fair amount of comments, as well as a source check and an image check. I hope you both are having a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, a fair bit of commentary and support but given the nom has barely been open a fortnight as of now, I think I'd like to give it a chance to garner further review before we look at closing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
          • @Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: Sorry for pinging you guys again. I have a quick question. Can I open a second FAC as this is rather far along with the process? Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just one comment from TheJoebro64[edit]

  • All Souls has received positive critical feedback—generalizations like these need direct references.
  • Added references. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, support. This is a well-written and engaging read (also a show I've never heard of). Great work! JOEBRO64 21:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Carolwood Pacific Railroad[edit]

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 talk cont 03:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Carolwood Pacific Railroad (CPRR), a ridable miniature railroad run by Walt Disney in his backyard. The locomotive was produced from scratch by the Walt Disney Studios' machine shop, as well as several of its train cars. The wooden portions of the caboose, including its miniature interior, were built by Disney himself. The CPRR was a product of Disney's lifelong passion for trains, and it inspired him to create what would become known as Disneyland. The work experience gained from building the CPRR's rolling stock, its structures, and the landscaping around it were applied towards building Disneyland and its various components, including the Disneyland Railroad. Because of its strong importance in terms of initiating the Disney theme park chain, and the very close connection it had to Walt Disney, I feel that it is worthy of earning FA status. I look forward to reading all of your comments and working towards successfully completing this review. Jackdude101 talk cont 03:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Important in the context of the history of Disney and Disneyland. After receiving GA status, a FA nomination follows naturally. In addition to small changes in the text, I have contributed one photo and the track drawing. --Janke | Talk 07:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: As the GA reviewer (epicgenius), I suggested many grammatical changes to the article. I also checked the web references extensively. Although this isn't an excuse for additional FA review, I think the article would be suitable for FA based on my suggested changes. I'm not sure if my GA review poses a COI, though. epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I translated parts of the article to German and was impressed by the quality. Thus, I endorse it to become a featured article. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

All sources look in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: That specific image is a close-up of one of the CPRR's train cars. There is no license for that logo, as it was made only for Walt Disney's private use and had no commercial purposes. Even modern versions of the logo displayed in public on Disney property like this one here: File:Boulder Ridge Villas - CPRR Logo.jpg have no copyright symbols. Jackdude101 talk cont 22:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In that case, {{Licensed-PD|PD-US-no notice|{{User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass|Sam Howzit|https://flickr.com/photos/12508217@N08/5211524675|2017-07-13 03:40:44|cc-by-2.0|}}{{cc-by-2.0}}}} may be the correct license template, providing that the logo was published without a copyright notice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Elsewhere on the same website here: [6], it is noted that J-E Nystrom runs the website, and a picture of him on that page is also on his Wikipedia user page. Jackdude101 talk cont 12:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars[edit]

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The Royal Gloucestershire Hussars was a yeomanry regiment that had a fairly quiet time of it when the yeomanry was the nation's primary constabulary. In the Second World War the regiment was unfortunate to be one of the early tank units that suffered so heavily from British inability to build good tanks and learn how to use them. It lives on today as a squadron in the Royal Wessex Yeomanry. The images were scrutinised during the article's successful MilHist A-Class review, but since then I've replaced one with File:Rgh-all.png, which I hope passes licensing muster. The article uses one primary source, the 2nd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars war diary. I do not believe I have violated WP:PRIMARY in its usage. This can be verified at http://www.warlinks.com/armour/2nd_rgh/2nd_rgh_41.php (links to 1942 and 1943 diary entries are at the bottom of that page); I have personally checked the actual diary, and facts in the article that are sourced to it are as presented on that website. I hope that this article meets the standards for FA status. Factotem (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me but there some things that could done better:

  • The lead feels too big to act as an introduction. Split an extra paragraph or try trimming them a bit.
    I've trimmed the third paragraph to remove details of equipment used, which I think was too much detail. This information was, however, added on the suggestion of an A-Class reviewer, so I'm not 100% sure about this. Other than that, by my understanding of lead sections, this one is about the right length. Maybe other reviewers will have an opinion that will clarify the consensus on this.
  • Is it possible to edit the Panels from the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars war memoria images so that they wouldn't clash with the article?
    On my screen the image occupied about half the article screen width, but I'm sure that's not the same on all screens. I have reduced the size a little, but think that making it too small will remove too much detail. I don't think there's enough room in that section to split out each of the four panels as separate images. Again, interested to read the opinions of other reviewers.
  • I used the archive bot so I believe the source review will be okay.
    Thanks. Didn't know that was possible.
  • Could the bibliography have wikilinks?
    I'm not sure I understand. The ISBN and OCLC numbers are already linked. What other links could there be, and are they necessary?

Other than that, I see no further issues. Ping me when you think it has been solved. Good luck. Also, if possible, could you check this FAC?Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Factotem (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Giving you my support. Hope it becomes a FA.Tintor2 (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources reviewe[edit]

Very little here:

  • Ref 28 requires pp, not p.
  • Ref 63 needs a space after p.

Otherwise, all sources are in excellent order and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Appreciate your help. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM

  • I reviewed this article closely during the recent Milhist ACR and consider it meets the Featured criteria. One minor point. I'd re-instate the vehicle detail in the lead, as the lead can be up to four paragraphs for an article of this size, and given it was latterly an armoured unit, that sort of detail is appropriate for inclusion in the lead. I'd also change the parameter in References to 20em rather than 2, which should close up some of the whitespace between columns. Great job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Appreciate your help both here and in the ACR. I've reinstated the tanks used by 2RGH in the Western Desert, as this information comes up repeatedly in the main narrative. I've also added that post-war the regiment was equipped with armoured cars, to clearly distinguish from its wartime role, but I'm not keen on specifying all the equipment – the light tanks and the post-war armoured cars – as these don't feature prominently in the narrative and, I think, do not warrant a mention in the lead per MOS:LEAD. Hope that's reasonable. Factotem (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds fair. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Rgh-all.png: since this is hosted on Commons, it should include a tag indicating the copyright status of the memorial panels in the UK. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I was under the impression that PD-1923 was a worldwide thing. Reading the actual license would have told me that it wasn't. Silly me. I've found the sculptor's name, amended the license based on his year of death (1938), and updated the author info with sourced data. Factotem (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Is this OK now? Factotem (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Grand. Thanks for your help. Factotem (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from CPA-5

Here am i like a promised let see i have a lot of comments. I hope this would help you. CPA-5 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Put the (TF) after this line "were brought into the Territorial Force."
"Territorial Force" is always used in full and never abbreviated in the article, so I don't believe there is any requirement to introduce the abbreviation.
  • Lord Lieutenant --> Lord-Lieutenant
Done.
  • Lords Lieutenant --> Lord-lieutenants
Done
  • FitzHardinge --> Lord FitzHardinge cause of titel
Per MOS:HON, honourifics are optional after first mention.
  • Can you link 3rd Yeomanry Brigade. (if its have his own page of course)
Does not have a page.
  • Where lies Qatia. (or Katia)
Already explained in the article.
  • Why are there a lot of units who aren't linked are there no pages or are they all redirects
All of the units listed below are one of: already linked on first mention; exist only as a redirect; have no article.
    • 2/1st South Midland Mounted Brigade
    • 2/2nd Mounted Division
    • 1/1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 2/1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 3/1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 10th Mounted Brigade
    • 4th Cyclist Brigade
    • 2nd Mounted Division
    • 5th Mounted Brigade
    • 21st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 2nd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 3rd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars
    • 7th Armoured Division
    • 22nd Armoured Brigade
    • 4th County of London Yeomanry
    • 7th Motor Brigade
    • 4th County of London Yeomanry
    • 5th Royal Tank Regiment
    • 3rd County of London Yeomanry
    • Gloucester Troop
  • south-east --> southeast
Per MOS:COMPASS, compass points are hyphenated in BrEng.
  • British empire --> British Empire
Done
  • north-east --> northeast
As above
  • Please link the Far East
Done
  • south-west --> southwest
As above
  • Please link this ranks and the name's
Ranks now linked, but the people do not have articles in Wikipedia
    • Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Birley
    • Major W. A. B. Trevor
  • 1st Armoured Division Tank Delivery Regiment --> 1st Armoured Division, Tank Delivery Regiment
Source states "1st Armoured Division Tank Delivery Regiment", and I don't see anything wrong with how it is now.
  • "Territorial Army" --> "Territorial Army (TA)"
I've added the abbreviation on first mention in the main body. I'm not sure there's a requirement to add it in the lead.
  • "Royal Wessex Yeomanry" --> "Royal Wessex Yeomanry (RWxY)"
I don't believe there's any requirement to abbreviate regiment names just for the sake of it, and as the full name for this regiment is always stated in this article, I don't believe there's a need to abbreviate it.
  • Can you make a list with all the commanders (with ranks and name's) of the unite below the "Battle honours" section.
That information does not exist in the sources.
  • Can you put after every unit an abbreviation like this "Royal Wessex Yeomanry (RWxY)" or Territorial Army (TA).
See above under Royal Wessex Yeomanry. As a general point, where I've used abbreviations they are always introduced after the first full mention. If there is no abbreviation, I always use the full name.
  • We have got quite a reputation. I tell you this because there are certain people in high places who can’t say anything too bad for us after the "disaster", which was bad management and nothing to do with us. So I don’t suppose we shall get much credit. It will be interesting to see. Our Anzac General is delighted with us and says all sorts of nice things, and told Ralph we saved the situation at Romani, where we were told to hold on at all costs till the infantry came up in the morning. --> "We have got quite a reputation. I tell you this because there are certain people in high places who can’t say anything too bad for us after the "disaster", which was bad management and nothing to do with us. So I don’t suppose we shall get much credit. It will be interesting to see. Our Anzac General is delighted with us and says all sorts of nice things, and told Ralph we saved the situation at Romani, where we were told to hold on at all costs till the infantry came up in the morning."
Not sure what the difference is here. Is it just the quote marks? If so, it's a quotebox, which is I believe a form of blockquote, for which quotes must not be used per MOS:BQ.
  • Who was the orginal uploader of this image. File:Sergeants,_Gloucestershire_Hussars,_1896.jpg
That info is given in the commons description, though why is that relevant?
Thanks for your help. I've either made the suggested changes and marked them as done or explained why I'm unable to make any changes as applicable. Factotem (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Support Thanks for explaining why you are unable to make any changes but hey i am just saying what i think it is correct anyway i didn't found anything else good job. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
And I appreciate your comments. Your input identified some errors and resulted in an improved article. Thank you. Factotem (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) & Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment The nominator (who joined Wikipedia earlier this month) has never edited the article as part of their small number of edits to date, and there have been no discussions of a FAC on the talk page. Unless editors with experience with this article believe that it's up to scratch and are willing to take on responding to FAC comments, I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn or closed. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I nominated the article last time, and I believe that it is up to FAC standard. Comments made in the previous FAC candidacy went to improving the coverage of what occurred on the ground. This has been improved since. I made a pass through the article correcting dates and references. I would be willing willing to take on responding to FAC comments, but I would need a fiat from the coordinator to do so. The article may be too controversial in the current climate for the front page. @Binksternet: requesting an opinion on whether the article is in good enough shape or not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's in good shape. Of course the nominator is too new to have any input in the process, and I agree that in the political climate of today, with the unbalanced US president posturing aggressively about his nuclear capability, the article should not be placed on the Main Page. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Whether an article is suitable for WP:TFA is not a criterion, as far as I know, in its acceptance as a WP:FA. It may also be appropriate to remind editors of not censored. TFA is not chosen on the basis of whether it will upset inhabitants of a particular nation (and I think Japan would have more cause for concern than the US...). If Hawkeye7 wants it to run, fine with me, although the coordinators (or Hawkeye) might wish to change the nominator above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The objective of the review process is to improve the article, and given the current state of the article, I don't think that the reviewers' time would be wasted. If you could switch the nominators to Binksternet and myself, that would be appreciated. We can defer discussion of TFA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Re sources: There are almost 300 citations based on nearly 100 sources. A quick glance indicates a number of issues, but before I undertake the sources review I'd like to be assured that the FAC is in the hands of editors ready and capable of addressing these issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    I will resolve any errors found. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm in. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Ian Rose Sarastro1, probably more appropriate for one of you to change the nominators Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Okay, that's done -- as this is a co-nom, there's no issue with Hawkeye being a party even though he has another nom open (given the progress that nom we might we well have granted dispensation anyway). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

Because citation numbers may change during this FAC, please note that my numbers quoted below are from this version of the article.

  • Ref 34: you should add the work ("Wired")
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 55: I don't think that Roosevelt and Churchill should really be cited as "authors" of this document, although they signed it – they employed drafters for such purposes. Recommend delete author details
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Refs 63 and 69: be consistent in how you format the publisher detais (AFHRA in one case, "Air Force Historical Research Agency" in the other. also, we don't normally include location in cite web particulars; "Tinian" is of no value and may cause confusion.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 115: You should name the publisher, which in this case is "Nuclear Age Peace Foundation" rather than nuclearfiles.org, whci is the "work=". There are other instances in the reflist of work being treated as publisher.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 116: Hyphen in p. range should be ndash
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 137: I'm not sure why this citation needs the lengthy note. If this material is covered by what's in the source, it's unnecessary; if it comes from elsewhere it needs to be separately cited.
    It's from the source. Basically, it is there because different altitudes are cited in different sources. Like you, I was going to just leave the one that is most accepted, but other editors felt that we should explain why we have passed over other sources that are otherwise reliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, but just a couple of things. At present the note doesn't have a proper beginning – it starts "...describes how varios values...". And I imagine that the ascription to Kerr et al. (2005) at the end needs to be cited. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 141: Lacks publisher information
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 143: Per 115 above, publisher= Hiroshima Day Committee, work= hiroshimacommittee.org
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 153: What makes this a high quality reliable source per FA criteria?
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 154: The publisher appears to be "The Asia-Pacific Journal"
    Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 155: The provenance is not clear from the details you provide. This is a transcript from a 1986 video: "HIROSHIMA WITNESS", produced by Hiroshima Peace Cultural Center and "NHK" whoever they may be
    NHK is Japan's national public broadcasting organization. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7](discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 157: Paywall, therefore (subscription required) template should be added
    The whole article comes up for me. Are you sure? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (it's now 156) I can't access the article – I'm getting invitations to subscribe, on various bases. Perhaps it's not free in the UK?
  • Ref 158: Lacks publisher information
    Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 165: Hyphen in p. range should be ndash
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 169: Link returns "page not found"
    Archive link added via Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 172: "The Manhattan Engineer District" produced the report, but the publisher appears to be "Trinity Atomic"
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 175: S/M Herbert Friedman is the author – is he also the publisher? If so, how does the source fulfil the quality/reliability criteria?
    He is an expert on the subject, and the site is used for the images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 176: Publisher not given. I'd say "Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum" is the publisher; the title insofar as I can make it out, appears to be "The Atomic Bomb dropped on Nagasaki"
    The City of Nagasaki is the publisher. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 177: Not sure where this website comes from. There was a documentary series called "A Century of Flight" – is this related to that?
    Don't know. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 178: Use caps in publisher name (see 194)
    Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 189: self-published – why reliable?
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 191: The page range format should be standardised
    Typo. Should have been "234" Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 205: Publisher needed, also a note that the language is Japanese
    It's in English. Archive link added via Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 208: Publisher is PBS (capitalised)
    Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 212: Publisher is Atomic Archive, not National Science Digital Library
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 229: Publisher details missing
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 233: The proper form of the publisher's name is "Voices of the Manhattan Project"
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 234: "Restricted Data" is not the publisher of this blog. You need to show why this is acceptable as a high quality, reliable source.
    Alex Wellerstein is a historian of science and nuclear weapons and a professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology. He is one of the bworld's premier experts on the history nuclear weapons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 238: who or what is "Yosha Research"?
    The website of William Wetherall, the translator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (now 231) What are his credential as a RS? Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 241: why add the quote from the source? That is the purpose of the citation
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 246: link returns 404 error message
    Restored from archive.is Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (now 235) The main link is now OK, but the archive is returning an error message. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 264: Give the publisher's proper name (as you do in 269 & 273)
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 274: Note language
    It's in English. Archive link added via Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 277: Link returns "page not found"
    Works for me - double check. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (now 266) Still giving me page not found message
  • Ref 278: Italicise the newspaper title, per 275
    Unbelievable. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 279: The explanatory detail, and the wikilink, should be included in the first citation to this source
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 281: The publisher is Sky News
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 282: The name "CNN" should not be in italics as it is not a print source.
    But it's a news source, so the {{cite news}} template seems most appropriate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    • (now 272) It may be a news source, but it's a TV station, not a newspaper, and shouldn't be in the template's "newspaper=" field. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
      Switched to {{cite web}} Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've not yet finished looking at the sources ("references") list, but the above should be enough to be getting on with. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No further issues arising from the list of sources. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

The manner in which this article was nominated was unfortunate, not least as the usual pre-FAC polishing hasn't occurred and the article is somewhat under-prepared for FAC. However, I'm pleased to see it here. I disagree with the views above that this article couldn't appear on the front page - it is eminently suitable for this, though it would be a vandal magnet. I have the following comments. The FA coordinators should note that I've made various minor edits to the article over the years, mainly to remove vandalism, and taken part in lots of discussions on the talk page.

  • "The United States had dropped the bombs with the consent of the United Kingdom as outlined in the Quebec Agreement" - tense seems wrong, and this is a bit vague: how about "The United States dropped the bombs after obtaining the consent of the United Kingdom as required in the Quebec Agreement"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Japanese ignored the ultimatum" - "Ignored" seems a bit strong: there were rumblings inside the Japanese government to end the war. They just didn't do so: the article later states that the Japanese Government explicitly rejected the declaration.
    The Japanese didn't explicitly reject the Potsdam Declaration. Behind the word is a whole article on the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The 1.25 million battle casualties incurred in total by the United States in World War II included both military personnel killed in action and wounded in action. Nearly one million of the casualties occurred during the last year of the war, from June 1944 to June 1945. In December 1944, American battle casualties hit an all-time monthly high of 88,000 as a result of the German Ardennes Offensive." - not clearly linked to the subject of this article - I'd suggest noting that this was leading to increasing desire in the US to bring the war to an end.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Along the way, the ratio of Japanese to American casualties dropped from 5:1 in the Philippines to 2:1 on Okinawa" - this implies a linear progression, which wasn't the case. The Allied forces in Burma and Borneo incurred much lighter casualties in defeating significant Japanese units, not least as the Japanese armies there were able to retreat which generally wasn't an option on the small Pacific islands. The Soviets were also able to destroy the Japanese forces in Manchuria with ease.
    True, but the JCS planners believed that the fighting would more closely resemble Saipan and Okinawa. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although some Japanese soldiers were taken prisoner" - the number and proportion of Japanese soldiers surrendering was increasing rapidly at this time: many soldiers recognised that the war was lost, and the Allied troops had at last been persuaded to take prisoners. The home guard forces on Okinawa were particularly keen to get out of the war, though most were unable to do so.
    The article notes that, but I've added a bit more to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "By July 1945, the Japanese had stockpiled 1,156,000 US barrels (137,800,000 l; 36,400,000 US gal; 30,300,000 imp gal) of avgas for the invasion of Japan." - sits a bit awkwardly here. The use of "by" also suggests that the stockpile was increasing, when really it was a wasting resource.
    Re-phrased this slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "On July 25, Nagasaki was put on the target list in place of Kyoto." - as the rationale for the selection of the other target cities is described, I'd suggest doing the same for Nagasaki
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • "The leaflets caused such concern amongst the Empire of Japan" - non-professional wording ("Japanese Government" perhaps?)
    That is awkward. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Hiroshima was not listed.[91][92][93][94]" - are four references really needed for this fact?
    Removed two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Do all the attendees at the Combined Policy Committee meeting really need to be listed?
    No; trimmed this. But added the text of the order, as not everyone can read the image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit wary of the use of Truman's diary on the contentious issue of the bomb targets without discussion. Do secondary sources confirm that he really thought that they would be used only on purely military targets? - if so, was he mislead?
    No, he was, until very recently, the stupidest person to hold the office, and he actually believed that Hiroshima was a military base. For a full discussion of this, see here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Having been fully briefed under the terms of Operations Order No. 35, the 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay, piloted by Tibbets, took off from North Field, Tinian, about six hours' flight time from Japan. " - please tweak to clarify who was briefed (presumably the crew of the Enola Gay, and the other aircraft involved in the mission)
    Forget it. Deleted that phrase. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest noting what was going on in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing. From memory, the museum there notes that one of the reasons casualties were so high was that lots of people were out in the open on a sunny summer morning, including significant numbers clearing fire breaks and seeing off a troop train at the main station.
  • The 'Events on the ground' section for Hiroshima is unsatisfactory, as it presents what seems like a semi-random collection of facts rather than a narrative of what occurred. For instance, it's odd that it starts with a paragraph on the fate of a handful of of concrete buildings, and not the experiences of the people caught up in the bombing, and then name-checks various people. I'd suggest re-working this section to describe the destruction caused and affects on people on the ground (various sources describe columns of terribly wounded civilians), and then how the recovery efforts progressed over the day of the bombing and subsequent days.
  • "Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council considered four conditions for surrender" - these have already been described
    Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "they headed" - please clarify who "they" is here
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "inside the fireball estimated at 3,900 °C (7,050 °F)[when?] and winds that were estimated at over 1,000 km/h (620 mph).[207][208][where?]" - I'd suggest addressing these requests
    The source says "The initial fireball expanded to 110 yards in diameter, generating heat in excess of 300,000 degrees Centigrade, with core temperatures over 50 million degrees Centigrade." Deleted the whole sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • " Because of the delays in the mission and the inoperative fuel transfer pump, Bockscar did not have sufficient fuel to reach the emergency landing field at Iwo Jima" - already stated
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the para which begins with "Following the mission, there was confusion over the identification of the plane" really needed? It seems like trivia.
    For some years sources credited the wrong plane. After a bit of debate on the Bockcar page, we decided it belonged here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The 'Events on the ground' section for Nagasaki seems rather brief, especially in comparison to the blow by blow description of the strike mission. Unlike the section on Hiroshima, it doesn't cover the recovery efforts at all. I also don't understand why the experiences of a couple of the Allied POWs are privileged. I'd suggest restructuring this section along the lines of my comments on the Hiroshima section.
  • On that note, I'd suggest trimming the material on the adventures of Bockcar - the blow by blow coverage tends to obscure the broader point of this not being a well conducted mission, and most of these details aren't significant in their own right (especially in comparison to the destruction of much of a city)
    But article is supposed to be about the bombing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, but the misadventures of the plane and its crew aren't very significant, except for how they affected the choice of city to be attacked, and where the bomb exploded. The balance seems a bit off at present. Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "At least 35,000–40,000 people were killed and 60,000 others injured.[216][217][218][219]" - why is this referenced to four sources? Is this because estimates vary considerably? - if so, I'd suggest stating this.
    Also says that; I have reduced the sources cited to just two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Truman had secretly requested this on August 10" - why did Truman do this in secret, and what does this mean? (did he issue the order informally?)
    No, he gave instructions to the SecWar (Stimson), who told the CoS (Marshal). I presume it was secret because they didn't want the Japanese to know. What some people might find surprising is that Truman didn't order the atomic bombing; he was the man who ordered it to stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest replacing the para starting with "There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs then in production for Operation Downfall" which largely comprises a quote from a primary source with a discussion of the evolving plans at this time. From memory, Giangreco states that it was eventually decided to stockpile the bombs to support the invasion (including through use against tactical military targets)
    Trimmed this back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The 'Surrender of Japan and subsequent occupation' section is unsatisfactory: it is unduly focused on the Emperor, the content of his speech and his self-serving discussion with MacArthur when the cabinet also played a key role in these decisions, with cabinet ministers' motivations also being important.
    There is a whole article on the subject, so I only wanted a summary, one with an emphasis on the bombing. Re-written to add more about the political machinations behind the surrender. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "During the war, caricatures depicting Japanese as less than human, e.g. monkeys, were common.[240] A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of "killing off" all Japanese people.[241][242]" - what's the purpose of this para? If it's to argue that the bombing was motivated by racism, this needs to be set out. The opinion poll result hardly seems to support such a notion though. More broadly, various sources argue that the atomic bombings were part of the evolution of Allied bombing tactics during the war and weren't motivated by anti-Japanese sentiment (Germans were fire bombed in almost exactly the same way as Japanese were, with the difference being that Japanese cities were far more vulnerable to this tactic)
    Deleted the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The material on filming and reporting of the effects of the bombs seems overly detailed. It would be much clearer and more effective if it was stripped back to a discussion of how news of the effects of the bomb on civilians was presented to the wider world.
  • "Similarly, there was no censorship of the factually written witness accounts," - this was well after wartime censorship had ended. This section also seems to be debating itself over what was or wasn't 'censorship' versus editors choosing to not show things, which is rather confusing and largely irrelevant.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "a poll in Fortune magazine in late 1945 showed a significant minority of Americans (22.7%) wishing that more atomic bombs could have been dropped on Japan" - seems very low actually, especially given the timing. The survey finding that 77% of Americans didn't support this notion seems rather more remarkable.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The 'Post-attack casualties' section is unsatisfactory: it's focused on various assessments of the effects of the bombs on birth defects, and barely mentions the fate of the bomb survivors. It's odd that only US studies are highlighted, when there has also been significant research on the topic in Japan, including some early assessments by the Japanese Government.
  • "Neel also studied the longevity of the children who survived the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reporting that between 90 and 95 percent were still living 50 years later" - was this a later study? It couldn't have been determined at the time.
  • Was there only one 'double survivor'? The article mentions only one person, but then discusses these people in plural.
    It seems to have something to do with being a card-carrying hibakusha; it's not enough to have merely been in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • " which resulted in the denial of the free health benefits to them" - who was denying this? The Japanese or (South?) Korean governments?
    Japan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "One figure of speech, "One hundred million [subjects of the Japanese Empire] will die for the Emperor and Nation",[287] served as a unifying slogan, although that phrase was intended as a figure of speech along the lines of the "ten thousand years" phrase" - out of place here
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it really accurate to refer to 'supporters' of the use of the bombs? My impression has been that various historians believe that the use of the bombs was a regrettable necessity, and this term makes it sound like they're enthusiastic. The notion that supporters "generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender" also seems over-stated: my impression has been that such historians typically see the bombs as having a vital influence on the Japanese decision to surrender, but not being the only cause of this (virtually all the key Japanese decision makers knew the war was lost by 1944). Overall, this para doesn't really capture the views of historians who regard the use of bombs as being justified.
    Revised this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944, ordering the execution of Allied prisoners of war when the POW camp was in the combat zone" - this is referenced to a primary source, so does not directly support the claim here
    I'm not certain of its relevance - removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Counter Punch is being used to reference a topic which has been the subject of scholarly sources (and is debated by scholars)
    All it is being used for is enumerating different arguments; the debate has not been restricted to scholars. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The bombings were part of an already fierce conventional bombing campaign. This, together with the naval blockade, could also have eventually starved the Japanese into surrender. At the time the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army" - already stated, and the point being made here could be condensed and put more clearly.
    Rewritten this part. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the situation map and explaining the colours in the caption
    How about letting me know how big you think it should be? Expanded to 1.4. Let me know if you think it should be larger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Several captions need editing for grammar - please review
  • File:Tokyo_1945-3-10-1.jpg: source links are dead. Which of the rationales from that tag are believed to apply?
    Added references to the Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Three_Tinian_Joint_Chiefs.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Atomic_bomb_1945_mission_map.svg
    Added references to the Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Hirgrnd1.jpg: this would need an expanded FUR and different tag to warrant inclusion
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Hiroshima_Street_Scene_with_injured_Civilians.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    It was published in Japan in 1945, but not in the United States until 1952. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Images using PD-Japan-oldphoto need to include info on original publication
  • File:Bocks-Car-enlisted-flight-crew.png is tagged as lacking source and author info
    Grrr. Replaced image with a better one from the USAF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Sumiteru_Taniguchi_back.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Nagasaki_temple_destroyed.jpg.
    Added references to the Wayback machine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I don't normally do milhist, and i claim no expertise, but having entered the fray above, I thought I'd better take a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  • very costly invasion of the Japanese mainland.— the text implies that this is primarily in terms of lives rather than cash, should this be made explicit?
    Why not? Military historians always use "costly" in the sense of casualties, but no reason not to make it explicit for others. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably obvious to Americans, but as an ignorant Brit, it would help if it was made clear that Okinawa and Iwo Jima are Japanese islands
    Well, they are Japanese-controlled territories, but not geographically considered part of Japan. Iwo Jima is an uninhabited island in the Volcano Islands group. The US returned it to Japanese control in 1968. Okinawa is the largest of the Ryukyu Islands, and was returned to Japanese control in 1972. Unfortunately, Iwo is not marked on the big map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • combatants in the legal sense— I think that's a little misleading; the Geneva Convention sense is members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered, perhaps clarify that this is the US interpretation.
    Agreed. Removed this sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • target insert —means??
    It's about the configuration of a Little Boy bomb. There was a hollow cylindrical projectile and a cylindrical target.Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • enormous casualties that an invasion of Japan might have involved.[279][6]—just happened to notice that refs are in wrong order (proves I did read it all too)
    More importantly, that you looked at the last part of a long article. A common problem is reviewers only looking at the first half. Face-smile.svg Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with the replies above, and I can't see anything terminal in the comments of more knowledgeable editors above, so I'm happy to change to support above. Great stuff. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Frank 1999, p. 286–87. P/PP error.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Six books (reprints, presumably) published too early to have ISBNs, fix with |orig-year=Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think there's any reprints. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm assuming they are all reprints, since ISBNs weren't available 'til 1970...should I search for the info? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
      Which books are you talking about? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Gowing 1964, pp. 40-43, 76-79. Hyphen in pg. range;
  • Jones 1985, pp. 82-84. Hyphen in pg. range;
  • Jones 1985, pp. 82-84. Hyphen in pg. range;
  • Allen, Louis (1969). Missing OCLC;
  • Appleman, Roy E.; Burns, James M.; Gugeler, Russell A.; Stevens, John (1948). Missing OCLC;
  • Asada, Sadao (1996). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Bix, Herbert (1996). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Coox, Alvin D. (1969). Missing OCLC;
  • Coox, Alvin D. (1994). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Dower, John W. (1996). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Groves, Leslie (1962). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=;
  • Hewlett, Richard G.; Anderson, Oscar E. (1962). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=;
  • Kerr, George D.; Young, Robert W.; Cullings, Harry M.; Christy, Robert F. (2005). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Kido, Kōichi; Yoshitake, Oka (1966). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;
  • Knebel, Fletcher; Bailey, Charles W. (1960). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;
  • McCormack, Mary (2008). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • McNelly, Theodore H. (2000). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Scoenberger, Walter (1969). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=;
  • United States Department of State (1960). Missing OCLC;
  • Walker, J. Samuel (January 1990). Sort error, expected: Walker, J. Samuel (April 2005);
  • Walker, J. Samuel (April 2005). Sort error, expected: Walker, J. Samuel (January 1990);
    What's the problem here? Looks like your script cannot sort dates correctly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Kanabun (2012). Kyoko; Tam, Young, eds.Inconsistent Location (84 with; 1 without); Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Ogura, Toyofumi (1948). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;
  • Warren, Stafford L. (1966). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    All should be okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose by EddieHugh[edit]

I'll explain what I see as being the main problem with the article in its current form, then give some illustrative examples and end by stating the two options that could lead to improvement.

This is the main Wikipedia article on one of the pivotal (set of) events in recorded human history. There are other more specific articles on the same topic, but this is the central one. It is also the main Wikipedia article on the military aspects of the bombings. If the article is to cover both of these things (being a general article about the only use of atomic weapons; being specifically about the US military bombings) successfully, then a huge amount needs to be covered.

I'm a big admirer of the Military History WikiProject; it's the best one that I've come across. Inevitably, however, editors who are heavily involved in one project tend to see articles from the perspective of that project, and such is the case with this article. A huge amount needs to be covered in this article, and a huge amount of the military history is covered, but a lot of the essential non-military history facets are entirely or largely absent.

Some examples... the lead states "The atomic bombings' immediate and long-term consequences for military strategy [...] human health, and international relations, as well as their impact on the social and political character of subsequent world history and popular culture, have been extensively studied." This is a good summary, but it's a summary of the real world, not this article. I see almost nothing on international relations or subsequent world history, nothing on popular culture. I add: almost nothing on rebuilding; almost nothing on memorials; nothing on Japan's domestic and foreign policy; nothing on other countries' policies; nothing on attitudes to atomic weapons in Japan or elsewhere.

Continuing, the focus on the US military bombings infuses the article with a strong US bias. The lead states "Over the next two to four months, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 people in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day". I read through "Events on the ground" and see some images of victims and a paragraph on 20 American military personnel, but nothing on tens of thousands who died of acute effects over the next 2–4 months... I read on, maybe it's in "Events of August 7–9", but that's more military stuff. Then it's Nagasaki... "Events on the ground" gives the post-bombing civilian dead one sentence. Eventually, I reach "Post-attack casualties"... this must be the section, but no, it's on a different subject. So, tens of thousands died after the bombings, and this merits one sentence. (Maybe I missed more, but not much, I'd guess.) In reading through, I note a 10-sentence paragraph on a US plane landing and a 6-sentence paragraph on a US journalist having trouble finding out what number had been assigned to a plane. This contrast in level of detail is grotesque.

In short, in its current state, this is a richly detailed military history article that is trapped inside a more general article. I see two options: a) split off the military history parts into a new article and leave a summary of them in this article, in the normal way, then nominate that new article; or b) add a lot of information about the non-military aspects of this very important topic, while toning down the US-centric presentation. It can't pass as it is. Referring to the formal criteria, the article fails 1b ("comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context") and 1d ("neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias") by very wide margins. EddieHugh (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sasuke Uchiha[edit]

Nominator(s): Flowerpiep (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC) & Tintor2 (talk)

This article is about Sasuke Uchiha, one of the main characters from Masashi Kishimoto's manga and anime series Naruto. I am of the belief that it should be featured since it was copy-edited and received a peer review from which every comment was addressed. Right now, the article is a GA. I have done plenty of edits to this article, trying to revise the prose and organise the article better. Also, @Tintor2: has been greatly improving the article with a lot of important edits, so this nomination is made on behalf of both of us. Thank you. Flowerpiep (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

Pinging some users who have previously commented on the article @DragonZero:, @SubZeroSilver:, @PresN:, @Aoba47:, @AngusWOOF: and @Sjones23:.Tintor2 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Great coverage and references. I think there are some parts that could be rewritten for more clarity, but overall is understandable. I'd remove the description section, but that shouldn't affect the FA. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Any/all books need locations of publishers Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I tried to fix that. Flowerpiep (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

@Lingzhi: Thanks for the comment. Flowerpiep and me already added location to every cite book. Feel to express any other concern.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Location means "city and state or, outside the United States, city and country", so for example "Tokyo, Japan". Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: Understood. I gave it a revision.Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: I'm a bit confused. Should English releases be like "California, United States" or "San Francisco, California"?Tintor2 (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

() US = "San Francisco, California"; Japan = "Tokyo, Japan". Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Done. Thanks for the aclarations.Tintor2 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
User comment: The issue was solved. See [[User talk:Flowerpiep
  1. Your FAC and location of publisher|here]].Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:SarutobiSasuke.jpg does not have a strong enough rationale for inclusion. Same with File:SasukeUchihapartIIbeta.jpg
  • File:Boushuu_uchiwa.jpg: what is the copyright status of the object pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Removed the Sarutobi image since it's not further elaborated in the prose and improved the rationale of IIbeta since there is an entire paragraph about it.
  • Changed the Uchiwa image to Own work also available in commons.Tintor2 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Forgot to mention but in wikicommons there is also an "Uchiha" image here. Would you find it worthy to reception?Tintor2 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't think so - what benefit do you think the reader would derive from including that image? That would be a good question to consider when improving FURs as well - to justify a non-free image, we need to explain why removing it would be detrimental to reader understanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: What image do you mean? I once again expanded the rationale of betaII. Should I remove it alongside the Uchiwa? I'm not good when it comes with free images.Tintor2 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • My question was regarding the Uchiha logo. For the betaII image, which of the features described in the article does it depict? This should be elaborated on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: Revised further more and elborated on the captain image with citations. I won't add the Uchiha logo following your suggestions, but should I remove the eastern fan image?Tintor2 (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • The fan is simple enough in design that it's not a copyright concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Should I remove the IIbeta image or it now has a good rationale?Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It's workable. I would encourage you to add some of the content from the article to the image description, to point out what traits exactly the sketches illustrate. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Expanded the rationale further more. I think I can't add anything more. If not, then I'll remove it. Thanks for the image review.Tintor2 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For this part (but he later tries to be empathetic toward his teammates), I would say “more empathetic”.
  • I think that this part (a quest of gaining more strength regardless the cost.) would read better as (a quest to gain more strength regardless the cost.)
  • This sentence (Although Sasuke's design challenged Kishimoto as he drew the manga due to initially finding it difficult to write him as a teenager as well as giving him too many details, he has grown to enjoy drawing him.) is rather long and awkwardly worded in my opinion. I would revise this a little to have the information flow more cohesively.
  • In the lead, you mention that the characrer received “mixed responses”, but you only include aspects of the character that were praised. I would identify points that received criticism for balance.
  • For this part (Sanpei Shirato's Sasuke), I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of Sasuke to identify what it is for an unfamiliar reader.
  • I do not believe that “sequel” needs a link.

Great work with the article; once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1)? Either way, have a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the comments. I tried addressing him. Will check your nomination tomorrow. It's a bit late here.Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  • No worries; I greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to do so sometime in the future. Great work with this, and I support it for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

Some prose issues:

  • "strength regardless the cost" -> "strength regardless of the cost"
  • "responses from publications for anime and manga" - this could be shortened to "responses from anime and manga publications"
  • "Many reviewers his impressive abilities shown across his fights" - missing a verb here. "Many reviewers noted his..."?
  • "originally had a different name which the author forgot" - this is unclear. Who forgot the name, Kishimoto?
  • "was honored to be chosen" - this should not be written in Wikipedia's voice - it should be changed to "said he was honored to be chosen"

Down to the Description section so far. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Done. Thanks for the comments.Tintor2 (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from AmericanAir88[edit]

Thank you for giving input on my FAC, I will post my comments soon. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues:

  • "Sasuke's design challenged Kishimoto as he drew the manga due to initially finding it difficult to write him based on what his suitable look would be. However, the author has grown to enjoy drawing him."
Confusing Sentences
  • "Nevertheless, asked if Sasuke was good or evil, he called him a "very pure person"; although some of his actions such as following his clan's ideals are positive, his self-centeredness tends to cause problems with others."
Confusing Sentence and Grammar
  • Do a grammar sweep making sure the format is correct.
  • "Manga, anime, and video-game publications and related media have praised and criticized the character"
Confusing as it contradicts itself

This is a fantastic article, once these issues are addressed, I will totally give this a support. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Done. Tried fixing every statement.Tintor2 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Looks Good - Support. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll give my thoughts tomorrow, but I took a quick look at the article, and so far so good. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

I'm sorry for the delay (real-life stuff happened), but I just did a quick source review. All of the sources meet our guidelines (i.e. no self-published sources and the like), and are either live or are archived. No problems were detected, and the article is adequately sourced. This is a pass for the source review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The only one I feared the one from Larp Editores, but they are the official translators of the manga in Argentina.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Review/comments from Alexandra[edit]

  • (coming soon)--Alexandra IDVtalk 13:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Write out "original video animation" or otherwise explain what an OVA is, this is not clear for people who aren't anime fans
  • Whereas shōnen should be italicized as an uncommon foreign language term, manga does not need to be
  • and Sarutobi Sasuke, a fictional ninja in Japanese children's stories. - you're linking "Japanese" to "Japanese language", but in this context "Japanese" refers to Japanese culture or literature.
  • For the spin-off Naruto: The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring, - you have already mentioned that Sasuke appears in multiple different media, so it might be good to specify that The Seventh Hokage is a spin-off manga.
  • Kenjutsu is not a word you can expect the average English-speaker to understand. Either replace it or add an explanation
  • It is hard to follow along the plot summaries under "Appearances" for someone not familiar with Naruto. I would suggest going into less detail, doing a more general overview of his role in Part I and II.
Comment: I actually disagree with this as I am not familiar with Naruto and I was able to follow it. That's not to say that your suggestion is not valid here. --JDC808 12:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I still think that a more generalized and concise overview would be good.--Alexandra IDVtalk 12:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have been messaged on my talk page to provide my opinion. I agree with JDC808 on this matter, and I think the prose works in the section. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You're first linking original video animations, and then OVA, under "In other media". Just link it the first time and introduce the acronym, ie original video animations (OVA)
  • From what I can tell, it is not titled Japanese Charapedia - just Charapedia. I would suggest rewriting this as a popularity poll on the Japanese website Charapedia.
  • The "best guy" poll seems to be specifically about crushes on fictional characters and not just "best male character" in general, so it should be described as such.
  • (have yet to go through the reception section)--Alexandra IDVtalk 11:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexandra IDV: I tried revising everything you mentioned. Thanks for the comments. I'll see if I can trim it the appearances a bit more. I mean, the series lasted for 72 volumes so I already trimmed a lot of what originally it was. Will give it a try.Tintor2 (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV: @JDC808: I tried trimming the part II section furthermore since that's where there is more text. Hope this helps.Tintor2 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Flowerpiep: calling the other nominator too.Tintor2 (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV: @JDC808: Decided to revise some parts from "In Naruto" to start with his first introduction.Tintor2 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV: @JDC808: Flowerpiep gave the prose some copyedit. Is still enough? The two of us are wondering if the subheadings "In Part I" and "In Part II" are necessary.Tintor2 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I haven't had a lot of WP time the last few days. I will look at your edits and resume the review shortly.--Alexandra IDVtalk 16:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JDC808[edit]

I read through the entire article, and here are the issues that I had.

Development
  • Third paragraph, this sentence: "Kishimoto stated that Sasuke was neither of these two and called him a "very pure person"." ---> Whenever there's a direct quote, always put the source at the end of that sentence.
  • Last paragraph, this sentence: "For the spin-off Naruto: The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring focusing on Sasuke and Sakura's daughter, Sarada Uchiha, Kishimoto wanted to explain the couple's connection." ---> This is oddly constructed. Some punctuation could fix this though here's my suggested rewrite: "For the spin-off, Naruto: The Seventh Hokage and the Scarlet Spring, which focuses on Sasuke and Sakura's daughter, Sarada Uchiha, Kishimoto wanted to explain the couple's connection."
Design
  • In the first and second paragraph, you're basically repeating information (more specifically, about how Sasuke was challenging/difficult to design/draw and how Sasuke originally looked too old). As I read the first two sentences of the second paragraph, I realized that I literally just read this same information in the preceding paragraph. I almost thought it was word-for-word. I would move "Kishimoto also considered Sasuke his most challenging character to design. He lacked a clear idea of how his face should appear, and in his initial drawings, Sasuke looked too old for someone who was the same age as Naruto." out of the first paragraph and make it the beginning of the second paragraph and revise where necessary.
  • "midway through the series' first part (Part I)" ---> Kinda redundant. I understand what you were trying to do here, but it looks odd. This could be fixed by saying "midway through Part I of the series"
  • Same thing here: "Kishimoto's design focus in the second part of the plot (Part II)" ---> "Kishimoto's design focus for Part II"
Personality and voice actors
  • "At the beginning of the Part I anime," ---> Oddly structured. Suggest: "At the beginning of Part I of the anime,"

--JDC808 05:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@JDC808: Thank you for the comments. I tried to fix each one of the issues. Flowerpiep (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep
Great! All of my issues have been resolved. I Support this nomination. --JDC808 07:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

SMS Pommern[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Another one of my articles on German battleships, this one was the only battleship of any type on either side to be sunk at the Battle of Jutland - her loss accounted for about a third of German deaths in the battle. I wrote the article and it passed a Milhist A-class review several years ago, but recently revamped it with new sources, and it has since had a GOCE copyedit. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

Apart from ref 33 needing "pp." rather than "p.", all sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2[edit]

I don't see too many issues other than redlinks. They tend to be discouraged unless you can link to another Wikipedia that has such article. Also I would suggest merging the last paragraph due to its small length. Other than that I see no issues. Ping me or mention me once you are done. Also, if possible, there is another FAC that has been kind of dead and I would appreciate comments there. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Red links are fine per WP:REDLINK, and there are only 2 links (one of which is linked to the de.wiki article. Merging the last sentence seems fine to me though. I'll try to look at that other FAC, but my time is somewhat limited (and I wouldn't worry too much about the FAC being dead - it's only been up for a few days, they usually run a month, minimum). Thanks, @Tintor2:. Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Leaving my support. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for another good ship! Only minor points:

  • Pommern vs. Pomerania. In the lead, the state is introduced in English. In Service history we read Oberpräsident von Pommern. Would people know what the title means, Oberpräsident (de)? (I didn't, - learned something.) Is the redirect meant to confirm that Pommern means Pomerania?
    • Thanks for the link - have added a translation from that article. And yes, it's a hopefully less clunky way of reinforcing that than just repeating the line in the introduction.
  • "The next year—1909—followed much the same pattern as in 1908." - somewhat redundant, that 1908 ;)
    • Good catch.
  • link Kattegat? and Skagerrak when mentioned first, not second?
    • Both done>

Battle of Jutland

  • 2 sentences in a row begin "As a result"
    • Removed the second one.
  • "Pommern could not make out a target in the darkness, though several of her sisters could. Despite this, their shooting was ineffective." - not sure what that means, especially what "this" means.
    • Reworded - see how it reads now.

That's all, good luck! ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your changes and comments, and the new article. The sentence in question is better, but now has a "but" and a "though", - think about it. But no reason though to hold up my support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford[edit]

  • Support There's not much to comment on as much has already been addressed, as above, and the article was in a good shape to begin with, having passed GA. The only lingering thing is that, as a less than 15K character article, it doesn't entirely comply with the MOS for WP:LEADLENGTH which says a lead of one to two paragraph is appropriate for an article of this size. That said, however, I believe this should be an IAR case as the lead is what I would expect to read in a print encyclopedia for this subject and this length is needed for an appropriate overview. Very nice job. Chetsford (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine[edit]

Nominator(s): Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an indie video game in which players solve heists using a range of different characters, all with different specialties. I've only ever nominated one other article for FA (Fallout 4: Far Harbor), so if you think I've missed anything in the article, please leave suggestions. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias and Alexandra IDV: Pinging those who left comments on the PR. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Add ALT text to the infobox image. Please add ALT text for all of the images.
  • The caption for the infobox image should not have a period at the end as it is not a complete sentence.
  • For this part (his, the Pickpocket, the Cleaner, and Lookout's recent actions), I would rephrase it to (his recent actions with the Pickpocket, the Cleaner, and Lookout) to avoid having “his” awkwardly cut off.
  • Please be consistent with your use of the the Oxford comma. You use it in a majority of places, but there are spots without it (i.e. for the Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X and Linux).
Fixed the one you mentioned.
  • ”Playstation 3” is linked multiple times in the body of the article. The same comment applies for “Eurogamer”.

Great work with the article; once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1)? Either way, have a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Aoba47. I believe I've addressed them all. I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment, but I'll try to take a look. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; I support this for promotion. Don't worry if you cannot get to my FAC. I very much enjoyed reading through this article, and my FAC is still very new and hopefully will attract more attention/commentary over time. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Loev (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): VedantTalk 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an Indian film that was released on Netflix. The article has been reworded significantly since its last FAC attempt, and I've addressed all the comments from the previous FAC since. It also underwent a recent copy-edit by a member of the GOCE. Looking forward to the review. VedantTalk 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher[edit]

  • You can merge the second and third sentences from the lead as "it stars Dhruv Ganesh and Shiv Pandit as two friends who set off to the Western Ghats for a weekend trip and their complex emotional and sexual relationship."
  • "It was Ganesh's final film role; he died prior to the production's release, after suffering from tuberculosis." This sentence can be rephrased as, 'It was Ganesh's final film role who died prior to the production's release, after suffering from tuberculosis.'
  • "Saria conceived Loev's script while he was working on another project." Some detail about his 'another project'.
  • Why the budget in the infobox is written in USD? It's an Indian film after-all.
The only reliable source about the budget is available in USD; conversion would be a little tricky.
I don't think converting 1 million USD in INR is tricky. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I mean the source says that the film was made on a budget of less than 1 million US Dollars, and that too back in 2011-12. With the ever changing exchange rates, and the approximation of the costs it would be too streched to be accurate. Let me know how you feel though. VedantTalk 15:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, then let it be.
  • "It was eventually picked up for production." By whom?
  • "Principal photography took place at Mahabaleshwar, the UNESCO World Heritage Site in the Western Ghats in peninsular India". Is the UNESCO bit necessary here?
  • Can you mention the budget of the film in the lead?
  • GQ should be linked to GQ.
  • There are some dubious sources like "Birth Movies Death" and "One Room With A View".
Well Birth Movies Death is a verified RT source and used in a lot of their overall ratings; looking for an explanation/replacement for the other.
Any progress here? Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the second review Yash. VedantTalk 15:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's it for now. I'll post more comments if I find any other issues with the article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Done/Left Comments. Thank you for the comments Yash. Looking forward to the rest. VedantTalk 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this nomination. Great work on the article, good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Yash. I appreciate your help. VedantTalk 15:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Would it be better to rephrase this (the complex emotional and sexual relationship between the two) to this (their complex emotional and sexual relationship) to be more concise?
  • Would it be better to rephrase this (who died prior to the production's release, after suffering from tuberculosis) to this (who died from tuberculosis prior to the production’s release) to be more concise?
  • For this part (while he was working on another project, I Am Here), I would add the year in which I Am Here was released and clarify what exactly I Am Here is as the word “project” is rather vague.
  • For this part (over the course of sixteen days by the cinematographer), I think that the word “sixteen” should be represented in numerals according to Wikipedia policy.
  • For the Shiv Pandit image, I would include the year in which the image was taken by placing (pictured in X) after his name.

Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. A majority of my comments were already addressed in the previous FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. All your comments have been addressed Aoba47. Let me know if there is anything else. VedantTalk 11:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I support this for promotion. Good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Aoba47, I appreciate the help. VedantTalk 15:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

Done Kailash; let me know if that's what you were looking for. VedantTalk 19:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 1: Neither the main nor the archive link to this video is working. The message I get is "Sorry, the Wayback Machine does not have this video (oz7DImobtJ8) archived/indexed."
Well the video isn't really of any importance. The source material is actually the film's description and the director biography in the description.
  • Ref 18: The publisher is given as "Vagabomb", but the wikilink on this name goes to Vagabond, which is a Swedish travel magazine. What's the connection?
  • A general point: there seems to be some inconsistency in your use of the "work=" and "publisher=" fields. For example, in ref 6 you give the publisher, Screen International, rather than the website, Screendaily.com, but in several instances, e.g. 25 (IndieWire), 26 and 36 (Deadline.com), you give the website without naming the publisher. Is there some principle that I'm missing?

Otherwise, sources look to be in good order and are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the rest, thanks for going through the sources Brianboulton. I appreciate it. VedantTalk 12:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Can you specify what you've actually fixed? For example, the non-working link is still there. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Brianboulton As I said, the reference with the non working video works because the description provided on the page is where is the information is borrowed from and not from the video itself. VedantTalk 16:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • Maybe add in the beginning that Loev is pronounced love.
  • "Produced by Saria and the Bombay Berlin Film Productions, the production" - too many "produc.." in one sentence. Maybe replace the last one with "film".
  • "the production stars Dhruv Ganesh and Shiv Pandit as two friends who set off to the Western Ghats for a weekend trip and focuses their complex emotional and sexual relationship." It should actually be focuses on. I am confused if focuses refers to "the production" or "two friends", although from the "s" in the end, I assume it's for the production.
  • "Saria conceived Loev's script while he was working on the another project" - remove the "the".
  • "a successful New York based businessman" - hyphenate York.
  • "Describing the film as, "small, fragile, honest", Saria" - no comma after as.
  • Can we briefly explain "Hinglish" without the reader having to look at another article to get an explanation?
  • "which Saria describes as, "the language I hear around me [in Mumbai]"." What is so special about this quote? This can be very well paraphrased without detriment.
  • "Pre–production work for the film began in February 2014"- hyphen not endash.
  • "Bombay Berlin Film Production showed interest in adapting the script into a full–length feature film" - same.
  • "co–produce", "same–sex relationships" ^^. And any other possible instance I might have missed.

Down to the end of Development and casting. More later. FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed everything. VedantTalk 05:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The themes of unrequited love and self-acceptance are central to Loev as noted by such commentators as Aseem Chhabra, Zack Ford, and Subhash K. Jha. Commentators wrote in their reviews" - suggest replacing the second "commentators" with "they".
  • "Chhabra, a New York-based film writer and director noted that the film beautifully, "present[s]" - no comma after beautifully.
  • "present[s] an emotional journey by characters who are gay but seem to be comfortable with themselves" - I think this can be summarised. It's better that we conveyed this in our own voice.
  • "the social context of same sex love in India remains mostly off-screen" - same, although it could partially be retained, perhaps the "off-screen" part.
  • "Writing for ThinkProgress Ford also noted that although the socio-political backdrop, "is never explicitly mentioned, it’s alluded to throughout" - there's a word missing before the quote. "although" should probably become "despite". Also, ' should be used instead of .
  • Too many (al)though's throughout the article specifically in themes and influences section.
  • "Reviewing the film at Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival, Shelagh Rowan-Legg of Screen Anarchy praised the refreshing concept of the film, different from the usual cinema associated with India: "Loev examines.." - Loev in italics.
  • "with Brooke Corso of The Macguffin stating that the beautiful and heartbreaking" - "with + noun + verb + ing" is best avoided at FA articles.
  • Recipient(s) and nominee(s) should become Recipient and nominee and Ref(s) should become Ref, as the winner of every award is the same and there are single refs for each win/nom. FrB.TG (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I've hopefully fixed everything FrB.TG. Let me know if there's anything else. VedantTalk 04:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Support on prose. I think that Ceranthor could be pinged to make sure it’s really there. I have also made some minor copyedits here and there but none of this affects my support. FrB.TG (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I really appreciate the help. Ssven2 did ping him, let's see. VedantTalk 10:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Well, the image does fall in the same category Ssven2. Is there something that I'm missing? VedantTalk 14:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Scrap the comment about the last image. It looks fine too. Do archive the URLs for those images though.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Also,its best to archive all URLs from which the images are acquired to prevent deadlinks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ssven2 Links have been archived. VedantTalk 16:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for doing so, Numerounovedant.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from King Prithviraj II[edit]

  • "while he was working on another project, the unreleased film I Am Here and drew heavily from his personal experience" — "another project" seems unnecessary here as its evident they aren't the same
Fixed

Great work on the article. Feel free to ignore my relatively minor comment. I support this article's promotion. King Prithviraj II (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking​ a look King Prithviraj II, I really appreciate it. VedantTalk 15:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: I was wondering if you guys could take a quick look​ and discuss the status of the nomination (if anything part of the article needs any attention/improvement/further discussion). Thank you, and sorry for the unnecessary trouble. VedantTalk 16:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • I'm hoping to provide some feedback by tonight. ceranthor 22:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Produced by Saria and the Bombay Berlin Film Productions" - why a "the" before the company's name?
  • "It was Ganesh's final film role, who died from tuberculosis prior to the production’s release" - grammatically this needs to be tweaked; should get rid of "who" and replace with "as he died..." or something similar
  • "the film relied on crowdfunding and cost–cutting measures to meet its production cost, which was estimated at $1 million." - nitpick, but don't think you need an endash for "cost-cutting"; a hyphen should be fine
  • "Loev had its world premiere at the 2015 Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival" - probably worth mentioning where this is for a lay reader (I didn't know)
  • "As planned, the two meet Alex, Sahil's boyfriend, who is accompanied by a friend, Junior (Chaddha)." - might have missed it, but did you mention in parentheses the actor who plays Alex?
  • "South Asian languages.[5][6]" - needs a WP:NBSP or {{nowrap}} template
  • "Saria said that the screenplay was written out of, "deep shame and fear"," - don't think the commas are necessary to offset the quote here
  • "sam-sex relationships in India" - typo; should be "same-sex"
  • " American Film Institute alumni Sherri Kauk" - alumni is plural; should be alumnus but "graduate" would also work fine
  • "The view was shared by freelance journalist Steven Borowiec" - nitpick; but I'd like "This view" better than "the view"
  • the Eric Rohmer link needs an NBSP. same with London LGBT Film Festival and the 2016 Tel Aviv International Film Festival, and 2016 International Film Festival of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram and Pigeon & Co. Also Austin American-Statesman (at least on my Google Chrome)

I may have a few more comments once these are addressed. But this looks like it has improved a good amount since the first FAC, and your hard work is commendable. ceranthor 04:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I've addressed all your comments (except for the non-breaking spaces, which I've asked Ssven2 to take a look at as I have no idea how use the nbsp). Thank you for revisiting the article, I'd be a lot nice this time I promise. xD VedantTalk 09:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I've managed to make some copyedits regarding the NBSP parts, Ceranthor. Do check if they are alright. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Think there are a few NBSP fixes to be resolved. But otherwise, support. ceranthor 16:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Ceranthor, I appreciate the help. VedantTalk 17:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: I believe that the article has received sufficient commentary, can you guys take a look. Thank you and sorry for the extra trouble. VedantTalk 14:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding -- looking okay at first glance, I'll aim to take a closer look tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry if I am being too impatient here, but have you gotten around to this yet Ian Rose? Sorry for the extra trouble. VedantTalk 10:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Kwakiutl (statue)[edit]

Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a public artwork in Ontario, carved by a Order of Canada-winning Aborigibal artist. The statue has caused controversy over the years for the fact it has a very noticeable penis, and has currently been hidden in a greenhouse. The article, currently a GA, was submitted for peer review, but didn't get feedback, so I'm nominating on the chance an FA is viable. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 3: I am unclear as to how this source verifies the text attributed to it.
  • Ref 4: Lacks publisher information – but the link isn't working anyway.
  • Ref 11: Returning "page not found"
  • Ref 16: The link appears to be ti a different Brompton Guardian page.
  • Ref 17: Unformatted.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Hogwarts Express attraction that connects both parks at the Universal Orlando Resort. Dom497 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Support I corrected one typo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • General: In a number of instances you have included sometimes lengthy quotations from the sources. These are unnecessary, especially where you have links to the source. They merely add clutter, and I recommend you delete them.
@Sladen: Could you please explain why you added some of the quotations?--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sladen: It's been 20 days. I know you don't want to reply but please do just for the interest of the review. Also just as a FYI, I honestly don't remember if I took part in some conversation years ago about including these quotations. Maybe I agreed to them; you're good at finding this stuff so if I did agree maybe you can find it. However, even if I did agree then, present day me is in favour of removing them as suggested by the reviewer.--Dom497 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 2: The retrieval date is given in British format – should be consistent with the others.
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 7: Why is this source reliable? I am somwhat put off by the following, from the "about" link: "While this page is called “About Us”, Screamscape.com is really the work of just one person: myself. While I have lots of help from people who sent in information from around the world and from my good friend Mark who covers events for me on the West Coast, the work on the Screamscape website is done entirely by me." This does not suggest a high-level, quality source with appropriate editorial supervision.
The use of these sources are only meant to support information regarding rumours. For example, Screamscape was reporting on rumours about this future attraction and the reference is only used to support these kinds of statements. Sources like this (including Screamscape) are used in both SheiKra and Falcon's Fury which are both Featured Articles.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not clear as to why statements that are "only meant to support information regarding rumours" can be acceptably cited to inferior sources. The fact that this source is used in earlier FACs is not relevant here – neither of those articles you mention had anything like a rigorous sources review during their various FACs. My advice is to remove or replace the source, but I won't labour the point if other editors don't object to your reasoning. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Rumours aren't typically reported by the media because they are just rumours. As crazy as it sounds, in the theme park world, Screamscape is one of the most reliable rumour sites out there. Theme parks (such as Universal and Disney World) will also often invite Lance (the person who runs the site) to get a preview of new attractions.
The sentence that the Screamscape source is referencing is: "During the same month, speculation arose that an expansion would include the Hogwarts Express to connect Hogsmeade in Islands of Adventure and Diagon Alley in Universal Studios Florida"
I think having the Screamscape reference for this and only this sentence is acceptable because the sentence is just stating that "speculation arose" (the reference shows that Scremascape published some rumours about a possible Hogwarts Express attraction). If there is a consensus that Screamscape is not acceptable, I don't have an issue removing the sentence.--Dom497 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
For what its worth, the LA Times has previously used Screamscape to get some of their information as well.--Dom497 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 8: I have similar concerns about the reliability of "Parkscope"
I have removed the sentence that this reference was referring to since it was not being used to reference rumours.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Brianboulton, background to this is at Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/Archive 1#Planning applications. Originally the article cited the official information (planning documents and permits) directly. The blog content arrived after the hard cites had been removed in Special:Diff/669712807 and Special:Diff/671704082 (both by Dom497). Perhaps the low-quality of the Parkscope cite may be solvable by removing the blog links and restoring the original text and detailed citations… Suggestions welcomed, would be happy to go ahead with this solution. Please can you give a yes if you're happy with this too. —Sladen (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I think you've done your best to deal with my various concerns, and I won't ask that you do more. Happy to sign of the source review at this point. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Using any of the sources listed at the discussion Sladen linked to would be unwise since none of them have any evidence that the permits had anything to do with the Hogwarts Express.--Dom497 (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
So, we are being asked to accept (make an exception for) the Parkscope and Screamscape blogs that rely on those permits/applications/official communications for reporting "rumours" covering the demolition, grading, construction of two stations and connector train track. But not the actuality of the demolition, grading, construction of two stations and connector train track themselves. This is quite an interesting logical puzzle. Which of these actually serves our readers in enabling them to find and read useful hard information?—Brianboulton, independent input would be really appreciated. —Sladen (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I never suggested we use Parkscope. That source should have never been included in the article (that's on me). I am unable to find any evidence that the permits Parkscope linked to actually had anything to do with the Hogwarts Express. Therefore using the permits at all would fall under Original Research.--Dom497 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 25: As the main link isn't working, I advise you to change the url to that in the archive link
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 31: The publisher, more correctly, is "About travel"
 Done It looks like the entire "branding" has changed. I've updated accordingly.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 39: Can you check that this is the intended link page, and if it is, can you indicated where your given headline is found?
 Done The episode is no longer available online so I removed the link.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 Really done |archive-url= added for the textual content in Special:Diff/825963274 plus new updated NBC links for the video contents. —Sladen (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I enjoyed reviewing this article before, and I enjoyed reading it again. A few comments:

  • "Universal began considering how to keep attendance balanced between the adjacent parks.[4] " You haven't established, in the body, what the two adjacent parks are.
It's mentioned in the lead: "The route runs 676 metres (2,218 ft) between Hogsmeade station in the Islands of Adventure theme park and King's Cross station in the London area of the Universal Studios Florida theme park". Let me know if sentences still need re-wording.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "between one another." Maybe "from each other."
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "and the resort had begun asking visitors about a possible expansion." maybe "surveying"for "asking"
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "In the same month," I might cut "In" or change to "During".
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "On May 8, 2013, Universal Orlando announced the expansion of Wizarding World of Harry Potter, Diagon Alley, along with the Hogwarts Express attraction, to be located on the former site of the Jaws attraction.[9][10][11]" a verb seems called for in the latter part of the sentence.
The sentence reads fine for me. I don't see where a verb would be needed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The first of the two trains was installed on October 24, 2013.[13] By the beginning of December 2013, the second train had been placed on the track.[14]" I might cut the first "on the track" both to avoid repetition and because it seems redundant. Where else are you going to install a train but on a track?
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "spotted one of the trains being tested for the first time.[17" was the spotting or the testing for the first time?
 Done I removed "for the first time" since the ref doesn't really prove this claim.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "and a shop selling food." a real shop or a visual of some sort?
Ref 28 shows a quick glimpse of the snack bar and ref 30 explicitly states this ("working snack bar"). Perhaps "snack bar" might be better than "shop selling food".--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
It's a reasonable approximation to what one finds in a typical British railway station (ie. the King's Cross theme), and which sells the cheap food and beverage brands normally found in such establishments (Golden Wonder salt & vinegar crips, Boddingtons Bitter, Stella Artois, Tetley's Brewery in cans). Perhaps the crucial bit missing here is that it is flogging British brands to a captive, queueing stream of awaiting passengers. —Sladen (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "The queue then leads into a forested area which later leads into the Hogsmeade station building." Might cut "later".
 Done--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "As the train departs towards King's Cross, Rubeus Hagrid waves riders goodbye outside of the window." I might cut "riders", also, you link and give Hagrid his full name on second use, when you've just had him (sans link and first name) greet the incoming riders. Similarly, the principal characters are given last names here when they weren't in the preceding section. I suspect you've switched the position of these sections at some point, but either way, please check them over for anything Ive missed in this regard.
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "transit above" maybe "pass over"
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "three passenger coaches each with 14 passenger compartments. " Unless I've missed something, you've earlier stated there are "twenty-one" passenger compartments in three coaches, and you've said it twice. Also, why is twenty-one spelled out and 14 not?
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
2 trains × 3 carriages × 7 compartments × 8 passengers. Reviewing Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)#Compartments, this round of (removing accurate citations and) inserting inaccurate content has been dealt with. —Sladen (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "As a result, the trains are only designed to be seen from one side as the locomotives' false driving wheels and specific detailing only exist on one side." To avoid repetition, "As a result, the trains are only designed to be seen from one side; the other lacks the locomotives' false driving wheels and specific detailing."
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "to make them look as faithful as possible to the Hogwarts Express seen in the Harry Potter film franchise." I might change "faithful" to "similar"
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Frey AG was responsible for wiring the trains; specifically for the video and sounds components." A semicolon requires what follows to be able to stand as a sentence on its own. Also, I would expect "sound" rather than "sounds" in American English, unless it is a specialized theme park term.
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In the third paragraph of "Reception", you could make it clearer that what's being talked about is walking through walls.
"broke walls" does not mean walking through walls. Rather it was a term used by Robert to describe the overall environment as discussed in the rest of the paragraph.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I see I made very similar comments in some areas at the first FAC, so I guess some of those were not addressed. I would review what I, and others, said then and implement as needed, where not mooted by the passage of time, or where your judgment says otherwise.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt and Brianboulton: Thank-you for your reviews! I will begin addressing your comments on the weekend.--Dom497 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: From your previous review you stated: ""forwards" not a word in this context in AmEng." What word would you suggest to use instead?--Dom497 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm generally willing to support, but am concerned about Sladen's comments, especially since he mentioned me individually. I'd like to hear if he is satisfied.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I just happened to see this since I have almost all articles about Disney and Universal attractions on my watchlist. Some quick things:

  • They can travel in either direction as long as the guest has purchased a Park-to-Park ticket, which gives guests access to both of Universal Orlando's theme parks within the same day. - I actually rode on this attraction multiple times last summer. The thing is that even with the park-hopper ticket, once you leave one park, you can't re-enter that same park on the same day (the ticket allows 1 daily admission each to Universal Studios and Islands of of Adventure). You can only ride in a single direction. Now, I took the sentence in green to mean that visitors with park hopper tickets can re-ride as many times as they want on the same day. I think this should be clarified. (Edit: official website confirms one admission to each park per day. And season and annual pass holders can also ride, not just park-to-park ticket holders. epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC))
Sorry, I can't seem to find where it states what you are describing. I've also removed the reference (for now, I can add it back if needed) as an existing reference mentions that Season Passes are also valid.--Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Epicgenius: indeed; Special:Diff/673394720 was a previous attempt to clear this up, with the wording "riders must have [a] pass valid in their destination in order to board." A one-way train ticket is normally valid for a one-way train journey. Repeated edits trying to describe a transport system in the same terminology that a roller-coaster/fairground attraction would be described, ultimately do not help the situation. —Sladen (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sladen: I see what you're saying. However, if you have a ticket for both parks, they would be checking whether you have a ticket valid for both parks; the direction of the train itself does not matter, but you can only ride in one direction unless, I presume, you have a season or annual pass. What I'm saying is that they don't check that you started in Islands and went to the Studios, they only check if you have a two-way pass and whether you have ridden the train earlier that day. epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Epicgenius, there doesn't appear to be a definitive list to use as reference for every valid type of permissible ticket/pass/voucher (or at least one has not been located yet)—in which case saying the minimum and not risking misleading is perhaps a better solution. That said, the wording should be such that it is clear that this is fundamentally not a ride, but an alternative to two long walks and a trip out of the front gate, and back in the other entrance booth. (Of course the owners would much prefer visitors used the provided connector train for the purpose it was built: to keep visitors captive within the parks belonging to one company; balancing the visitor times across the two environments; keep them spending money rather than going elsewhere; and selling a $55 upgrade to those who had only purchased a single-park ticket). To accurately reflect that reality (and the associated ticketing reality) within the article may well require some work to "de-theme-park-ify" the article, lest it risk continuing to confuse readers. Suggestions welcomed. —Sladen (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a hard issue to tackle. The Hogwarts Express is basically Universal's version of the Walt Disney World Monorail System: the extra fee is for the privilege of visiting two parks in one day, and the train ride is just a bonus after you pay the extra fee. On the other hand, the train is entirely between two parks, unlike the Disney Monorail, which stops at hotels along the way, so that's why it's being treated as a theme park ride. So, the article could be clarified to this extent. epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Some of the ride experience is unsourced, particularly the first and second paragraphs of the Kings Cross to Hogsmeade and the Hogsmeade to Kings Cross sections. If this were a film or TV show, it would fall under WP:FILMPLOT, but I think a ride experience is different. There should probably be a video citation, just to be safe.
Rather than repeating the same reference(s) over and over again, the references for the ride experience are all listed at the end of their respective descriptions.
I guess you could also use WP:CITEBUNDLE so you only have to display one reference. I don't have a problem with listing them all at the end of the section, but if you're only using each of the sources once, it would be convenient if you ever needed to repeat them. However, I don't know if other reviewers will agree that it's OK to cite it all at the end. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Things might have changed in the two years I've been gone but way back when, after several GA nominations and discussions, it was agreed that if previous sentence(s) use the same reference and no other references, the reference only needed to be included on the last sentence.--Dom497 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
But I don't recall ever having a discussion about what should happen when multiple paragraphs are involved. Therefore, it might just be better to include the references at the end of each paragraph.--Dom497 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Wehwalt, yes, the lack of citation is a problem: eg. today Special:Diff/823589398 (IP edit) changed one character name to other—hard to verify what the name should be. Originally this material was not in the article, most of it arrived in Special:Diff/669720516 (by User:Dom497). —Sladen (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
If you watch the video and listen you will know that its Ron talking and not Harry.--Dom497 (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As a result, the trains are only designed to be seen from one side as the locomotives' false driving wheels and specific detailing only exist on one side - This is only partially a result of the locomotives facing a single direction, isn't it? Both platforms are on the same side of the train, namely the left side, which is why this is possible.
This is implied by both the previous sentence and the images included in the article of both stations.--Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't notice these images, so I didn't make the connection until I actually made the journey. I think you have to spell it out. The aforementioned previous sentence, The Hogwarts Express enters King's Cross in reverse but forwards at Hogsmeade; the train departs King's Cross forwards and in reverse at Hogsmeade, doesn't mention the platform location. In fact it's irrelevant to whether a train enters a station in reverse.
But now there's another thing. The sentence in green has an inconsistent structure (i.e. it should be King's Cross backwards but Hogsmeade forwards, otherwise it would be "The Hogwarts Express enters ... forwards at Hogsmeade"). Also the second half might be redundant: if the train is always facing toward Hogsmeade, wouldn't it always reverse out of that station? epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done I have modified the paragraph in question. Let me know if still needs some revision.--Dom497 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The new sentence is better, though I personally would swap "enters King's Cross" and "departs from Hogsmeade". Like this: "As a result, the Hogwarts Express departs from Hogsmeade and enters King's Cross in reverse". epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I changed it to what you suggested.--Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
That, by the way, is what I meant by my objection in the first FAC. Epicgenius said it much better than I did.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If I have more feedback I'll leave further comments. epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt, Brianboulton, and Epicgenius: I have addressed all of your comments!.--Dom497 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

More comments by Epicgenius[edit]

More comments:

  • A week later, Universal Orlando soft-opened the Hogwarts Express, without any announcement. - So when did it hard open? Was it on July 8 as scheduled? Sometimes, agencies change the opening dates behind people's backs. This is kind of a stupid request, but I just need a little confirmation that it isn't still soft-opened.
So....three years ago and still today I'm not able to find a reference that states the ride actually opened on July 8. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that Diagon Alley was the "big new thing" so the media focused on that that day (not to mention the media got distracted with the new coaster in the area because it had a 7+ hour wait). There were no reports that the ride did not open on July 8 so its kind of just assumed it opened along with the rest of the new area.--Dom497 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Turns out I'm a liar! Ref 21 says the ride opened on July 8.--Dom497 (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing this issue. I was kinda confused at first because sometimes, the assumptions could be wrong. epicgenius (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
epicgenius, revision Special:PermanentLink/669320997 had this wording

"It opened for technical rehearsals from 2 July 2014,[open 1] officially opened on 8 July 2014 when queues lasting seven hours occurred and by 9 August 2014 had transported one million passengers.[open 2][open 3][open 4]

Seemingly shorter, more precise, unambiguous and only needed saying once. This text, and all four of the accompanying citations were removed in edit Special:Diff/672940882 (by Dom497). Now we read "I'm not able to find a reference that states the ride actually opened on July 8" (by Dom497).
Had the original wording remained or even just its accompanying citations, we would probably not be a situation two years down the line reading that citations cannot be located. Feel free to restore some of these citations/material if they are now felt useful again. —Sladen (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)



  1. ^ Kubersky, Seth (2 July 2014). "Hogwarts Express soft opens at Universal Orlando". Orlando Weekly. 
  2. ^ Felton, Tom (9 August 2014). "The Hogwarts Express Hosts its One Millionth Rider". Felt Beats. 
  3. ^ Universal Orlando Resort (9 August 2014). "Hogwarts Express Millionth Rider Celebration Group" (image) (Press release). Retrieved 30 June 2015. 
  4. ^ "Hope you brought a book! Harry Potter fans wait in line Seven Hours to get on new theme park ride". Daily Mail. 9 July 2014. Retrieved 30 June 2015. 

@Sladen: Reference 2 is unreliable but that doesn't really matter since ref 3 is used for to support the same sentence. The Hogwarts Express did not have a 7 hour wait. That was Harry Potter and the Escape from Gringotts.--Dom497 (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Probably also worth noting that none of the reliable sources say the ride opened on July 8. Ref 3 which might have stated the opening is dead and Wayback does not have an archive of it.--Dom497 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, when you say "Now we read "I'm not able to find a reference that states the ride actually opened on July 8"", the reference was always in the article and the citation was in the correct place, I just accidentally missed the sentence that mentioned it when reviewing the reference. Accidents happen and thats why my comment is crossed out.--Dom497 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the current wording is fine: the announcement was for a July 8 opening, and the soft opening was on July 1. The July 8 hard opening is implied, but is not mentioned explicitly. And a 450-minute wait for Escape from Gringotts? I couldn't even wait for 45 minutes! epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Robert Niles from Theme Park Insider mentioned how the attraction "broke walls"; including the separation of the Wizarding and Muggle worlds, how Universal made the audience the performers (in the part of the King's Cross queue where guests walk through the wall leading to Platform ​9 3⁄4), and how, "It's become convention for theme park attractions to drop you off at or very near the same point where you boarded the ride, so it's a bit disorienting when you exit the Hogwarts Express and find that you're not only in a different train station — you're in a different theme park." - Consider splitting up this sentence because it's very long. Specifically, the second half sounds like a run-on.
 Done --Dom497 (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm still a little concerned about that sentence. I just think this would be an ideal place for semicolons: like "Examples included the separation of the Wizarding and Muggle worlds; how Universal made the audience the performers (in the part of the King's Cross queue where guests walk through the wall leading to Platform ​9 3⁄4); ..." However, other than that, I support this article's promotion. epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Semi-colons added.--Dom497 (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Would you mind if I created a KML file for this ride? It's standard to have a KML file for railroad lines/attractions.
I don't have an issue with that.--Dom497 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
All right, I will create the KML file soon. epicgenius (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Already done, for the record. epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The KML appears to be considerably less accurate than the OpenStreetMap relationship that has been linked in the article for several years now. Clicking on the 'global' in the top-right, and zooming in several levels shows large differences eg. around the passing loop area between what the KML seeks to provide, and the more accurate mapping previously and already available via OpenStreetMap. Ideally the quality of the KML could be improved so that there is not a net loss of information available to the reader. —Sladen (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The KML is accurate to 5 feet, which is very accurate considering how much you zoomed in. It is supposed to depict the track from about a half-mile scale. Other KMLs have a range-of-error of more than 50 feet, especially longer routes. I have fixed the file, but if you don't like it, you can be bold and fix it yourself. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with the rest of the article right now. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. This article looks very nicely written. (Edit: Adding disclaimer. Other reviewers may bring up other issues with this article. My review is by no means comprehensive. I just picked out some of the more glaring inaccuracies.) epicgenius (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I used this article as a structure and style reference when I cleaned up several of the Disney rail transport articles, such as the Walt Disney World Railroad and the Disneyland Railroad, which are now featured articles; and the Carolwood Pacific Railroad, which is currently going through its own FA review. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

V. Gordon Childe[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent archaeologists to ever live. He may have been a man of short stature, but he was a giant in the study of European prehistory. The article has been GA for some time, and since the successful promotion of other archaeology-themed biographies like Margaret Murray, O. G. S. Crawford, and Mortimer Wheeler, I believe that it is time that the Gordon Childe article join them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Strongly suggest you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js and .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */ to Special:MyPage/common.css, then look at your notes, references etc. for various errors. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I see 10 spots where p and pp are incorrectly used for page numbers , e.g. "P/PP error: Trigger 1980, p. 9, 32;" and "P/PP error: Green 1981, pp. 154." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that I have now fixed all of these instances. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Don't use fixed pixel size for images, per WP:IMGSIZE
  • File:Gordon_Childe.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • According to the National Library of Australia page, it was never published (at least, not before they uploaded an image of it onto their website). Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Noswall59[edit]

You don't need to add this if you don't want to, but Eric Hobsbawm called Childe "probably the most original English Marxist writer from the days of my youth." [7]Noswall59 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

I think that that's a good idea. I will add it in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

Just a few presentation points:

  • There's a plethora of hyphens in page ranges – 12, 14, 15, 16 and many others. All need to be changed to ndashes
  • I've gone through and corrected every instance of this error. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Various "p."s need to be changed to "pp." – 29, 45, 46 & possibly more
  • I've gone through and fixed these. Mostly a leftover remnant from when (circa 2011) I used "p." for everything rather than the correct "pp." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 86 lacks a page number
  • In the bibliography, the Harris entry is unduly cumbersome – I don't see the purpose in the secondary entries.
  • It's an edited volume, so I don't wish to give the impression that Harris wrote the whole book when he only produced certain chapters. The present situation makes that clear; changing it might, in my view, result in some confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


Otherwise, all sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a look, Brian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2[edit]

The article is well written and the images seem well placed. The only thing that bothers me is that his bibiliography section is completely unsourced. Is it possible to add citations? Ping me once you think it's okay and I'll support it. Regards. Also, if possible a fellow user and I made this FAC and would appreciate feedback if possible.Tintor2 (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid[edit]

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert ) & Boghog (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a natural product in humans which is used as a medical food ingredient and dietary supplement; it has medical and athletic performance-enhancing applications for preventing/reversing muscle wasting and improving body composition respectively. My previous nomination of this article was archived approximately one year ago. Since then, this article has received minor updates and gone through a thorough GA review (Talk:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/GA1).

This is the second pharmacology article that I've worked on for FA status. My first pharmacology FA was amphetamine, so this article's layout and formatting mirror that article. Like amphetamine, this article includes citations in the lead that are grouped in a citation note at the end of each paragraph. I will not remove the lead references since they cite medical claims.

The section names and the organization of the sections in the article follow MOS:PHARM and MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. Per WP:MEDRS, all medical claims in this article must be cited by recent reviews, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews. Most of the paywalled medical reviews that are cited in the article are temporarily available in this link for viewing/downloading. The file names (without the .pdf extension) of the papers listed in this link reflect the reference names (i.e., <ref name="...">) used in the source code of the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert ) 07:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Galobtter[edit]

Some points (adding as I review the article):

  1. Very minor point but in Beta-Hydroxy_beta-methylbutyric_acid#Available_forms "blood" links to blood plasma - either should be blood plasma or just not linked per WP:EGG
  2. The metabolism of HMB is initially catalyzed by an uncharacterized enzyme which converts it to HMB-CoA. The metabolism is initially catalyzed?
  3. "HMB is sold worldwide.." source only says commercially available as such
  4. 30-50$ per month for 3 grams - shouldn't there be a location given?; also the citation "PEDS in sports" (currently [19]) doesn't seem to support that sentence from quick looking and searching through the article; addendum: hmm, according to the lead it is worldwide sold at that range of price? Unsure how that can be determined
  5. Metabolic Technologies, Inc., the company that grants licenses to include HMB in dietary supplements, advises pregnant and lactating women not to take HMB due to a lack of safety studies conducted with this population. Seems somewhat repetitive and redundant to the sentence No clinical testing with supplemental HMB has been conducted on pregnant women and not very pertinent; I suggest combining or removal
  6. Unsure why the chemistry section does not use the acronym HMB but instead the full form
  7. In #Detection in body fluids:
    • adequate dietary source of HMB for what? e.g HMB doesn't seem necessary for a normal human's diet
    • Without any real commentary or analysis, writing out in prose all the measurements done in blood plasma, urine, intramuscular and what concentration was found is mostly redundant to the table..
  8. As MOS:CHEM says The structures of many organic compounds are obvious - the chemical structure section seems to not say much and could be removed:
    • β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid and β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate are structural analogs of butyric acid and butyrate that have a hydroxy group and methyl group attached to the beta carbon of these compounds. not sure why the butyrate is necessary to be mentioned, and it doesn't say much that a structural diagram doesn't; however it is the more useful sentence
    • By extension, β-hydroxybutyric acid and β-methylbutyric acid are also parent compounds of β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid. β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid is the conjugate acid of β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate, while β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate is the conjugate base of β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid. Entirely unnecessary - the first sentence is really "so what?" and the second sentence repeats itself twice with no real meaning or relevance

- Galobtter (pingó mió)

  1. Fair point. I've cut the pipe or removed the wikilink. diff
  2. Fixed (diff). That only would've made sense to say if it were written as "HMB metabolism" instead of "The metabolism of HMB".
  3. I've changed "sold" to is "commercially available" (diff), although I don't think there's much of a difference between the old/new statement TBH; the newer version is just longer.
  4. Good catch. After looking at the ref quote and what it cited in the article, it's pretty obvious that it was meant to cite the first sentence in that paragraph (per the part about being available OTC). Until about a month ago, the 1st sentence immediately preceded the statement about the cost of $30-50/month. Seems like I placed that ref after the wrong sentence. I fixed it in this edit: diff.
  5. This was added following my discussion with two other medical editors at Talk:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Comment about safety. The statement "Metabolic Technologies, Inc., the company that grants licenses to include HMB in dietary supplements, advises pregnant and lactating women not to take HMB due to a lack of safety studies conducted with this population." is a contraindication, and technically should be placed under a level 2 heading titled "Contraindications" per MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices; however, since that section would only have 1 sentence under it, it was juxtaposed with the related sentence under safety. I can create the contraindications section and move it there if you'd like; however, I don't think it would be prudent to omit that sentence from the article because that is a clinically relevant contraindication.
  6. This issue came up in the GA review, so it might be worthwhile to read my explanation there: Talk:Beta-Hydroxy_beta-methylbutyric_acid/GA1#Linked from FAC.
  7. Changed the sentence to: "This concentration is far too low to be an adequate dietary source of HMB for obtaining pharmacologically active concentrations of the compound in blood plasma, ..." in this diff. I agree that there's a lot of redundancy between the 1st paragraph and the table, although the the text includes slightly more information (e.g., a specific gender is specified in two instances). The reason it was done this way is that some people prefer text over data tables and vice versa for this type of information. IMO, it's more useful to list that material in a table since it is data; however, given that the units of measurement and abbreviations listed in the table are not something I'd expect most of our readers to know, covering those in the article text helps to clarify what the units and abbreviations in the table are.
  8. In light of what I mentioned in the bulleted response below, would you like me to delete one or more of the sentences that you specified above?
    • The entire chemistry section was significantly expanded following the discussion in the first FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive1#Comments by Nergaal; if he were to return to comment, I'm not sure how he would feel about the deletion of the entire structure subsection. Also, I think the average reader of this article is unlikely to have a significant chemistry background simply due to the fact that this compound is notable (and hence likely to be searched) for reasons unrelated to its chemistry; hence, intuitively, the average reader likely isn't going to have a chemistry background. In contrast, I suspect that most people reading the page acetic acid would be reading it due to an interest in its chemical properties, synthesis, etc. and would therefore have some relevant background knowledge of the structural properties of compounds (e.g., how acetate relates to acetic acid). So, in a nutshell, unless this article explicitly states that beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid and beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyrate are two distinct albeit related compounds, and not simply synonyms as implied in the lead, then our readers are probably not going to understand that "HM-butyric acid" and "HM-butyrate" are not the same thing.
    • Butyric acid, butyrate, β-hydroxybutyric acid, and β-methylbutyric acid were all mentioned because I think structural analogs of pharmacologically active substances (and even a few biologically inert compounds) are interesting things to mention/know. In pharmacology, the relation between a compound's biological activity and its chemical structure is known as a structure–activity relationship or "SAR" for short. Interestingly, the pharmacodynamics of butyric acid, beta-hydroxybutyric acid, and HMB are different; however, I have yet to read an article that states that and covers the differences in their biological activity, so I can't cover this in the article right now. For comparison with the HMB article, in a similar drug FA that I wrote (amphetamine), there is much more coverage of its stuctural analogs and derivatives in the amphetamine#Related endogenous compounds and Amphetamine#Substituted derivatives sections.
Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding point 3, I was referring to the "worldwide" part, not the sold - does the source say worldwide? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. No cited ref states that it's available "worldwide", "globally", or "internationally"; the refs that are cited state that it is a commercially available substance, but do not state a region for its availability. Some of the refs do state that it's not regulated as a drug though (i.e., the one which indicates that it's an OTC dietary supplement). Its global availability simply follows from the fact that non-regulated goods can generally be freely imported to/exported from most countries. In other words, an individual in another country could import it from the United States about as freely as if it were a cotton T-shirt. Based upon a cursory check of a few websites that sell a branded HMB product via the internet, I found https://www.bodybuilding.com/store/met-rx/hmb-1000.html, which appears to offer shipping of that product in over 100 countries (per that website's information page on their shipping policy, if you click the flag in the top right corner, a list of countries where it ships to appears).
In any event, I don't particularly care about specifying the region, so if you'd like me to simply state that it's a "commercially available substance" instead of "commercially available (in such-and-such region)", I'm ok with that. Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I think better to stick to the source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Changed "commercially available worldwide" to just "sold" in this diff. Also, since I wrote my first 4 responses yesterday, I didn't actually respond to the part of #4 that you added afterward. As is evident from the example website that I linked above, that product is sold internationally, but the cost of that product is listed in US dollars. That's the currency that an international customer would be paying for that product in if they purchased it from that vendor. While it's possible that local vendors in other countries sell it for a different amount (if adjusted to USD through the FOREX market), there's nothing preventing an international customer from buying the product from a US website in USD. A financial intermediary (e.g., bank or credit card company) would simply process the transaction using the current foreign exchange rate in order to convert their currency to USD. Since we're not specifying a location and just going with what the refs says, is the listed price range still a concern for you? Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Fine with me. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the amphetamine, it seems rather more interesting because substituted amphetamines are important class of drugs in of themselves, while HMB's relation to butyric acid seems rather trivial and unimportant. Thinking over, the first sentence about structural analogs explains the diagrams to the right; but I think "By extension, β-hydroxybutyric acid and β-methylbutyric acid are also parent compounds of β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid." can be cut; and also "β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid is the conjugate acid of β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate" as redundant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see that in the lead and elsewhere butyrate version was referred too; since it is, does make sense to mention it. If "β-methylbutyric acid" is mentioned somewhere/(addendum: or is used pharmacologically - basically has some importance) then it makes sense to mention it being parent compound. Also suggest replacing "β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid and β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate are structural analogs of butyric acid and butyrate that have a hydroxy group and methyl group attached to the beta carbon of these compounds" with "β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid is butyric acid with a hydroxy group and methyl group attached to the beta carbon." for clarity for non-chemists. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I made the changes you listed above in this diff, although I did slightly modify the sentence on butyric acid (i.e., mentioned it being a structural analog) relative to what you wrote above. If you have any further suggestions for changes, let me know!
To my knowledge, β-methylbutyric acid is biologically inert, but potentially toxic in high concentrations. Outside the structure section, it's only mentioned in the synthesis section and depicted in the corresponding reaction/pathway the diagram.
β-Hydroxybutyric acid is a biologically/pharmacologically-active compound (it's a class I histone deacetylase inhibitor, similar to butyric acid). Butyric acid, β-hydroxybutyric acid, and HMB are all natural products in humans, but they're each synthesized through different metabolic pathways (butyric acid: bacterial metabolism of dietary fiber in the colon; β-hydroxybutyric acid: ketogenesis; HMB: Leucine#Metabolism in humans; technically, HMB could be metabolized into β-hydroxybutyric acid via the pathway HMB→HMB-CoA→HMG-CoA→acetoacetate→beta-hydroxybutyrate - that might be worth depicting in the svg version of {{Leucine metabolism in humans}}). Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Lead Prose[edit]
  1. ingredient in some medical foods. It is added to certain medical foods that are intended to provide nutritional support for people with muscle wasting due to cancer or HIV/AIDS and to promote wound healing. Can't it be combined to "ingredient in some medical foods that are intended.."
  2. "muscle size" is another EGG link
  3. speed recovery from exercise "quicken" than "speed" - speed isn't used as a verb like that very often which confused me
  4. No issues with safety safety is another EGG link and this phrasing is awkward - what about no side-effects?
  5. HMB is a metabolite of l-leucine that is produced in the body through oxidation of the ketoacid of l-leucine (α-ketoisocaproic acid). "and is produced" would be clearer; or can even cut "a metabolite of l-leucine that"
  6. A healthy adult produces approximately 0.3 grams adding "of HMB" after that would make it clearer

- Galobtter (pingó mió)

  1. Done (diff). Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Hmm. "Muscle size" was used here in place of "muscle hypertrophy" because the term "hypertrophy" is somewhat jargony. The term "increased muscle size" is synonymous with the term "muscle hypertrophy", but "exercise-induced gains in increased muscle size" sounds a bit odd. In any event, I've removed the pipe, so this now says and links "muscle hypertrophy". (diff) Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. I've changed "speed" (and "speed up" in the body) to "expedite", which is the term I originally used (diff). Doc James changed this to simplify the language in the lead, although I think it's likely that the majority of our readers know the meaning of the term "expedite". Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Changed to "No adverse effects..." in diff (NB: beneficial/desirable side effects on cholesterol and blood pressure have been reported, but I didn't think they were notable since IIRC they were only found in 1 or 2 studies). Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Done: diff Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  6. Done: diff Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding 2, I think it'd be better to keep muscle size and not include a link to hypertrophy - "increase exercise-induced gains in muscle hypertrophy" doesn't make sense, right? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually you're right. It should either read as "... shown to increase exercise-induced muscle hypertrophy" or "... shown to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size"; the only issue here is that the phrase "gains in" also applies to the phrase "muscle strength, and lean body mass" that follows "muscle size" (In healthy adults, supplementation with HMB has been shown to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle hypertrophy, muscle strength, and lean body mass ...). Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I've changed it back to muscle size in the lead and made an analogous change in the body. Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Expedite is indeed a common word. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Biosynthesis section[edit]

On the biosynthesis section, according to MOS:CHEM the biosynthesis should be in the synthesis section, which makes more sense than pharmacokinetics to me. That biosynthesis section is confusing and needs major reworking/cutting. It appears mostly lifted from Leucine? There's a lot of irrelevant material about metabolic pathways that don't lead to HMB - A small fraction of l-leucine metabolism – less than 5% in all tissues except the testes where it accounts for about 33% – is initially catalyzed by leucine aminomutase, producing β-leucine, which is subsequently metabolized into β-ketoisocaproate (β-KIC), β-ketoisocaproyl-CoA, and then acetyl-CoA by a series of uncharacterized enzymes. and other sentences in that big paragraph in the middle. The large image squishes the text too much for my taste. If that image could be made smaller but more focused on HMB I think that'd help. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

May still want to keep it in pharmacology by I don't think biosynthesis is really part of pharmacokinetics. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

As previously discussed, I also think biosynthesis does not belong in the pharmacokinetics section. I would suggest that it be moved to the chemistry section just before synthesis section and the synthesis heading be renamed to "Laboratory synthesis" to distinguish it from biosynthesis. This would also mean that File:ISSN HMB statement Fig 1.jpg would need to split into two figures, biosynthesis and metabolism so that they can be placed next to the text that talks about them. As mentioned above the present figure is too large and complex. Splitting the figure into two figures would solve that problem. Boghog (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Galobtter and Boghog: That's a fair point. It would actually be very easy to cut the entire image into 2 parts using template:annotated image 4's cropping functionality; however, I'd like to get additional feedback on how to redraw this image in SVG at WT:MCB#Template:Leucine metabolism in humans. I invite you two to comment in that thread if either of you have any comments/suggestions on either technical changes to the diagram (e.g., whether or not cofactors should be indicated and how to illustrate cofactors/inputs to each reaction if they're included) or cosmetic changes to this image when it's redrawn in svg.
@Boghog & Galobtter: Also, which of the two following two solutions do each of you prefer?
  1. Use the full image (Template:Leucine metabolism in humans) which spans two adjacent sections (the level 4 heading "Metabolism", located under the level 3 "Pharmacokinetics" heading, which would be followed by a level 3 "Biosynthesis" heading) in the "Pharmacology" section (see this link for an illustration of how this would look), or
  2. Split the diagram into 2 images, placing the metabolic pathway in the "Metabolism" section and the biosynthetic pathway in the "Biosynthesis" section (which could be located under "Pharmacology" as a level 3 heading or under the "Chemistry" section as a level 3 heading)
FWIW, I think the biosynthesis and metabolism sections should be kept together in "Pharmacology" (i.e., option 1) because it's more cohesive to discuss the entire metabolic pathway of leucine within the same level 2 heading compared to splitting it and covering it in completely different parts of the article. Given that the biosynthetic and metabolic pathways partially overlap along 1 route (specifically, the HMB↔HMB-CoA↔MC-CoA pathway), using 1 image and keeping these sections close together would help convey to readers that this portion of the pathway serves as both a route of HMB metabolism (under physiological conditions) and HMB biosynthesis (during biotin deficiency). Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Galobtter: I've changed your bulleted entries above so that I can easily reply below in a point-by-point manner; I think using a numbered list format will make it easier to identify which point I'm responding to when you/others read my reply or when I'm rereading it at a later time. I hope that's ok with you. If not, feel free to revert my changes to the bulleted list. Face-smile.svg Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Galobtter: In relation to what you mentioned about the information in the biosynthesis and metabolism sections being copied from leucine: the content in leucine was actually copy/pasted verbatim from HMB, not the other way around (NB: I am the editor that copy/pasted it). As of a few hours ago, I actually just deleted the entire Leucine#Metabolism in humans section and selectively transcluded the same content in from the HMB article. In relation to that minor pathway involving β-leucine metabolism, the reason it was mentioned in the HMB article is that the cited source stated that HMB might be biosynthesized from the metabolites along that pathway; however, due to the fact that the associated reactions/enzymes aren't not well characterized, this is not known for certain. I can cut that part in the HMB article (while still transcluding it to the leucine article) if you think it's not useful contextual information for the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, as someone who doesn't know about all that, that minor pathway seems like irrelevant information. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Galobtter: See diff. That paragraph still appears in the Leucine article despite its removal from the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Now that I've finished redrawing the diagram in svg and annotating it, I can crop it fairly easily to show only the biosynthesis and only the metabolism pathways; if I were to do this, I could place each annotated diagram below the article text in the corresponding section as a centered image. Centering the diagrams beneath the article text would avoid the text-squashing issue that you mentioned above. I could also move the biosynthesis section under the "Chemistry" heading if I split the image like this. If you'd like me to split the image and move the biosynthesis section – or you'd prefer an entirely different solution – let me know! I'm willing to work this.

Also, have I adequately addressed all of the other issues that you pointed out in the sections above? If I haven't, please let me know which ones still require my attention. Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

In the biosynthesis section can also cut this "Around 40% of dietary l-leucine is converted to acetyl-CoA, which is subsequently used in the synthesis of other compounds." I think. Issues have been addressed; 50-50 on whether it should be moved honestly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. I figured that would give the reader some context on how much leucine ends up as other metabolites, although that statement is partially relevant to HMB's metabolism because acetyl-CoA is a metabolite of HMB; assuming the isovaleryl-CoA and HMB pathways contribute to that 40% value equally, then based upon the 2–10% range for HMB biosynthesis specified in the article text, the metabolism of HMB would yield between .8% to 4% of that 40%.
I'll cut it if you think it's not useful information for the readers though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
If all this isn't explained/important, I don't think it is overly helpful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Removed it in this diff. Seppi333 (Insert ) 07:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Tom (LT)[edit]

I did the GA review and find this article to be of very high quality and certainly worth consideration. I think it has the potential to be amongst Wikipedia's finest works. I had a few concerns noted at the end of the review which I will paste down here. I think it would be a real shame if this review falls down because of insufficient attention (again).

"Some small additional concerns. I don't think these are enough to prevent a successful GA nomination, and they have been discussed with Seppi333 during the nomination and we have reached a loggerheads. I note these with a view to a (1) FA nomination and (2) MEDRS compliance:
  1. I still think some work could be done paring down references
  2. I think information relating to the lack of effects of overdose should be included in text
  3. I am concerned that primary sources are used to make medical claims, which is not something recommended by our WP:MEDRS
    • "One clinical trial with Juven for AIDS also demonstrated improvements in immune status, as measured by a reduced HIV viral load relative to controls and higher CD3+ and CD8+ cell counts"
    • "The efficacy of Juven for the treatment of cancer cachexia was also examined in a phase 3 clinical trial which found a strong trend (i.e., p=.08) for an improvement in lean body mass relative to controls"
  4. I do not think that the article needs so many notes (I think most could be removed without damaging the article's integrity)"

Some of the comments above are fairly general and I'd be interested to know what other reviewers think (I haven't done a FA review before). I'll follow the commentary and will definitely be leaning support if the above are addressed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll work on addressing these soon. Sorry for the delay in my initial response. Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): My itemized responses are below. Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  1. Are there any sentences in particular that you feel should/needs to have the reference count reduced? The featured article criteria do not include a requirement for limiting the number of references used to cite article content, although they do require articles to fully adhere to the WP:Manual of style, including its guidance on the use and formatting of references. Nonetheless, I realize that FAC is a place for consensus; so, if others feel similarly about the number of citations used to support the sentences in the article beyond those that are required for WP:V, I'm willing to delete all of those. Again, per our discussion at the GA review, I think that would be a really bad idea if applied to the sentences that include medical claims relating to efficacy or safety though.
  2. At present, I haven't come across a reference that I can use to explicitly state that there are no potential adverse effects that may arise from overdosing on HMB. The only thing I can explicitly state based upon the sources I've cited in the article, as well as other sources I've read that aren't currently cited, is that no adverse effects were reported by a single clinical study which involved the use of 15 grams of HMB/day (NB: 15 grams/day does constitute an "overdose" relative to the typical 3–6 gram doses used in the vast majority of clinical studies). If you want me to mention that in the article, please let me know.
  3. All of the medical claims made in this article are fully supported by one or more medical reviews. At the moment, there are no primary sources that cite a statement about this compound's treatment efficacy or safety profile anywhere in the article; since all of the primary sources with a PMID number (i.e., primary medical sources) in the article are marked as "primary source" via a parameter in their citation templates, you can easily verify this by examining the sentences cited by the references that are marked as "primary source".
    • The sentence "One clinical trial with Juven for AIDS also demonstrated improvements in immune status, as measured by a reduced HIV viral load relative to controls and higher CD3+ and CD8+ cell counts" does refer to a primary source, but the two references citing that sentences (PMID 24072740 and PMID 24057808) are a medical review and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Those two references are clearly WP:MEDRS compliant given the publication type of those sources and the their publication dates (2013 and 2014) being compliant with WP:MEDDATE. Given that every single medical claim in this article is ultimately based upon primary research which is summarized in the secondary medical sources that support+cite those claims, I don't see how removing this statement simply due to its basis in primary research would be any different than removing every medical claim in the article for the same reason. However, if others feel the same way that you do about the inclusion of that sentence, I will remove it per consensus.
      • @Tom (LT): On reconsideration, I've decided to delete this sentence: diff. I didn't cover the non-adverse side effects of lower LDL cholesterol and slightly lower blood pressure associated with long-term HMB use simply because they were documented in 1 trial, despite being covered in very recent reviews from the past few months.[note 1] Given that this was my justification for not including that material and given that you're making a similar argument here, I think it's reasonable to apply the same inclusion criterion for all medical statements. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Which notes in particular are you referring to?
    • Edit: I just noticed that I deleted one note when I cut the sentence you specified above about AIDS and immune status. Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): Re – the following sentences:

The efficacy of Juven for the treatment of cancer cachexia was also examined in a phase 3 clinical trial which found a strong trend (i.e., p=.08) toward improvement in lean body mass relative to controls;[18][34] however, the trial did not adequately test the ability of Juven to prevent or reverse the loss of lean body mass in individuals with cancer cachexia since the majority of participants did not complete the study.[18]

How would you feel about rewording this material as follows:

The efficacy of Juven for the treatment of cancer cachexia was also examined in a phase 3 clinical trial that assessed improvements in lean body mass relative to controls;[18][34] however, since the majority of participants did not complete the study, the trial was unable to adequately test the ability of Juven to prevent or reverse the loss of lean body mass in individuals with cancer cachexia.[18]

Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ E.g., "HMB seems to be safe in humans. A report summarizing data from nine studies in humans, using 3 g doses of HMB for up to two months, including some older subjects (up to 81 years old) did not find any safety concern in blood tests, tolerance or mood [27, 28]. In fact, HMB reduced total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure." – PMID 28554316
Update

Thanks Seppi333 and sorry for the delay - I have been travelling and busy with work. Update:

  1. This is a general comment about the whole article as we discussed in the good article review. Lots of relatively noncontroversial statements such as "The safety profile of HMB in adult humans is based upon evidence from clinical trials in humans and animal studies", "The metabolism of HMB is catalyzed by an uncharacterized enzyme which converts it to β-hydroxy β-methylbutyryl-CoA (HMB-CoA" and so on. I don't feel that there is a need to provide so many citations and it makes the article harder for editors to verify. On the other hand, I don't think this should block your nomination to FA status
  2.  Done Overdose - happy here with your no adverse effect dose. I also like your thorough note attached about how this was identified.
  3. Doing... thank you for removing the first instance. The second instance is still directly quoting a primary source to make a medical claim, even rewording it. The whole sentence should be removed in my opinion, because it is a single study and presenting the results in this fashion is misleading. I believe WP:MEDRS supports me here.
  4. Doing... Notes - thanks for removing one. Other notes I think should be removed are, as they are also quoting single studies. I also think original research may be relevant here.
    • " Approximately equal doses of pure HMB-FA (2.42 grams) and L-leucine "
    • "In one study, ingestion of a 1 gram dose of HMB-Ca "
    • "In one study, ingestion of a 1 gram and 3 gram HMB dose resulted "

At present I am leaning support this is a high quality article and Seppi333 has addressed many of my concerns.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  1. Coffman DD, Cramer R, Mochel WE (June 1958) Missing year (that would be 2015).
  2. Mochamat, Cuhls H, Marinova M, Kaasa S, Stieber C, Conrad R, Radbruch L, Mücke M (July 2016) Missing first name for Mochamat.
  3. Is this "Reference notes" section standard practice for your field? It seems that it could be made a bit more accessible than a huge list of bracketed numbers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I've converted the bulleleted list above to a numbered list so I can address each item in the corresponding numbered list below; I hope that's fine with you.
  1. I don't seem to be able to find the year 2015 listed anywhere in this article or the article's publication date on the website where it's hosted (https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja01544a072). Where did you see that year listed for this journal article?
  2. Oops. For some reason the citation template generator I used doesn't initialize Mochamat's first name; it normally initializes the first names of all authors. In any event, I've fixed this issue in this edit.
  3. The "Reference notes" section is for the [sources #] notes in the article, which are used to group sets of 4+ references together in 1 citation; the purpose of grouping 4+ references together is to improve readability in the article, since some people (not me) find that a large string of references makes article prose harder to read. I've used those "sources" notes and a corresponding "Reference notes" section in roughly a dozen articles since I first started editing (NB: I've edited thousands of articles); in general, I don't think it's a useful section to include in an article since most articles don't need several references to support a single sentence. In the case of medical articles, it is sometimes necessary to include several citations when multiple medical claims are made in a single sentence or a group of non-medical claims in 1 sentence are only individually supported by a set of references. Also, since some objected to the inclusion of citations in the lead of this article, the references in each lead paragraph were moved to the end of the paragraph and grouped into a reference note; refnotes #1–3 in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Reference notes correspond to the groups of references for the 3 lead paragraphs.
    Edit: The practice of grouping references like this to improve the readability of article prose is covered in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Bundling citations.
Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: Sorry, I meant to ping you in my last edit. Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

() If I may ask, do you use a tool to add references to the text, or do you do them by hand? If the former, which tool? ... OH OOPS I copy/pasted the wrong title for the article that's missing a year (mentioned above); that would be ""3-OH-isovaleric acid". ChemSpider. Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved 10 August 2016. Experimental Boiling Point" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  • The citation template generator that I use is [8], which is maintained by Boghog (my co-nominator for this article). I really only use that script to generate citation templates for pubmed-indexed articles since the templates it generates for those are always perfectly formatted; all it requires is a PMID number for an input. For websites and textbooks, I manually fill out the citation templates. Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Added the year 2015 to the ChemSpider ref in this edit. Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • That's an excellent tool. More later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Another couple of comments on the "reference notes" issue: The inline links say [sources #], whereas the section at the bottom is titled "Reference notes". The disconnect between these adds a bit of confusions/. One solution that I've seen in some chemistry journals like ChemBioChem is to nest the references e.g.: my references are this,[1] this,[2] these,[4] and this.[3] (which uses the code {{refn|Reference set: <ref name="ref1"/><ref name="ref2"/><ref name="ref3"/>}}. It at least puts all the references into the same list so are easier to read. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Replied in your comments section below. Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b some ref
  2. ^ a b another ref
  3. ^ a b final ref
  4. ^ Reference set: [1][2][3]

Comments by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Image review:
  1. File:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid.svg: License and use seem fine for me.
  2. File:Calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate.jpg: License and use seem fine for me. I wonder where the caption comes from.
  3. File:Muscle protein synthesis signaling cascades.jpg: License and use seem fine for me, and caption is reasonably sourced. I wonder though, is it mammalian target of rapamycin or mechanistic target of rapamycin? My impression is that "mammalian" is much more widely used, despite our article title thinking otherwise.
  4. File:ISSN HMB statement Fig 2.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
  5. File:HMB biosynthesis and metabolism diagram - no labels.svg: Use and factual accuracy seem fine for me; I wonder if it's correct to license a work derived from a CC-BY2.0 image under CC-BY4.0.
  6. File:Butyric acid carbons.svg: License and use seem fine for me.
  7. File:Hydroxymethylbutyric acid.png: License and use seem fine for me.
  8. File:HMB synthesis historical.svg and File:HMB synthesis 2.svg: License and use seem fine for me; may want to consider to copy part of the article text into the file page so that the image is sourced there as well.
The chemical diagrams don't have ALT text, I presume for complexity reasons? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. The caption is based upon my measurement of the capsule size (NB: I uploaded this image) and the ingredients listed on the supplement bottle.
  2. mammalian-TOR and mechanistic-TOR are unofficial synonyms for the currently accepted UNIPROT name of "Serine/threonine-protein kinase mTOR"; per MOS:MCB, article titles should be listed under the current UNIPROT name. Based upon a pubmed search, most sources use "mammalian" as opposed to "mechanistic", however most of the sources in the article use "mechanistic" when referring to the protein or protein complexes (i.e., mTORC1/mTORC2), so I chose to use this term instead.
  3. Given that I had to manually redraw every line in this image in inkscape (NB: I didn't use an automated trace module on the original image file), shifted a number of lines in subsequent uploads (~20 based upon the file history), and completely redrew the bottom half of this diagram, I think it would be difficult for the original author to claim that it's a derivative work. E.g., if you superimposed the original diagram on top of this diagram and set its opacity to 50%, you would see that the line segments in these diagrams don't align. Frankly, I think it's more likely that this image falls within the public domain given that it is literally just a graphic containing rather arbitrarily placed line segments.
  4. Will do this soon and respond here once this has been done.
Re – the image alt text: all of the images in this article actually have alt text and captions; if you were looking at the alt text link in the FA toolbox, it wouldn't show this because most of the images in the article are displayed in templates ({{infobox drug}}, {{multiple image}}, or {{Annotated image 4}}) that bork the altviewer tool. The chemical structure diagrams in the infobox have alt text but not individual captions (NB: they do have a footer caption though). The chemical structure and chemical synthesis diagrams in the chemistry section are displayed using {{Multiple image}}, which doesn't display alt text captions in the altviewer tool. All 4 of those images do have alt text and captions though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding 5, Since it is BY only (not sharealike) can license it under whatever as long as attribution is given.. (but anyhow older versions of CC licenses can be relicensed into newer versions) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems like it's all set then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've uploaded File:HMB biosynthesis and metabolism diagram.png and used the template caption as the description on the file page. I also mentioned a third metabolic pathway that I didn't depict due to the fact that most of the associated enzymes are not known. This png version is currently only used in ja:3-ヒドロキシイソ吉草酸 and d:Q223081. I intend to upload an SVG version that contains image text within the next week. Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a template for Wikimedia screenshots that should probably be applied, but I can't find it now... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
c:Template:Wikimedia-screenshot - google works well enough; I'm not sure if it is necessary though Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Haha. I hadn't even considered that; text on WP is indeed licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0, although it seems sort of odd to change the licensing in this case because the relevant text is really just a bunch of nouns (+1 adjective and verb+preposition). Since I'm the sole author of everything depicted in the PNG image though, I'm pretty sure I can just implicitly multi-license the WP text that I wrote in that image as public domain (see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing) by listing only that copyright license for the SVG background file as the license for that PNG file (i.e., the text is PD and the background is CC-BY-4.0, so the whole image is CC-BY-4.0). That said, this will be a moot issue in a week since I intend to save the PNG conversion of the SVG image and reupload it over the current PNG image file. Seppi333 (Insert ) 10:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by DePiep[edit]

  • The infobox says: Molar mass 118.131 g/mol
Wikidata beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid (Q223081) says 118.063 atomic mass unit, (from PubChem).

If you have a source for the infobox value, that would be best. I have reasons to doubt the PubChem calculations, since their atomic weights differ from the standard ones (compared). -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • About licence (US, EU).
On the FDA site I found no hits (trying variants of Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid): FDA
On the EMA site I found no hits (trying variants of Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid): EMA (should hit by INN, INN variants like 'acid' might be relevant).
An Green tickY then for: no FDA and EMA presence. (Others do check me). -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing DePiep. Face-smile.svg HMB is not currently licensed as a pharmaceutical, so I wouldn't expect it to have an entry on the FDA or EMA websites.
PubChem lists a molar mass of 118.132, ChemSpider lists 118.131, and HMDB lists 118.1311 (4 sig figs). It would seem that the molecular weight, rounded to 3 significant figures, is probably 118.131. Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
So the infobox best uses ChemSpider + add its ref. PubChem values and Wikidata values are fishy (so outside of this FAC, if not used). And I suggest: no more time spending on this. -DePiep (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added the chemspider ref to that drugbox field. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • I haven't usually been doing prose reviews for biochem articles, and there's some question in my mind whether I have anything useful to add to the process. I occasionally follow biophysics (not the same thing, I know). But biochemistry articles are sometimes failing for lack of support; I see this one is on its 4th go-around. A prose review can help with that problem ... provided I can come up with something useful to say, and I don't embarrass myself in the process. We'll see.
  • I made a couple of edits that got rid of "however"; see if those edits make sense to you, and feel free to discuss.
  • "KIC dioxygenase": I'm not following why that's italicized.
  • "This concentration is far too low to be an adequate dietary source of HMB for obtaining pharmacologically active concentrations of the compound in blood plasma, but milk products could be fortified with HMB to confer benefits to skeletal muscle.": The last sentence of the abstract says "fortification of milk and dairy products with HMB and/or HICA appears to be justified." Recommending that bovine milk be fortified with HMB, presumably for some medical food or even for general consumption, is quite a jump from "there's not much HMB in bovine milk". Do they justify that recommendation in the article?
  • "which subsequently acquired six HMB-related patents": What does "subsequently" mean here?
  • I'm personally on board with the frequent use of "e.g.", but others may have a different view.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on a review of the prose!
  • I've removed the italics from KIC dioxygenase. I don't remember why I originally italicized it.
  • I'll look into the source about food fortification and respond back when I've done so.
    • Re - the paper about food (milk) fortification w/ HMB: the introduction describes the clinical effects of HMB on muscle protein metabolism (NB: the coverage of this is a brief summary of what was covered in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Medical and Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Enhancing performance) and then states: "The presence of naturally occurring levels of HMB and HICA in milk and fermented dairy products has not been reported to date. Because milk and fermented dairy products are widely consumed, they are potentially suitable media for fortification with HMB and/or HICA in order to deliver the above-described physiological benefits."
      In the last section ("Results and discussion"), the paper says, "On the basis of existing clinical studies and largely musculoskeletal outcome measures, the endogenous concentrations of HMB and HICA found by this study are insufficient by large margins to deliver any physiological benefits. Hence the opportunity arises for the fortification of milk, milk-based nutritional products, and fermented dairy products with HMB and/or HICA."
      You can view the full-text of this article by following this link. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I skimmed it, and then deleted "but milk products could be fortified with HMB to confer benefits to skeletal muscle" ... the safety and benefits of HMB aren't addressed by this study at all, so it's not a basis for recommending that milk ought to be fortified with HMB (which is the conclusion some readers would be left with). - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • which subsequently acquired six HMB-related patents – A synonym for that context would be "later". It's just being used to say that the company wasn't established at the same time that all of the patents were acquired.
FWIW, I appreciate the edits you made to the article. Face-smile.svg Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Great, glad I could help. I'll ping you when I get stuck on a biophysics article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Soupvector[edit]

Overall, I think this is a well-written, well-referenced, very interesting article. My comments here will focus on the medical uses section.

Regarding the first sentence of Uses / Medical (also reflected in the lede) Some branded products that contain HMB (i.e., certain formulations of Ensure and Juven) are medical foods that are intended to be used to provide nutritional support under the care of a doctor in individuals with muscle wasting due to HIV/AIDS or cancer, to promote wound healing following surgery or injury, or when otherwise recommended by a medical professional.[sources 4] - the cited sources don't appear to be MEDRS. The Nature Medicine ref (Khamsi 2013) has the superficial appearance of being substantial, but is just a news item. The Iowa State ref (Linn 2013) is an Abbott-sponsored conference proceeding; the other 2 refs under ref note 4 are Abbott-produced documents. Surely this is insufficient for medical claims, particularly in the Uses/Medical section of a FAC? There are other references that note the benefits of HMB+glutamine+arginine - but do any of them attribute the benefits to HMB itself?

Overall, the Uses / Medical reads (and is sourced) like an article about Juven and Ensure - but we have those already. Is there biomedical consensus that HMB, specifically, has efficacy for these medical uses? If not, this might be a stronger FAC if the medical claims were pared back to what the MEDRS support - that products containing HMB have evidence of safety and benefit for fat-free mass (with links to the Ensure, Juven, etc articles), but the specific benefits of HMB for these applications are not known (are they?). One potential mitigation: refer to "HMB-containing supplements" rather than "supplementation with HMB" - especially in the lead - unless the latter has MEDRS support. — soupvector (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I think you may want to comment on this since you worked with me in the 1st/2nd FACs to expand the content on this. Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
As for the article on Juven, that was created after this content was added to the HMB article simply because it was readily apparent that the topic was notable from the refs that were cited in the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Will follow up on this tomorrow; sorry for the delay in responding. Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about the late follow-up!
I figured Jytdog would comment, but I'll just go ahead and summarize the reasoning behind why the medical food-related content was worded/cited as it is at the moment:
  • In the United States and EU, medical foods are regulated differently relative to food and dietary supplements. In the US, medical foods have 3 requirements; they must be: (1) a product that can be ingested or administered via a feeding tube, (2) labeled for the dietary management of a specific medical disorder, disease or condition for which there are distinctive nutritional requirements, and (3) intended to be used under medical supervision.
  • The sentence "Some branded products that contain HMB (i.e., certain formulations of Ensure and Juven) are medical foods that are intended to be used to provide nutritional support under the care of a doctor in individuals with muscle wasting due to HIV/AIDS or cancer, to promote wound healing following surgery or injury, or when otherwise recommended by a medical professional" isn't actually making any claims about the efficacy of Juven and certain Ensure formulations for the listed uses; if you compare this sentence to requirements (2) and (3) listed above, you'll notice that it's worded in a manner that reflects the definition of a medical food in the context of Juven and "Ensure Enlive". In other words, this sentence was very precisely worded in a manner that states only the aspects of those two products (Juven and Ensure Enlive) that cause them to be regulated as a medical food. Consequently, this sentence is really just making a regulatory claim about a medical use.
    If you still take issue with the wording in that sentence though, I'm fine with cutting the clause that lists the factors that cause those products to be regulated as medical foods. In other words, the sentence would be written as: "Some branded products that contain HMB (i.e., certain formulations of Ensure and Juven) are medical foods."
  • As for MEDRS-compliant source which support the efficacy of the uses which are listed in that sentence:
    • to promote wound healing following surgery or injury – I have come across a handful of reviews that mentioned Juven's use/efficacy for wound healing; but, given that the underlying clinical trials of Juven for wound healing are limited to a small number of trials that each involved a distinct type of wound (e.g., surgery, a burn, an ulcer, etc.), the results of these trials can't be aggregated. In other words, I'd essentially have to summarize the results of individual clinical trials by wound type. I'd prefer not to do that since it'd require an entire paragraph of coverage, which would be excessive given the comparatively small amount of research on this use relative to the other uses that are listed in that section (i.e., Juven for AIDS/HIV & cancer and HMB for sarcopenia).
    • ... in individuals with muscle wasting due to HIV/AIDS or cancer – the efficacy of Juven for these uses is covered in the 1st paragraph of the "Medical" section; all of those efficacy statements are cited by a review, systematic review, or meta-analysis.
  • To clarify what research has been conducted with Juven vs HMB alone to assess their efficacy for preserving lean body mass in a particular condition:
    • Juven – most of the clinical research involves individuals with cachexia (e.g., cachexia due to cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other causes)
    • HMB alone – most of the clinical research involves older adults with sarcopenia; virtually all of the studies that assessed the efficacy of HMB in healthy individuals for the uses listed in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Enhancing performance have used HMB by itself, not Juven or a combination product.
    • In the "Medical" section, Juven's efficacy for various conditions is covered only in the 1st paragraph, whereas the efficacy of HMB alone for various conditions is covered only in the 2nd paragraph.
I hope that clarifies things. If you'd like me to make the changes I described in the 2nd bullet above, let me know. Seppi333 (Insert ) 10:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Does the article provide support for HMB itself for these conditions? Setting aside performance, which was not the focus of my concern, is there a scientific consensus (to which we can point) stating that HMB is the active ingredient to which the benefit can be ascribed, or is it just one of the ingredients? I would guess that we won't ascribe, in articles for each of the ingredients of Juven, all of the benefits attributed to Juven? You again cite support for Juven, but Juven isn't the subject of this FAC. — soupvector (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Does the article provide support for HMB itself for these conditions? ... is there a scientific consensus (to which we can point) stating that HMB is the active ingredient to which the benefit can be ascribed, or is it just one of the ingredients? Yes, provided that the sentence refers to "HMB" and not "Juven". If a sentence about efficacy mentions "Juven" and not "HMB", then it has not been established that HMB alone has efficacy for treating the listed condition. All of the reviews/meta-analyses in "Medical" have reference quotes containing the relevant statements from the ref which support the assertions about treatment efficacy for a given condition, so you'll be able to verify this quite easily; however, statements like "more research is needed to determine efficacy for XYZ" don't have corresponding quotes in their citations since I didn't think that was necessary. To be clear, dozens of studies have examined the efficacy of HMB alone for various medical conditions and roughly 20 studies have examined the efficacy of Juven for various conditions.
The reason that Juven was mentioned at all in this article is that a number of reviews on the medical uses of HMB have discussed Juven at length (i.e., they usually include several paragraphs on studies that were conducted with Juven). In other words, Juven is notable in relation to HMB; if that weren't true, reviews about HMB wouldn't mention Juven or "HMB/ARG/GLN" mixtures. It's not unusual for articles on drugs to cover the treatment efficacy of combination products which contain them; e.g., bupropion is a featured article that contains a dedicated subsection – Bupropion#Obesity – about the use of bupropion/naltrexone for treating obesity (NB: bupropion is not FDA-approved for treating obesity or even commonly prescribed off-label for that purpose). Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I continue to have the sense that this is about Juven and not HMB. Neither the article nor your responses here demonstrate to me that HMB itself is the active agent. Are we going to add all of these claims to the ARG and GLN articles as well, or should we reserve medical claims for the combinations that are actually supported in the MEDRS? I don't want to wade too far into WP:OSE, but your reference to bupropion is illustrative: the first sentence in that section cites a MEDRS that states (as a specific conclusion) that bupropion is effective as a treatment for obesity. Can we do the same for HMB? — soupvector (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were asking for my assessment of the sources that are cited in the medical section, not links to them. One of the sources cited in the 2nd paragraph is PMID 26169182 - the abstract alone sufficiently answers your second question.
As for the first question, I don't see why Juven shouldn't be covered in the glutamate and arginine articles. Adding coverage of medical foods in relevant WP articles isn't a priority for me though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
That's what I needed - it's not a top-line finding in that review, but they do mention cancer and AIDS wasting as specific conditions that are ameliorated by HMB. Thanks. — soupvector (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by T.Shafee[edit]

I've only minor comments, since others have mentioned everything else I'd noticed.

  • Some of the quotes in the references may be overly long,, but I don't think it's a big problem.
  • The image pair of File:Butyric_acid_carbons.svg and File:Hydroxymethylbutyric_acid.png should both be a little smaller in order to better match the text size elsewhere.
  • The greek letters in image File:Butyric_acid_carbons.svg should probably be a little larger.
  • I noted above, but will repeat here for easier reading, that the "References" and "Reference notes" sections should probably be merged. For example: my references are this,[1] this,[2] these,[4] and this.[3] (which uses the code {{refn|Reference set: <ref name="ref1"/><ref name="ref2"/><ref name="ref3"/>}}. It at least puts all the references into the same list so are easier to read.

References

  1. ^ a b some ref
  2. ^ a b another ref
  3. ^ a b final ref
  4. ^ Reference set: [1][2][3]

Overall, a very clear and well-written article. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

HMB with larger Greek letters
Would this version be responsive? — soupvector (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I slightly revised File:Butyric acid carbons 2.svg and uploaded a version of the HMB structure diagram (File:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid 2.svg) with line sizes that are identical to the butyric acid carbons diagram. I replace both of the images that were in that section with these two images since File:Butyric acid carbons 2.svg looks better than File:Butyric acid carbons.svg and has enlarged greek letters.
With respect to the size of the letters "OH"/"HO" in these diagrams: after looking at all the svg files used in the article, I noticed that the size of the letters relative to the lines in those 2 structure diagrams is actually very similar to the other structure/synthesis diagrams; so, I think it might look awkward if those diagrams had smaller letters if I don't make a similar change in the other structure/synthesis diagrams. I did reduce the size of these images from 250px to 235px though; if I reduce it any further, the captions will end up wrapping to a new line (NB: it looks awkward), which is something I'd like to avoid.
As for the references, the main reason I separated the grouped references from the reference list is that the references section doesn't appear well-formatted IMO when they're combined. As an alternative, I could change [sources #] to [ref note #] if you think that would remove the potential for confusion that you mentioned above. Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Equestrian statue of Edward Horner[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This one is a little unusual. It's still a war memorial, of sorts, and still Lutyens, but instead of commemorating the efforts of a village or a city or a regiment, it commemorates one individual. I was initially doubtful that there would even be enough to write about one monument in a church in a tiny Somerset village; I certainly wasn't expecting a 2,000-word piece that I'd be bringing here. As it turns out, it's covered in almost all the books about war memorials and several about British society during the First World War. I'd originally planned for this to follow its sister article, Mells War Memorial, but it wasn't quite ready when that one passed FAC. I've given it a quick polish and added a couple of details and I have a gap now so here I am. I hope you like it, but all feedback will be warmly received! Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. However, I'm seeing some odd line breaking in |artist= in the infobox, and I'm not sure "equestrian" should be capped in the lead sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: two images added here and here and image layout also tweaked. Letting you know so the images can be reviewed, but maybe wait and see if any further changes are made, and if these changes stick? Also, does this fix the line-breaking in the infobox? Carcharoth (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, line-breaks solved. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Galobtter[edit]

  • "south-western england" Quite rare term, as far as I can see, either "South West England" or just "England" would be better
  • "sculpture executed by Alfred Munnings" is there a more common word to replace "executed" in the case of sculpting - like crafted, carved, fashioned something like that? searching and executed is rarely used alongside sculpture
  • "Edward Horner was the only surviving son and heir of Sir John and Lady Frances Horner of Mells Manor and a member of an extended upper-class social group known as the Coterie..." Lots of ands, far too many of 'em
  • "Shortly after the war broke out, he was a yeomanry officer in the part-time Territorial Force" should either be "became" not "was" or "he was a yeomanry officer in the part-time Territorial Force when the war broke out"
  • "On 19 August 1914, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the North Somerset Yeomanry, a part-time Territorial Force unit with no obligation to serve abroad. At the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914, his regiment was ordered to Hampshire for training." The war started in general before few days before August; I assume the commissioning had something to do with the war?; the sentences don't make much sense to me
  • "As well as dozens of public war memorials in towns and cities across Britain, Lutyens designed several private memorials to individual casualties, usually the sons of friends or clients. Many were heirs to the country houses Lutyens had built earlier in his career, as in Mells where he renovated the manor at the beginning of the 20th century. His work in Mells arose through his friend and collaborator Gertrude Jekyll, who introduced him to the Horners through a family connection. Lutyens established a friendship which led to multiple commissions in the village. As well as his work on the manor, he redesigned its gardens and worked on several related buildings and structures, and after the war was responsible for a tribute to Raymond Asquith (Edward's brother-in-law, also located in St Andrew's Church) and the village's own memorial. As well as the statue, Lutyens designed two others memorials to Horner—a wooden board featuring a description of the events leading up to his death, which was placed on a wall in the..."
  • "He was wounded in May 1915 and did not return to the war until early 1917. He was assigned a staff post but again secured a transfer to the front line." repetitive - "He was wounded in May 1915 and did not return to the war until early 1917. Initially assigned a staff post, he again secured a transfer to the front line."

In general repetitiveness in the prose could be helped by varying sentence structure Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Noswall59[edit]

This monument appears to be a touching tribute to the waste of life involved in WWI. But it also strikes me as a monument born out of privilege and commemorating the death of an upper-class soldier, contrasting with many of the more egalitarian memorials put up after WWI; I am not sure I've seen anything quite like it. I wonder whether any authors have talked about it in the context of social class? It is interesting too that the villagers were not keen on the monument being put inside the church, which may be linked to class as well: do you have anymore details on that? (Also, if you know the blazon of the coat of arms, it could be added as a note). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC).

Comments from Carcharoth[edit]

An excellent article. Delving into various obscure corners again:

  • It should be fairly easy to get a photo of the sculpture mould at the Munnings Art Museum (though it is closed until Easter now). That would be a nice addition to the article.
  • Similarly, a photo of it in its original position, or failing that, an indication of where the reader can find such a photo if they want to see it as it appeared in its original location.
  • Have the original design drawings been published anywhere? (glimpse here) And found the images in the RIBA library here and here.
  • The reference to this other memorial to Horner in the church really needs more. This (oak) wooden board. Either a photo, or a quote from the inscription. The best sources I could find on the wooden board are: [9] and [10]. If you think quotes from the wooden board will overwhelm the article, maybe put them in footnotes?
  • The stone tablet in Cambrai Cathedral is relevant and would be nice to include as well. But that will likely be difficult! Any chance of a quote from the Cambrai tablet?
  • Looking on Google Books, there do seem to be some academic sources not used yet. Will try and give examples.
  • Several sources mention the comments made by novelist Anthony Powell describing the statue as an 'Arthurian knight from the pages of Tennyson, riding out on his charger'. This really needs including in the article. See also here, referencing his memoirs (To Keep The Ball Rolling - TKBR).
  • Similarly, see here for a mention of the Horners and their social context in At Duty's Call: A Study in Obsolete Patriotism (1991) by W. J. Reader. (Reader's comments are taken further in 'Masculinities in Victorian Painting' (1995) by Joseph A. Kestner - see page 213).
  • Reader's book is precisely what I had in mind - it recognises the class-inflected context of the monument and highlights how it reflects a certain romantic heroism which was usually eschewed by the 1920s in war narratives (and in memorials). —Noswall59 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

Carcharoth (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: I have made these edits to the article to add material on the Mells wooden memorial board. The sourced commentary from Reader justifies quoting the full inscription, IMO. It would be nice to have a similar note on the Cambrai tablet and its wording (I suspect it will have been in French), arranged by Hilaire Belloc, but I am not holding my breath as it is very difficult to find anything on this. The closest I got was this webpage with photo of the tablet Belloc erected to his own son, placed opposite the tablet to Edward Horner.
Reviewing the comments I made here and on the article talk page, the only item left that I would say is essential is to try and get hold of a copy of the autobiography volume by Munnings The Second Burst (1951), as this contains a brief chapter (pp.40–44) on the statue (Chapter III: The Horner Statue). I suppose it could go in further reading if not considered essential. I may add that now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Added a bit more. Diff of the extra additions and the above edits is here. I am not intending to add anything more now. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I was a part of the A-Class nomination, can find no further room for improvement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Nicely written, happy to support, just a couple of comments. Firstly the article doesn't mention that the statue breaks the Equestrian_statue#Hoof-position_symbolism as the front hooves are both down despite him dying from battle wounds. surely someone has publicly commented on that anomaly? Secondly I've uploaded some more images from the geograph, I would reckon that this is an article that would benefit from a gallery - if only of the statue from different directions. Also I'm not sure, but if File:St Andrews Mells - Memorial window (geograph 5454430).jpg is the stained glass window referred to in "The statue originally faced a stained-glass window featuring a Madonna and Child, creating the image of Horner riding towards the light." then it would be worth including, but though it was presumably in the Horner chapel and is of the Madonna, it was installed in 1927 so the "originally faced" bit may not be quite true. Also as you know I'm old enough to remember buying beer at 37p a pint, but a £1,000 in 1920 was a lot more money than then let alone what it is today - a x in 201?? values line would be helpful. ϢereSpielChequers 18:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I thought the 'raised hoof/ves' was an urban myth? - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • This came up at the MILHIST A-class review. Opinions differed there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I can't find any reliable sources that say "this is true", and most say "common lore", "folk wisdom", "persistent legend" or similar. If there was a grain of truth in it, it would come up in some sources, but everything points the other way. Regardless of the bigger picture, if none of the sources that deal with the Horner statue mention it, then we probably shouldn't make the stretch either. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • One of the images was poor quality (huge amounts of noise), so I removed the image, and then removed the gallery as the image of the memorial and the wooden board really needs to be a full thumbnail, rather than in a gallery. I tried including the coat-of-arms detail as part of a multiple image array (of two images). Maybe that will work. Image layout is difficult at the best of times. Might be best to wait and see what Harry thinks. If a gallery is used, the new 'packed' gallery mode (examples at Manchester Cenotaph and Rochdale Cenotaph) is much nicer than the standard gallery mode. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

All sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Just one point to address, which will not affect my support: In the Commissioning section you refer to St Andrew's Church, but don't say where it is until the opening line of "Design and history". Probably best move "in Mells" up to the first mention. I also see the church is linked in the lead, but not in the body; is that deliberate? That's it – another very nicely written piece indeed. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1[edit]

A very well-composed article on a very moving monument. Having read it through, nothing to stand in the way of Support, but some comments for consideration below:

Lead

  • "As well as Horner's memorial, he designed a memorial to Raymond Asquith (also in St Andrew's Church), and Mells War Memorial in the centre of the village." - Perhaps, "As well as Horner's monument, he designed a memorial to Raymond Asquith (also in St Andrew's Church), and Mells War Memorial in the centre of the village", to avoid the thrice repeated memorial, which appears again in the next sentence. "Monument" is the term used by Pevsner. Or perhaps; tribute, shrine, tomb?
  • "the renowned equestrian painter and war artist Alfred Munnings" - Munnings is bluelinked in the para. above.

Biography

  • "The family was reputed to be descendants of "Little Jack Horner"" - the noun/verb agreement reads oddly to me. Perhaps, "The Horners were..." or "The family was reputed to descend from ....?
  • "Sir John was a London barrister and later commissioner of woods, for which he was knighted in 1908" - the London Gazette gives his KCVO as 9th November 1907.
  • "his condition was so grave that his parents were given special permission to visit him" - if this bit would benefit from a source there's quite a nice one in Cynthia Asquith's diary; ""...made enquiries about poor Edward. It sounds very, very bad - wounded in the groin in an explosion, and Sir John, Frances and Katherine have all gone out which would never be allowed unless his condition was critical, as Boulogne is now a war area and they are very strict." (The Diaries of Lady Cynthia Asquith 1915-1918, ed. L.P.Hartley, 1987, Century, p=17).

Commissioning

  • "Sir Edwin Lutyens was among the most distinguished architects for war memorials in Britain. He became a nationally renowned designer of war memorials following his work as an adviser..." - Sir Ed is already linked twice, in the infobox and the lead, so not sure he needs a third (see also Munnings below). The two sentences seem to repeat a little, and surely he was the most distinguished, I can't think of a rival? Perhaps something like, "Sir Edwin Lutyens was the most distinguished architect of war memorials in Britain. He had attained national renown following his work as an adviser ..."?

Design and history

  • "The Horner family had a long association with the church, which shares a wall with the manor house" - I think it shares a garden wall, but this sounds to me like they stand in direct proximity which I don't think is right, [11].

Notes

  • "These words were described by historian W. J. Reader..." - perhaps, "These words were described by the historian W. J. Reader..."

The above for consideration only and thanks indeed for a delightful article. KJP1 (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I notice that Raymond's grave in France carries the same inscription as Edward's, [12]. Was it some kind of standard wording? KJP1 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I am glad someone else has noticed the inscriptions are the same! (This came up in the A-class review.) I doubt (given the family connections) that it is a coincidence. The Imperial War Graves Commission did (as far as I know) provide the bereaved with a set of standard inscriptions to chose from (mostly biblical and/or ones popular at the time), but this would not have been one of them. Unfortunately, it seems no-one has yet picked up on it. There are a number of sources that write on Great War epitaphs, such as Epitaphs of the Great War, and the person running that site (who has recently published two books on the topic) mentions earlier works such as On Fames's Eternal Camping Ground, Epitaphs in the British Cemeteries on the Western Front (2007). But there are so many epitaphs that it is possible that some allusions and connections and cross-references simply have not yet been picked up on. If I find out more, I'll be sure to add details. Carcharoth (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes - it threw me when I first saw it, and I assumed I, or somebody, must have made a mistake. But no. I should have read the A-class review first! It would certainly be interesting to know more. As you say, it is a striking coincidence, if coincidence it is. KJP1 (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Carcharoth - Doing a little research for Bateman's, I read that Kipling chose the "known unto God" phrase that is used so frequently. I wonder if the "this star of England" line had a similar origin? KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Kipling was literary advisor to the IWGC and thus was largely responsible for the general phrases used on Commission memorials (as well as other written materials), but would not have been responsible for any of the individual epitaphs on the graves of soldiers. These (where desired) were chosen by the next-of-kin, who signed and returned forms sent to them for this purpose. If you look at the CWGC records for Horner (see line for headstone number 130) and Asquith (see line for headstone number 8), both available online, the next-of-kin are named as Sir John Horner (his father) and Mrs Raymond Asquith (his widow) respectively. Unless the reasons for or origins of a particular epitaph have been mentioned in secondary or primary sources (which is rare), it is next to impossible to say more. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Fascinating, many thanks. I've not seen these records before. I must see if I can find my mother's Uncle Horace, killed and buried in Jerusalem in 1917. She's always wanted to know more about his grave. KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Rhine Campaign of 1796[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Rhine Campaign of 1796, an important campaign year for the French revolutionary wars against the European coalitions. Four armies worked their way back and forth across southern and central German states in the course of a few months. At the end, the armies ended up where they had begun, but French successes in Northern Italy (where the French army was led by Napoleon), forced the Austrians into an armistice and then a peace treaty. ... auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, I was a part of the MILHIST A-class review, and I can find no further improvements to be made. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Query I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.
I wasn't sure what to replace frin with in " Jean Hardy's division frin the west side of Mainz retreated to the Nahe river," could it be from? ϢereSpielChequers 23:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is "from" I'm trying to find it.... thanks for your edits, they are fine! auntieruth (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2[edit]

Comments by Tintor2

  • The lead feels a bit unbalanced. I would advise trimming some of the last paragraphs and increasing the top one.
I've trimmed the last paragraph.
  • The caption of Rhine River feels too big. Since it's a free image, I would avise you to remove to trim to as everybody can click on the image.
the caption was expanded based on previous reviews, then trimmed some. I don't understand how clicking on it would provide the material included in the caption....

Other than that, I see no further issues. Ping me or mention me when you think you are done so I'll support it. Also if possible, a fellow user and I are doing this FAC and would appreciate feedback. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

thank you for your comments! Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Tintor2:. Would you take a look and see if this is clearer? auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Regine Velasquez[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a Filipino singer and actress who had achieved success in other Asian countries. I've been working on the article and expanded it, with most of the heavy work done between November to December of last year, at which time it received a peer review. I feel ready to give this a shot at FAC. All suggestions for improvement are welcome. Pseud 14 (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Media review

  • File:Intramurosjf0305_17.JPG: since the Philippines does not have freedom of panorama, this needs to include an explicit licensing tag for the architectural work
Agreed. Removed image from the article. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Regine_Velasquez_-_Sana_Maulit_Muli.ogg: what is the length of the original song? Same with File:Written_In_The_Sand_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, File:In_Love_With_You_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, File:Fly_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, File:Emotion_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg
Done. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Given the length of File:In_Love_With_You_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, the sample is longer than 10%. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, My bad, the song length is in fact 4:23 as sourced. Do let me know if this meets criteria. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately it would still be longer than 10%. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, In that case, I have removed the sample. Thanks for confirming. The fewer the better. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This article has quite a few non-free samples - need to consider whether it would be possible to convey adequate information with fewer. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Fair point. Got rid of the 3, I kept "File:Regine_Velasquez_-_Sana_Maulit_Muli.ogg" for the music career subsection where the song is tackled and "File:Fly_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg" under Musical style just to illustrate variety in genre under this context. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Support per my detailed review at PR here. I have made some copy-edits here and there. These are my edits. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

FrB.TG, thank you for your thorough review and input at PR. Much appreciate your support. --Pseud 14 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Support per my comments at the peer review, here. Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Thanks for your valuable input at PR and for your support --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "music licensing" I might say "licensing writes".
  • Done, you might probably be referring to licensing rights.
  • "One month before the album's release, "Forevermore", the record's lead single, debuted in August 2004." I would put the parts of this sentence in some other order, possibly, "Forevermore", the record's lead single, debuted in August 2004, one month before the album's release."
  • Done
  • "In 2005, Velasquez continued her television work as presenter for three seasons on another talent show," if it's three seasons, wouldn't it be more than just 2005?
  • Fixed, since the original season premiered in 2005 anyway, I took out "three seasons" to avoid confusion.
  • "The album, partly mixed with 1980s and 1990s influence," I don't know what you mean by "partly mixed". Is this a reference to sound mixing or something else?
  • Reworded. Was referring to "influenced by 1980s and 1990s sound"
  • "She appeared in Songbird, a weekly late night musical television program that aired on GMA Network Inc, where she was the main act and featured performances by a musical guest.[108]" probably needs "which" before "featured".
  • Done
  • "Velasquez did not fail to make up for the initial staging of the show." I might sub "cancellation" for "staging".
  • Done
  • "She was featured on Gloc-9's single "Takip Salim"[145] and in Vice Ganda's "Push Mo Yan Teh".[146]" I might say "as backup vocalist" or whatever she was.
  • Clarified as "featured artist"
  • " the performance earned Velasquez a FAMAS[198] and FAP[199] Award nomination for Best Actress."I think you'll need to ditch the "a" and pluralise " Award".
  • Done
  • "the comedy series Ako Si Kim Sam Soon, an adaption of the South Korean television series." series ... series. I'd find a synonym for one of them.
  • Went with "television show" instead to avoid "series" being overused.
  • "She dropped out after the 45th episode following her pregnancy and was replaced by Iza Calzado.[206]" I would enclose "following her pregnancy" because it is ambiguous otherwise.
  • Done
  • "One of Velasquez's earliest musical memories was listening to her father, Gerardo Velasquez, sing lullabies to put her to sleep.[9] As a child she enjoyed hearing classic songs. She would wait for her father's return from work and ask him to sing her the "old songs" he knew until she fell asleep.[13] She was drawn to traditional songs instead of nursery rhymes because of this routine." Since you mention a good part of this early in the biographical section, I would consider shortening it a bit, especially where there is duplication.
  • Trimmed. Removed duplicate sentences covered in the 'Early life' section.
Will finish within the next couple of days. Sorry about the delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thank you. I have done these things as per my comments. --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a few more.
  • "Velasquez is often regarded as one of Filipino music's most influential voices.[223][224]" wouldn't this be better under "Legacy"? I would suggest calling that section "Influence" btw. She's a bit young for a legacy.
  • Done for both. Changed to "Influence"
  • "On August 8, 2010, the couple announced their engagement,[267][268] and in December 2010 the couple married in Nasugbu, Batangas.[269] " I might cut the year repeat.
  • Done
  • The two sentences in the first paragraph of "Honors" seem inconsistent in whether the serial comma is used.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. Did not use serial comma(s) in this article. This should be consistent now.
Wehwalt, thank you for your additional comments. They have all been addressed. --Pseud 14 (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

As promised, I'll do my best to post some comments within the next few days. ceranthor 23:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • "She attended pre-school and elementary at the Central School of Hinundayan.[10] " - think this should be elementary school; think you're missing a word
Fixed
  • "Despite the attempt to launch her music career, the single was commercially unsuccessful." - why despite? I'd just nix the first half of the sentence here
Done
  • "While she was rehearsing for the live show, the producer and talent manager, Ronnie Henares showed interest and signed her." - No comma needed after manager
Done
  • Careful with the serial comma; it looks like you mostly avoid using it, so stay consistent throughout
Fixed for consistency in the article
  • "marketing her as representing East Asian popular music because of its financial success." - this is clunky; reword
Reworded
  • " Velasquez appeared as host with Ogie Alcasid on the television program " - needs a "the"; also wouldn't this make her a co-host rather than just a host?
You're right, she is a co-host. Fixed
  • "To coincide with the film's theatrical run, "You Are My Song", was released as the soundtrack's lead single.[176]" - don't think the commas are necessary
Done
  • "Velasquez continued to play the lead in 1998, the comedy fantasy film Honey Nasa Langit Na Ba Ako as Janno Gibbs' fiancé,[172] and the romantic comedy Dahil May Isang Ikaw with Aga Muhlach.[178]" - missing a word after 1998... maybe appearing?
Added
  • "Her first television lead role came in 2000 in an episode of the IBC-13's weekly drama series Habang May Buhay, playing Piolo Pascual's cancer-stricken love interest.[172]" - this seems disjointed as its own paragraph
Fixed. Included as part of the second paragraph
  • "Velasquez also voiced the animated film Urduja (2008)" - voiced the entire film, or voiced a character?
Voiced the 'eponymous character'. Fixed
  • "Velasquez is often regarded as one of Filipino music's most influential voices and for her use of vocal belting." - Think this should be reworded so that there's not a split between "regarded as one of..." and regarded "for her..."
Reworded, moved the latter (vocal belting) to the second sentence for flow.
  • "described her "legitimacy" as "enough to secure a space in pop culture," and her musical career that "continues to influence generations of OPM patrons and songbird wannabes up to this day,"[219]" - Think you're missing words before "and her musical career"
Reworded
  • WP:NBSPs need a bit of cleanup in the article.
Done as per these series of edits

Overall, this is very well-written and engaging. Excellent work. Support, once my comments are addressed. ceranthor 22:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ceranthor, thank you for your comments and edits. I have addressed those accordingly. --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

  • 'Regine' should be as "Regine'"
    • Done
  • 'AllMusic's David Gonzales praised it as "an even better album", but criticized the record for being very similar to the formula used on Listen Without Prejudice." ' There's an extra " at the end from somewhere
    • Fixed
  • There are a lot of breaches in WP:LQ: I fixed some, but it's best to go through and check the rest
    • Done as per these edits
  • "The album sold more than 120,000 copies": the subject of the previous sentence is Survivor, so best put "Drawn sold more than..."
    • Done
  • New Strait Times should be New Straits Times
    • Fixed
  • You use a mix of emdashes and endashes, which should be made consistent
    • Fixed for consistency. I used the html code just to be certain.

Done to the start of "2013–present": more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, thank you for your comments and edits. I have done those things. Look forward to rest of your review. --Pseud 14 (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No, no more to follow: I made a couple of tweaks to some WP:LQ slips you'd missed, but the rest is all good.
  • Support on prose: I have never heard of the subject before, so can't comment on completeness of coverage, etc, but as far as I can judge, this fits the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • SchroCat, thank you for your edits. Much appreciate your support. --Pseud 14 (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

  • Unless I missed it we'll need someone to perform a source review for formatting and reliability.
  • Also, Pseud 14, if I'm right in gathering that this will be your first FA if successful, we'll need a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing (a hoop through which we ask all first-timers to jump).

Both the above can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the current reviewers would like to undertake. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose, thank you for your note. Would very much look forward to a review of the sources. I did put it up at the WT:FAC for a source review request. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that -- tks, I've added the spotcheck request myself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ian Rose, much appreciated. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this part “In the first of these she”, please add a comma between “these” and “she”.
  • Done
  • A clarification question for this part (In the first of these she appeared in a featured episode portraying a mentally challenged woman). Does she play the mentally challenged woman in the episode? If so I would rephrase it to the following “she appeared as a mentally challenged woman in a featured episode”, as I originally read the current wording as the episode portraying (i.e. featuring) this type of character.
  • You're right she does. I reworded as suggested. Thanks!
  • For this part (At age four Velasquez), I believe a comma is necessary between “four” and “Velasquez”.
  • Done
  • For this part (particularly in music), I do not think the “in” is necessary.
  • Done
  • For this part (Under Henares' management Velasquez), I believe a comma is necessary after “management”.
  • Done
  • For this part (AllMusic called the album), I would cite the reviewer in the prose.
  • Done
  • For this part (Critical reception of the show was generally enthusiastic with music critics complimenting), I would revise it to avoid the “with” + “-ing” verb construction as I think that is discouraged for FAs.
  • Reworded
  • For this part (Allmusic's David Gonzales heralded), it should be “AllMusic”.
  • Fixed
  • For this part (and performed alongside Mandy Moore to promote the theatrical release of the latter's film), could you identify what song they performed together?
  • Song title added ("Cry")
  • Is divadevotee.com really a reliable source? I do not think so, but I would be more than happy to hear your opinion and be convinced otherwise.
  • I believe you're right so I removed any usage of that source and reworded the structure of the lead sentence.
  • For this (Allmusic described her timbre), it should be “AllMusic”.
  • Done
  • Philippine Daily Inquirer is linked a few times in the article.
  • Unlinked.
  • For this part (Referred to as Asia's songbird,), please clarify who refers to her as this. Is it critics, fans, the singer herself?
  • Clarified (by critics)

Wonderful work with this article. It was very informative as I have never heard of this individual prior to reading it. I will definitely have to check out her music, as her style seems to perfectly fit with my personal taste in music. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Hats off to you for handling all of this work! I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide some comments on my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1) if possible. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Aoba47, thanks for your time in reviewing. I have addressed the above as mentioned in my comments. I'm delighted that you found interest in her music, I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy it. I'd be more than happy to have a look at your FAC too. You have a wonderful week likewise. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Aoba47 much appreciate your support. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Source review Lingzhi[edit]

  • I'm running the links checker... all links look good.
  • since you are presumably familiar with all these links, you can help out proactively by finding those that point to sources written in Tagalog (for example, this one)and adding |language=. If you translated any of the titles into English, the title should be left as the original Tagalog, and you should add the English translation as |trans-title=.
  • Fixed
  • What makes oocities reliable? and tripod ?
the tripod links to an archive article indicating the newspaper it was taken from (PDI = Philippine Daily Inqquirer, as such I referenced the source newspaper and the date of publication. I have removed the oocities link.
  • "Video clip > Velasquez on pursuing an international career" is translated very sparsely; therefore, How reliable is this source for information? Where is she speaking, and when? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This was from a bloggers/moderators conference for her website in December 2009 in Quezon City. And this was the only instance where the topic was discussed and no publication or other interview is available. I only enclosed portions of interview into writing as not everything has been translated. Let me know if additional details would be needed

While establishing her career in music, Velasquez ventured into film with a lead role in Wanted Perfect Mother in 1996. Given its positive public reception, she continued to garner female leads in romantic comedies such as Kailangan Ko'y Ikaw (2000) and Pangako Ikaw Lang (2001) -- the latter was the highest-grossing film of 2001. She also had success in television with the shows Maalaala Mo Kaya (2002), Forever in My Heart (2004), Diva (2010), and Poor Señorita (2016).

This wp article has:

Velasquez ventured into film with a lead role in Wanted Perfect Mother (1996). She continued to play female lead roles in romantic comedy films — including Kailangan Ko'y Ikaw (2000) and Pangako Ikaw Lang (2001), with the latter being the highest-grossing Filipino film in 2001. She has also been successful in television with the shows Maalaala Mo Kaya (2002), Forever In My Heart (2004), Diva (2010) and Poor Señorita (2016).

Apple Itunes has:

In 2002, Reigne earned Velasquez an MTV Asia Award nomination. She eventually won its inaugural award for Favorite Artist: Philippines. That same year, she hosted the first season of the Philippines' own version of the British talent show Star for a Night. Velasquez's own TV special, One Night with Regine, was a fund-raiser for social welfare organization and won Best Musical Program at the seventh Asian Television Awards. In 2004 and 2006, she reverted to her earlier style of delivering her own versions of songs by other artists on Covers, Vol. 1 and Covers, Vol. 2. In 2008, Velasquez signed a recording contract with Universal. Low Key, her label debut, was released in November.

...compare with wp:

In 2002, Reigne earned Velasquez a MTV Asia Award nomination.[82] She won the inaugural award for Favorite Artist Philippines and performed "Cry" alongside Mandy Moore to promote the theatrical release of the latter's film, A Walk to Remember (2002).[83][84] In that same year, Velasquez hosted the first season of Star for a Night, a format based on the British talent show of the same name.[85] ... On April 26, 2002, Velasquez headlined One Night with Regine at the National Museum of the Philippines.[87] The show was a fundraiser in partnership with the Bantay Bata Foundation, a social welfare organization of media conglomerate ABS-CBN.[88] ... Later that year, One Night with Regine won Best Musical Program at the 7th Asian Television Awards.[89]

 Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Lingzhi, just another additional comment. This was the first version of this section back in 11 November 2017 while I was working on the article. At that point, part of the process of improving the article was the inclusion of album reviews from AllMusic. During which time, the subject's AllMusic biography section never existed (didn't have content), as opposed to how it currently stands. There definitely is no edit history that could vouch for that in AllMusic, but I was constantly visiting the site while the article was being expanded whenever an album review needs to be cited and Thom Jurek has not reviewed a single album of the subject, which makes his familiarity of the subject questionable (in my opinion). I am not in any way discrediting Thom Jurek and his work for AllMusic, however, I am certain (based on what I have checked in AllMusic) that the author may not even be aware of the subject to the extent that was written, which would make it highly impossible that the WP version was ripped from it, as I know for a fact that there have been blatant use of WP entries being written into websites online. Do let me know if these have addressed your concerns. --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a point a wanted to highlight: as an editor who knows the subject and has an aim of putting an article to FAC, the very last thing I would do is rip off a big chunk of work from something that already exists. The article has undergone work for several months late last year and has been extensively elaborated, which makes no sense (in my humble opinion) for me to copy work from someone. I understand the burden of proof is on the nominator/editor (me). --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, on close paraphrase, with red flags also going up with respect to unreliability of Internet resources. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


Lingzhi, thank you for your review. As per results of your copyvio tool, these aren't paraphrases and were written during the time that I was working on the article late November-December 2017. I was also surprised that these appeared in both Itunes and AllMusic. So on the above mentioned, I am confident that the wp version came before what appeared in Allmusic and Itunes. Other than mentioned I only have a copy kept in my drive on the structure while I was doing it. For certainty, that's my only means of proof that the WP version came before the AllMusic and Itunes article and was not paraphrased into the WP version. This was how the lead section looked at the time when I revised it and changes were made during the time when the article was peer reviewed. Do let me know if there's anything needed to clarify. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to FAC coordinator: I looked for a date of any kind on the iTunes page in question (looked at page source too) but found nothing. I also looked at the Wayback page for the iTunes article, and the earliest archive date was very recent (JAN. this year IIRC). I don't know if that's conclusive proof that the page is new, but at least it doesn't disprove the nominator's assertions. I dunno if a staff writer for AllMusic (Thom Jurek) would risk his job by ripping off Wikipedia, but maybe he would. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking into it Lingzhi, appreciate your time. I did some cross-checking too and looked at an archive at the Wayback page for one of her albums in iTunes. This archive is dated November 27, 2017. If you compare it to this current page of the same album in iTunes, you'll find a difference since the November archive did not contain an 'About' section with the article by Thom Jurek. You'll only see a section called 'More by Regine Velasquez' that only detailed her country of origin and date of birth on the archive as opposed to the current page. If you review the article history with the WP version dated November 27, 2017, you'll find it already had that structure written into it. I hope this too provides additional clarity. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

I've been carrying out a more general sources review, focussing on formatting and quality/reliability issues. I'm only about a quarter of the way through, so there's a way to go yet. Some of my points might overlap with issues raised by Lingzhi.

  • There seems to be an inconsistency in the inclusion or otherwise of retrieval dates, particularly in the early citations Can you say what principles you have applied?
  • Thanks for the note Brianboulton. Fixed to include retrieval dates for consistency. --Pseud 14 (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 2: Can you give further information on "SoundClick", to help establish its quality and reliability?
  • While it is an article sourced from different website, it was used to as a source for non-contentious claims (i.e. siblings). Nevertheless, I have replaced it with a much more reliable source.
  • Ref 9: What makes this (Regine Multimedia Vol. 3) a high quality, reliable source? It describes itself as "an unofficial Regine fansite".
  • It is an unofficial fansite, that is moderated by a team that has oversight from her production, since the subject doesn't have an OFFICIAL website. I utilized the source for portions of the biography page written. Nevertheless, these have been replaced with more reliable source.
  • Ref 20: Likewise, this source (Regine Velasquez Biography Page) says: "Please take note that this is a fansite and NOT an official site"
  • Same as above, replaced with a much reliable article.
  • Ref 32: What's the relationship between "InqPop" and Philippine Daily Inquirer?
  • InqPop is the Entertainment/Pop Culture section of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, I cited the actual newspaper instead of InqPOP.
  • Ref 33: why isn't Asia Pacific Quarterly given as publisher rather than Billboard?
  • From my understanding Asia Pacific Quarterly is a section of this Billboard issue.
  • Refs 34 and 35 appear to be the same, although formatted differently
  • Fixed
  • Ref 39: Your text says: "The album sold more than 120,000 copies and was certified double platinum" The source says: "Double platinum in Taiwan, 150,000 units sold in China and the figures are still climbing" – which is somewhat different.
  • The 150,000 figures referred to the Listen Without Prejudice album, whereas the double platinum certification was for Reason Enough. I removed 120,000 and left it at double platinum to avoid confusion. I know the clipping is a tad too blurry and required zooming in.
  • Ref 40: author missing
  • Added
  • Ref 48: Why is this source (The official blog of Trina Belamide) reliable?
  • Replaced with the songwriter's official website linked through her work/music history.
  • Ref 52: The main link isn't working. Suggest replace url with that in the archived link
  • Fixed
  • Ref 64: Publisher missing
  • Added
  • Ref 65: Not worth keeping. It's dated four weeks before the event described in the text, and doesn't really support it byond naming the venue.
  • Removed
  • Ref 68: The paper is New Straits Times ("Straits" plural) and should be italicised
  • Fixed
  • Ref 70: author missing
  • Added

Buzz me when you've attended to these. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thanks for your review. Let me know if I have addressed the above to your satisfaction and I look forward to the remainder of your review. Appreciate your time in starting to go through it. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the delay, I've been away from home with very limited online access. I've now resumed my checks and will post again shortly. Happy with your responses so far. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a further batch, which completes the first column. How long it will take me to slog through the second column is anyone's guess, and you may have to be rather patient.

  • Ref 61: Give language
  • Done
  • Ref 62: Where does the source state which programme is being described?
  • I've added a new source that states the BBC programme as 2000 Today.
  • I did keep the ABC Australia source (although it's titled broadcast is 2000) because the page detailed the countries.
  • Ref 65: goes to an article entitled "Hipnotic Michelle"
  • I've removed this source (including the statement cited) as I couldn't find any archive of it.
  • Ref 69: What makes Astyle.com a reliable source?
  • Removed, since it redirects to a different page now. No archive available.
  • Refs 72, 74: "Reigne — Regine Velasquez" is not the title shown in the source - it's given as "Regine — Regine Velasquez". And what is the difference between these two, even though the ref details are given differently?
  • Apparently it's a mistake from AllMusic. The discography page puts it as "Regine — Regine Velasquez" from her 1987 album, but the content/review is about "Reigne — Regine Velasquez" the 2001 album. So the ref details I used was for the 2001 album (Reigne). Confusing album titles, I know. I hope this clarifies.
  • Ref 82: (Vive Entertainment) Link goes to a blank page.
  • Replaced with a new source
  • Ref 90: Clarify publisher - not apparent from the link
  • Wayback has an archive link of the actual article from Manila Bulletin as the original link is not working. I've replaced the source and put the archive url.
  • Ref 95: publisher details missing – who is it? Looks similar to 90.
  • Ref 96: returns page not found
  • Removed. No working link or archive available.
  • Ref 97: returns error message
  • Removed. No working link or archive available.
  • Ref 99: returns page not found
  • Removed. No working link or archive available.
  • Ref 101: Give language
  • Added
  • Ref 126: Unsure about publisher and if reliable
  • I replaced the source and used the archive url from Manila Bulletin (from Wayback) as it is accessible.
  • Ref 132: The main link goes to wrong page. Replace with archived url
  • Done
  • Ref 147: Give language
  • Added

Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton, have done all those things above as per my comments. Let me know if I have addressed them. I would definitely (and patiently) await for the remainder of your review. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hydnum repandum[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the wood hedgehog, a cute mushroom. It was heavily improved by Sasata who has sadly retired. I reckon it was nearly FA-worthy then and have updated it with latest information and done all that I think is outstanding. I feel it is the equal of other fungus FAs - if anything arises I will fix it pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review - Market caption could use editing, licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, looks pretty comprehensive, although white fruit bodied probably needs at least one hyphen Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thx. aha...question is.....between which two words....I take it you mean between "white" and "fruit"...? done... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review: All sources in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC) )

thx/appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • Pretty much all I know about mushrooms I know from reviewing articles here, so it will always be form a layman's point of view. Here goes. FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
how an article appears to laypeople is important Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You seem to be inconsistent in how you present the various writers mentioned throughout. Some get nationality and occupation, some only get occupation, and some get neither.
added all except two bits (Russia and Slovenia) where I felt it would be repetitive as the names are obviously Russian/Slovene. I could change to "Slovenian researchers" and take out "Slovenia" I guess... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by the various mushrooms mentioned that are either presented as forms of this species, synonyms of it, or species separate from it. This goes for for example Hydnum rufescens and Hydnum albidum, whihc also have seperate articles. On Commons, these are also categorised under Hydnum repandum[13], which seems puzzling as well. So what does it all mean?
Commons is lagging behind WP...and the latest literature. The species was originally very broadly defined and a bit of a wastebasket taxon. Genetic analysis has shown a few species lay within the definition Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the very wide distribution natural?
as far as I know yes. I have no sources saying it's been introduced anywhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent in whether you abbreviate the scientific name or not.
now tweaked so abbreviated everywhere except at first mention and where the name is discussed in the taxonomy section (word-as-word) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Why do you start off by calling it hedgehog mushroom in the beginning of the edibility section? Seems strange when you return to the scientific name right after and throughout.
mixing it up and varying words...but not necessary Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - very nicely glossed, which has been an issue with some earlier nominations. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

What's your rule for including books in the "Cited literature" section and give them shortened format cites? I see several books cited more than once, e.g. Arora cited 7 times. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I generally do it if pages referenced are scattered through a source. Arora all comes from two consecutive pages. I will leave as one ref if a small range of consecutive pages Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent use of Location parameter (24 with; 2 without) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
maybe I am tired...but I am missing the books with missing locations..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Mmm, Schaeffer 1774 had the location listed as the publisher (I changed that so now it is missing a publisher; did you fix one?
added and yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Mabey R. Food for Free. Missing Year/Date
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Seven sources older than 1970 are missing Oclc nums (not required but very helpful). These are old sources; dunno if they have oclc nums. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I've never used oclc numbers as I thought there was only a very limited period they were used before isbn. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

University of Washington station[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a glass box in front of a football stadium that tens of thousands of people enter in order to descend 100 feet and board a train. In other words, a pretty standard train station, though one that had a long and complex planning process that preceded its construction. This article recently passed GA and went through a GOCE cleanup and I feel it's ready to join Seattle's other glass box as an FA. SounderBruce 01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Disclaimer: This nomination is part of the ongoing WikiCup competition. SounderBruce 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 14: Check the page, given here as "p. 2-2" – single page or mistyped range?
    • The reference is on page "2-2" (section 2, page 2). I use endashes and the pp. parameter for multi-page citations.
      • Maybe a "2:2" format would be less confusing, but I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I have decided to replace the citation entirely, since I recently found the original document with that specific map. SounderBruce 02:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 35: I'm not sure how this untitled source supports the statement cited to it: "The FTA rejected the mid-block crosswalk and a compromise pedestrian overpass connecting to the center of the Montlake Triangle from Rainier Vista was adopted in 2011."
    • The first part (about the FTA rejection) is supported by page 5 of Ref 35 (the PDF), which states the following: "Spring 2010 – at-grade crossings not approved by FTA;".
  • Ref 58, also 77: I was denied access to these Seattle Times sources as I had apparently "reached my limit of free articles". Curiosly, I was allowed access to 60, 66, 67 and 81.
    • The older articles (community.seattletimes) are not behind the paywall that newer articles are. You can load them into incognito mode to bypass the paywall.

Otherwise, sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability and in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the review. I've answered your questions above. SounderBruce 23:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Images review[edit]

Not all images appear to have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Added ALT text for the pictogram. Only remaining ones without ALT text are portal icons. SounderBruce 06:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I don't think anyone has reviewed the prose yet. So I will have a try.

  • the terminus of the Central Link line, which continues south towards Capitol Hill station and Downtown Seattle - This is weird because usually, terminus means end. But in railway terminology, this is fine although it's grammatically awkward. I suggest clarifying that this is the northern terminus. Anyway, you'll need to update this when the Central Link Northgate Extension opens, so maybe this is kind of minor.
    • Tweaked a bit.
  • University of Washington station; Capitol Hill and University of Washington stations - doesn't the definite article "the" come before this phrase?
    • The station itself doesn't need the definite article, and sounds a bit awkward with it.
  • To the northwest is University of Washington campus - also needs a definite article.
    • Done.
  • rejected 1911 comprehensive plan for Seattle - this could be worded into "rejected comprehensive plan for Seattle in 1911" or something similar.
    • Done.
  • after it received construction bids that were $171 million higher than expected - I'm assuming that the soil was the cause of the high cost. Is that correct?
    • Yes, and I have added a second factor to that sentence.
  • The alternatives were narrowed to two finalists in early 2002; - the semicolon at the end should be a colon.
    • Done.
  • By the end of the year, the station was averaging 9,300 daily boardings, placing it second among Link stations for ridership. - I'm interested as to what the first station is.
    • Added.
  • downtown transit tunnel - this should link to Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel.
    • Done.
  • the planned "U District" station to the west of the campus, which was scheduled to open in 2021 - with this phrasing, it sounds like U District won't open at all.
    • Fixed.
  • Station layout - so is the Northgate-bound track not in service?
    • It is in service, as trains layover and leave from both sides of the platform (with signs directing people towards the next train to leave). I switched it so both tracks are labeled as southbound ones.
  • The colors of the walls drew criticism from fans of the Huskies football team because they were similar to the neon yellow that was later adopted by rivals Oregon - the end of the sentence is awkward. What about "Oregon, the rival team" or something similar?
    • Done.

Otherwise, seems like a very good article. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for the review. I have gone through and made the changes you suggested. SounderBruce 02:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: Looks good. I think I'll support this nomination. I might come back with further comments later, but I think everything is OK for now. epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Looking over it now...

HMS Vanguard (1909)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Other than becoming the only British dreadnought lost during World War I to non-combat causes (her magazines exploded in 1917), Vanguard had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired at the Battle of Jutland mid-way through the war was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea. The article recently completed a MilHist ACR and I've incorporated the comments from my last few British dreadnought FACs. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining, although I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:British_Battleships_of_the_First_World_War_Q40389.jpg: to use the UK-unknown tag, you need to detail on the image description page what steps you've taken to try to ascertain authorship. Same with File:HMS_Vanguard_postcard.jpg. The former also needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The description field seems a strange place to describe the research for authorship, rather than the author field or even a separate notes section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Not the field, the page - either of those fields would be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Was a part of the A-class review, can find no more faults. Please note I modified the copyright license of File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff by removing the OLD-80 and 1923 license and adding a OLD-80-1923 license. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi[edit]

  • Since there are no sfn templates, it took me a while to comb through the refs to discover there's no source for Gardiner & Gray. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Good catch. Fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 6: No source defined
  • In ref 13 there appears to be a stray "p." Also, I think the reference should indicate that the link is to a Dreadnought Project page that includes the Times reference, rather than to The Times itself
  • A general point: in a number of cases, e.g. refs 36, 43, 44, etc, you give the website but no publisher. Websites are not publishers – the name of the publisher should be added as you do in, for example, 35 and 38.

Otherwise, no further issues with the refs. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks for clarifying these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Parsecboy[edit]

  • Not much to nitpick here, but I wonder why the armament and armour section is divided off from the rest of the description. If you removed it, you'd get rid of the problem with the line drawing pushing that heading over
  • What did the boilers burn?
  • I assume QF 3-inch 20 cwt and QF 4 inch Mk V naval gun would be the links for the AA guns? Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Could be, but could also be some older 12-pounders on HA carriages. More probably so for the 4-inch guns, but nobody definitely specifies the model, so I've avoided doing so as well. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Happy to support now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support from Deckiller[edit]

Support— any remaining concerns are minor and/or stylistic differences only. Weak Oppose—the article fails 1a and 2a. The lead is too succinct given the article's length; it lacks details from several sections, such as design, and some of the sentences are quite vague (e.g. "generally forbidden"). The sentence about the Protection Act of 1986 isn't elaborated on in subsequent sections, which raises questions about criterion 1b; that sentence also uses vague wording such as "generally avoided". I made some changes to the lead, but the whole text could use some tweaking to eliminate redundancy and imprecise wording. Here are a few examples:

It's impossible to summarize the design & description section without repeating information presented in that section, so I've never done it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The Protection Act is indeed elaborated in the Wreck section, so I'm not sure what the complaint is. "Generally forbidden" is in the lede and "and cannot be dived upon except with permission from the Ministry of Defence" is more explicit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"A total of 843 men were lost..." — "A total of" is redundant and "were lost" is vague. Try "843 men died", "843 men perished", or the less blunt "843 men were killed".
"were lost" is pretty common phrasing in nautical books, but your wording works too.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I just got a request to have another look at this one. I want to avoid doing anything to control the process or tell anyone off ... FAC is a place for collaborative writing, that's the deal here, and Deckiller is entitled to his language preferences. I generally avoid getting into arguments over word usage at FAC. Having said that ... I do feel an obligation to say something if something starts going wrong with prose reviews at FAC, and that might be the case here. I'll reply inline, one point at a time.
On this first point: where would "A total of" be a useful phrase, if not here? It seems perfect to me. (And by the way, your recommendation to start the sentence "843 men died" would be a MOS violation.) In British naval contexts, "men" by itself can be ambiguous, meaning everyone, or just non-officers. Then there are a couple of Australians, and one guy who died of wounds ... this is exactly the kind of sentence where "A total of" works well. (OTOH, it seems to me that "22 total men" in the same paragraph could safely lose the "total", but I'm not positive about that.) - Dank (push to talk)
I agree that the second "total" is rather pointless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The MOS discourages starting a sentence with a number, correct? In that case I understand why the redundancy was included. My bad. There's no need to restructure that sentence just to avoid a small redundancy.
With that said, I do not really see how something is "going wrong" here, Dan; I'm not going to stubbornly maintain an oppose if there's good reason to ignore my suggestions. Most of my points are either valid opportunities for improvement or good-natured recommendations, though some are subjective as you mentioned. I'm no expert on nautical topics, and I am quite rusty when it comes to Wikipedia and copy-editing in general, but my instincts told me that the prose could be tweaked. My intent is to help improve these articles, not disrespect people or trash their work. I believe that silence is worse than nitpicks, even if some of those nitpicks can be retracted after discussion. At least someone is reading the article and trying to be constructive. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"The design of the St Vincent class was derived from that of the previous Bellerophon class, with a slight increase in size, armour and more powerful guns, among other minor changes." — vague sentence. Was the armor "increased"? An "increase of more powerful guns". Try reworking it a bit.
I have no trouble understanding "a slight increase in ... armour", but I'm not sure what "a slight increase in more powerful guns" means ... more guns? Bigger guns? - Dank (push to talk)
The size of the guns remained the same over the previous class, but the barrels were lengthened which increased their power somewhat. I couldn't think of a good way to word a subordinate clause covering the guns and just lumped them in with the rest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
How about "size, armour and the length of the guns"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
That wording works for me. My suggestion was not intended to be used—I was simply pointing out a sentence that could be improved. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd though of that, but the problem is that I'm not sure that a general reader would understand the consequences of lengthening the barrels, which does make the guns more powerful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"her service during the war generally consisted of routine patrols and training in the North Sea." — please clarify that this was World War I.
Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
"During the first year of the war"— same as above. It's the first mention outside the lead, so please mention WW1 by name.
Agreed. - Dank (push to talk)
Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"By April 1917, Vanguard mounted thirteen 4-inch anti-torpedo boat guns as well as one 4-inch and one 3-inch AA gun."— vague; the ship itself managed to mount new weaponry? I understand use of the passive voice throughout this tech-heavy section, but here the active voice is deceptive.
It's not a voice problem here, Deckiller, he's using "mounted" as an ergative verb. Sturm, I'm not finding sufficient support in the dictionaries here to back you up on this word usage (and there's also the problem that "mount" means so many things that it breeds ambiguity). I don't think you made a mistake here Sturm, I've seen this usage, but it's not in most dictionaries. - Dank (push to talk)
It's fairly common in nautical books, particularly if there had been a change in equipment, as a change of pace from more common words like equipped, etc. I'm not totally wedded to the term, but I don't think that it's confusing to an average reader.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
You're right, Dan; it's a stylistic difference and not a fault with the prose itself. This was a complete nitpick. Regarding "mounted", if there is no better verb, then there's no sense in changing it. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"Vanguard was refitted in December, with new bilge keels being installed." — a little redundant and vague. If bilge keels was the only thing installed, then the entire sentence should be restructured a bit.
Details on the refit are unknown, other than bilge keels were fitted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a good alternative to the way you put it, Sturm. - Dank (push to talk)
Why not "In December, Vanguard was refitted with new bilge keels" or something along those lines? I think it's a little more clear and lean. I understand that flow must be taken into account; that para is full of fairly short sentences, and it's clear that the writer wanted to switch it up a bit. I would change it, but if people disagree then I'm not going to be a stubborn prick. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
A refit generally involved lots of small to medium repairs, replacement of equipment, etc., so I'm reluctant to adopt your wording. I'll try to address each of your comments later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"Arriving in Portland on 27 July, she was ordered to proceed with the rest of the Home Fleet to Scapa Flow—which would become the fleet's main wartime base—two days later[12] to forestall a possible surprise attack by the Imperial German Navy." this sentence is a snake and should be restructured a bit; you may want to split it in half as well.
Agreed that there's a little bit too much in this sentence. I wouldn't split off, say, "which would become the fleet's main wartime base" into a sentence of its own; that would feel ad-hoc. Personally, I'd probably just lose a little bit of the information here to make it easier to digest. - Dank (push to talk)
Yeah, that's somebody's addition that clogs the sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"In August 1914, following the outbreak of World War I," — ironically, this sentence is right under a section clearly titled "World War I". Here's an example where you can simplify to "the war".
Meh. I'd go with "war" myself, but it's a choice, not a failing. Information in headings is often repeated in the text. - Dank (push to talk)
It's a suggested change based on my opinion that the article fails 1a. On its own it is a minor suggestion for improvement, but my goal is to be as constructive as humanly possible. I've been out of the writing scene for many years, so initially I'm going to be overly subjective in some cases (especially WRT differences in writing style). —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
"when the light cruiser Falmouth spotted a suspected German submarine and provoked a panic across the fleet." — this wording makes it seem that the light cruiser provoked the panic, not the German presence.
Who exactly is this reader who will think that the Home Fleet was spooked by the presence of a British light cruiser? I personally would go with "submarine, provoking" rather than "submarine and provoked", but I disagree that the current version is ambiguous or is bad grammar. There's nothing wrong with saying "this doesn't sound right to me" or "I prefer X", but you're going too far. - Dank (push to talk)
The point is to be as precise as possible without inflating the prose. That's what was drilled into me for years on Wikipedia. I think your suggestion fixes the issue. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"During the Battle of Jutland on 31 May, Beatty's battlecruisers managed to bait Scheer and Hipper into a pursuit as they fell back upon on the main body of the Grand Fleet."— "managed to" is redundant; you can eliminate it and rewrite "bait" to past tense.
Wrong; "they baited" usually (not always) means they acted to try to induce a result; "they managed to bait" means that they succeeded. Not the same thing. - Dank (push to talk)
I disagree; the context makes it very clear that they succeeded here, making the term redundant. The reader won't assume the opposite (e.g. "they failed to bait"). It's a minor point, and I won't have much of an issue if Sturm doesn't want to change it. However, "fell back upon on the main body" seems a little odd; is the "on" superfluous or am I just reading it incorrectly? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
You're right about the redundant "on"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"Although the explosion was obviously an explosion of the cordite charges in a main magazine, the reason for it was much less obvious." — "explosion" appears twice in 5 words.
I remember looking at this one and scratching my head ... I didn't like it either, but I couldn't think of a way to fix it (without asking questions, anyway). Sturm, thoughts? - Dank (push to talk)
Almost missed this one. Substituted "detonation" for the second "explosion"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing the changes! Please remember that these are just examples; the entire text should be scrutinized in this manner. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Howzabout: "Although the loss of Vanguard was obviously..."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back to FAC, Deckiller. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to make a pass this weekend, at which time you guys are more than free to make reversions. I read between the lines with your posts, Dan; you (understandably) do not want to see reviewers force-feed their own writing styles down an candidate's throat, or disrupt a writer's intent by going overboard with eliminating redundancy in the article. My goal is simply to improve content and learn about interesting topics, not to push across my own personal writing style. Perhaps I'm too out of practice to fully differentiate between subjective and objective fixes at this time, especially when it comes to certain topics. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The bottom line for me is that it's too early for me to know what to say. I look forward to working with you. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I was initially concerned about your comment about looking through the whole text as I really couldn't figure out a pattern of things to fix based on your comments. So it would be great if you could go through the article and point out issues to be addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like life has taken a sharp turn and I don't have as much free time as I hoped, so I'm going to strike out my oppose and Support. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 14:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw (1705)[edit]

Nominator(s): Imonoz (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a battle between Swedish forces and Saxon/Polish-Lithuanian forces in the year of 1705, involving the power struggle for the Polish throne between Augustus II the Strong and Stanisław Leszczyński. The outnumbered Swedish force managed to beat their foes after a battle outside Warsaw and protect the coronation of king Stanislaw I. This could be the first battle-article in the Great Northern War to receive the FA status. Imonoz (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Nikkimaria, Fixed (I believe) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:IMGSIZE, don't use fixed pixel size - you can scale images up or down using |upright=
Fixed (can't figure out how to do it with the infobox image, and the doublings however) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Battle_of_Warsaw_1705.PNG: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
Updated source as best as I could (old source is gone) by adding a new one Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Mányoki_Stanislaus_Leszczyński.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Aŭgust_Mocny._Аўгуст_Моцны_(H._Rodakowski,_XIX).jpg, File:Jacob_Burensköld_SP158.jpg, File:Altranstadt_Mittagessen_1706.jpg
Fixed Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Campaign_of_Grodno.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this image?
Added source information (should've done that a long time ago) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Svensk_Kavalleriformering_1707.JPG: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Added an English description (previously only in Swedish) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • There are several Harvard errors:
  • Kling & Sjöström 2015 (refs 1, 4, 30, 52)
  • Imhof & Schönleben 1719 (refs 14, 29, 46)
  • Grimberg & Uddgren 1914 (refs 21, 22, 28, 33, 37, 57)
I'm happy you noticed these. Fixed. Imonoz (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of the sources appear to be non-English. Their languages should be stated.
Fixed. Imonoz (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Notes 1, 3 and 4 are uncited. Perhaps 1 can be taken as purely explanatory, but for 3 and 4 the dates should be confirmed by sources.
Fixed. Imonoz (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources appear to be consistently formatted and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Seems like none of the book cites include publisher's location. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Imonoz (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

William Pūnohu White[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about William Pūnohu White, one of the leading Native Hawaiian political leader during the time of the overthrow of Hawaii which has generally been written as a conflict between the queen and American businessmen, neglecting the contributions of Native Hawaiian leaders (other than the queen) in the struggle. His colorful and controversial life is a great illustration of the different forms of resistance during the period between 1893 and 1898 against American imperialism in Hawaii and also the negative repercussions of misaligning against the Euro-American power holders in the islands at the time. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review and Image review done in previous reviews.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Iry-Hor[edit]

KAVEBEAR I am here to uphold a promise I made to you a long time ago. I read this article, which I found to be a fine addition to Wikipedia. There is very little to say here as the article is already in a remarquably well-polished state. Here are th few nitpicks I could find:

  • Pūnohuʻāweoweoʻulaokalani : would it be possible to add the pronunciation of this to the article (this is standard in article on foreign language subjects) ?
  • I'm not sure how. I know how it is pronounced but don't know how to write it out.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This would need to be written out with the phonetic alphabet (see the article on Hawaii with an example on the first line), however this requires you to know the phonetic alphabet. Alternatively, you could use the English pronunciation respelling which is much simpler to use. Again see the article on Hawaii for an example.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • " has been largely forgotten or portrayed in a negative light, largely because of a reliance " change one of the two "largely" with something else to avoid repetition.
  • Add alt-text to all the pictures.
  • Native Hawaiian is linked twice in the lead. Remove the second link.

Prose-wise the article is featured quality, and the coverage of the subject is thorough. Sources seem impecable.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Once you have addressed all the points above, I will re-read the article and should support then. Obviously, I can see that the article is high-quality.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR I have just realised that you have now addressed all the points I raised. I am happy to support this remarquable article shedding light on a side of history about which I did not know anything prior to reading your works. I really hope this article gets through!Iry-Hor (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer[edit]

Nominator(s): AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer is a notable episode of the Simpsons. The episode has guest stars of Buzz Aldrin and James Taylor. The episode is well known in the Simpsons community, even having a copy for the International Space Station to watch. In the episode, NASA is concerned by the decline in public interest in space exploration, and therefore decides to send an ordinary person into space. After competition with his friend Barney during training, Homer is selected and chaos ensues when the navigation system on his space shuttle is destroyed.

This is my First FA Nomination. I have reviewed many Good articles and have nominated others in the process. I have copy-edited this article and talked to others about the structure. I want to continue the success of Simpsons articles. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Support by Darkwarriorblake[edit]

As I don't really know how to do a Featured Article on a television episode, I have referred to an existing one - "A Streetcar Named Marge".

  • The first point I'd raise is that the lead does not mention any of the reception or legacy received by the episode
  • I would rephrase " The episode became the source of the Overlord meme". I kinda guessed what it referred to as a fan of the Simpsons, but to the uneducated reader I imagine this reads as quite random? Maybe other editors can input here. I would suggest something like "A scene from the episode, in which anchorman Kent Brockman mistakes ants for alien invaders, has since gone on to become a common meme for exaggerating submission to other entities". This might be too wordy, but I think explaining what the "overlord meme" means will go along way to helping the casual Simpsons fan or non-fan understand.
Do you think the Overlord part should be in the article? If so why in the lead? It seems better placed in "legacy AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In the Cultural references section, there is a line about "Astronaut Race Banyon is a parody of Jonny Quest character Race Bannon." this is unsourced.
  • As the DVD is sourced quite extensively in the article, you should add time-codes to show where the information is mentioned for people to be able to find it in the future. If you want to know how to do this, take a look at The Shawshank Redemption and Ctrl+f "sfn" for examples.
I did a "sfn" for the commentaries and have the location as "Simpsons World" due to that site being the location for all the commentaries. Finding the timestamps in near impossible and would take hours. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

*I would argue that there is an excuse to include a NFCC screenshot of something to do with Brockman/the ants to demonstrate what the meme is about as it's discussed a lot in the reception section.

Should I keep the meme in the article? AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would check some of the Cultural References sources in general as I found it hard to identify the information it was sourcing.
  • Good luck! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Thanks! AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the meme is fine, it has plenty of coverage, I meant you could include an image of that scene to demonstrate what it is about. If you can't fit it into the article you could fit it into the infobox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Image has been added. Thank you! AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 2: link goes to an error message
  • Ref 11: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 12; contains a redundant "pp."

Otherwise, the sources seem appropriate and are properly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: All Completed AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose from Aoba47[edit]

Comments from Aoba47 (talk)
  • I would add a reference to the infobox image.
  • Please complete the “Media data and Non-free use rationale” box for the infobox image.
  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image.
  • In the infobox, move the link for David Mirkin to the first instance in which he appears (i.e. the “written by” parameter as opposed to the “showrunner” parameter.
  • I do not see the need for the references in the lead. That information and the references should be in the body of the article. Also, none of the information that is cited by the references are controversial to the point that a reference in the lead is necessary.
  • You can just say “Fox” rather than “Fox network” as the first is the more common way of referencing the network.
  • Please include the years in which The Right Stuff and 2001: A Space Odyssey were released.
  • For this part “with many calling it the best episode of the Simpsons”, specify who the “many” is (i.e. critics, fans, the show’s cast and crew?) and italcize “the Simpsons” as it is the name of the show.
  • The plot section is currently 639 words, which is over the new MOS:TVPLOT recommendation of 400 words. This section will need to be reduced and revised drastically to meet the word limit. I have gotten away with between 400 and 500 in the past, but it should be reduced.
  • Please add ALT text for the David Mirkin image.
  • For the same image, I would specify in the caption the year in which the photo was taken.
  • I think that there is a way to combine these two sentences (There was some controversy amongst the show's writing staff during production. Some of the writers felt that having Homer go into space was too large an idea.) to make it read better.
  • Please add the year in which “Fire and Rain” was released.

*Do you have a source that mentions what lyrics of the song were altered for the show?

  • If you cannot find a source, then this part is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

*I am not certain about the inclusion of a “Cultural references” section given that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television discourages the use of “Trivia sections”. I think that the section could be salvaged if you make it clearer that this information comes from episode commentary in the prose or turn it into a “Themes” section or something similar to that. Right now, it looks like a lot of original research to me.

  • I am not sure about certain instances in which Reference 1 is cited. For instance, I checked this sentence (and at the end of the episode, Bart throws a marker into the air – in slow motion, it rotates in mid-air, before a match cutreplaces it with a cylindrical satellite (this parodies a similar transition scene between "The Dawn of Man" and the future sequence in the film, including the use of the famous Richard Strauss piece Also sprach Zarathustra).), and I could not find anything in the source to support the “The Dawn of Man” parody.
  • I do not see how this has been resolved. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Revise the Aldrin image caption to better illustrate why the image is in the “Reception” section. Right now, it just looks like a random picture thrown into the section. Include in the caption that Aldrin received praise for his guest performance.
  • Add ALT text for the image.
  • For the same image, I would specify in the caption the year in which the photo was taken.
  • I am confused by this sentence (It was the highest-rated show on the Fox network that week, beating Living Single.). If it was the highest-rate show, then it would have beaten a lot of other shows, so why is Living Single singled out here.
  • NASA is linked too many times in the body of the article.
  • The final paragraph of the “Reception” section is interesting, but if the sources do not connect these events with this episode, then it will have to be removed as it is original research to connect these two ideas together on your own without an outside source.
  • This was not resolved even though it was struck out. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

*Here are a few sources that.I found while doing a quick Google search that could help with expanding this article: 12345678. I found these sources from a rather superficial search online, so I do not think that this is as comprehensive as it should be at this stage. First, I just want to say that I think that it is great that you brought a television episode to the FAC process. I have personally brought a few television episodes through here successfully, and it is great to see other people work on these types of articles. That being said I will have to oppose this, primarily due to three concerns: 1) the plot section will need to be reworked and revised pretty extensively to meet the word limit, 2) the "Cultural references" section needs to be completely overhauled, and 3) more sources should be added to this article. If I could find eight sources that are not already in this article during a quick and superficial Google search, then there is an issue in my opinion. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I just do not believe that this is ready at this stage. If you would like to continue working on this, I think peer review would be your best option. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I understand why you feel this way about the article. I will address all these issues, in hope that you will see again the potential this article has.

Countering, if you look at other Simpsons articles that are at FA status such as You Only Move Twice It contains 623 words(I fixed the extensive issue) and a cultural reference section.

@Aoba47: Could not find a source for the "Altered Lyrics" section

  • Thank you for the response and good luck with your work, especially with the plot section. This article still requires a lot of work though, but I wish you luck with it (specifically with the "Cultural reference" section and the comprehensiveness of the article). Also, remember that just because another article does something, it does not make it right. I still stand by my statements that the "Cultural reference" section needs some further work, but I could be wrong so hopefully more people contribute to this review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for your reply. I will try my hardest do fix the problems that are located in the article; starting with your stated issues. Please do not hesitate to ask if there is anything else that needs attention. AmericanAir88 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the response, and good luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: What if I make it just about 2001: A Space Odyssey, as this is a very credible area of cultural impact on the episode. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • That would seem fine by me. Make sure that all of the information is firmly supported in the source, and make it clear whether or not the writers/producers placed these references in the episode or if critics were the ones to make the connections. I am still not fond of the "Cultural references" title (even if it is kept, then the "References" part needs to be changed to "references"), and would refigure into something like a "Themes" section as suggested by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. I would also make sure to cover my concern with comprehensiveness. Also, if you are going to add more resources, make sure that they are full formatted correctly and fully used. For instance, Reference 19 does not have all of the information in the citation, and I would expand upon this part, as just saying it has some vague connection with the episode is not particularly helpful or informative. I hope you find this helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I looked for further sources on the episode, and there are a fair number of "book" sources out there (as shown through this Google search here) that are not used in this article. I stand by oppose on the grounds that this does not meet 1b. of the FAC criteria (i.e. comprehensive). I believe that a significant amount of work will be needed for this be passed as an FA, and I stand by my suggestion that this should go to a peer review instead for further feedback. I am not sure if FAC is an appropriate place to address these points as they are rather major and stem beyond issues with prose. I would actually recommend withdrawing this in favor of a peer review approach. Hopefully, other editors will add their opinions to this as well. Aoba47 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I am trying my hardest to fix every issue present in your statements. I am completely awake of everything you are stating and understand why you are typing this info to me. I thank you for this. I would like to however, continue the FAC process to have more editors put their thoughts and comments about the article before I reach the point of withdrawing. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay; then my commentary/review ends here and my oppose still stands. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: :( Okay, I am supportive of whatever your opinion is. Thank you so much for the input. I will keep you updated. AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2[edit]

Used the archived bot to all sources but there are some things that bother me:

  • Some sources seem a bit hard to trust like Know You Meme since they are edited by users rather than professional writers.
  • I would avoid referencing the plot section unless we are referencing a confusing fact like what happens to Harvey Dent in the second Nolan Batman movie.
  • Avoid small paragraphs. As I always think, imagine that Wikipedia is a formal letter.

Other than that, I am willing to give you my support if these issues are solved. If possible, could you check this FAC? Also, don't worry if the nomination fails. There is always next time and this was your first time at it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tintor2: All issues addressed, Thanks! AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Giving my support. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Bcschneider53[edit]

Just taking a brief look through this, I'm not quite sure we're there yet. Like Aoba47, I also have concerns about comprehensiveness. A quick search via Google Books shows that the episode has several other sources that are not yet present in the article. Therefore, I'd like to see some additional referencing (and, if possible, material) added before I give this a formal review. Also, this is just a side note, but I'd remove the Grade Saver reference (#9) as it appears to be nothing more than a direct copy of this article/section, 2001: A Space Odyssey (film)#Parodies and homages.

Please, don't worry if the nomination is not successful. I've had nominations fail in the past as well. FAC is a long working process that requires an intense amount of research and dedication. This is absolutely a GA but I'm not sure it's comprehensive enough to be an FA just yet. I wish you nothing but the best as you continue to work on this! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Panagiotis Zois[edit]

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

An article on a long and complex blockade of Thessalonica, involving Byzantium, Venice, and the Ottomans, which finally ended with the Ottoman capture of the city. As an event, it was rather seminal, heralding the fall of Constantinople, and showing the limitations of Venice's mercantile maritime empire when faced with a large land power. The article has passed MILHIST's ACR and has had a GOCE review recently, so that I feel it is ready for nomination here. Any suggestions for further improvement are welcome. Constantine 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Since Greece has limited freedom of panorama, images of 3D things should include explicit copyright tags for the original works
  • File:II._Murat.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
  • File:Symeon_of_Thessaloniki.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria! By "explicit copyright tags for the original works" I guess you mean THES-Heptapyrgion inscription.jpg? How is this to be done? Constantine 13:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
See for example this image - you split out the copyright of the photo and the object, adding an appropriate tag for the latter. (Given the presumed age the copyright is almost certainly expired). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

You could add OCLC 220583971 to the Apostolos E Vakalopoulos book entry. Otherwise the sources are in immaculate order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Done and thanks! Constantine 13:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[