Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. 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 Laser brain—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



H. H. Asquith[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Tim riley (talk), KJP1 (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... H.H. Asquith, the last British prime minister to lead majority Liberal government, and on that account and the later decline of the Liberal Party alone a significant figure in British history. TO say nothing of his policies. And the War. Nommed on behalf of self, Tim riley, and KJP1.Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Why is Tim Riley listed as a nominator? As far as I can see Tim has never edited this article. Aa77zz (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

2012 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 21:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The 2012 edition of the Tour de France cycling race, which was won by Bradley Wiggins, the first from the United Kingdom. I brought it up to GA around a year ago. Other GA Tours I helped promoted are 2013, 2015 and 2016. It is part of the 2012 Tour good topic, that includes the List of teams and cyclists in the 2012 Tour de France, which I brought up to FL. The structure is the same as other FA Grand Tour races (1987 Giro d'Italia, 1988 Giro d'Italia, 2009 Giro d'Italia, 2015 Vuelta a España). BaldBoris 21:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ghost Stories (magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an early fantasy pulp magazine. It was probably doomed from the start by its narrow focus on ghost stories, but it puttered along for several years in the 1920s and 1930s, and occasionally published material by well-known authors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


  • RE: "Ghost Stories was a pulp magazine which published 64 issues ...". The word "which" is okay, but "that" is correct.
    Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Good! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Did the magazine publish the 64 issues? In the next paragraph you write "The publisher, Bernarr Macfadden, also published ..."; later you say "Ghost Stories was published by Bernarr Macfadden".
    I take your point, but this is a common idiom in writing about magazines; one also sees phrases like "the magazine published stories about". I think this is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
OK. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • RE: "It was a companion magazine to True Story and True Detective Stories, and focused almost entirely on stories about ghosts, with many of the stories written by staff writers but presented under pseudonyms in a true confession. You can avoid repeating the word "stories" with something like -> "It was a companion magazine to True Story and True Detective Stories, focusing almost entirely on stories about ghosts, many of which were written by staff writers but presented under pseudonyms as true confessions".
    Yes, that's an improvement. Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Good. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Publishing history and contents[edit]

  • RE: "Ghost Stories followed this format, with the contents mostly written by the publisher's staff writers, and attributed in print to a first-person narrator". How else could the stories have been attributed?
    I think it's more common to see "attribute" used when talking about an attribution made after the publication and not evident on original publication -- e.g. "The story 'Imprisoned with the Pharaohs' appeared in 1924 as by Harry Houdini, but has since been attributed to H.P. Lovecraft". I was trying to make it clear here that the attribution appeared in the magazine itself; the intention was to persuade the reader that these were true stories, not fiction. Is there a better way to make that clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, point taken. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • RE: "The magazine was initially printed on slick paper". What's slick paper? Is it a technical term?
    Yes; I moved the link up to the first occurrence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yep -- I picked this mistake up last night. I see you've now linked "slick". Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • RE: "Carl Jacobi's first published story, "The Haunted Ring", appeared in the final issue, though this was not his first sale—"Mive", which he had sold to Weird Tales, did not appear in print until the following month". The part about "Mive" is the kind of off-topic detail that belongs in a footnote.
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
All good! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • RE: "An arrangement was set up by Macfadden with Walter Hutchinson ..". Surely this a separate paragraph.
    I try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs, and in this case I was hoping that there would be some apparent continuity since like the preceding sentences this discusses the contents, but I take your point. Split. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I know what you mean about single-sentence paragraphs, but this section definitely belongs on its own. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • RE: "The magazine was initially fairly successful". What does "fairly" mean?
    Unfortunately the source is vague; Hersey just says "it had a short period of prosperity and then began to lose ground". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Noted. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Bibliographic detail[edit]

  • Here you link "slick". I see now it's a technical term!
    Yes; I moved the link to the first occurrence; thanks for catching that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • RE: "The price was 25 cents throughout; it had 128 pages when it was pulp-sized, and 96 pages when it was a bedsheet and when it was a large pulp" -> "The price was 25 cents throughout; it had 128 pages when pulp-sized, and 96 pages when a bedsheet and large pulp". You have three instances of "when it was". Drop at least one or two.
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
All good. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Noted. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • RE: "Both magazines were in large pulp format, with 96 pages, and both were priced at 50 cents". Reword to lose a "both".
    Done, but I'm not sure I found the best phrasing -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
You could probably join this sentence to the previous one with a colon. Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • RE: "The editorial director of Constructive Publishing during MacFadden's ownership was Fulton Oursler; his assistants, who worked on the magazine, were Harry A. Keller, W. Adolphe Roberts, George Bond, Daniel Wheeler, and Arthur B. Howland, who (in that order) each spent close to a year editing, though the dates of transition for each are not known". You repeat "who" and "each". There are several ways to re-write this sentence.
    I had a go at this; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Much better! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; you've a good eye for weak prose. Replies are inline above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Support from Singora[edit]

I like articles like this: interesting; short and sharp; no waffle or bloat! Singora (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid[edit]

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert ) and Boghog (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a medical food ingredient and dietary supplement that is a natural product in humans and has medical and athletic performance-enhancing applications for preventing/reversing muscle wasting and improving body composition.

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. I will not remove these because many of these statements are medical claims; however, I'm amenable to moving the citations into a note at the end of each paragraph as was done in the lead of amphetamine if reviewers of this nomination prefer this approach.

The labels in the section headers and their organization in the article follows MOS:PHARM and MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. The sources used to cite medical claims in this article are required to satisfy WP:MEDRS; most, if not all, of the WP:PAYWALLED medical reviews that are currently cited in the article are and will be temprorarily available in this link for viewing/downloading to allow reviewers to conduct WP:V checks for the duration of this nomination and any subsequent FAC nominations. The file names (without the .pdf extension) of the papers listed in this link reflect the reference names (i.e., <ref name="...">) defined in the source code of the HMB article.

Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog, John, Nergaal, and Axl: I'm pinging you to notify you that this article has been renominated. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I probably won't be able to do a full review of this, but I would like to comment that I think the ref callouts in the lead are fine as you have them: collecting them at the end of each paragraph would mean a lot of effort for each reader to decide which ref supported which statement. --Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

SMS Mecklenburg[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Another of my articles on German battleships, this one had a fairly uneventful career, including during the first year and a half of the First World War. The article was substantially re-written after it passed a GA review all the way back in 2010, passed a Milhist A-class review in 2014 (and I don't think any dust has gathered in the mean time), and has been waiting around for me to have the time for FAC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Soviet general and Hero of the Soviet Union who commanded the 50th Army who died in the early stages of the Battle of Moscow. I believe this article meets the Featured Article criteria and want to improve it so it does if it does not in the opinion of other editors. Kges1901 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Coord note

Procedural note -- Per FAC instructions, you're only allowed one solo nomination at a time unless given leave to open another by the coordinators. Now I can see that Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand) is reasonably close to being promoted, so you can continue with both noms as we'd normally grant leave in such a case anyway, but in future please make a request on WT:FAC or to the coordinators directly. Feel free to hat this note after acknowledging. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I'll remember that next time. Kges1901 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Support per my GA review and A-class review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: nice work so far, thanks for your efforts. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • in the References lists, some of the authors probably could be wikilinked, for instance Ericson and Glantz, and any others if they have articles
  • suggest adding alt text for the images
  • do the sources give his parents' names?
    • No, aside from the obvious that his father was Pyotr Petrov. Kges1901 (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • do the sources state if he married and had a family?
    • Petrov probable married because his son is mentioned in one book, but I wasn't able to find the name of his wife if he had one, or if he had other children besides Alexander Mikhailovich Petrov. Kges1901 (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "became an armor officer" --> "became an armored corps officer"?
  • I'm not sure that the decoration icons in the infobox meet the requirements of MOS:ICON: happy to discuss further if necessary
    • FA-class Ivan Bagramyan and A-class Roza Shanina used the icons. Kges1901 (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
      • My concern is that the icons are purely decorative, serving no navigational purpose. I'd argue that that also applies to he articles cited above. It's not a major issue, and one I'm sure that there are competing opinions on, so I won't die in a ditch over it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • the infobox mentions an Order of the Red Star, but this doesn't appear in the body of the article. Can something be added about this?
    • I am unsure where to add this, because all I have found is that he received the Order of the Red Star, but not when he received it. Kges1901 (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • the lead says "mechanic at the Putilov Plant", but the body of the article says "worked as a metalworker at the Putilov Plant" --> this seems a little inconsistent
  • suggest providing a link for "cadre"

A few comments

  • "For his leadership, Petrov received the title Hero of the Soviet Union on 21 June 1937. He returned to the Soviet Union and became a tank corps commander, which he led in the Soviet invasion of Poland. He led a mechanized corps in the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa and became commander of the 50th Army in August 1941. He became ...". I'd re-coordinate the personal references: "For his leadership, he received the title Hero of the Soviet Union on 21 June 1937. Petrove returned to the Soviet Union and became a tank corps commander, which he led in the Soviet invasion of Poland. He led a mechanized corps in the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa and became commander of the 50th Army in August 1941. He became ..."
  • "Petrov was born on 15 January 1898 in Zalustezhye, part of the Saint Petersburg Governorate, to a peasant family." Less bumpy: "Petrov was born to a peasant family on 15 January 1898 in Zalustezhye, part of the Saint Petersburg Governorate."
  • Does "also" add anything?
  • "In Petrograd, he came into contact ..." – avoid repetition: "There he came into contact ..."
  • "and fought in the suppression of the Basmachi." We shouldn't need to click to another article to know what on earth it is. "and fought in the suppression of the Basmachi Revolt, an uprising against Russian Imperial and Soviet rule by the Muslim peoples of Central Asia." ... or something like that.
  • later ... later. Tony (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Portrait_-_Petrov,_Michail_Petrovich.jpg: which of the Russian rationales applies here? When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Third bullet, publication date unknown, as I previously state in the GA review. Kges1901 (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If we can't demonstrate a pre-1943 publication, we can't use that rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Nominative determinism[edit]

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A lawyer named Sue Yoo? Authors of the book The Imperial Animal called Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox? Coincidence? This is the story of nominative determinism, the hypothesis that people tend to gravitate towards areas of work that fit their name. After the success with the Jacob van Ruisdael article, this is my second article I nominate here. I look forward to your comments.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't think it's necessary to use a non-free magazine cover in this case
Thx for checking Nikkimaria. Is it not sufficient to have the magazine's explicit permission?
Wikipedia-only permissions still require that the image meet the non-free content criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Image removed. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:WilhelmStekel.jpg: source link is dead, missing US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I have removed it. Would be ok? Published in 1926. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
That one would also need a US PD tag, as well as the author's date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

A fascinating article, interesting to see that this oft-mentioned phenomenon has actually been studied. Just a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • popular science magazine New Scientist in 1994—is the "science" redundant given the title? Your call
  • New Scientist is not italicised on at least two occasions
  • It's a big ask to assume all your readers know "onomastic" without a link or gloss. I'd also be tempted to link some of the medical specialities
  • "Lord Chief Justice in England"—he's the head man for England and Wales, as the link makes clear, no reason to omit part of the jurisdiction
  • Sue Yoo—nationality would help. if she's Hongkong Chinese, presumably less relevant than if she's American
  • et al. I think should be italicised
  • Maryl, Mass (x2), Calif—it's convention here to not abbreviate US states because not all your readers are American. I'm not convinced that those abbreviations are standard even in the US
  • Oxford University Press (Fowler ref) needs a location
Thanks very much for your comments Jim. Much appreciated. I've made all the changes.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
All looks good to me, changed to support above Jimfbleak (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Eurasian rock pipit[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This small brown inhabitant of European coasts makes up for its drab appearance by having a territorial behaviour otherwise known only from the African fiddler crab, and by benefiting from the nefarious activities of a castrating parasite Jimfbleak (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

Will make full review soon, but until then, I was thinking that this photo[1] of the egg could be shown? I think photos of eggs and juveniles should be shown in all bird articles, if available... And both sexes, if dimorphic. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk, thanks. I've added a cropped version of the image. In this species, the sexes are inseparable on sight Jimfbleak (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Your crop looks much better. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "The first formal description of this species was by English naturalist George Montagu." Give date? And add "naming" after description?
  • "John Latham was the first to give the rock pipit a scientific name, in 1790" What was this name?
  • Give authorities and dates for the subspecies names.
  • You are inconsistent in how you spell Faroe/Faeroe Islands (incidentally where my mother is from).
  • You could give a date for the old illustration.
  • You are inconsistent in whether you use the full or short name of the bird throughout the article.
  • "pale supercilium" Explain.
  • Date and author of the listed synonym? And what are the circumstances of that name?
  • "The rock pipit feeds mainly on invertebrates" and "Food items are usually invertebrates " Seems repetitive.
  • Is there a reason why you simply link to fiddler crab in the intro but a particular species in the article body?
FunkMonk, thanks for review. I think these edits address most of your queries. The synonym is attributed to Montague, because of the petrosus, but he didn't use it himself as far as I know. I assume it was adopted by authors who viewed it as a ssp of the water pipit A. spinoletta. I don't think, in any case, that we are normally required to do more than list synonyms with an attribution Jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the Faeroe/Faroe issue. As for supercilium, wouldn't "eye stripe" be more meaningful than "eyebrow"? Otherwise looks good, will support when you respond. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for Faroe/Faero, I missed the point there, changed to eyestripe (I was in two minds which was better anyway) Jimfbleak (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
FunkMonk, many thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Dank, many thanks for copyedit and support Jimfbleak (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thanks for review Jimfbleak (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

  • The caption to the tax box picture is incorrect. The photo was taken on Heligoland in the North Sea. See the coords and even the file name. (An IP switch the photo without updating the caption on 26 Oct 2014‎). It is a beautiful photo.
  • I agree, good spot with the location, didn't even occur to me to check! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "of the Eurasian rock pipit until they were separated in 1988.[2]" The source , HBW, has 1998.
  • What happened in 1998 (or 1988)? A publication by the BOU? Explain.
I still don't understand where the "1998" mentioned by HBW comes from. There isn't a 1998 publication in their article's General Bibliography and I cannot find a relevant BOU publication. There is an article by Sangster et al on European birds in Ibis published in 2002 that recommends that the subspecies be promoted. (it isn't part of the official BOU series on British birds): Sangster, George; Knox, Alan G; Helbig, Andreas J; Parkin, David T (2002). "Taxonomic recommendations for European birds". Ibis. 144 (1): 153–159. doi:10.1046/j.0019-1019.2001.00026.x.  See p.154. Available here. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Eurasian rock pipit is believed to be closely related to the meadow," I think it would be better to write: ""The Eurasian rock pipit is closely related..." The species form a well-defined phylogenetic clade - see Fig 1 Clade 3 in: Voelker, Gary (1999). "Molecular evolutionary relationships in the Avian genus Anthus (Pipits: Motacillidae)". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 11 (1): 84–94. doi:10.1006/mpev.1998.0555.  available from Researchgate. I think you should cite this article.
  • Good find, I agree, added Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


  • "Anthus petrosus kleinschmidti (Ernst Hartert, 1905)" - by convention the first name is usually omitted.
oops, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Anthus petrosus littoralis (Brehm, 1823)" - I don't think the brackets should be included. Brehm has Anthus littoralis see here - and the IOC, Zoonomen and Peters don't have brackets.


  • Does a pair remain together from one year to the next?
  • Can't find anything either way on this. Given the short life span of small passerines, I don't know how ell studied this would be Jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Does the male help with incubating the eggs?
  • Does the male feed the female while she incubates the eggs?
  • Are the chicks naked when born?
  • Does female brood the chicks?
  • How long do the parents (or just the male) feed the young after fledging - if at all.
  • How and when do the young birds moult?
I'd fail to notice that my main sources hadn't mentioned moult! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • How and when do the adults moult?

I'll have another look tomorrow. Aa77zz (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Aa77zz, thanks for review, all done Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Support - other than not being able to find a BOU publication in 1998 mentioned above, I have no more suggestions. Well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Aa77zz, many thanks, I'll try to track down the errant article Jimfbleak (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

With the caveat that I know virtually nothing of biology, I think this is a fine article, with clear prose. Very little to quibble with.

  • Anthus petrosus littoralis Brehm, 1823 --> to be consistent with the others: Anthus petrosus littoralis (Brehm, 1823)
  • Actually started with brackets until another reviewer pointed out that they are incorrect. The convention is that that brackets are used only if the current form differs from the original (eg, Montague used Alauda petrosus), but Brehm's binomial is unchanged. I've added a hidden comment to say it's correct as is. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • body and some wing covert feathers giving them an appearance very like adults --> maybe a comma after feathers?
  • In early spring, late January-early March --> January in spring?
  • removed mention of spring Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • For example, the Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden has but a single specimen, a male shot at Dresden in 1894 --> It took me a while to establish why I found this odd, so it's subtle, but I think the order should be "For example, a male shot at Dresden in 1894, now in the collection of the local Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde
  • done, also used English name of the museum Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • possibly link seaweed
  • possibly a full stop after the footnote
  • the External links section seems empty. So remove?
  • London, United Kingdom: Christopher Helm --> I think the United Kingdom is not needed, as you have on the next reference
  • Christopher M. --> inconsistent with the other initials. I prefer M. over M actually.
  • Made consistent. Full stops (and spaces) are a matter of personal preference, so anything from Bloggs, JB to Bloggs J. B. are acceptable, although, as you say, there must be consistency. In general, Americans punctuate more heavily than Brits Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I shall do a spot check of references later. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Edwininlondon, many thanks for review, I hope I've addressed your concerns Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Fast inverse square root[edit]

Nominator(s): Esquivalience (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

This article focuses on the fast inverse square root, an algorithm that estimates the reciprocal of the square root of a rational number, used to scale vectors to unit length. Although on the short side at 1,800 words, this article nonetheless gives complete coverage of the algorithm and gives useful context, while maintaining excellent prose and with good images. Note that this is a drive-by nomination, although I'm willing to resolve all concerns raised. Esquivalience (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - Personally, I'm concerned by the fact that this nomination was a "drive-by nom", as you put it. Also with you only editing the article five times. Had to let the original editor who brought the article to GA status back in 2009 know about this nomination at least. Anyway, this article has two dead links in it. Not at all acquainted with root-finding algorithms so I'll it at that. GamerPro64 15:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Excellent prose" ... well, I see a few little errors. Wasn't it worth combing through it? Tony (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've glanced at parts of the article and I'm spotting issues as early as the second sentence. Here's a couple of problems:
The algorithm was probably developed at Silicon Graphics in the early 1990s — I don't think it's a good idea to open the article with a statement that shows clear uncertainty and only provide one citation.
Silicon Graphics is mentioned twice in the lead, however nowhere else in the article. 3dfx Interactive is also mentioned in the lead and nowhere else. The lead should introduce and summarise the article's contents, but here it contains information that is not found elsewhere.
The article mentions Quake III on multiple occasions, but never explains what Quake III even is. At the very least the reader should be told that Quake III is a computer game that makes use of 3D graphics so they better understand why fast inverse square root was implemented in it.
Who are John Carmack, Terje Mathisen, Gary Tarolli and the other people name dropped in the article? The article assumes that the reader knows them all, their professions and significance to the article topic. It's never even made clear that Carmack worked on Quake III which I assume is the link between him and fast inverse square root.
The explanation of a normalized vector in the Motivation section is bad. Why isn't defined as being the vector before stating the Euclidean norm of it?
-- The1337gamer (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

2014 Indian Super League Final[edit]

Nominator(s): ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the final of the 2014 Indian Super League season. After passing the good article review, I believe that this page has the potential to move up a level higher, to become a featured article. Inspiration taken from 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Turbinellus floccosus[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Another day another mushroom - this is another work for which I've gone through just about every available source so I suspect it's comprehensive, and I feel it's on par with other fungus FAs. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Driveby comment: I'm very happy to see this here and I hope to offer a fuller review later, but: Gomphus bonarii currently redirects to this article, despite the fact it's described in the article as a separate species. Something needs to be done about that, I think. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to remove that from the description section. That source mentioning it as a separate species is from 1987. With the overhaul and reexamination of Gomphus/Turbinellus the consensus is it is just part of this species. See here as index fungorum has updated but mycobank hasn't Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


  • Ref 11: Lexicon: page no is missing
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 7: Earle - 373–451 [407]. Is 407 the only page cited?
yep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 25: Petersen: 118 pages are cited. Can we narrow down the page range to relevant pages?
having some trouble tracking down digital versions...gotta get back to the library... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 30: Corner: 255 pages. Same as above
  • Ref 32: Masui: 84 pages. Same as above
  • Ref 35: Ammirati et al. Should the complete details be used? or combined with ref 23.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I combined them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Singora Let me leave one of your "virtual placeholders". I'll go over this in detail throughout the coming week. Singora (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM
  • "Franklin Sumner Earle made C. floccosus the type species of the new genus Turbinellus in 1909, remarking that "They constitute a striking and well-marked genus which seems to have more in common with the club-shaped species of Craterellus than with the following genus where they have always been placed."" The They is ambiguous, here.
I added more detail to clarify that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There's some inconsistency on the capitalisation of article names in the references, unless you are following some norm that has eluded me.
yep, all title-cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That's all that leapt out at me, but I had my say at GAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Hi Cas, just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  • shaggy-, scaly-, or woolly—I'm not convinced by the hyphens, since none of the names are actually hyphenated
let me get some advice on that - I always used the dash/hyphen when a name chopped off, i.e. kelp- or southern black-backed gull... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • floccus, meaning "flock of wool"—I think that meaning of flock is close to obsolete now, perhaps "tuft" would be better for the youngsters?
added...I feel so old... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • However—please check that each use is actually necessary
trimmed one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • by the indigenous words Tlapitzal, tlapitzananácatl or oyamelnanácatl in Tlaxcala.—this is only appropriate if you explain the relevance of these names to the mushroom, as you have done with the Nepalese and as is self-evident in the Spanish.
found meanings and added to two, third is obvious then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • their growth slower in the cold climate. This form is slower growing,—repetitive
removed one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • who eat it, but has been eaten—as above
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • it increased tone of guinea pig smooth muscle of the small bowel—I've no idea if that is good or bad, what are the consequences for the (unlinked) guinea pig?
the smooth muscle ain't in the guinea pig at this point. The source does not elaborate, but as a doctor I know this would cause increased peristalsis (cramps/abdo symptoms etc....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • over doublemore than double seems more natural
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What is not known is whether the populations of T. floccosus —probably needs something like "local" or "indigenous" to qualify your populations
added "there" as local would have been repetitive.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Good luck Jimfbleak (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave the first point with you, since I might be wrong anyway, changed too support above Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • "described a specimen from Canada as Cantharellus canadensis from a manuscript by Johann Friedrich Klotzsch" What is meant by this? He named it from an earlier description? If so, the first "described" could maybe be changed to "named"... And then "based on a manuscript."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "These ridges are up to 4 mm high." No conversion?
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "ectomycorrhizal relationships" Explain?
word added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "showed it increased tone" What is meant by tone?
It means Muscle tone - linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The intro seems a bit short.
I added a snentence - anything else you think should go in from body of text?
  • Support - I think it looks fine now, not much to add to the intro anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

From Singora[edit]

Note to CasLiber and Coordinators. The King of Thailand has died. Things have changed a lot here over the last 24 hours. I'll do my review next week. Singora (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

ok no probs, RL stuff should always take precedence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Just tweaked one thing as "decurrent" is meaningful. else good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Review Singora (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


  • RE: "and may be found in coniferous woodlands". Could you not just say "grows" or "occurs"?
  • RE: "Though mild-tasting, they generally cause gastrointestinal symptoms of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea when consumed". This seems to assume a correlation between taste and toxicity. Does such a relationship exist?


  • Would para 2 work better as a footnote? Kuntze's "revisionary program" wasn't accepted and his contributions seem irrelevant. Note: I thought para 3 was also unnecessary until I noticed the Turbinellus genus was recently resurrected.


  • RE: "The stipe itself can be up to 15 cm". Is "itself" redundant?
  • RE: "The white flesh is fibrous and thick, though thins out in old specimens" -> "the white flesh is fibrous and thick in young specimens, but thins with age"
  • R. H. Petersen isn't linked

Distribution and habitat[edit]

  • Here you adopt a Euro-centric view: distribution in Asia starts in India and progresses east to Japan. In the summary you start with North Korea and head west to Pakistan.



Northampton War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a war memorial. And surprisingly enough it's in Northampton. I've been working my way through Lutyens' war memorials for the best part of the last year and this is one of the articles I'm most proud of, and hopefully the first of several I'll be bringing here. It's just had a very helpful GA review and I think it well covers its subject. I of course hope you agree but I'm grateful for all constructive feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Singora I've just skimmed this article and like it a lot. Let me leave one of Mr CasLiber's "virtual placeholders". I'll go over things in detail throughout the coming week. Singora (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from the Bounder[edit]

  • I'll be back soon with more comments, but the line "Today it is a Grade I listed building" jumped out at me. Would "As of 2016..." or similar be better than "Today", which has a rather transient feel to it. – The Bounder (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I always thought "as of" was a rather ugly, unproseworthy construction. I can change it if you really want but I think the sentence is much better the way it is.
      • Try: "In 2015 it was declared ...." and perhaps add a footnote stating that all Lutyen's war memorials were accorded similar status (or had their listing renewed) at the same time. The word "now" is definitely wrong. Singora (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A few more:

  • Is it worth adding the year when it received its grade I listing?
    • Done.
  • The caption for the main image says "For servicemen from Northamptonshire killed in the First World War", but the body says it also covers the Second World War (albeit added at a later date – as most British memorials were). It seems awkward to have such a contradiction in such a prominent position.
    • I'm not sure it's a contradiction, but I've added it nonetheless; it doesn't do any harm.


  • "Lutyens' memorial". The previous section deals with several of Lutyens' memorials. Would "The Northampton Memorial" serve as a better indicator that we have moved on to focus on this particular memorial?
    • Fair point; I've tweaked it.
  • Abingdton Street: A spelling mistake? (not sure whether this is as it should be, or Abingdon, or Abington)
    • A typo; should be Abington; fixed
  • Shouldn't the two references that follow "including Rochdale Cenotaph" be after the bracket and semi colon?
    • I put them before because they're there to verify the text inside inside the brackets rather than the whole sentence or the whole paragraph.
  • The final paragraph looks (to my untutored eye, at least) as if it should be in the following section. This is reinforced by the repetition of some of the information in the first line of the Design section. (If you choose not to move the whole paragraph to the Design section, you should make sure there isn't such repetition)
    • I've followed your suggestion and moved the paragraph into the design section and reworked it to fit better.


  • As you link First World War in an earlier section, it may be worth linking the Second World War in this section (or having them both unlinked)
    • Done.
  • Do we have a date for the upgrading from Grade II to Grade I listing (cf. my earlier comment on this for the lead too)
    • Not an exact date; the date on Historic England's press release is 7 November 2015, but the NHLE only gives the date of the most recent amendment (which could be anything from a change in grade to fixing a typo).

I hope you don't mind, but I made a couple of very small edits – spelling, largely – I hope these are OK, and that you find the comments useful. – The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I never mind having my typos fixed, and it's always nice when someone takes the time to read something you've written and offer feedback. Do see what you think of the improvements, @The Bounder:. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support That looks great. A note for those who take action on these matters: I am a relatively new editor, so please weigh my comments and support accordingly. Thanks. - The Bounder (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

From Singora[edit]

Note to Mr Mitchell and Coordinators. The King of Thailand has died. Things have changed a lot here over the last 24 hours. I'll do my review next week. Singora (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Overall, very good!
  • See my comment above re: the year of lisitng
    • I've dropped the today; I still think it read nicer the other way though
  • Try dropping one of the instances of "by" -- "The monument's design was completed and approved by 1920, but its installation was delayed by six years".
    • I've rewritten the sentence slightly.
  • Isn't among better than amongst (similar to while vs. whilst)? "Amongst the most prominent designers of war memorials". I also think Lutyens should be the subject of this sentence.
    • No strong opinion, so done
  • RE: "Prior to the First World War, Lutyens established his reputation designing country houses for wealthy patrons; following it, he devoted much of his time to ...". Following what? Try something like "he later devoted ..."
    • I've rewritten this slightly as well
  • RE: "Northampton's first war memorial was a temporary cenotaph in wood and plaster". Shouldn't this be "made of" or "made from"?
    • I went with "built from"
  • RE: "the temporary cenotaph was the focal point for remembrance services until the unveiling of the permanent memorial". Isn't this self-evident? If you disagree, at least change "unveiling" to "construction".
    • I think it's worth mentioning but I did make the change you suggest (though I went with "installation")
  • RE: "Suggestions included renovation of civic building". Plural?
    • Yes, done.
  • This sentence is way too long: "The application was submitted in 1922 by the vicar of All Saints' Church, the Reverend Geoffrey Warden, and sponsored by two church wardens and two parishioners,[9] but construction work did not commence until 1926, six years after the completion of the designs".
    • Good point. Rewritten.
  • RE: "the obelisks had been carved and were awaiting the colouring of the flags". Why not say painting?
    • Fair enough; done.
  • The first paragraph doesn't read well. You introduce the three design elements and say they're characteristic of Lutyens' work; you state that the Northamptom memorial is one of Lutyen's more elaborate designs because it uses these three elements. That makes no sense. Re-write the paragraph and strip out the repetition. As things stand you also have a stray semi-colon after the word obelisk.
  • RE: "The obelisks are ornately decorated; a narrow cross is set into the obelisks themselves while the town's coat of arms is moulded onto the columns supporting the obelisks". Use a colon rather a semi-colon. How many times does this sentence use the word "obelisk"?
  • The overall structure of this section is confusing: you introduce the obelisks and describe the columns supporting them; you then flip back to the obelisks to talk about their flags; the first sentence of paragraph four brings us back to the obelisks to offer details about their inscriptions. Why not just describe each design element step by step:
    • 1. Obelisks + flags + inscriptions
    • 2. The columns supporting the obelisks (including their "deep decorative niches that form an arch shape beneath the obelisks").
    • 3. The plinths supporting the columns
    • 4. The Stone of Remembrance
      • Leave this with me for a few days if you could, and I'll look when I've had more sleep.
  • RE: "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd processed to the new memorial with the parade led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and including nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders". Try: "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd proceeded to the new memorial: the parade was led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and included nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders"
    • That was how I wrote it originally but somebody changed it; I agree with you so I've changed it back
  • RE: "he observed that communities across Northamptonshire would be erecting their own memorials, but he felt that .." The second "he" is redundant.
    • Agreed and done.
  • RE: "the names of the fallen inscribed on the garden walls". You need a "were".
    • Agreed again.
  • I don't see that the last sentence of the last paragraph is needed.
    • It's needed because it explains how it got the status it holds now. The paragraph starts with its original listing, then discusses Historic England's project, and then comes to its current status.

Thanks very much for the detailed review. I'll get back to you on the structure of the design section, probably at weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

O. G. S. Crawford[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent early to mid 20th century British archaeologist. It reached GA status earlier this year and now I'd like to see it sit alongside Margaret Murray and Mortimer Wheeler as a Featured Article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM
  • Is "Notes for Beginners" the same thing as Notes on Archaeology for Guidance in the Field? If not, what is it? A pamphlet? Article?
    • I think that they are the same thing; I've standardised this so that the text mentions "Notes on Archaeology for Guidance in the Field". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "He followed this with a range of further maps in the 1930s: 'England in the Seventeenth Century', 'Celtic Earthworks of Salisbury Plain', 'Neolithic Wessex', and 'Britain in the Dark Ages'." Why single quotes? If they're titles, it should be in double quotes; if descriptions, plain text.
    • Good point. I've placed these in double quotes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "the spring and summer 1924" Shouldn't that be "spring and summer 1924" or "the spring and summer of 1924"?
    • I've gone with "the spring and summer of 1924". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Crawford himself was known as "Ogs" or "Uncle Ogs" to a number of these individuals,[84] who shared his desire to professionalise the field and take it in a more scientific direction and away from the domination of antiquarian hobbyists." The comma is throwing me a little, here; perhaps this sentence could be rephrased?
    • I've made some changes to both this sentence and to the structure of that paragraph: we now have "They shared Crawford's desire to professionalise the field, thereby taking it away from the domination of antiquarian hobbyists and into a more scientific direction. To a number of these individuals, Crawford himself was affectionately known as "Ogs" or "Uncle Ogs"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • In one place, you suggest that he never became involved in "organised politics", but, in another, you suggest that he had some affiliation with the Labour Party
    • A pertinent observation. I'll have to go back to Hauser's original text here in order to see if I can clear this issue up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "taken on by Daniel" Ambiguous; several people by this name have been mentioned.
    • Ah, I see the confusion. "G. E. Daniel" and "Glyn Daniel" are the same person. I've amended the prose to make this clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "no dependents" No human dependents, presumably; he had cats!
    • Another good point. I have changed this sentence accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Wheeler and Daniel." As above
  • "Daniel characterised" Again
    • Same as above. 12:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What is meant by "functionalism" in this context?
  • I wonder if an explanatory footnote at the first mention of Bloody Old Britain would be helpful given that it is both the name of an unpublished book by Crawford and the name of a biography of him.
    • That sounds like a good idea. I have added it in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A very engaging read. I made a number of edits; please do double-check them. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read and review the article, Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Support. This is very well-written and referenced. A relatively brief delve has revealed no major sources missed or possibility of a free lead image, but I will watch the page to make sure no one else finds anything we should be worried about. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Source review

No view right now on comprehensiveness, spotchecks not done.

  • Why are you using {{cite contribution}} for Ascherson? It makes it slightly inconsistent with the other journal sources.
    • I have no idea, but however that got in there, I have changed it to the more standard {{cite article}}. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
      • It's still inconsistent; compare the page ranges. Why not {{cite journal}}? On that note, you vary on whether you drop the hundreds; compare "139–143" to "382–86". It doesn't matter which style you adopt as long as it's consistent! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Good point on both. I have made corrections that hopefully sought both of these issues out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Clark 1951 and Myres 1951: Is "eds" not reserved for multiple editors? Elsewhere, you use "ed.".
    • Well spotted. That was juts a silly mistake, which has now been corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've reported the DOI error; hopefully that will be resolved.

All sources are appropriately scholarly. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Stonehenge_1877.JPG is tagged as lacking description, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Given the issues with this image, I have replaced it with File:Stonehenge, Condado de Wiltshire, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 09.JPG. This image has the disadvantage of having been taken over a century after Crawford's early visits to the site, but at least it should have no copyright problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

This is certainly good enough for FA as it stands, so I'm happy to support, but two minor points for you to consider

  • I'm always wary about "however" and "nevertheless", please check each occurrence to make sure it's necessary
    • I've had a look and taken out one example of "however" and two of "nevertheless". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I know it was suggested by another reviewer, but "human dependants" is nonsense. If a social security form asks for dependants, you don't write "Moggie and Fido". I realise you're stuck in the middle with this, so I'll leave it to you
    • I'm probably going to keep "human" in there, if that's okay. It's certainly not essential, but Crawford did have cats and under some definitions (if not the legal definition, perhaps), they would count as his dependents. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)I confess it seems bizarre to me to talk about someone with companions as having no dependents; I would point out that the word "dependent" has connotations other than the legal ones (which, of course, vary from situation to situation). Given Jim's worry, however, I'm happy to let MBO go with whatever she things best. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Good luck, Jimfbleak (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support, Jimfbleak. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of the Bastards[edit]

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the highly rated episode nine of Season six of Game of Thrones. I believe this article should be featured because. Not only have I worked hard to first turn it to Good Article, thanks to help by other Users. After that I nominated it for a Peer Review and also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors(where an admin user helped a lot). Now it's time to get the greatest episode of television history to Feature status. AffeL (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Glancing through the article, if we exclude the lead and plot sections, around two-thirds of the remaining text is given in verbatim quotes. That's far, far too high a proportion – we are supposed to write our articles rather than assemble the words of others; you should familiarise yourself with WP:QUOTEFARM. Many of the quotes are in informal, conversational English, which is contrary to the concept of encyclopedic neutrality. And the humungous quote box in the Reception section is a simple paean of praise that ought to be condensed to a few words. Quite a lot of rewriting is necessary, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Charles Kanaʻina[edit]

Nominator(s): Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a central figure of the old Kingdom of Hawaii, father of King William Charles Lunalilo and husband of Kaahumanu III. Charles Kanaʻina was a part of the Kamehameha Dynasty and the nobility of Hawaii, once owning much of the Iolani Palace grounds, where his son was born. He left a legacy as one of the largest landowners in Hawaii. His probate documents have added greatly to Hawaiian genealogy with the personal genealogies of much of the surviving royal family, submitted by the families themselves.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the petition
I have the larger digital image. It requires stitching together but can be reproduced in a larger scale.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--Mark Miller (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Working on this. Had to find the original file.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Kanaina_(PP-97-12-002).jpg: if the photographer is unknown, how do you know they died over 100 years ago?
We know it was not James J. Williamson as the image predates his buying of the Dickson's Photography studio that was responsible for portraits of the royal family. Menzies Dickson died in 1891 and is attributed to this and the following image photographed when Lunalilo became king in 1873; File:Lunalilo (PP-98-15-018).jpg.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
To demonstrate that it was the Dickson's studio, here are the full images from this photography session;File:Kanaina (PP-97-12-001).jpg and an image known to be photographed by Menzies Dickson of Princes Lydia Domimis;File:Liliuokalani, photograph by Menzies Dickson (PP-98-10-013).jpg. They are seated in the same chair. Historically we know these images were taken in his studio. That much is well documented. Here is an image of that entire chair in front of Queen Emma; File:Queen Emma of Hawaii, photograph by Menzies Dickson (PPWD-15-2-036).jpg.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Just double checked US copyright and I believe (could be wrong) that the copyright for the image is the life of the author plus 70 years. If it is 100 years this image is still in public domain as this author died 125 years ago. The other photographer of the royal family died 90 years ago.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Attribution made to Menzies Dickson and a US PD tag added.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Kaahumanu_with_servant.jpg: what is the lithographer's date of death?
Louis Choris died in 1828. This was printed in Voyage Pittoresque Autour du Monde, Paris in 1822.
Yes check.svg Done Added publishing date and source (no convenience link at the moment) and double checked to make sure author birth and death date was present as artist.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Prince_Lunalilo_(PP-98-15-015).jpg: source link is broken, needs US PD tag
Yes check.svg Done Someone else had done both on October 6, 2016.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Hartwell_petition_letter.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The Hartwell petition is part of The Kingdom of Hawaii government documents because the case was heard before the Kingdom Supreme Court and this is actually the court decision to agree to the petititon form from the Court used to make the petition request. While it is a probate case, it was a public case at the time and all documentation was available and reprinted in newspapers and in "Reports of Decisions made by the Kingdom of Hawaii Supreme Court". The actual image of the Courts decision on the petition request was first published, to my knowledge, when the digital collection first went online but is in the public domain as part of US State and Federal government documents. The text of the image (probably badly titled) was first published the same year the document was made: 1877, in both English and Hawaiian language newspapers. I will take a look at the Commons page to update the lack of a convenience link but the true source is the Hawaii State Archives (ironically once the Kana'ina Building now moved to the Kekāuluohi building, on land the couple owned).--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I have checked about every route to cover bases and it seems that Hartwell died over the 70 years required for non-published works for his handwriting, if such copyright was accurate, but he was working for the Crown which is apart of the government so that point might be moot anyway. The documents age, ownership by the US government today by recognized copyright law as well as other factors makes this public domain today.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
These are excellent concerns that do require attention. Thank you User:Nikkimaria. While I have replied to some of these concerns, it is 10:30pm my time (California) and late. I will take action on the images by tomorrow evening,if not sooner.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


Notes from image review appear to be accomplished.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


I have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors script on my .js It shows me errors that editors without that script don't see. The first thing that jumped out at me were

  • Ref 20 (Judd 1975) says "Harv error: link from #CITEREFJudd1975 doesn't point to any citation."
  • Ref 30 (Sheldon 1877) says "Harv error: link from #CITEREFSheldon1877 doesn't point to any citation."
  • Freycinet, Kelly, Louis Claude Desaulses de, Marion (1978) says "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFreycinet.2C_Kelly1978"
  • Sheldon, H.L. (1897) says "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFSheldon1897."

Thought you might like to know. If you don't see those error messages, you can if you put the HarvErrors script on your .js Haven't look at the entire article, or any other sourcing at the moment. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Added. See them now. I will look at this.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Cliff Clinkscales[edit]

Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a veteran professional basketball player who has experience in the NBA Development League and the National Basketball League of Canada. He competed at the collegiate level with DePaul and played high school hoops at Shores Christian Academy in Ocala, Florida. He achieved fame from a young age after having his dribbling skills featured on national television, but struggles in high school brought him down. Clinkscales' entire career has been a comeback, so it is quite an interesting read. I have spent weeks on expanding this article, and it was promoted to GA a few days ago. I recently added most of the college section, so that might need some more review. However, it is very detailed in its coverage of the player and uses just about every reliable source available on the subject. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. TempleM (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

  • This article is pretty comprehensive, but it may need some copyediting to meet FA standards. I have performed some copyediting on the article and it probably needs more. That said, it may be a good idea to trim his college sections a bit, since he didn't really do much at DePaul and scoring 5 points in a game isn't that impressive. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Editorofthewiki: I have removed information about some of his less notable performances at DePaul. Let me know if any more work needs to be done (other than copyediting). TempleM (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Editorofthewiki: By the way, another user Nairspecht has agreed to copy edit the article. TempleM (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello people! JFYI, I am trying to copyedit the whole article, and by the looks of it, it might take few days. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi. Just for the record, I made some copy edits too, although I'm glad Nairspect is looking at the article in detail. Scribolt (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • One thing I noticed is that the dates in the article are in Month Day Year format, while the references show Day Month Year format. This ought to be reconciled. Also, I think you can remove the copyediting tag, since the last edit was several hours ago. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Editorofthewiki: I will make sure all of the dates are in a constant format. However, the copy editing is still in progress (only a few sections have been thoroughly edited so far). TempleM (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, as TempleM has suggested, we should go ahead with the MDY format. Either way, consistency is key. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Nairspecht - You made a few comments during your copy edit of the college section. I have addressed the superfluous statement about "blind passes." Were there any other issues that you need someone else to fix? TempleM (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Thank you. I have noted some minor things on my end. I will furnish them here or on the Talk page in a separate section after I have fully gone through the article. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Folks, I have gone through the whole article and provided my thoughts on certain sections. It has been copyedited and checked for sentence errors. Please proceed further. Thanks for your patience, everyone. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
          • Nairspecht Thank you very much for your work on the article. However, there is one comment that I am confused about in the professional career section. You said, "But, what was he doing before this?" in the 2015-16 season section. Also, once everything is cleared up, is there any chance that you could "support" or "oppose" this featured article nomination? TempleM (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
            • Hi TempleM! My concern was what was Cliff doing after the Rainmen filed for bankruptcy? Since no one knew that they would resurrect as the Hurricanes, what was Cliff going to do? Did he consider joining another team? What did he do between the time when the Rainmen were fined and the time when he rejoined the Hurricanes? I know this looks trivial, but an FA article-nominee that it is, readers should have this information. What do you think? "Supporting" the article now. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
              • Nairspecht I don't think I could find any information about his whereabouts between the seasons. I hope that is fine. TempleM (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
          • One more thing that Editorofthewiki brought up before. If you have time, could you please edit the dates on the references? I am currently busy and don't have the time. TempleM (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
            • Yes, I tried doing this, but the wiki threw up some error. I'm not sure what's or why's that. If anyone here has some clarity about this, just holler. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
              • Nairspecht - The errors are coming up because you forgot to add a comma to some of the dates. The correct format is "MONTH DAY, YEAR". Is it possible to go back and just add those? TempleM (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from TonyTheTiger
  • "core team member" sounds like a made up term. Is it reffed somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that the WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize the main body. I don't see core in the main body. What is this summarizing?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I have changed the phrase to just "member." Not sure why "core team member" was added. TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I think a better title is needed here. Something better than a "member". Core team member sounds made up, yes, and I'm sorry for that. Nairspecht (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Was "the top team in Florida" led by any notable player(s)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I just went through the source again and I discovered that it wasn't actually the top team in Florida...just the top-ranked team in a tournament. Fixed and thank you for bringing it up. TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Despite his success at Ocala, he was unable to make the national stage because of the low competition level." seems awkward.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I have reworded it to "Despite his success at Ocala, the low competition level prevented him from drawing national attention." TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Basketball news website, The Hoop Scoop, named Clinkscales the 47th-best high school player in his class as he entered college." HoopScoop? What about ESPN, RIvals, Scout and 247?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I added information about his star ratings by 247 and Rivals. TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I think only Hoop Scoop does high school player rankings. I may be wrong, though. Nairspecht (talk)

Support after reading through this again and seeing the GAN pass swiftly, I'm happy that this meets the FA criteria. JAGUAR  12:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Support - Looks like an article which would attract universal readership. And it's covered most of the personality's life. Can we have something more about the guy's personal life, though? Best, Nairspecht (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Nairspecht Thank you for supporting. The only real information about his personal life was about his childhood. TempleM (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Nah, better leave that out. I was talking about more info about his "relationships", if any. Maybe a sentence or two, if there is anything, that is. Otherwise, this looks sufficient for an FA to me. Best, Nairspecht (talk)
  • Nairspecht No, I can't find any information about that, so this should be it. TempleM (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I would mention that he played in the Basketball Tournament. Not sure where you would put it on the article though. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Editorofthewiki - I added a rather brief section about his time with the Sean Bell All-Stars in the TBT and elsewhere. There's not much to write about it, though. TempleM (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Editorofthewiki, Nairspecht, Scribolt - Could anyone please copy edit (and make sure all info is accurate with sources) the personal life section? TempleM (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Support - As I said, I only made some minor copy edits at the beginning, Nairspecht did a thorough and comprehensive job. But I'm quite happy to support, the article is well structured, reads well and contains relevant and interesting information. Well done everyone. Scribolt (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Bradley Cooper[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Although I have decided not to create content on here anymore, this is an article I worked on in August. The article is about Mr Cooper, who is the recipient of People's "Sexiest Man Alive" in 2011, though it's more of "Sexiest White Man Alive". Aside from the so-called accolade, he is a talented actor, having found his breakthrough in his mid 30s in late 2000s. The article was promoted on 1st of September by Jaguar who passed it straight away and found it to be FAC material. I currently have another open nomination as a co-nominator. I hope that it does not turn out that I end up seeing both of them archived (haha) so have at it. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Since I brought his awards page to FL status, I should help here. I'm a bit busy today, but one thing that I noticed while reading through is that a lot of his lesser known roles are not included in the article. For example, My Little Eye, Bending All the Rules, The Comebacks, Older than America, etc. The latter most was a film that Cooper had a major role in. Check Bradley Cooper on screen and stage for information about some of the lesser known rules. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Famous Hobo:, I have included those films you have mentioned and look forward to any comments you have to make in the near future. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Pavan! I have acted upon your suggestions. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Good job. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
He aspired to an acting career from a young age, and enrolled in the MFA program at the Actors Studio, New York City in 2000. - comes across as puffy. Also doesn't make sense as he enrolled in the course when he was 25...which isn't young. I'd just remove the sentence
There are too many bits of quoted material in para 2 of the Early life section. I'd try and rewrite at least some segments in the following... which "floored" him and he "became obsessed with it".....Cooper believes that the "acting gene" might have come from his father, whom he thinks was "such a goofball".
Instead of paraphrasing the sentences, I simply removed them as they don't convey much meaning. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Cooper shares a close relationship with his family. - shares it with who? Not sure the sentence actually adds anything...
I don't understand why there is a Works and awards section. This should be combined with career
It is just a brief summary of awards he has received and the most notable films he has appeared in because some users often find it difficult to find the filmography link, thus a separate section.
The lead is the summary. Another section with a summary that repeats part of the article again is unneeded. Just put pertinent material in the lead.
Done. - FrB.TG (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for the comments - much appreciated. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose - I can't see any other prose-clangers or omissions outstanding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Well illustrated with images with proper license. Well sourced. Well written.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Seri Rambai[edit]

Nominator(s): Singora (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the Seri Rambai, a historic cannon displayed at Fort Cornwallis, George Town, Penang. In 2013 the Sunday Times began a feature about Penang with the comment "Cannons don’t often have names, but the Seri Rambai, on the walls of Fort Cornwallis, is something rather special". Singora (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I was confused by the suggestion that the gun was made of brass. A little digging suggests that "brass" is a naval term for bronze, a different alloy. (Brass is copper and zinc, bronze is copper and tin. Neither has a fixed recipe.). Could this be clarified one way or the other for us simple folk unfamiliar with seventeenth century ordnance? Mr Stephen (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply Ha! I understand your confusion.The deal here is that bronze cannon (and I believe bronze ordnance in general) were always referred to as brass cannon or brass guns. A couple of years back I wrote a Featured Article about an obscure sultanate in the deep south of Thailand. The sultan's cannon made a long journey from Singora to Ayuthaya to Mandalay, and is now displayed next to the flagpole in the grounds of London's Royal Chelsea Hospital. In an article published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, the cannon is described as "brass". In an another article published in the same journal the author somewhat pedantically points out that the gun is in fact made of bronze.
  • I've just dug out the Official Catalogue of the Museum of Artillery in the Rotunda, Woolwich. Page 5 lists "BRONZE, commonly called BRASS ORDNANCE". (See: Perhaps the best thing is for me to add a brief note. Do you have a preference as to how it ought to be worded? Singora (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
No particular preference on my part, just a clarifying footnote saying pretty much what you have written above. Thanks for the info & pic. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Noted added: The seri Rambai is actually made of bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, but like most bronze artillery pieces is commonly referred to as a brass cannon or brass gun. A cannon displayed next to the flagpole at the Royal Hospital Chelsea shows how this differing terminology can lead to confusion: while the gun is labelled "Brass Cannon (Siamese)", an article published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society points out that it is in fact made of bronze. Singora (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Lion-on-seri-rambai.jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Both images should have the same license. I took the photos back in March. I've given them a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Singora (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
      • That's fine, but what is the status of the thing you took a picture of? We need a tag for that work as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
        • I don't understand what you mean when you say "status of the thing". Please explain. Singora (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
          • You took a picture of an artwork. What is the copyright status of that artwork? There should be a tag on the image description page for the artwork itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment taking a look soon (placeholder so I don't forget really) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The last sentence of para 1 in lead could be classed as a tad informal, but I do think it livens up the text and makes it more engaging (and made me chuckle) so I think it is a significant net positive.
....and left for several years before being coaxed ashore by a Selangor nobleman. - what they had to ask the cannon nicely to come in from the sea...?
I'll go over what the sources say.
1. Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), 1948: "Here we must follow the Selangor tale. The gun was thrown overboard opposite the esplanade, and lay in the water until about 1880, when it was hauled up and mounted on a carriage. The account is embroidered by a report that it refused to come out of the water until Tunku Kudin, who had retired from his appointment as Viceroy of Selangor, came to their assistance. He tied a piece of thread to the cannon, which at once floated in obedience to the orders of the Selangor chief."
2. JMBRAS, 1952: "According to a Selangor legend recounted by Douglas, the gun was thrown overboard on the Pluto's arrival in Penang, and left in the water for about ten years. Then it was hauled up and mounted on a carriage, as it stands to this day. The first attempts to raise it from the water are said to have been unsuccessful, and help was sought from Tengku Kudin, who had by then retired from Selangor and taken up residence in Penang. He tied a length of cotton thread to the gun, which thereupon floated in obedience to the orders of the Selangor chief." Singora (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
ok I'll pay that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Until the 1950s the cannon was exhibited on Penang's Esplanade - wondering why Esplanade is italicised here.
I think this might be a mistake. I'll change it. Singora (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Reads well overall and strikes me as having the right amount of background for context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose (pending one very minor formatting issue above). An engaging read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, but what's the "minor formatting issue"? If you're referring to my use of italics for Penang's Esplanade, I've sorted that out already. Singora (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Aah my bad - too little sleep and coffee. all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


  • I'm changing "brass" to "bronze" throughout, since a large majority of readers (including whoever edited the infobox to say "brass") don't know that we actually mean bronze when we say brass. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not taking a position on the amount of space devoted to legends or on their placement in the text. That's mostly a matter of taste.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I didn't realize this brass/bronze issue would cause confusion, but agree that your changes are for the best. I may need to tweak the note I added a few days ago. I'll do that tomorrow, and will also start reviewing other FAC nominations. Singora (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Standard disclaimer: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dank. Do you know the term for this point of grammar:
    • "his contributions to British archaeology have been widely acclaimed, with some referring to him as ....."
    • "His arrival at the OS generated some resentment, with co-workers often seeing his post as superfluous"
    • "Previously Crawford had assisted Keiller in campaigning to prevent a radio mast being erected on Windmill Hill, with Keiller later purchasing the hill"
    • "Although designed to have an international scope, Antiquity exhibited a clear bias towards the archaeology of Britain, with its release coinciding with the blossoming of British archaeology"
    • "He refused to publish an advert for Watkins, with Watkins becoming very bitter towards him"
  • These and more examples are taken from the FAC nomination: O.G.S. Crawford. I'm sure the grammar here is wrong. Is it? Singora (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That's actually a sensitive topic among some copyeditors and linguists. Let me sleep on it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • For American English, dictionaries (especially AHD and M-W) are best for grammar if they cover the point in a usage note, but I don't know any that do, for this point. The point is covered in Pinker's The Sense of Style (search for "fused participle") and in Garner's Modern American Usage (at ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTIONS). For British English, opinions diverge on which dictionaries are the most helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments

There are several issues:

  • Links: MoS guidelines disapprove linking major geographical entities such as countries, e.g. Malaysia. Also some of the links here may confuse general readers. For example, the link on "Siamese capital" takes us to "Ayutthaya Kingdom", apparently a quite different entity.
  • Sunday Times comment: Rather trivial and hardly leadworthy. If you do keep it in the lead, the direct quotation needs a citation.
  • "Dr Gibson-Hill": Use his full name, not the academic title, per MOS:CREDENTIAL
  • For clarity I'd use "inches" or "in.", rather than ""
  • "28-pounder": A pipelink thus, 28-pounder might be informative
  • What entity is being described as "Holland"? As far as I know the polity at the start of the 17thC was the Dutch Republic, and "Holland" has never been the country's name (other than during Napoleon's short-lived puppet kingdom).
  • principle" → "principal" I imagine.
  • There's a rather large gap in the narrative, between 1613 and 1795. Maybe nothing noteworthy happened in this time, but a linking sentence of some sort, covering the hiatus, should connect the eras.
  • "Almost thirty years later [i.e. about 1825] a British East India Company official visited Selangor and recounted a bizarre tale about a white snake said to be living inside the gun's barrel". This information seems devoid of context and I'm not sure what to make of it.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a concern that I missed several of these things. I'll go back through the other articles I copyedited on the same day to see if I was having a bad day. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz Talk 15:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

As Hindus celebrate the festival of the Divine Feminine today, let me introduce you to an interesting aspect of the Mother. Chhinnamasta is a self-decapitated goddess, who holds her severed head in her hand and drinks blood from her wound. She stands on a copulating couple. A goddess of contradictions, she is a life-giver and a life-taker. A GA since 2010, the article was expanded this year. The article was fortunate to be copy-edited by User:Corinne (Talk:Chhinnamasta#GOCE_comments) and to have had a detailed PR by User:Johnbod, User:Nikkimaria, User:Ms Sarah Welch, User:Ssriram mt and User:Ruhrfisch. Thanks everyone for improving the article. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


This is a topic certainly worthy of a FA star, but, for now, I will limit myself to the images:

  • File:Chinnamasta1800.JPG Source links appear to be dead. Copyright tags specifying the PD status of the image in both India and the US are needed, are they not? (If I have made a mistake, please let me know.)
Tags added. Though original site is down, updated with new link of Bridgeman Art Library. Can not archive this due to scripts. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Chinnamunda.jpg What am I looking at here? Is this a painting? Also, tags are needed as above.
This is scan of a painting printed in a book. Tags added. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Tags added. Archived. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Archive: Tags added. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
FOP added. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Bengali Chinnamasta.jpg Unless I'm mistaken, this image is not the same as the one on the source page. Also, we will again need multiple copyright tags as above, I believe!
The image is cropped and the brownness of the paper is removed. Tags added. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
4th row, 4th column. It is a double image lithograph. I have cropped it; brownness of paper removed. Tags added. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Tags added. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Chinnamasta with Shiva.jpg Tags as above. I appreciate that the source URL is the correct one for the file, but where has the scan come from? Is that the original source of the scan?
The site does not give the source of the scan. Nikky Singh, Crawford Family Professor of Religion, Colby College site uses the image in her lecture. Tags added. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Chinnamasta yantra color.jpg Am I right in understanding that the author of this file has created it based on the description given in certain Tantric texts? Could a source be cited?
It seems so that the author has created the image. Though I don't know the source used by the author, similar illustrations are available in books of Frawley and Shankar Narayananan.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
FOP added.Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the niggles; I'm confident most/all are fine, but some fiddling at the edges would be helpful! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Josh Milburn for the image review. I have some changes. Please check.Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for these fixes; I'll look more closely soon. It can be helpful to provide an explanation of the changes you have made to images that you have edited- that can help avoid people raising the kinds of worries I did above. Commons:Template:Retouched picture is a convenient template for this purpose. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Josh Milburn. Added Retouched tag.Redtigerxyz Talk 16:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce)[edit]

Ceoil, Kafka Liz

A complex, physical and lifelike thirteenth century crucifixion scene by Cimabue. It is badly damaged now, after flooding in 1966. But its raw impact remains, and it marks an important break from the Byzantine style. Francis Bacon, who didn't give praise lightly, held this as one of his favourite old master works. Ceoil (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • Nice to see a really early, foundational painting at FAC!
  • Note it is Harold Osborne, not the usual Osbourne - I get caught by that too.
  • Got it. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit worried by "His body slumps in rigor mortis, contorted by prolonged agony and pain." both in medical and art historical terms. As yr Wikipedian chum could not doubt tell you, rigor mortis only sets in from 4 hours or more after death. Before that the body would relax, losing any "contortions", I would think. In the Gospel accounts Christ seems to have been taken down long before that, the sort of point the Middle Ages took note of. Also you say later this is an early example of the suffering Christ. Some Christs were shown as dead on the cross, but I think only later. This was touchy theological ground, where painters had to take care they were in tune with current Church thinking. I'll look around.
I think what should have been said was close to rigor mortis, but have removed this. I think the point about the suffering Christ should stand, if only for the leap forward in realism this painting represents. I would be most interested if you find more on this. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually it seems he is shown dead. See below. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "It has hung in the Basilica di Santa Croce, Florence since the late thirteenth century." Apparently not - it was in the Uffizi Gallery since I don't know when, until 1959. Pity it it didn't stay there. See here. My copy of White, John. Art and Architecture in Italy, 1250 to 1400, London, Penguin Books, 1966, 2nd edn 1987 (now Yale History of Art series). ISBN 0140561285 still calls it the "Uffizi Crucifix". Ok - in Uffizi 1948-59.
  • Also, a travel site says it is currently in the Museo dell'Opera Santa Croce, not the church itself.
Have mentioned the stay in the Uffizi in a note. Clarified that it moved to the Museo dell'Opera post flood damage restoration, but dont yet have the year. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the attribution section is a bit too confident. White, who has 24 pages on Cimabue, and only 3 column inches on this, thinks there are "reasonable grounds for placing [it] in Cimabue's workshop", which is less than a ringing endorsement. Crowe & Cavalcaselle, back in the day, reject the attribution.
I'm working on a redraft of this. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • a) "Each of Cimabue's three surviving crucifixes were commissioned by the Franciscan order." and b) Arezzo cross caption: "The earliest of the two surviving crucifixes attributed to Cimabue ..."
    Now "Both of Cimabue's surviving..." Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have found some good stuff in Gertrud Schiller's 75 pages on the Crucifixion image, some specific to this painting. Is it ok if I add? He is dead, though nothing about riggr mortis, which I think is best dropped.
I got rid of the stuff about riggr mortis, and would be delighted if you added. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Museo_di_santa_croce,_crocifisso_di_cimabue_1.JPG needs a licensing tag for the original work, not just the photo
    PD added. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Ivo_Bazzechi_Cimabue_Flood.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this photo first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    Removed Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda[edit]

Thank you for an article about a piece of art that impressed me. Minor concerns:

  • "Crucifixion": I am a bit confused by the image of the flood-damaged face that early, and without explanation. I would expect it later, where the flooding is handled.
  • "His eyes are wide open and his skin unblemished, but his body full of power". How "but"? I miss details about the Isaac source. Interesting ideas there!
  • Link for Giotto?
  • "less dependent on specific physical and facial types" - not sure what that means
  • "Saints" - old-fashioned me would prefer the images on the right
  • "Carpentry", image: I don't know if our average readers know "in situ", also it's not in the Basilica itself, but in a chapel in the museum.
  • "Commission": I wonder if that paragraph - of background - should come sooner.

Excellent final statement, about the hybrid piece of art! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Support. Thank you for your improvements. I'd prefer to read about present location of the Crucifix in the image caption (in "Carpentry"), but that's a minor concern. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from the Bounder[edit]


  • "It is one of two large crucifixes thought to be by his hand,[1] and hung in the Basilica di Santa Croce, Florence since the late thirteenth century, but has been at the Museo dell'Opera Santa Croce since the 1960s" This one sentence is quite long and carries a lot of information: would splitting it aid the flow of the words?
Yes, chopped now. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


  • The second sentence ("Cimabue achieves a masterful handling of colour.") doesn't seem to follow from its predecessor, ("Medieval churches tended to be extremely colourful ...") and the effect is slightly jarring. I think I know what you're trying to convey, but I'm not sure it works as it stands. (Partly because the section title suggests a description of the crucifix, and you start off with the interior decoration of medieval churches). Maybe switch the church information to the end and then tie it to the crucifix?
agree and have chopped up and reorganised. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


  • "His undress highlights his vulnerability, reinforces his humanity and humility. It seems influenced by a thirteenth-century Franciscan Meditation on Christ..." These two are written in Wikipedia's voice, and I think they (or at least the first sentence) should probably be attributed to someone.
I toned down the wording, which to memory was perhaps more my voice than should have been. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "His eyes are wide open and his skin unblemished, but his body full of power; symbolic of everlasting life." I think this should probably be attributed too.
This sentence is confused and misses the point, will clarify,although note except for the everlasting bit, its descriptive. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


  • Should mid twenties be hyphenated?
It should Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

A very interesting article; I hope you find these comments helpful. – The Bounder (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do. Working through and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

A nice read - queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of isolated sentences - I'd take that last sentence in the lead and tack it onto the first para. that'll do...

else looking on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

On it. Moved the sentence, but happy to edit further if it still seems awkward. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Forensic chemistry[edit]

Nominator(s): Majora (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The various forensic disciplines are tasked with providing valid scientific evidence during the legal process. Forensic chemistry is the discipline that helps investigators determine the identity of unknown materials found during the course of an investigation. Forensic chemists use a variety of instrumentation and methods in the course of their work and follow strict standards and guidelines in order to ensure that their results are valid and admissible in a courtroom.

Today, I bring forth forensic chemistry as a featured article candidate. I rewrote the entire article last year and brought it up to GA status. Since that time, there has been little needed maintenance showing its comprehensive nature. This is my first FAC and I hope that you all enjoy reading the article. I look forward to answering any questions regarding it. --Majora (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Welcome to the bearpit! I'm a chemistry graduate and a former expert witness in a different field, so this caught my attention. Before I go any further, two issues regarding comprehensiveness.

  • I get little sense of a global perspective here. The only standards agency given is the US one, and I see no mention of any other jurisdiction. Should this be moved to Forensic chemistry in the US?
    I'm not really seeing what you are seeing I'm afraid. I tried to keep everything as general as possible and avoided getting too specific with any one country. All of the methods and standards are international. SWGDRUG is an international society comprised of scientists representing multiple different countries and the UN. They were created in the US but they work towards international standards acceptance not just US acceptance (see [2]). The history section takes into account the various international scientists that made forensic chemistry the way it is today. Moving it to Forensic chemistry in the US would really not be truthful as the information in the article is valid for any country. --Majora (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Although you link to expert witness in the lead, I don't think that's sufficient. The lead is meant to be a summary of the main text, but I see nothing in the body of the report regarding testifying in court. The whole point of any forensic work is that at some stage you may have to be cross-examined on what you have written, and you need to explain in your text more about the role of a forensic expert in court. As it stands, you don't mention anywhere the need for independence, FRE rule 702, how experts are paid, or anything else regarding the role of an expert witness in the US (assuming that's where we are staying).
    I can definitely go into more about testifying and what is expected of an expert witness. It would fit nicely into the standards section anyways. But I don't think we should be going too far into FRE/Daubert/Frye standards since those are definitely US specific and would requiring going down to state level differences that would probably be too much. --Majora (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

At first glance, the article otherwise looks pretty good, but I'm reluctant to go through in detail until we have discussed or resolved the comprehensiveness question. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, ping me when you're ready Jimfbleak (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: I just want to apologize for the delay. Things got a little hectic during the last couple of days and I haven't had the time to finish off the requested text. It is still being worked on and I should have it done either today or tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. --Majora (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: All set. Let me know what you think. --Majora (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks to be a very good and comprehensive article, so the following are just minor nit-picks before I support Jimfbleak (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • can provide directions for investigators to look in—Call me old-fashioned, but I don't like the final proposition, rejig?
    Rejigged. --Majora (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Role in investigations section, there is some repetition, eg "For example","would tell"
    Fixed. --Majora (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Just for info, there are repeated links to strychnine, arson and retention factor— not enough to matter, so you can ignore if you wish
    Fixed. One of those strychnine links was changed to the article on the alkaloid instead of to the one on the tree. --Majora (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Stas' method—is there an article to link to?
    Not that I'm aware of. I can redlink it if you think that would be appropriate or go into more detail about it. --Majora (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • a unique spectrum when exposed to a specific wavelength of light—doesn't make sense as written, you can't get a spectrum from a single wavelength
    That was a typo. Should have been plural (wavelengths). Fixed. And I also fixed an inaccuracy that I missed before. --Majora (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • examine the plant proteins that make up chlorophyll—I'm not convinced that chlorophyll is a protein, it's a pigment like heme
    Sort of. Chlorophyll by itself is a pigment. But it doesn't exist that way in plants. It is attached to a protein. Just like heme is part of a hemeprotein. The section on this in the chlorophyll article explains it far better than I ever could. "The identity, function and spectral properties of the types of chlorophyll in each photosystem are distinct and determined by each other and the protein structure surrounding them." is the relevant part of that section. --Majora (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Certain aspects that forensic chemists must be aware of—here and elsewhere, the tone is a bit WP:How to, maybe Factors that forensic chemists might consider or similar. Please check for similar
    I see what you mean and I like your suggestion for the fix there. I have changed out the line (and made sure to give you credit for the idea Face-smile.svg). I'll go through the rest of the article but I would appreciate it if you could point out where you see that just to make sure I get it all. --Majora (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • behalf of the prosecution or the defense—In the English legal system at least, experts can be jointly instructed by both sides
    Added a little bit on how an expert can be called as a "court's witness". --Majora (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it worth mentioning that experts' remuneration cannot be dependent on outcome?
    It would be hard to find a source that is all encompassing that would say that. Experts that work for the prosecution are going to be paid regardless since testifying is part of their job requirements. For the defense experts and judge appointed experts I can see what I can find. --Majora (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • attorney—would lawyer be better than the more specifically US term?
    Fixed. --Majora (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • You don't need to give retrieval dates for on-line versions of real publications like journals, just for web-only articles which might change
    I wasn't aware of that. I always just put it for everything since it acts as a time frame to look for on if/when the link goes dead. I can remove them if that is a sticking point. --Majora (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm now happy to Support. I fixed a typo, otherwise happy with tone and content. I'm not too concerned with the retrieval dates, but obviously other reviewers might comment. Good luck Jimfbleak (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the largest known meat-eating dinosaurs, and therefore one of the largest terrestrial carnivores to have ever existed. The dinosaur is thought to have equalled or even surpassed Tyrannosaurus in length, and the article is one of the most viewed dinosaur articles on Wikipedia. The article contains practically everything ever published about this animal, and covers the scientific debate/competition about the maximum size of theropod dinosaurs. The article is a GA and has been copy-edited. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Very comprehensive and well written, but, of course, some quibbles

  • I appreciate that there need to be some technical terms, but in places they appear unnecessary. How is "caudal (tail) vertebrae" better than "tail vertebrae" either in style or information content? Please check to see where the text can be made reader-friendlier
I swapped the words so the scientific terms for vertebrae are in parenthesis. But for most of the other anatomical terms, the scientific terms are the most used, and using something like "groove" instead of sulcus would be too generic (and make the meaning less clear), I think. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Similarly, if you are going to use technical or mainly US terms, make sure they are linked. I noticed Vertebra, dune buggy and badlands, but there may be others
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • genus of theropod dinosaur — is this a typo or a hunters' plural as in "I killed three lion, six tiger and two gigantosaur?
It is supposed to be singular. Like "is a genus of psittacine parrot", or some such... FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • honours the discoverer why do we have to read most of the article to find who he is?.
Now added to intro, is that what you meant? History is the only place in the article body where that info makes sense. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • fully devoted— how does this differ from "devoted"?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • WW2 expand and link
Hehe, the link was removed by a copy editor... Added again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I might have another read through in due course. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, no further queries, all looks good Jimfbleak (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Great to see this one here - more soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Though incompletely known, the skull of Giganotosaurus appears to have been proportionally low. - what does "proportionally low" mean?
I guess it means in proportion to its length, but the source doesn't specify. I've removed "proportionally", better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Having read though, nothing else is jumping out at looking okay really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC) i.e. support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ike Altgens[edit]

Nominator(s): —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I know, I know ... I said I would never put myself through this again—but this article deserves its place in the sun.

Promoted to FA status in 2006, it fell into disrepair and was demoted in 2010. After a good deal of work and a peer review that went nowhere, I brought it to FAC in 2014 only to watch it die on the vine. Instead, I went to GAN, where Location quite properly put it through the ringer, and MrBill3 lent a vital hand in bringing the article to GA status. It has been virtually untouched since—stable, thorough, correct, and ready. I am bound to see this one through. —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Reviewers please note: this article contains numerous invisible comments, some of which provide citations to otherwise non-controversial details that may not appear on their face to be cited.
  • Lead sentence: I googled Ike. He seems to be best known for his photographs with the JFK assassination. IMO, this should be noted in the lead sentence or at least the 1st para. Compare Richard Drew (photographer).
  • WP:OVERLINK: film, actor, model, television, dialogue etc. need not be linked.
Disagree with "model"—too many meanings. Otherwise done.
  • JFK needs to be linked. The article seems to assume an American reader; how Jackie is related to JFK is not told.
  • Jumping to Assassination of President Kennedy section: "This meant that what I took, ... " quote is sudden without context; When did Ike say this? Immediate reaction, in an interview decades after? Similarly for "To have a President shot ... "
First: done; second: all part of "Altgens would later write".
  • A non-American may not understand the JFK, John F. Kennedy is the same person; similarly Jacqueline Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy
  • I can't locate the details of "Hill & McCubbin 2013"
Got lost in an old edit. Restored.
  • Was there any concrete findings about Ike's death?
Not that I ever found.
  • "elsewhere to question whether accused assassinLee Harvey Oswald was visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository" again misses context. The lead needs to clarify that this was used to "prove" Oswald's innocence.
Added as a note; unnecessary in main text, IMO. My thanks for your comments, Redtigerxyz. Face-smile.svg

Redtigerxyz Talk 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I had never heard about Ike before this article, so I am a little unsure about comprehensiveness. I have a few queries purely based on Googling (forgive my ignorance if some of these queries are foolish):
    • [3] (not sure if this is a RS) talks about supposedly 7-8 photographs Ike clicked; the article suggests that he clicked only two. I find the term "Altgens6" missing from the article. [4]
    • [5] covers importance of Ike's photo as evidence in Warren Commission.

Apart from these quibbles, my Googling suggests this article is near comprehensiveness.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Redtigerxyz, and thanks again.
First, the phrasing of the number of photos is quite intentional; while Ike made seven total in Dealey Plaza (see note a.), there were two of the assassination—one during the shooting, one seconds later. "Altgens6" was in the article, but was removed after a search found no use of the term by anyone in an official capacity. (The term is specific to researchers.)
Second, I don't see anything in your book reference that should be in the article and isn't there already. Can you be more specific?
ATS 🖖 Talk 19:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose - my queries have already been asked by Redtigerxyz - only other minor thing would be any details on how he was orpahned but presume that those records are lost. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
As near as I've ever been able to tell, your presumption is correct. Since you bring it up, though, I'll look around again. My thanks. (Edit: source [Trask 1994, p. 307] cites four sources for all data in the instant graf. I cannot find "Lone 'Pro' On Scene Where JFK Was Shot" for reference; it's not in WCH v.7, p. 516; and the other sources are two interviews of Altgens by Trask. Further detail may never be forthcoming, I'm afraid.) (Edit 2: I was able to get additional information, now in the article. There's actually quite a bit of stuff I didn't see two years ago.) —ATS 🖖 Talk 01:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The article looks pretty good but I found some issues while checking it:
  • The lead uses some references. If the information is too doubtful, keep the refs. If it's minor then delete them.
Hi, Tintor2, and thanks. Refs are here per the GAN, since the lede includes statements (the controversy, in particular) that need immediate back-up. That said, I'll take another look.
  • The body also uses to many quotes. I have often been criticized for this in the past so I would recommend you to paraphrase some or simply make some quotes boxes.
The quotes also were reduced during the GAN, but I'll take another look. Certain statements really cannot go without direct quotation.

Other than that, I see no issues. Just solve them or explain me the issues and I'll support the article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll pop back in after I'm done. Thanks again. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: that should do it, Tintor2; the remaining quotes should all be vital to the narrative per the GAN. Please let me know if you have additional concerns. My thanks for your input. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then I'll support it. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Hope (painting)[edit]

Nominator(s): Iridescent 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In 1885 George Frederic Watts's adopted granddaughter died, leading to the state bailout of General Motors, drone warfare in the Middle East, and the PRISM program; I may have omitted a few intervening stages, but the basic causality is there. Hope is an artwork which 99% of those who see it consider the irredeemable nadir of Victorian sentimentalist kitsch. However, the 1% has included some disproportionately influential individuals, including back in 1990 a young attorney called Barack Obama. Thanks to Sagaciousphil and Ceoil for cleaning and tweaking. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Two notes:

  • The story as given here doesn't entirely tally with the official version as given by Tate Britain, where this painting currently resides, and the Tate's version isn't used as a source or given as an EL. This is intentional; the Tate's version contains demonstrably untrue comments (e.g. "Watts also omitted the star, the only note of optimism, at the top of the picture" when the star in question is very obviously still present) that I don't consider it trustworthy, and I suspect that it contains intentional errors as a means to track plagiarists. Most of the sources here are either from the Watts Gallery themselves, or impeccable expert publishers like the National Gallery of Art and the Yale Center for British Art, so I'm inclined to follow their version of events.
  • I know long quotes are frowned upon, but I feel the two lengthy quotes from Barack Obama necessary; the first, where he recounts his recollection of Jeremiah Wright describing it, demonstrates that the Hope which inspired Obama is based on a misconception (either Wright misremembering the painting, or Obama misremembering his words) as "the valley below where everywhere are the ravages of famine" doesn't actually exist in the original, while the second makes it explicit that the "hope" of Obama's early speeches and of The Audacity of Hope is explicitly a reference to this painting, not to the abstract concept. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

  • Comment. Hi Iridescent, this is a very nice article, and I'm enjoying reading it. A couple of points in passing:
  • There's a sentence in the lead that I don't understand, especially "in response to social, economic and religious changes: "An effort to break with traditional methods of depicting hope in response to social, economic and religious changes, it was radically different from previous treatments of the subject.
  • It's a clumsy attempt to summarise the second paragraph of the Subject section in a single sentence, as the lead is already quite cluttered. Basically, the Panic of 1873 had knocked the economy into a slump from which it hadn't yet recovered, church attendance had nosedived (and Watts didn't much like the church anyway), and the emergence of industrial capitalism had brought in what he saw as a culture of greed; Hope was an effort to create something which rejected traditional imagery so that its message would have meaning in a modern society where the iconography of Christianity and the images of traditional English scenes no longer had meaning to the audience. (He can reasonably be said to have succeeded, since—if you disregard the sentimentality—the actual meaning of the painting is as clear to modern viewers as it was in his own time.) ‑ Iridescent 23:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's hard to summarize. Perhaps try "Radically different from traditional methods of depicting hope, the painting shows a ..."? You could link "traditional methods" to the Subject section or just leave it unexplained. SarahSV (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think on reflection it's easier to just leave it unexplained—that also has the advantage of making the four lead paras more equal in size. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would leave out the two sentences beginning "In light of Obama's well-known interest in Watts's painting ..." unless you can find a better source. The first source is just a suggestion from a party activist and the second is the Daily Mail. SarahSV (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Both the proposal and the alleged rejection are mentioned on p64 of Tromans's book—the references seem to have been lost in transit, I've now added them. Tristram Hunt isn't just an activist, he was (pre-Corbyn) one of the intellectual driving forces behind the Labour Party in its third term (the period in question) so a public statement from him would have been understood to have been cleared by the party. I included the Daily Mail citation, along with the "According to an unverified report in the Daily Mail", precisely to make it clear to readers that this is coming from a potentially unreliable source. (In this case, I assume the Mail is correct in that Obama was actively avoiding the painting—given his previously expressed interest in it, even were the offer of a loan untrue he would certainly have been offered the opportunity to either visit it at the Tate or have it brought to somewhere he was attending while on a state visit—but I don't really want to be saying it in Wikipedia's voice.) ‑ Iridescent 23:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding Troman. I would still remove the Daily Mail. SarahSV (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A couple of punctuation questions:
  • "In late 1885 Watts's adopted daughter Blanche Clogstoun had just lost her infant daughter Isabel to illness ..." If Blachne was his only adopted daughter, it needs commas around the name; ditto if Isabel was the only infant daughter, though that might not be known.
  • Blanche seems to have been the only one he ever legally adopted; the other girl he tried to adopt (Ellen Terry) he changed his mind about adoption and married her instead (those were different times). Blanche definitely had at least one other child as we have an article on him, but I don't know if she had any other girls. I'm not convinced that this sentence actually needs commas—paging User:Eric Corbett, who's rulings on BrEng grammar are generally definitive, and who was tinkering with this article a couple of days ago. ‑ Iridescent 20:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think that commas are necessary in this case, and add nothing. Eric Corbett 21:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This quote needs something around "poor little tinkle", unless the author wrote it without. "Hope sitting on a globe, with bandaged eyes playing on a lyre which has all the strings broken but one out of which poor little tinkle she is trying to get all the music possible, listening with all her might to the little sound—do you like the idea?" I can't see the source, but the Telegraph has dashes around it. SarahSV (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The author wrote it with just two commas (here, p. 2): "I am painting a picture of Hope sitting on a globe with bandaged eyes playing on a lyre which has all the strings broken but one out of which poor little tinkle she is trying to get all the music possible, listening with all her might to the little sound, do you like the idea?" SarahSV (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've just double-checked; the formatting and punctuation as used here (other than the spacing around the em-dash) is identical to that reproduced in Tromans's book, which as it's published by the Watts Gallery itself I assume is definitive in the absence of very strong evidence to the contrary. ‑ Iridescent 20:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No rush—thanks for looking ‑ Iridescent 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Iridescent, just letting you know that I won't be on again today, but I'll come back to this. I'm making my way through reading it and I'm enjoying it a lot. SarahSV (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry to take so long to get back to this. I read it through twice and I'm happy to support, though I think it would be better without the tabloid source. Regarding the punctuation, this is the original, and he used two commas in that sentence. SarahSV (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Support, as mentioned above, read this before the nom. I had some c/e quibbles, now resolved. Did a scan of the sources and found them to be of the first rank of available scholarship. I didn't notice any logical inconsistencies and the slightly jaundice undertone in the writing is appealing. That said, the painting is attractive to me as whimsy. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks—while I do like a lot of Watts's output and think his influence on later artists is seriously underrated, I find it hard to summon up much liking for this particular piece, which to me comes close to Fidelity for sheer earnest mawkishness. ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I just have a few comments:

  • Lead
    • We don't paint a chalk reproduction, I suggest "He painted at least two further versions for private sale, and made a chalk copy..."
      • I've removed the chalk copy from the lead altogether, as on reflection it seems to be giving it undue weight given its relative unimportance. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Background
    • believed to have been the first such exhibition by any artist: since we later have "In 1882 the Grosvenor Gallery had staged a retrospective exhibition of Watts's work..." can you be more specific as to how this was the "first such" exhibition?
      • It's usually (depending on who you listen to) considered the first 'blockbuster' exhibition-as-an-event. I've removed that line altogether; the only purpose is to illustrate that Watts had a high profile at this time and new paintings from him were considered A Big Deal, which is already done. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Legacy
    • I was curious about the redlink for printsellers: would it be possible to create at least a stub for that, since there is otherwise no indication of what in particular is meant (presumably a historical context I don't know about)?
      • I'm quite surprised it's a redlink as well, given that the term is used fairly often on Wikipedia. (A printseller is exactly what it sounds like; someone who deals in reproductions of pictures.) It's a redlink which ought to stay, as someone will no doubt write an article at some point. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Later influence
    • ... on the theme of 'The Audacity of Hope': any reason for the single quotes? Otherwise please replace with double quotes.
      • Fixed ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Some stylistic points, your call:

  • I would write "Watts' frontispiece for..." etc rather than using "Watts's" since the name ends with a "es" sound (as opposed to "Burne-Jones's" where the terminal is a "zz" sound). Actually it is not as simple as that since I would also say "Mrs Jones' whatever", but I would still go for "Watts' " and "Burne-Jones's".
  • I suggest adding template:clear left at the end of several sections to prevent the left-placed images pushing the subsequent section title to the right with wider window widths.
    • Not done for the moment, as IMO the extra white space this creates is more disruptive than any disruption to the text flow. The issue will become moot fairly soon as the WMF are planning to give Wikipedia a maximum width for the body text. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest setting the width of the Notes columns to 35em for improved readability at some window widths.
    • Changed, although unless the reader is using a screen the size and shape of a letterbox I can't see it making any significant difference. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
      Thanks (I got three narrow columns on my laptop with the original definition). --Mirokado (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Support: Thanks for the responses. --Mirokado (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Dorothy_Dene.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Hollyer_–_platinotype_of_Watts's_Hope.jpg
  • File:Watts_–_Hope_stamp_Jordan_1974_low_res.jpg: suggest using {{non-free stamp}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Done for the first two. Regarding the stamp, I've changed it to {{non-free stamp}} – per my comments on the FUR, I think this is 99% certain to be PD since the copyright on Hope itself has obviously long since expired (thanks to Teddy Roosevelt, this is a case where we have absolute proof that the design was published in the US pre-1923), and I'm fairly certain that the other elements fall below the threshold of originality, but I'm reluctant to treat it as PD just in case it is actually considered copyright. ‑ Iridescent 20:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • "In 1938 the Tate Gallery closed their room dedicated to Watts, where Hope had been displayed." I can't see this anywhere else, so it seems unreferenced. "closed" seems a bit dramatic - presumably they just hung other stuff there. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about that Hope was hung in the Watts Room, or that the Tate closed it in 1938? If the latter, it's referenced in the final sentence of Hope (painting)#Artistic influence—if the former, I'd have thought it's implicit in "an entire room of the new museum was dedicated to his works", but if you want it spelled out that Hope was in there that's easy enough to do. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (adding) Regarding the room, it vanished in one of their rebuildings and is now a pair of temporary exhibition spaces (labelled "Hockney's Double Portraits" and "Jo Spence" on the current floor plan), but I'm not sure of the date of that. The Tate's own description of what happened in 1938 is "the room was finally disassembled". ‑ Iridescent 14:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I was talking about the "closure" which still seems unreferenced, and not the best word. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely referenced ("in 1938 the Tate Gallery closed the Watts Room.[78]"). I'm not sure what better term to use here; what happened in 1938 was that the permanent exhibition of Watts's works came to an end, rather than that the Tate disposed of their collection, but something like "removed from public display" won't be accurate either, as they still regularly showed (and still show) the collection, just not all at once and not as a single entity. "In 1938 the Tate Gallery ceased to have a room dedicated to his works" perhaps? ‑ Iridescent 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok on the ref. Does "dispersed" work?
To me "dispersed" suggests that they broke up the collection and sold it off, rather than hung on to it but put it in storage. "From 1938 onwards the Tate Gallery no longer kept the works donated by Watts on permanent display"? I do think it's important that this be mentioned, since we previously mention that they had a room dedicated to him so readers might otherwise wonder if it still exists. ‑ Iridescent 15:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok; the 2nd mention still has "closed". "discontinued the grouped display" might be a variation. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Reworded to "In 1938 the Tate Gallery ceased to keep their collection of Watts's works on permanent display" in the lead and "in 1938 the Tate Gallery removed their collection of Watts's works from permanent display" in the body text, which should hopefully do it. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "By the end of 1885 Watts had settled on the design of the painting." "Composition" would be proper art-hist speak. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I try to rotate between "composition" and "design" to reduce repetition; there are already four instances of "composition" (five if you count the one in the TOC). ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • He's never been Director to my knowledge (Perdita Hunt has been Director for well over a decade). He's Curator now, but wasn't at the time he wrote this, and "Senior Lecturer at Kingston" is still his day job. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Not easily without losing either Luna, Idle Child of Fancy or Burne-Jones's Hope, which I'm loath to do, especially since those three don't have existing articles so there's no easy way for a reader who wants to see what they look like to get to them (anyone wanting to see Night can just click the link). ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "She sits on a small, imperfect orange globe" I think I see how it is "imperfect" but it might be better to explain this.
  • "Imperfectly drawn sphere" is the wording in Tromans, the only source I can find which describes it at all—I can't find any other description more in depth than "globe" or "ball". ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Do any sources discuss a relationship to the medieval blindfold Synagoga?
  • Only a passing mention in a discussion of the transition from Idle Child to Hope: The youthful personification of Love was traditionally shown blindfolded, an attribute that for the first time in western art Watts gives to Hope herself. Also blindfolded in traditional iconography were the figures of Synagogue (suggesting the blindness of the Jews towards Christ and thus providing a further Jewish echo in Hope) and Fortune. (the "further echo" relates to other artists of the period using Psalm 137 as a metaphor for hope, which I do briefly touch on.) In the absence of further sources suggesting a link I'm a little reluctant to include it, as there's no obvious suggestion in anything either George or Mary ever said that there's any kind of link with the medieval Synagoga. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "since antiquity the unstrung lyre had been considered a symbol of separated lovers and unrequited love." Ok, but broken strings a symbol of disharmony, as in Holbein's The Ambassadors (Holbein) (as Waldemar Januszczak was pointing out on the telly a few days ago).
  • It's obviously true, but I'm finding this surprisingly hard to source in the context of English art. I'll see what I can dig up. This section is there purely to indicate that Watts was using iconography not traditionally associated with Hope; I've moved the "since antiquity…" part down into the footnotes, since it doesn't matter to the reader what Watts wasn't using it to illustrate. ‑ Iridescent 14:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Lead: "Consequently, later in 1886 Watts and his assistant Cecil Schott painted a second version with the intention of selling it." Second version section: "In mid-1886 Watts and his assistant Cecil Schott painted a duplicate of the piece, with the intention that this duplicate be donated to the nation allowing him to sell the original."
  • Fixed—the body text was correct and the lead wrong, he intended to sell the original from the start. ‑ Iridescent 14:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not commenting on false titles, but "before being sold to steam tractor entrepreneur Joseph Ruston in 1887." is taking me to my limit.
  • Added a "the" in this case. ‑ Iridescent 14:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "After Watts's death the Autotype Company purchased from Mary Seton Watts the rights to make carbon copies of Hope" - the link is surely unhelpful here? More clarity on the actual process would be useful. [6] This is sort-of helpful. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Astonishingly, I find we have a detailed article on Carbon print, so I've retargeted the links. I don't really want to get into the mechanics of carbon copying of prints, as that means also having to do the same for platinotype and photogravure which are also mentioned. ‑ Iridescent 14:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
If we have a specific good link, that's fine, though the article isn't all that clear, and there seem to have been a succession of different processes. No typing involved anyway.Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Re this, it is exactly because both were in 1886 that this is not "superfluous"! If having an infobox is preventing both a) the display of the image at a decent lead size, and b) its proper identification, then better to remove the box, or put it below the pic.
  • It's not a case of the date affecting the width—I just don't see anything to be gained by "Year: 1886 (2nd version)" given that both versions were 1886, and if anything consider it misleading as it carries the implication that the first version was created earlier. (I considered doing away with the infobox altogether and replacing it with the montage of the four versions currently at Hope (painting)#Other painted versions in a 2×2 grid, but felt that would be too much of a departure from Wikipedia norms.) ‑ Iridescent 17:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Huh? The lead is full of talk of the two versions. You must make it clear which is being illustrated, especially as it is not the prime version, and the infobox pic looks pretty different to both 1st & 2nd versions in the gallery below. The infobox would be better gone - as you have it it misleadingly implies (well, states) that there is one painting in one museum. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Does that work? The more I think about it, the more reluctant I am to have the first version as a lead image; not only is the second version the famous one, but we don't have a decent-quality image of the first version (and there doesn't seem to be one online anywhere that I can find). ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. I wasn't suggesting using the first version in the lead, just clearly identiying the one used. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we not know where the 1st version now is?
  • "In a private collection" but I can't any reference to who the collector in question is. (Usually for 19th-century British art the collector is either Juan Antonio Pérez Simón or Andrew Lloyd Webber, but I very much doubt it's either of them as they've both staged recent "highlights of my collection" exhibitions and it hasn't been included.) ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support My only remaining point is that I still think a picture of Night would be good - possibly this one. There is space either under the infobox or at the end. I don't believe in making a fetish of having pics right next to the relevant text. But I won't delay a support for this. Well up to the usual standards! Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The image of Mammon could be removed to free up space, but I quite like including it at this point as it serves a double purpose of both allowing the reader to judge for themselves whether it's actually a companion piece, and also is quite a good example of Watts's more typical style in contrast to the much more modern composition of Hope. There is some free space down at the bottom (initially I had Obama's Hope poster there, but then decided the connection was too marginal to justify inclusion), but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to include Night that far down, at a point at which the readers will likely have forgotten it. I'm not of the school that every image needs to be immediately next to the point it illustrates, but this section is so irrelevant to Watts's influences I don't feel it would really be appropriate. Anywhere else in the article would need the removal of one of the images currently there, to avoid clutter; the only ones that are really disposable are the platinotype (which I'd quite like to keep as it illustrates more eloquently than words what constituted a "high quality reproduction" in the 19th century), Watts's photo (which isn't essential, but I think readers often want to see what the artist looked like), and Felix on the Bat (which 1. illustrates how radically Watts's early style differed from his later works and 2. is such a striking image that I suspect it will encourage quite a few random-article skimmers to stop and read a page they'd normally not bother with). Plus, we don't have any particularly good quality images of Nightthis, this or this are all we have to work with. ‑ Iridescent 18:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support As indicated, I did some very minor tweaking early on that I don't think were anywhere near sufficient to preclude my support of this quality nomination. I have watched as further tweaks etc have been made and feel this meets the FA criteria. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I finally read this top-to-bottom this morning and really enjoyed it. Well done for finding so much material (and mixing Agatha Christie with Barack Obama and Martin Luther King in the same article is no mean feat!). Two very small and not-important suggestions: 1., the first para of the "Background" section has a string of three "at the age of ... " that jumped out at as a little repetitive; 2., should grace of God be linked? That's theology beyond my comprehension - some people are born into God's grace whereas others not? Anyway, feel free to ignore, and nice job. Victoria (tk) 21:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (1) Reworded to avoid the repetition of "the age of". (2) Given that we already have theological virtues linked in that sentence, it seems like overkill to link Grace of God as well. "Theological virtue" is a less highfalutin concept than it sounds—it's just a fancy way of saying "things which are considered good by the church even though, unlike most good deeds, they have no benefit to others". Traditionally they're Faith, Hope and Love (aka Charity, but the meaning of 'charity' has changed in modern times)—whether you do or don't feel them has no impact on anyone else, but God wants you to feel them. One or the other needs to be linked but both is overkill—it's just a case of whether one considers Theological virtues or Grace of God to be the least terrible article (both are fairly awful). ‑ Iridescent 22:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Basically I agree but thought I'd mention it. I read it early in the morning and was thinking about virtues and grace and wondering about their differences. For some reason I did not know about that, so I learned something. I thought about the painting today - can't decide if I like it or not - but it stuck with me and that means something. Thanks for writing this. Victoria (tk) 23:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I find a lot of Watts's output has that effect—they're often not particularly attractive, and are generally based on a set of moral values which is quite alien and unpleasant to modern tastes, but they stick in your memory more than most of the works of his contemporaries (even the more technically gifted ones like Monet and Rossetti). ‑ Iridescent 09:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Grace in Christianity seems better, and more appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yup, that works—didn't realise we had a separate article. Linked. ‑ Iridescent 09:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Belgium national football team[edit]

Nominator(s): Kareldorado (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the joint 10th oldest national association football team worldwide, a team that achieved an Olympic gold medal and topped the FIFA World Rankings. The needed attention has been paid to the description of all of the team's aspects throughout its long history, and to illustration with suitable images. In a prior FAC, it received plenty of positive feedback, but ultimately several issues related to prose and referencing came up. In response, intense efforts further smoothened the text and lifted the references to a very high standard. I feel confident that this article is FA-worthy now, but of course, any suggestions to further fine-tune its text or lay-out will always be welcome. Thank you for your comments! Kareldorado (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks very good. Support. A few points:

  • "longstanding"—I think that's hyphenated in both US and UK English.
For a while it stood there hyphenated, but one moment I saw it in one word in another—featured—article and changed it. The online Oxford dictionary helped me out; you are right. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "its supporters' group is named 1895"—I paused on that, and didn't want to. Maybe italicise the name, or put it in quotes? And would you consider "its support group ..."?
I received an objection against italicising it, as this might imply the name is to be italicised always. Then I would opt for quotes. I would not favour "support group"; either this might suggest that the members share a common burden (like support groups for diseases), either that they purely finance the team. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I dislike raggle-taggle flagicons in infoboxes (bad enough when they're vertically aligned); the countries are already named. And on that point, the country-name pipes that go to specific sections or offspring articles are OK, but I see "Brussels" and "Belgium" and "London" and "England" just plain-linked, which is not encouraged. Can you unlink or find specific links? Just to be tiddly, please consider lowercase F in two places: "First in 1930". Just slightly smoother for readers to connect them better with the preceding.
True, overlinking is to be avoided; I will unlink these then. In order to apply lowercase, the template should be changed. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's on the verge of being over-reftagged. They are all functionally different, I guess, and not consecutively repeated. Any opportunity to trim would be welcome; e.g. "In the three 1920s Summer Olympics, they achieved fair results (four wins in seven games), and played their first intercontinental match, against Argentina.[28][29][30]" ... does that need three separate refs? It's hardly contentious.
Good remark—I must agree. I counted 16 reference clusters with at least three references. In a couple of them I can cut down the amount without losing the proof for the mentioned facts, so you can expect this soon. I agree that at least any contentious material should be sourced, but I find that I should also strive to providing a source for any fact—except for the very commonly accepted facts. Kareldorado (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't gone further in because I got bored not being able to find glitches. :-) Must remember your username. Tony (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

(reacting to just 1 point) I certainly agree about the flagicons, although it seems to be the de facto standard on all national footbal team articles to display the biggest win / loss in that way (even on the Featured Articles). Their 'chaotic display' and small relevance in an infobox (in my opinion) led me to gain some consensus to remove the parameters from that template in the past, although that was later undone. Instead of removing it, perhaps we can try launching a tidier way by removing the flagicons on this and other Featured Articles, and then try getting consensus to do it on all NFT articles. –Sygmoral (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the feedback and your exercises on better writing. Very soon I will reply to the points you came up with. Even though you stopped scanning I do invite you to keep going, since you brought up a couple of new things and are likely to find more points no one else would retrieve. The prose should be vivid enough to keep you reading. :-) Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Sygmoral, good idea, thanks. Tony (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Having positively reviewed this on previous occasions, I still consider this an examplary article and a canon for other articles to follow. Excellent piece of work and an encyclopaedic standard. Good work. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A few further and minor issues

  • "Twenty days later, the football boards of both countries, and five other nations, founded FIFA." Slight impression that the second comma makes it football boards of both countries, and the governments of five other nations. Can it be removed? And why not remove the third comma as well, in such a short sentence? Also, two plus five is seven. Later: "The day before the tournament began, the Belgian, French and Italian football boards founded UEFA."
Here and there, copy-editors added commas to make the text feel more balanced... however, unexpected word orders and ambiguity are the dangers that may pop up then. Once upon a time I had written "Belgium and France were among the seven founding fathers", which I changed because too narrative. I will rephrase this FIFA sentence and the UEFA sentence. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "In 1912, UBSSA began governing football only and". Consider: "From 1912, UBSSA governed football only and".
Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "In between," could be a little more natural with a back reference: "Between these,"
Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "the 125th FIFA-ranked team of Armenia"—in English, where it feels natural, prefer the 's or adjective grammar over post-noun "of X": "the 125th FIFA-ranked Armenian team". Not available in Dutch, of course.
This is available in Dutch as well, but we would rather use the first way to avoid a long concatenation of adjectives I think. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Still better as a bunch of adjectives. Tony (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Belgium's second-ever place"
Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Belgium could not confirm their role as outsider at the European Championship with a quarter-final exit"—I don't get it (I'm not a football person, though).
Very good point. Without more context it is quite normal for outsiders not to reach semi-finals. "Shadow favourites" would be more appropriate than "outsiders" (to me "shadow favourites" expresses somewhat higher expectations), and it will make even more sense when I emphasise that the opponents were to be considered as underdogs. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Apparently the concept of "shadow favourites" only exists in Dutch, oh well. Kareldorado (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "christened"—very christian. If the equivalent word was used, and it's not WP's narrative choice, OK.
This is a synonym another editor introduced. Since most countries with English as first language have a long Christian background, I thought this word might have gained a neutral meaning in English already and did not revert it. Anyway, I can imagine that many readers (especially those with another religious background) find this word looking a bit weird in this context. I will search a neutral alternative instead. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Or those who think religions are manipulative lies. Tony (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I did not forget ourselves. Kareldorado (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Remarkable for a second-language speaker. Tony (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, in fact even third-language speaker, after French. :D Well, your copyediting exercises and the input of native-English-speaking copyeditors surely helped me a lot! Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Nought else to add really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments: I've followed the evolution of this article with great enthusiasm. Karel has done an excellent job. Nonetheless, I still have a critical eye for a few points that I think can be addressed for this FA review prior to supporting the nomination.
  1. The "Nickname and Logo" section in Team Image seems a bit oddly placed. I'd recommend placing it into the "kit" section. I am also a bit confused by the "Logo". The nickname information was already mentioned in the "kit" section.
  2. I recommend separating the "supporters" section outside of the Team Image, as is done in the Scotland national football team and Peru national football team articles.
Those are my two recommendations. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Marshal, once more I thank you for your input. The points you bring up here are constructive ideas, but I cannot totally agree with both, and will explain why. Logically, the distinction should be made between (1) what the players wear, (2) what image is hung up from them (something what is basically done by the media, the RBFA and the players themselves) and (3) the supporters. The image we have from the supporters is not the image from the player group, so I agree to set the supporters apart as distinct chapter. The nickname and logo are loosely and partially related to what the players wear, but none of both are 'part' of the kit. I think there is nothing really confusing in the fact that they have a logo, but therefore it is important to realise that the logo is something different than the badge from the team kit. Also for this reason I want to keep (1) and (2) strictly apart. However, I must agree that there is some unneeded overlap; we do not have to tell 10 times that the nickname Red Devils refers to the traditional red jerseys. Therefore, I will omit this explanation from the Kit sect and preserve it for the Nickname and Logo subsect. I am keen on your feedback once I am finished with it. Kareldorado (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Done. Best regards, Kareldorado (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
And, are you satisfied with the adaptations? Kareldorado (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Courtney Love[edit]

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about musician/actress Courtney Love. Article previously received support but was unfortunately not promoted. It has been a project-in-work for years now, and has reached a level of comprehensiveness and attention to prose that I think warrants FA status. --Drown Soda (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I've skimmed a bit and I'll start a close review soon. I want to make sure it's polished in as many respects as possible and there are no minor issues. That said, on its face this is likely among the very best rock biographies on Wikipedia and I'm sure it should and will pass. One quick point now that I make on any FA: you should preemptively archive all the links in the references with the |archiveurl=, |archivedate= and |deadurl=no parameters, with links from (or if doesn't work, sometimes it backs up things that won't). This will save time and possibly information if any links die in the future; basically all sources should be archived unless it's impossible due to robots.txt or being a pdf. ——BLZ · talk 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't think editors should be wasting their limited time proactively adding archive links. That's an onerous and low value activity that should be performed by an automated script. It should not be tasked for FA candidates. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there a script for it? I think you are right that it's tedious, but all the same I don't think it's low value at all, it's a quite valuable safety measure for references. Featured articles are subject just like any others to the erosion of years and years of bizarre, senseless edits that degrade the quality of the article and may not all get caught. Leaving archived links assures the continued stability and reliability of an article. You would be surprised how often doesn't have a page you need on record, and you don't want to wait to check until it's too late. Ideally, featured articles should be at a level that don't need a review (other than adding new info) or delisting in 5, 10, 20, 30 years, and to me archiving links is a solution to one of the most foreseeable and easily resolved potential problems. —BLZ · talk 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes I have seen a bot that does that. No, I don't believe it has any business being part of the FAC review process. Doing this would make no difference in satisfying the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: I've reviewed this article a couple of times now, and it still seems to be in good condition. I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I am concerned about the use of "Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon -- The Case Against Celebrity" by Andrew Breitbart and Mark C. Ebner. This seems like over citing to use a book from these authors to make a claim of fact and unnecessary as there are two additional reliable sources. Mostly I am concerned with the whole mention as written per WP:BLPCRIME. The subject in question is not well known and the article on him was deleted as not meeting Wikipedia standards for notability and this particular piece was center in that discussion as well I believe. If the content remains, I believe it needs a good edit to comply with our policies on Biographies of Living Persons. At the very least...there is no balance, no mention of her father's reaction to the claim made by Courtney's mother.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Which mention/citation are you referring to, as there are numerous citations from that book? Are you referring to the mention of her father's alleged providing of her with LSD? --Drown Soda (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The claim made by Courtney's mother against her father when she took custody.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bicycle kick[edit]

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 Talk 20:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Association football's notable acrobatic move, the bicycle kick. A prior FAC did not receive enough support. The improvements made since this FAC have clarified (and condensed) the move's history, nicely integrated the origin dispute into the popular culture section, and also made better use of the images. This article is ready for a FAC promotion; of course, any further feedback to suit any of your specific FAC requirements would be welcome and I have a growing track record (see my past FAC nominations on Peru national football team, Falkland Islands, and Pisco sour) in making sure that articles are of the highest standard for Wikipedia, its contributors and readers. Thank you!--MarshalN20 Talk 20:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A few comments[edit]

I'm not a football aficionado, but I glanced through this – it looks like a well-prepared and well-presented article. I have a few suggestions:

  • Please add date details to image captions, mostly missing at present. These would be very helpful to readers.
  • I think the "Origin controversy" section is oddly placed at the end of the article, and is also somewhat overdetailed. In my view the disputed origins of the kick would be better dealt with in a couple of crisp sentences at the start of the "History" section.
  • I'd consider renaming the "In popular culture" section; there's very little "popular" culture here (football culture, certainly), and popular culture sections are in my experience somewhat frowned on at FAC. Apart from a bit of trivia concerning TV adds, which I'd advise you drop, the section mainly summarises the iconic status of the bicycle kick in football, and perhaps a title such as "Iconic status" might be suitable?

I hope you get some decent comments from the football experts, and wish the article well. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Brian! I am currently suffocating on work, mostly checking a few papers from my students. I'll reply again sometime during the weekend. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Brianboulton:. Hi! Thanks again for the review, Brian. Sorry for the delay; all of your points should now be addressed. "Iconic status" does seem like an appropriate title; although it can certainly be changed later if a better subtitle comes up. I left in the TV ad as it is meant to reflect a connection with the popular video game franchise. Ads for association football do tend to highlight this particular skill, so this bit of information is also a nod to them. Please do let me know if you have any further improvement ideas. Sincerely.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: It's well written and seems to provide a thorough coverage of the topic. There look to be enough citations and they are in a proper format. I'd say it satisfies the FA criteria, so I'm lending my support. Nice work. Praemonitus (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--MarshalN20 Talk 16:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the first season of HBO's True Detective, the anthology crime drama created by Nic Pizzolatto and starring Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their seventeen year pursuit of a serial killer, during which they must recount the histories of several unsolved cases related to said perpetrator. In 2015 this article became a GA, but has unfortunately failed each FA candidacy (which numbers to four as we speak, woah), each due to the minimal attention it received. I've worked on this article on and off over the past year, and thanks to several copyedits and peer review feedback from the likes of @Aoba47:, I believe it satisfies all aspects of the FA criteria. Will the fifth time be the one? I hope so! Cheers. DAP 💅 5:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Comments by Brandt Luke Zorn[edit]

  • Comment I'm going to start looking over this shortly. Big fan of this show... Er, this season that is. (There was so much promise in the idea of True Detective-goes-Chinatown, how could it have gone so wrong?) —BLZ · talk 20:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Between this source, this source, and this article linked in that second source, I'm not really clear on the development timeline. It seems as though Pizzolatto wrote about two episodes; then (from the first source) signed the "blind" development deal with HBO (where they, according to Pizzolatto in the first source, seemed to secure the exclusive rights to run the show or not); then worked with Anonymous Content to get Fukunaga, McConaughey, and Harrelson on-board while he finished the full season's script; then, according to the second and third source, entered a bidding period with cable networks competing to run the show, and HBO won. First, I don't think this whole process is summed up adequately in the article. But second, there seems to be tension between the "blind" development deal, with the apparent exclusivity HBO gained at that stage, and the open bidding process. Do you know more from other sources that might reconcile the contradiction? It's possible Pizzolatto mischaracterized the nature or timing of his agreement with HBO in the interview but it seems he knew what he was talking about. Also lost is the role of Anonymous Content, which in the current draft merely "supported" Pizzolatto as he wrote the script for the second episode, but which according to the second source actually managed Pizzolatto, developed the series in-house, and produced it for HBO.
In regards to the contradiction, unfortunately nothing significant turns up. Perhaps the closest I've encounter being a Pizzolatto interview with Wellesley Cinema of New Zealand, in which the interview asks about his "unusual" deal with HBO, but Pizzolatto doesn't really clarify beyond what he has said to the media in prior interviews. The sources already cited in the article are the same and even a comprehensive spread in Vanity Fair from last season not cited here yields nothing. Perhaps he's only being vague and stating what is necessary of his agreement with HBO to the media rather than a mischaracterization, but ultimately it looks like there isn't much that can be done about the issue regardless.
  • Somewhere, maybe once in the lead and once in the body, there should be a quick explanation of what an anthology show is. The format and term are becoming more common but it should be clear to someone who doesn't follow TV at all that this is a show where each season is its own self-contained, unrelated story.
  • Be sure to tether every statement to a source. I had to go fishing to find the source for the sentence about Petrochemical America as an inspiration for the opening sequence. Unless a paragraph is derived from a single source, every sentence should be individually sourced, and certainly anything with a quote (which also should be attributed in-text as much as possible — both writer and publication, or to whomever is being interviewed.)
  • Kudos for archive-linking all the sources!
It was a bitch archiving all of those links, but most definitely well paid off in the end!
  • Might just be me but I feel like the grid arrangement used here is better than the one used in the article. We can see the final product and intermediate stages at an equal size with the first frame, rather than the first frame dominating the arrangement.
I actually agree now that you've mentioned it. I've updated the file (twice in fact, because I thought I messed up the first attempt 😂), let me know what you think.
  • I was surprised to not see any mention of the famous extended shot from the end of the fourth episode.
This is something I've been going back and forth about and think a summation of that scene is better suited in its episode's article rather than the season article. But perhaps dedicating one or two sentences, or a minor paragraph wouldn't hurt as it is most obviously a significant event in the show's history.
I think filming might be a good place to mention it. Reception to that scene or in-depth consideration that would require a paragraph is probably unnecessary and, I agree, better suited to the episode article. Within the season article, I think it would work within the filming section as a (maybe the) characteristic example that speaks to the stylistic ambition of the show as a whole. —BLZ · talk 20:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a whole book of essays on True Detective season one that goes uncited here. The back cover alone features praise for the series from philosophers Eugene Thacker, Nick Land (imo a total creep), and Simon Critchley. I'm not sure how much within the book is essential to improve the article to featured level. I haven't read it all. However, I can recommend the one essay I have read, "'True Dick'...The Accelerated Acceptance and Premature Canonisation of True Detective", which talks about the nature of the show's critical reception, the "spectacle of hyperbole" and hype, internal contradictions in the show's philosophical attitude, and yes, the McConaissance. I think the remaining essays may have some use unpacking the philosophical themes, but surely not all of them need inclusion. I'll leave it to you to determine which are worth synthesizing into the themes/critical perspectives already discussed: religion, pessimism, feminism.
I believe I've seen Nick Laud's reading of the show and was at one point mentioned in the article, but was removed. I'll have to take a look at that book, as I'd like to balance the amount of pop culture sources with academic sources.
  • Sorry to see the scant feedback in all the prior nominations, that's quite surprising considering the high profile of the show. I've also made minor edits to the article myself — let me know if you don't agree with any of my changes. —BLZ · talk 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn: You're edits are appreciated. The prose even looks more polished than it did prior! Many thanks for your time and input, let me know if there's anything else I can clarify or revise in the article. Cheers! DAP 💅 5:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at this again, I think it's very very very close to FA quality. But, for the time being I have to withhold support until the following are met:
  • 1) I think the development timeline needs slight expansion and clarification within the article. I think you're right that the nature of the initial HBO deal and the subsequent bidding process is probably irressolvable from the sources, but either way some things, e.g. the role of the production company, need better explanation.
  • 2) There should be expansion of the themes/analysis section and incorporation of True Detection as a source. With a whole book of high-quality critical text absent, I don't think the article quite meets the standard for comprehensiveness. Each of the big-idea thematic topics likely merits a subsection of its own rather than merely a paragraph.
  • 3) Another principle subject of discussion among critics that seems to be missing: the unusual, perhaps singular auteur-ness of True Detective, given its sole writer and sole director. This is a topic suited to more-complete explanation on the main article for True Detective, especially since some commentary on the topic is about how both the strengths of the first season and the pitfalls of the second both seem to spring from the reliance on Pizzolatto as the sole writer. However, I think some of this should be woven into this article to convey to the reader just how unusual and surprising the process was within the industry. There's a hint of that in here already, but I think there's a bit more presently left unsaid.
  • I want to emphasize again how close the article is. I think overall it's clear you've invested considerable effort into crafting this, and the quality of that effort is plain to see. Note that my only reasons to not support right now are for what is not there but should be (and really #2 is bigger than #1 and #3 are); I have no bones to pick whatsoever with what is already there, which is thoughtful, polished work. I really want to support! And I won't oppose, in the sense of calling for the nomination to end, because I think the work needed to expand it to a level of satisfactory comprehensiveness is within reach in the time period of this nomination. If those three things are met I will feel confident in supporting. —BLZ · talk 20:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn: Shucks, I'm just ecstatic to know that this article nearly satisfies the criteria! My copy of True Detection should be delivered within the next two or three days. In the meantime, I've taken the liberty to tackle your other concerns expand the production section and hopefully adequately clarified the development timeline, divided the themes section in anticipation for the essays and added a new section regarding the show's auteurist sensibility. Let me know what you think. DAP 💅 7:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow quick work, well done! Message me when you've got True Detection and I'll give it a final look. ——BLZ · talk 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn:, sincerest apologies on not responding in a timely fashion first and foremost. I had a busy week at my work/university and this was only exacerbated by the book being shipped 3 days late. But no matter, I've finally received the book earlier today. I've added about four of the twelve essays in the book and plan on either adding additional essays or perhaps expand a tad bit upon the existing material I've sourced from True Detection. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 1:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn: any further comments? DAP 💅 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2[edit]

@DAP388: Hello, I'm not too familiar with the project of television series, but I'll try to provide you feedback since it looks well written and sourced:

In the episodes section, Original air date remains unsourced. I'm pretty sure the "U.S. viewers (millions)" has the dates so could you source it?
This is actually basic convention for tv articles of this variety. The templates I used for this page, Parks and Recreation (season 1) and Supernatural (season 1), are both featured articles and even they are structured in a similar way. I think that's with good reason, too. Sourcing everything in the table is trivial, would make for a sloppy presentation and distract readers from the article.
Same with the directors and writers? Is there a way to source it?
See above.
What's with the lines in the episodes' summaries? Are the episodes too long or do they change between timelines like Lost? The last episode's summary looks quite longer in comparison.
There are multiple timelines in the show's plot, primarily: 1995, 2002, and 2012. In the episodes the timelines cut back and forth between scenes. Each of the split sections in the episode summaries begins with the year, so I think it should be clear. The last two episodes are the only ones that take place within a single period; the last summary is not dramatically longer than the one for episode 5, it just looks bigger because it's a single paragraph. I think this part was handled quite well. —BLZ · talk 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
What Brandt said.
The cast section is unsourced. Maybe the DVDs or sites like IGN have them?
Again, basic convention.
The second paragraph of conception is quite small. I would recommend to merge it with the first one or third one.
Lastly, have there been news about sales of "Home media release"? This one is not necessary though. I'm just curious.
There is, actually. Added!
@Tintor2:, appreciate your input and time. Let me know if there are other concerns that need to be addressed. I'll also make sure to provide a review and comment on your FAC by next week, either Tuesday or Wednesday. Cheers! DAP 💅 5:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, good work @DAP388:. I'll give you my support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Aoba47[edit]

Support per my peer review. I could not find any issue that has not already been covered by the above comments. I'm glad to see that this is getting a lot of attention through comprehensive comments as I can tell a lot of work and time has been put into this article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you so much for the comment and support. Cheers! DAP 💅 7:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cirt: @P. S. Burton: @Jfhutson: Pinging all users that have participated in prior FA reviews. DAP 💅 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Viking metal[edit]

Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Viking metal, a style of heavy metal music based primarily on lyrical themes of the Vikings, the Viking age, and Norse paganism. I first started working on this article back in 2011, and, over time, became fascinated with the subject, came to enjoy the style of music, and delved into the scholarly research about Viking metal. My own interest and research seems to have paralleled with that of academia: Prior to 2010, far fewer sources discussion Viking metal existed, so the past six years have seen a sizeable increase in academic interest in the subject. Over the course of the past five years, myself and other editors have vastly improved this article. There was an conflict two years ago over the definitions and origins of Viking metal between myself and an anonymous editor, but we were able to arrive at a compromise that best summarized the existing literature. The article has subsequently become a good article and has undergone peer review. It adheres to basic policy regarding BLPs and copy-righted material. It adequately summarizes the topic, and covers all key aspects with the needed detail. It follows a consistent layout and reference style. I believe that this article is ready to be a featured article candidate.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

  • Can you replace during with "emerged in the early 1990s" in the lead
  • Once the band is introduced in the article's body, there's no need to repeat the description such as in "the band Bathory incorporated a diverse range"
  • Also Deena Weinstein should be just Weinstein in the third paragraph of "Thematic and lyrical focus"
  • There are some other minor c/e suggestions of mine, such as replacing symbolism with symbols and visual media with visuals (from the same section), but it's optional.
  • Can we have the name of Allmusic's reviewers who reviewed Enslaved's Eld?
  • I'm not 100% sure about this one, but isn't it "longing for return to paganism" (from "Burzum")
Support All in all, a great read. I wasn't aware there was material for an article like this to be promoted to FA.--Retrohead (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I've made those changes. I hope to eventually get the black metal, folk metal, and pagan metal articles up to the quality of this one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Cotton-top tamarin[edit]

Nominator(s): -- samtar talk or stalk 09:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Saguinus oedipus, one of the smallest primates and commonly found in tropical forest edges in northwestern Colombia. I believe it should be featured as it is well written and does indeed exemplify Wikipedia's best work. I believe it meets the requirements of becoming a featured article. -- samtar talk or stalk 09:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, a question; did you contribute in the writing of the article? Zad68 seems to have nominated it for GA, will he participate? From the FAC instructions: "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." FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Thank you for the question - no I have not contributed to the article, though I am familar with the subject matter. I've left a message on Zad's talk regarding the FA, though opted to nominate due to the inactivity of a number of main contributors - I hope this is not too much of an issue? -- samtar talk or stalk 10:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Preferably, you should have waited until Zad responded, but if you have acces to the sources and are familiar with them, it should be possible to follow through. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The World Before the Flood[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It's fair to say that The World Before the Flood divides opinion. Dismissed by John Constable as "a revel rout of Satyrs and lady bums as usual" and condemned in the press for obscenity, it also drew great praise in some quarters, and was the subject of a ludicrously effusive poem by John Taylor. Having spent the last century on display in Southampton, which is something of an artistic backwater, it's not particularly well known, but it's an interesting aside in the story of English religious art. ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sagaciousphil[edit]

The article uses the same reliable quality sources as those used in previous Featured Articles in the series. I added a couple of archive URLs and removed a dead URL from another ref that there wasn't an archive available for.


  • Both paragraphs start "The World before the Flood ..."; could the second para perhaps be re-jigged slightly?
  • Second paragraph: "...Archangel Michael, Michael ..."; can the immediate repetition be avoided?


  • Second paragraph: "The Athanaeum considered it ..." followed by the next sentence "Colburn's New Monthly Magazine considered it ..." replace one of the "considered it"?


  • Final paragraph: It states paintings remain at York Gallery and Southampton Gallery "as at 2015" - should this be "as at 2016" as they seem to still be held there?

These are all just very minor nit picks in another very interesting article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

All fixed. Realistically neither painting will ever go anywhere—austerity has come to an end, so the risk of local authorities having to sell off their art holdings to make ends meet has dropped considerably, but someone will no doubt complain if it doesn't include a couple of {{asof}}s. ‑ Iridescent 15:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Support - thanks for tweaking so quickly. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Great to see this here, reading through now... CassiantoTalk 17:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • "William Etty was born in 1787, the son of a York baker and miller. He began as an apprentice printer in Hull" -- Etty or his father?
  • Expanded a bit on this—I try to keep this background bit as short as possible, as I'm aware that someone reading through this series is having to read essentially the same story a dozen times. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And indeed you should. But the clarification you've made seems good enough without being too detailed. CassiantoTalk 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "with a few pieces of chalk crayons" -- who said this? Unattributed quotes, I find, are always unhelpful.
  • Alexander Gilchrist—the reference seems to have been lost somewhere along the line, re-added. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • On reflection, I've removed that "chalk crayons" bit altogether. It doesn't add anything, and it means this article avoids the use of Gilchrist's hagiography altogether. ‑ Iridescent 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Etty was the first British artist to specialise in the nude" -- At all other times he was fully clothed?
  • This was raised at the Dawn of Love FAC as well—I don't think any reasonable reader can misinterpret it in context given that it follows "Etty tried to replicate its success by painting nude figures", and mangled phrasing like "specialise in artwork primarily featuring people in a state of nudity" just makes it harder to read.
  • "Following the exhibition of Cleopatra..." -- Should the shortening of The Arrival of Cleopatra in Cilicia receive itals? If the painting was known as simply "Cleopatra" this should also feature in the parenthesis, no?
  • Paintings at this time didn't have titles, which were a Pre-Raphaelite invention in the late 1840s. There is no "right" and "wrong" title for Cleopatra, just various names by which it was known. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The painting shows the stages of courtship as described by Milton" -- New para, new full title. I've noticed you've done the same elsewhere.
  • I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here; if it's that each time it's mentioned for the first time in a paragraph The World Before the Flood needs to be written out in full, I'd strongly disagree with that. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, that is not what I meant; for instance: "The World Before the Flood is strongly influenced by A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Statue of Pan (1632–33) by Nicolas Poussin" speaks of two paintings, this one, and A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Statue of Pan. The next para then starts with: "The painting...".
  • Ah, I'm with you. I've changed the second occurrence to "Etty's painting", to avoid having two successive paragraphs start with "The World Before the Flood"
  • "grave" -- what do the quote marks add to this?
  • To indicate that I'm using this archaic terminology because it's the term used by Milton, and that it's not in Wikipedia's voice. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "As Milton considers" or something similar then. As I've said elsewhere, unattributed quotes are most unhelpful. CassiantoTalk 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • On reflection, I've removed that altogether, as we already have Milton's text running alongside here so it's superfluous. ‑ Iridescent 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Up to here, more to come... CassiantoTalk 18:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

  • I guess I'll add my voice asking for a slight rewording of " Etty was the first British artist to specialise in the nude". The issue is unintended humor.
  • How about "the first British artist to specialise in paintings of nudes"? ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "and the reaction of uneducated audiences to these paintings caused concern throughout the 19th century.": I have a slight preference for "and these paintings caused concern throughout the 19th century." Most readers will get what you're saying, but some won't, and a misreading would be unfortunate.
  • The issue was specifically concerns about the reactions of the uneducated lower classes to paintings on public display—Artists and connoisseurs were generally trusted to approach images of the undraped figure with contemplative composure but audiences uneducated in the intricacies of art criticism tended to be regarded with suspicion if you want chapter-and-verse. (The definition of "obscenity" in English law is based on whether it has the potential to corrupt its audience, rather than on what's depicted; up until 1959 the social class of potential audiences was taken into account when deciding whether something was appropriate for distribution.) Realistically, someone demanding a citation for "the English assume that anyone from a different background to themselves isn't to be trusted" is right up there with this guy. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "[35]),[36]", "[35]),[27]": Reference formats aren't my thing, so I won't comment other than to say I don't usually see them written this way.
  • The MOS editors seem to change the preferred placement of citations more often than they change their underwear, but I think that's the current approved format when one citation supports the comment in parentheses, and the other supports the surrounding statement. Moving the [36] and [27] to the immediate end of the statement they support rather than after the first succeeding punctuation mark will mean a footnote appearing before punctuation, which I'm given to understand means the world coming to an end. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I have read through the article and found very few issues. All the content is nicely referenced but I'm afraid I have not checked any of the sources themselves.

  • Composition:
    • The text refers to "early versions" and the caption to "preparatory sketches", but I only noticed a mention of the study at York. Checking again from the top, I see "worked through various configurations for the characters in the painting before settling on his final design" earlier in the Subject section. I would like to see a sentence or two about what other studies are extant or mentioned in sources (Burnage 2011b or whatever). For example, were they drawings or paintings of individual characters or groups, or other sketches of the whole composition? Do we have any idea how long he worked on it?
Other than the two versions shown here there's nothing to say about any of them; literally all that has been written about the preparatory sketches is pencil 8910×715, on folded envelope, small sketches for this composition. Regarding how long it took to paint, there's no way of knowing as he didn't keep notes and was so pathologically shy we don't have any accounts from visitors to his studio of what he was working on. His paintings usually took three days to complete once he got started on the final version (one day inking outlines, one day painting, one day glazing and overpainting) but for his showpiece paintings could take anything up to a couple of years. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. How about changing "In early versions the right-most..." to "In the study and other preparatory sketches, the right-most..."? I think that would prevent the "what other versions?" question. --Mirokado (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I've amended it to "In Etty's oil sketch and in preliminary drawings the right-most…" which ought to address it. ‑ Iridescent 14:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reception:
    • Please check my copyedit to The Athenaeum link
Yes, you're right—that one slipped through. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Support (assuming sensible responses to the above!) --Mirokado (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No further issues from my point of view. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

As with the above review, my comments are mainly in the way of small quibbles:

  • Lead: I'd delete "which greatly pleased Etty", not that I doubt he was pleased, but the observation doesn't seem leadworthy.
  • Removed from the lead, although I think it should remain in the body text; there is some significance to the fact that it was bought by a member of the aristocracy and not northern new-money (who at the time were the main market for experimental art, as they didn't have the public-school background and expectations of what Great Art was supposed to look like). ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Background:
  • The words "in painting" in the second para seem unnecessary.
  • Agreed—per my comment to Cassianto above, I try to vary this "background bio" part slightly on each article in the awareness that someone working through this series is going to read what's essentially the same story 14 times, so glitches slip in. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Again a small quibble, but the words "nude" or "nudity" appear six times in the final paragraph, and I feel that a reduction by a couple would help the prose – for example "distribution of such material"; "portraits of unclothed males" (just suggestions).
  • Does that work? Nude is a specific term of art for this type of painting, so I can't really get rid of it any further. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Subject:
  • "Among the visions of the future the Archangel Michael shows to Adam, Michael shows Adam the world after..." Some awkward repetition in that construction. Suggest: "Among the visions of the future the Archangel Michael shows to Adam is the world after..."
  • Yes, that works. This paragraph is tricky, as Adam's vision in Paradise Lost is of events which are in our past but in his future. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure from Genesis 6 that it was the taking of wives that so excited the wrath of God against man that he decided to destroy his creation. After all, there had been rather a lot of wife-taking in the previous chapter, which recounts the ten generations from Adam to Noah. Rather, it seems, successive generations became over-mighty and corrupt, so that "every imagination of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil continually", and God decided to wipe them out. (Gen. 6:4–7)
  • I don't know—looking at Genesis 6, it does seem fairly explicit that the sequence of events is "taking wives", "bearing children", "wickedness of man is great", "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth". Our own Genesis flood narrative article seems to concur with this (while I'm normally leery about taking Wikipedia articles seriously, I'd assume the key Christianity articles accurately reflect current thinking as there are so many people who'd jump on any mistake.) ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Composition:
  • Is it really accurate to say, in the caption, that Etty "reused" the figure of the seated black soldier or, in the text, that this figure had "previously appeared" in the earlier painting? The figures have similarities, but there are distinct differences in posture; one is seated, the other kneeling or possibly climbing aboard the barge.
  • Farr (writing in the 1950s) describes him as "one of the negro warriors first seen in the Cleopatra"; for (I hope) obvious reason this is a case where I don't consider it appropriate to use the original wording. If you consider it problematic it can be removed, as it's tangential at best
  • You say that Etty did not give the picture a title. Can you say who gave it the title "The World Before the Flood", and when? (If I overlooked this information in the article, I'm sorry)
  • I've done some digging in the full catalogue, and there's no date given for the first use of The World Before the Flood as a title. Looking through catalogues for the exhibitions at which it was shown, the earliest reference I can find to this name is at the 1862 International Exhibition; I've added a note to this effect (and broken my longstanding dislike of inserting Google Books links, as this is one case where I can imagine people wanting to check for themselves). ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reception: No issues
  • Legacy
  • The quoted letter does not form part of "legacy", and I am uncertain whether that is indeed the best title for this section, as there is little in it that might be described as the legacy of this work. I don't gather that the painting had any lasting influence on later painters, which is generally what the word "legacy" implies. What this section really is is the painting's "later history"; whether that's a sexy enough title, I don't know.
  • Yes, that's fine—I tend to use "Legacy" as a default section heading for the "what happened afterwards" final section of articles, but I have no attachment to the term. Changed. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible, perhaps by way of a footnote, to indicate the likely present value of the painting, which I'm sure would make an interesting comparison with the lowly figures quoted in the final paragraph?
  • Not easily, Etty's figure studies come up for sale fairly frequently (generally at around £5000–£10,000 apiece), but almost all his history paintings are in the hands of public institutions so comparable works rarely come on the market. Flipping through auction sites, the most comparable piece I can find which has recently changed hands is A Bacchanalian Revel, which sold for £37,250 in 2009; were this to come on the market it could go for anything from £10,000 to £200,000 depending on who was bidding. Victorian art prices are notoriously volatile (it's not that long since Flaming June changed hands for £50), and tend to reflect whatever the last exhibition at the Tate happened to be, and whether it's a piece Andrew Lloyd Webber needs to fill in a gap in his collection—I'd be quite reluctant to put a price on it in Wikipedia's voice. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

An excellent short piece. I look forward to your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Support: Happy with all responses, no further adjustments needed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks—sorry for the delay in replying ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

I think we just need the image licensing checked now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Etty - The World Before the Flood (Southampton).jpg: Image the article is about, putting it in the lead section is clearly OK. Copyright-wise, the painter William Etty has been dead for more than 100 years and thus his works are out of copyright (seems like {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} would also apply but that's just a formality). Our policy is that we consider faithful reproductions of a out-of-copyright 2D work as out of copyright as well, so the license is correct.
  • File:Hill & Adamson – William Etty at easel.jpg: Image of the painter, seems pertinent in the section on the background of the image. Source link is pointing to the image directly rather than a file description page, which makes it harder to trace back the information. Copyright wise Hill & Adamson died long enough ago that their works are out of copyright.
  • File:Etty Cleopatra.jpg: Another painting by Etty, it's discussed in the section that the image appears in. Same copyright considerations as the lead image, perhaps without the 1923 aspect as it may have been unpublished. Also, a word is missing after the "to" in "1922: transferred to from Lord Leverhulme's private collection".
  • File:Etty - The World Before the Flood (York).jpg and File:Etty - The World Before the Flood (Southampton).jpg: Image part of a gallery that illustrates how it was created. Caption based on article text. Same copyright considerations as for the Cleopatra image.
  • File:Nicolas Poussin - Bacchanal before a Statue of Pan - WGA18284.jpg: Image of a painting of a painter that apparently inspired Etty to his painting. This painter lived in the 17th century so same copyright considerations apply as the Cleopatra image. Image is discussed in a different section, seems like.

I've capitalized some of the ALT text (also Large number of semi-naked people for some reason makes me laugh). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

For UK artworks, "publication date" is irrelevant unless the creator is anonymous; as long as the creator is known (which is the case for every image here), copyright expires 70 years after their death. The most recent creator of any image used in this article was David Octavius Hill who died in 1870. All these images are well and truly in the public domain. ‑ Iridescent 17:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. I was specifying that the PD-US-1923-abroad statement would not apply however, but it doesn't make any difference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • You might mention that the Poussin was bought by the NG in March 1826, 2 years before the Etty was exhibited. Before that it was chez a banker in Cavendish Sq, but was copied by Henry Bone in 1819 and exhibited in the British Institution in 1816 (per: Wine, Humphrey, National Gallery Catalogues (new series): The Seventeenth Century French Paintings, 2001, National Gallery Publications Ltd, ISBN 185709283X).
  • I don't have the source to check; was it definitely bought by the NG? AFAIK in the 1820s the collection consisted only of John Julius Angerstein's collection, plus some paintings which had been donated by George Beaumont. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
See their basic web page. Johnbod (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to have more emphasis on the unusualness of a Christian Bacchanal, sources permitting.
  • It would be quite tricky to source without crossing the Original Research line (although one could say something like "artists such as Titian, Poussin and Rubens had previously painted Bacchanals but all were based on scenes from Ancient Greek religion, not on Biblical themes" and allow the reader to put two and two together). ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "The World Before the Flood was bought at its 1828 exhibition by The Marquess of Stafford for 500 guineas (about £39,000 in 2016 terms[36]),[37] to add to his private collection of nudes by Titian." - the implication of the wording seems a little unfair to his lordship, who went to considerable trouble to allow public access to his collection, which had many other subjects and artists.
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from the Bounder[edit]


  • You mention "Milton" without first name, link or connection to Paradise Lost (or the painting), so it might be worth making the connection and full name/linking him.


  • Is it worth clarifying that The Hull Packet is a newspaper? (I had to have a quick search to answer the question the name raised)
  • Added "local newspaper" ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The sentence "flesh tones accurately, and for his fascination with contrasts in skin tones" feels like it's slightly repetitive and could perhaps be re-worked a little?
  • I can't see an obvious way around it, as they're two different elements. That he explicitly tried to use models of different skin colours in his works is directly relevant, as one of the criticisms of this painting at this time was that it showed an ethnically mixed group rather than traditionally pale English women, while "well respected for his ability to capture flesh tones accurately" implicitly shows that this ethnic mix was intentional on his part and not just that he used a darker shade of paint than intended. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Would "Following the exhibition of Cleopatra, over the next decade" be better reversed to read "Over the decade following the exhibition of Cleopatra"?
  • I'm neutral either way as the meaning is identical—swapped it for "In the decade following the exhibition of Cleopatra Etty tried to replicate its success". ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


  • Two points on A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Statue of Pan:
    • Firstly, I'm not sure on the naming of artworks, which can be a complicated area, but the National Gallery (who hold the piece) call it A Bacchanalian Revel before a Term.
      • Artworks in this period were rarely given titles, so the name under which they're exhibited nowadays is generally at the whim of the curator. When mentioning artworks I generally try to use the name by which it's referred elsewhere on Wikipedia to avoid confusion (and realistically, whatever the National Gallery may think 99.9% of readers are not going to know what Term (architecture) means and think that "before a term" means they're a group of students celebrating the start of the academic year). I've compromised on A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Term of Pan, which is a valid translation of "Bacchanale devant une statue de Pan", has been used in at least one academic source so isn't pure original research, and is nearer to the title the NG currently use but hopefully less confusing. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Secondly, is it possible to raise the image up from the subsequent section to have the image sitting alongside the reference to it? Either that, or it could sit next to The Triumph of Cleopatra (as you have with the preliminary sketch and final version, below?)
      • No; in my view it's more important that Cleopatra be in this spot as it's more directly relevant to this particular work. Using {{multiple image}} is very much a last resort when two images need to be forced to display side-by-side (as in the case of the preliminary sketch and the finished work here); not only does it force an image width regardless of the reader's thumbnail size preference, but it breaks should any of the constituent images be resized on Commons. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


  • A. Should well respected be hyphenated (I have no idea on this, but it feels like it should be)
  • There's no hard-and-fast rule on hyphenation in this case. Since the noun follows the adjective, it's not incorrect to use a hyphen, so in the absence of any reason not to I've added one. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • F. "As of 1844" feels very wrong: surely "In 1844" or "By 1844"? ("As of" looks like it should be followed by a current date, rather than something historical)
  • No, "as of" is the standard Wikipedia phrasing for "we know it was there at such-and-such a date but don't know how long before that". ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? The guideline (and I know it's only a guideline) at WP:ASOF says: "Usually "as of" is used only in cases where an article is intended to provide the most current information available, and will need updating in the future. It should not be used for historical information that will not change." All the use I've seen on Wikipedia (and in more general reading) would think "As of 1844" to be in error if not written in or soon after 1844. – The Bounder (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd still consider "as of" appropriate in this particular instance, but reworded "By 1844 at the latest" which should be non-controversial. What I don't want is the give the impression that there's any significance to the 1844 date other than that's when it was catalogued—there are almost certainly sources knocking about somewhere that prove it was on display earlier than that. ‑ Iridescent 15:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

References & bibliography

  • A couple of the references and bibliographic sources show pages in the xxx–xx format, while others are in xxx–xxx format.
  • That's an artefact of the mandated referencing style changing midway through the writing of this. I think I've caught them all now. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

All very interesting, and I thank you for such an illuminating article: I hope these comments are of some use. – The Bounder (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Taylor Swift[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC) and IndianBio

This article is about Taylor Swift, one of the most popular celebrities on Earth, a very unique songwriter (who only writers about her exes) and a not-so good singer. In 2012 the article became a GA but was delisted last year due to length and prose issues. I trimmed it down significantly (with the help of co-nommer) and also gave it a little bit of expansion - about 18k bytes. It underwent a highly profitable peer review with a thorough review from Wehwalt. I leave it up to you reviewers to decide whether or not it is ready for the bronze star. Cheers – FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Support per my peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Image review
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • All images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed. The only one that worries me is this one, which has personality rights warning, although it appears to be free for public use.
  • Regarding the captions, can you modify some of them to read more unifying? Some suggestions bellow:
Pictured in Los Angeles during the Fearless Tour in 2010→Swift performing in Los Angeles during the Fearless Tour in 2010
link the Speak Now World Tour in 2012
Swift's 1989 World Tour grossed $250 million, becoming one of the highest grossing tours of all time→Swift at The 1989 World Tour, which grossed $250 million and became one of the highest grossing tours of all time
Swift in 2009→Swift at the 2009 Cavendish Beach Music Festival in Prince Edward Island, Canada
  • Notifying that I made suggestion on the prose during the peer review, and all of them were resolved.--Retrohead (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Have acted on on your suggestions. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Another thing not related to the images. Please check the external links in the box on the upper right. You'll find some references in green indicating some links need to be updated. The ones in red are dead and need to be replaced. This was probably going to be mentioned in the source review, but it is better to be fixed now.--Retrohead (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirects are very common to occur; one particular source titled "You Belong With Me" was updated not long ago and yet again it needs fixing. I tried to 'fix' those anyway with checklinks, but it's not seem to work. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Not the redirects, I'm talking about the urls of the references. For example, ref 7 has changed its url and I've updated it. You need to update the remaining links that appear in green and red. Once updated, the software will not remove them from the list.--Retrohead (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Retrohead: I am also talking about the sources - sources redirect. I tried to fix most of them, but many of them are still appearing in green. Redirects are common. Don't think they need to be changed, unless the link dies. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, the links seem fine now. Good luck with the rest of the comments.--Retrohead (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Surprised at how few reviews there are, but I guess most Wikipedians were brought up on Frank Sinatra. Anyhow, some points, not requiring action:

  • Is one episode of CSI worth mentioning in the lead?
  • My favourite line in the article is "Swift was also honored by the Association with a special Pinnacle Award for "unique" levels of success, becoming the second recipient after Garth Brooks"
  • "Trenchfoot" is actually two words, but the quote matches the source. Meh.

Well done! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. - FrB.TG (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

I was pinged on my talk and am happy that I came: excellent reading, meticulously referenced, - I'd even think sometimes too much, - if there are two good sources I'd let go of a third. I found nothing wrong with the prose, no wonder after a peer review by Wehwalt. All these accolades are almost a bit boring, but what can she do if she gets so many ;) - I didn't know what "self-titled album" means, but that's probably just my lack of English. Image captions: Perhaps make them consistently full sentences or not, the former closed by a full stop, the others not. I like the image placement a lot! (You have probably no idea how rarely I say that.)

One minor issue: I'd have Influences first, then Musical style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, thanks so much for taking a look at the article - I'm glad that you enjoyed reading it. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moisejp A very nice read. I made a number of minor edits just now, mostly for punctuation consistency issues. Here are just a few remaining comments I have:

  • "Teardrops on My Guitar" became a minor pop hit, reaching number thirteen on the Billboard Hot 100: At what point does a hit cease to be a minor hit and become a medium hit? Perhaps consider removing "a minor hit" and let the chart position speak for itself?
Replaced with moderate commercial success, hopefully better? – FrB.TG (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "I Knew You Were Trouble" was a commercial success,[107]peaking at number two in the United States: This may imply that none of the album's other singles had a degree of commercial success, but (according to Taylor Swift discography) "Red" was a top-10 hit, and two of the other singles were top-40.
  • Subsequent singles included "Blank Space" and "Bad Blood" (featuring Kendrick Lamar), which reached number one in the United States, "Style" and "Wildest Dreams" which peaked in the top ten of the Billboard Hot 100, and "Out of the Woods" and "New Romantics": Possibly find a way to rewrite this? It may not be clear whether only "Bad Blood" reached number one, and only "Wildest Dreams" was top 10. Also, there are a lot of instances of "and" in the sentence.
It's more clear now but the occurrence of and is still frequent. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The Guardian has praised Swift for writing about teenage "with a kind of wistful, sepia-toned nostalgia" over the course of her first two albums: Should this be "writing about teenagers"? Or something like "writing about teenage years"?

That's all. I'm pretty much ready to support once you address these. Moisejp (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Moisejp, thanks much for the suggestions - followed each of them. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It all looks good. I did a further tweak of the sentence about 1989's singles. I'm happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Source review
  • Fn 7: there's no publication date, only a retrieval date, which is one year earlier than the publication date on the website.
  • Fn 12: is there a link to the story, or is it off-line only?
I don't think it's available online.
  • Fn 18: is there a better way to title this than the file name?
  • Fn 29: is there a title to the article?
  • Fn 51 is a dead link.
  • Fn 52 is a dead link.
  • Fn 153 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 168: is there a title to the article?
  • Fn 170 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 172 needs a publication date.
  • Fns 185, 187 aren't formatted at all, which makes them look different from the other magazine cites.
Ref 185 (now 182) is formatted properly but the publication date to it is not known.
  • Fn 191 needs a publication date.
Publication date not available.
  • Fn 213 is a dead link.
  • Fn 214 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 222 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 231 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 245 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 246 won't open for me, but that could be a temporary problem with the website.
It works fine for me.
  • Fn 247 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 248 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 252 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 258 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 259 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 267 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 268 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 269 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 274 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 276 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 277 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 279 doesn't list the author's name (it's at the bottom of the article.)
  • Fn 281 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 286 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 289 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 292 doesn't list the author's name and has the wrong title.

That's all for now, I'll check back later. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review - for someone who's done source reviews in the past, this is really bad news. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Glad to help. It's tough, with a popular article and many sources, to keep everything in order. All looks good now. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: do we have a consensus for closure? – FrB.TG (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Quite possibly, on first glance, but I'll have to go through it later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Secretariat (horse)[edit]

Nominator(s): Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC) User:Jlvsclrk talk

This article is about the famous racehorse Secretariat, Triple Crown winner and one of the finest racehorses in history. This is a high-importance article for WikiProject Horse racing and one that has has a substantial amount of work put in by many editors, not just the nominators. We welcome a comprehensive review for an article on a topic important to the project. Thank you. Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by White Arabian Filly[edit]

I don't think I've ever made more than one or two minor edits here, so I should be able to review neutrally. I have a few comments, some of them sort of piddly:

  • The very first sentence in the lead is sort of a run-on, listing half the things he ever did. Is there a way to split it up?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • The last line in the lead, the one about him being honored many years after his death, reads in a promotional way to me.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk, and a few further tweaks by MTBW
  • The background section uses an awful lot of parentheses, and some of the details, like the mares sent to be bred, can go outside parentheses.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk (minor additional ce by MTBW)
  • On Penny Chenery's quote in the Whitney Stakes section, the closing quote mark is missing.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • Is there a reason why it's written "honoured" in the part about the Canadian International? (Was it done intentionally?)
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • I think it would look better for the part about the heart weight to say, "(8.5 lbs, or 3.9 kgs)" instead of double parentheses around the kilograms, which looks clunky.
    Can't be helped, the {{convert}} template does that. --MTBW
  • Where it says Secretariat's birthplace is on the NRHP, I guess that means the whole farm The Meadow, but the way it's written now it sounds sort of like the exact spot is what's on the NRHP.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk

White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    • I chopped the first sentence in two - LMK if it's now too choppy. In what's now the second sentence, I tried to come up with something better than "greatest races of all time" but that's at least supported in the article already. LMK if I should rework further.
    • Think I got the rest of them Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
      • It's fine now; hopefully we can get more reviews and get it to FA pretty soon. I'm ready to support it! White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the anatomy photo
    FIXED by MTBW (large enough? It's 1.5x can go bigger if needed)
  • Statue caption should end in a period
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • File:Owner_Meadow_Stable.svg: can we include a source in the description to verify the accuracy of the design?
    Source added [7]. --MTBW
  • File:1973_Kentucky_Derby_Secretariat.jpg: could you add something to the description about point 2, and what do you mean by "connections"? Same with File:Secretariat_1973_Preakness_Winners_Circle.jpg, and having two non-free images with the exact same rationale reduces the justification for including them - suggest expanding or reframing
    "Connections" are the people associated with the horse. I will tweak that phrasing at the image page. I also changed the rationale for the Kentucky Derby image, does that improve matters? —MTBW
  • File:Secretariat_statue.jpg: what is the copyright status of the photo, and are we sure about the copyright expiration? Skeaping seems to have made several later copies of the statue.
    The base of the statue itself says "1974" in the image, so the original work is within the change in the law, but the statue is a 1988 copy source of the 1974 original. As Jlvsclrk stated, s/he took the image. We could replace it with the Saratoga image, but it would be nice if we could keep the Belmont one, because that's the most famous version and a better photo. Given that we are dealing with a 1988 copy of a 1974 original statue, I am going to ping Wehwalt for his take on how we handle a copy where the original is in the public domain. —MTBW

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    • I'm hoping Montanabw can deal with 1, 3, 4. I fixed 2. re 5 - the photo was taken by me and is public domain. I'm sure I don't understand American copyright law on the statue itself but the original was produced in 1974 and is now at the Hall of Fame. The version in the picture is a replica installed in 1988 as noted in the article. I have a picture of the original too, but it doesn't have the blanket of carnations they place on Belmont Day. The original is one of the few objects at the Hall of Fame that you're allowed to photograph so I'm pretty sure it's fine. Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I answered further questions, let us know if there are further fixes! Thanks everyone for your reviews. Nikkimaria, White Arabian Filly, pinging you Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jlvsclrk: Could you add whichever of {{CC-0}} or {{PD-self}} you prefer to the photo? Montana, could you add a quick statement re:point 2 on the two screenshots? That will just leave the copyright expiration issue, which is complicated by the "republication". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think montanabw originally suggested that particular license because of the subject matter. Assuming the statue is fair game, I've changed the license to self|cc-by-sa-4.0 (share alike). Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I added the Point 2 rationale to the screenshots, had to tweak the templates a little to make it appear (there was a "commercial" parameter on the images, but it wasn't showing up). On the Secretariat statue, Jlvsclrk added an appropriate photographer's release, but the copyright on the statue itself is held by the artist and I think it's PD-no-notice, so I re-added that template as well, I think we need both. Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
We would need tags for both the photo and the statue, yes. I'm not sure though that PD-no-notice is the appropriate tag, and would like to hear from Wehwalt or others on that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
If it was published in 1974, I guess the question is, is there a copyright notice on the statue? If there is not, the tag is good, if there is, and it is proper, you're out of luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no copyright notice on the statue. Below the sculptor's name and date on the base of the statue is one more line, cut off in my image, that reads "Gift of Paul Mellon to the National Museum of Racing at Saratoga". Wehwalt, does the fact that the statue in question is a copy (installed at Belmont in 1988, produced who knows when) affect matters, or is it the date of the original (or the mold with which both copies were created I suppose) that matters? Just want to be sure! Jlvsclrk (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I shouldn't think so, if they are exact copies. It's original publication before 1978 without a copyright notice that creates the lack of a copyright. Are we confident the original lacks a copyright notice?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's a link to a picture that shows the full statue - no copyright notice. (Another pic showing the reverse angle, no notice on it either. Original has identical wording. Jlvsclrk (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, then I think the tag is proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, we'll go with that then. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Support I had a fair number of comments at the peer review and did some editing myself. Seems an excellent article on a significant figure, both in the sports world and culturally. One of the earliest sports events I remember watching was the Belmont that year. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Support as the GA reviewer. It is very well-written, and worthy of being a FA. The GA review was a bit more stringent than customary but whatever needed tweaking beyond that appears to have been handled. After GA promotion, it went through yet another review by Wehwalt. If it needed any further tweaking, I figured it might be in the citations images but it appears Nikkimaria did a good job with that part of the review as she so often does. Atsme📞📧 20:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Er... Atsme, I looked at images and not citations here, is that what you meant? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, my apologies. My brain tripped over an archived memory. Atsme📞📧 03:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It's well-written. A few comments on the lead and first few sections (disclosure: the nominator is a fellow member of the Signpost board).

  • Being new to this topic, I'm unused to seeing "he" and "who" used to refer to the horse; I guess so.
    Standard in the horse world
  • Isn't it an indictment on the Foundation's engeering and products division that we still have to put up with ugly, clunky, large fractions in inline text. I suppose the guideline for conversion to international units doesn't apply (?). There are inches in the table, unconverted.
    I was wondering about that. FIXED by Jlvsclrk
    • The {{frac}} template sometimes helps. MTBW
  • "United States" should definitely not be linked. "$" is linked ... that's not normal, and as a reader I'd rather know that it's "US$" than have to hover over the $ to find out. Also, the dollar symbol hangs below the line.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "possessed" ... "had" wouldn't do?
    "had" just feels like a weak verb to me. Will change if it bothers you but "possessed" just seems more appropriate to me. *shrug*
  • "In order to"—please, "To".
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "wind up with" ... slightly informal, and twice in a sentence.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • I think MOS wants "In spring 1989", and "fall 1969".
    that really doesn't scan right to me. Could replace "the spring of 1969" with the "the 1969 breeding season" if that reads better.
  • as-yet-unborn
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "and the as-yet unborn 1970 foal of Somethingroyal; the latter foal turned out to be Secretariat"—could it be just ", which turned out ..."?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "nursed" means "suckled", I guess.
    Yes. It's also a widely used term in the horse business. ("Stands and nurses" is often the point at which stud fees become payable)
    • And in US English generally, we nurse our human babies too. --MTBW
  • "The colt soon started distinguishing himself from the other foals."—would this be ok? "The colt soon distinguished himself from the other foals." Just after, there's a comma before closing quotes.
    first part FIXED by Jlvsclrk. Second part - not sure what the error is
  • "Chenery got her first look at the foal and made a one word entry in her notebook:"—maybe, but it's on the informal edge of the envelope, I think. Hyphen. "Chenery first saw the foal and made a one-word entry in her notebook:"?
    Did you mean it would be better if we replaced the colon with a hyphen?
  • Autumn, or fall? We have both.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "the latter"—isn't that applicable where there are two items? "the last"?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk

Tony (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

see interspersed comments above. Should we also add meters when mentioning race distances? Do you think 9.5 furlongs reads better than 1 316 miles? As a North American horse racing fan, I find the former odd, but if it's easier for non-horseracing people to understand, I'm all for it. Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • We have the conversion table, we do a three-way conversion of {{hands}}. We could add 9.5 furlongs 1 316 miles (1.9 km) too if someone wants us to, but there does become a point at which it is pretty clunky. Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I added a "conversion of racing distances" chart (based on the one in the American Pharoah article) for the racing statistics section.
  • @Tony1:: Have all your concerns been addressed? Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • For the upper sections, yes. I'm unsure about conversion rules and conventions, but was just pointing it out. "The colt soon started distinguishing himself from the other foals."—would this be ok? "The colt soon distinguished himself from the other foals." — "not sure what the error is" ... more words than necessary. Tony (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Hi Tony, I did your suggested wording change - agree it reads better. My question was on the later part of the bullet where you said "Just after, there's a comma before closing quotes." That's where I'm not sure what the error is - the comma I see is followed by a 'he said' construction. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Jlv, MOS gives this example: "Fish are friends, not food", said Bruce., and says it's irrespective of the variety of English. Tony (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Huh, I've been doing this wrong for my entire life. Spot checking, so are most of the sources. Learn something every day. Will fix this and a few other uses in the article. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
            • Jlv, it's been the subject of bitter disputes at MOS, but whenever someone proposes to change the rule, there's a groundswell of opposition. You'll find most US publishers use the inside-the-quote-mark method. Many news outlets outside the US also use it. Direct quotations in novels are rendered that way before "she said", etc, by many publishers everywhere. The US Council of Science Editors insists on outside the quotemarks (the so-called "logical" method), to avoid "misquoting" the punctuation where it wasn't in the source. Normal UK and Commonwealth practice is outside the quotemarks ("logical" method), to avoid "misquoting" the punctuation where it wasn't in the source. Please don't change your personal practice outside WP! Tony (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Tony (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for a spirited article on a wonderful creature!

  • I'd mention both his parents in the lead, or at least a bit sooner in "Background". Came as a little surprise to me who his mother was, after the coin-tossing stories. Or is that intended? - I should have looked at the infobox where they are ;)
    • LOL. The background section on his breeding has sometimes read like a mystery novel. Fun to read but... LMK if it reads better with the new opening sentence in the background. I don't know if we can add something to the intro without disrupting the flow and maintaining the interest level. - Jlvsclrk
  • The quoted poem is nice, but I don't see the connection.
    • The poem, which was written in the 1930s, is about the yearning in horse racing to see another great one come along. Sheer coincidence that Secretariat, like Man o' War, was "a chestnut colt, and he's got a star"
      • Could you make this explanation part of the image caption? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
        • I added an endnote so as not to clutter the poem itself. Does that work? Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
          • Yes, good. What do you think of putting the reference behind it, - or combine the two? I'd like people to read it note, more than the ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "croup" should be linked the first time.
    • FIXED - jlvsclrk

Need to go for now, more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

  • In "Appearance and conformation": I could imagine the image higher, to have the table less squeezed on a small screen, - also good to have the image where the terms are mentioned first.
    • On my screen, moving up the horse anatomy chart runs into the quote box in the preceding section, our intent was to have the table and the chart side-by-side. Open to suggestions for improvement, but I'm not quite sure if there is a solution...
      • OK now
  • In "Belmont Stakes": In the quote box, I think no quotation marks are necessary, but a full stop (or three, if it's not the end of the sentence).
    • FIXED - jlvsclrk

That's all. Good reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

See comments above. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I think we've addressed your concerns. Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Any suggestions who we can ping for that, Ian Rose? Seems the usual suspects aren't around (Nikkimaria? Can you double check that images are now good and citations are OK? Montanabw(talk) 08:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • You can leave a note among the other requests at the top of WT:FAC if Nikki can't do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Might be worthwhile to source some of the superlatives in the lead, such as the "icon" phrase
    • everything we say in the lead is supported in the body of the article. The icon phrase comes from the last paragraph before the start of the Belmont Stakes where it talks about him becoming a cultural phenomenon.
  • Blood-Horse should be italicized in article text (Belmont section)
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • "equivalent to $7,019,357 in 2015" - per the note at the top of {{inflation}}, not sure it's appropriate to have this unsourced here
    • I'll just remove. not sure it adds anything. jlvsclrk
  • "The Sanford was the only race in his career in which Secretariat was not the betting favorite" - source?
    • The past performance table posted on (but sourced from the Daily Racing Form) indicates if a horse is the favorite in a given race with a star by the odds (shown as *.40 for example), and the Sanford is the only one where he wasn't. Is it synth to turn this coding into the comment used? I suppose a more direct translation of the chart data would lead to the comment "Secretariat was the favorite in every race except the Sanford." Alternatively, I could add the stars to the table with a note at the bottom on what it means. Any suggestions.
      • I fixed this to put a source in the note, the rest is simple analysis..Nikkimaria
  • Use a consistent date format
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Be consistent in whether books include location of publication - some do, some don't. If you do include them, be consistent in how you format state (eg. Ky. vs VA)
    • fixed (though seems to be a problem with the ISBN database)
  • FN8 needs page number. Same with FN20, 57, 140
    • FN8 - I don't have access to the book originally used as source, so I changed to use Bill Nack's book. Also clarified that it was two mares being sent, not necessarily two foals being produced (since this matters in the paragraph that follows)
    • FN20 - now split into 3 refs to get appropriate page #s. FN57 - "Sham..." don't have access to this book and unfortunately the bit is not in the sample online chapter. Should I delete the sentence, or change to something like "..., Secretariat's chances in the Kentucky Derby became the subject of much debate in the media." Can reference this to Woolfe and Nack. FN140 - don't have access to the book. I found a few skeptical online sources to use though
      • Yes. I'm not sure that the sites added since the last review would qualify as high-quality reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
        • I assume this is regarding the sources for the last paragraph about the X-factor theory. Some background here first. The "pro" X-factor club are online and vocal, while most breeding professionals seem dismissive (thinking it grossly over-simplistic) to the point of not writing much about it. So we feel it necessary to include since its something that some people feel VERY strongly about (as montanabw puts it, if we take it out, they'll just put it back in), but at the same time express the doubt. For alternate sources, I first looked at wiki's Circulatory_system_of_the_horse#X_factor, which uses two sources on the doubt side, one of which addresses the topic vary narrowly and is useless in our context, and the other which can no longer be found. Such is the internet! So I went looking for other sources and believe Porter writing in his column at the bloodhorse is a very high quality source - he's a professional pedigree analyst speaking in an area of his expertise. The Sophia Stallions site is for a professional breeding operation and the article is very well written so I thought it okay to include. I just found another profound dissent from "pedigreegoddess" Anne Peters (she really is an expert, though the URL is pretty funny). - would this latter work better?
          • The book cited was added by someone who apparently had a hardcopy, I can't recall who, but without a page number and as we can't access the snippet view, we have to go with what exists. The Blood Horse cite is solid. The other isn't great, but itself does cite third-party sources. I agree that Anne Peters' site is a professional page, not just someone's random blog and as such an RS; that said, she doesn't cite her source material for her "debunking" claims, which limits the degree to which we can use it. Montanabw(talk) 17:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sometimes you include "www" in website names, other times not - suggest consistently not doing so
    • fixed jlvsclrk
      • Fixed a couple more --MTBW
  • Find-A-Grave is not a high-quality reliable source, nor is IMDB
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Check your use of |publisher= and |work= and synonyms throughout - some things are italicized that shouldn't be (eg Bluefield College, FN18), while others are not that should be (eg The Atlantic, FN84)
    • fixed jlvsclrk
      • Not entirely. Generally speaking, if things aren't actual publications they shouldn't be italicized. Examples include Arlington or Meadow Event Park. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
        • wiki markup automatically italicizes website= , so I'll change these back to
  • FN46: isn't the work, it's a republishing service - include the original source details, and then if you want to you can use |via= (but if you're going to, that should also be done consistently)
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed or useful for Google Books, but you should be consistent in whether you use them
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Sometimes you use New York Times, sometimes The New York Times - either is fine but again should be consistent. Same with Blood-Horse vs The Blood-Horse, etc
    • think I got them all jlvsclrk
  • FN51 is italicizing date and shouldn't, and publication title is missing
    • fixed
  • AP should generally be credited using |agency= not |author=
    • fixed
  • What makes a high-quality reliable source?
    • snort. removed since wasn't needed - everything was in the other source, but it was a very interesting article!
      • As an aside, its primary value was that it had a photo of the horse. In case anyone doubted it... MTBW
  • Is there a difference between news/periodical refs that use website name )eg. and those that use the actual publication title? If not, should be consistent, and I'd suggest doing the latter.
    • I've changed to the latter, unless the website itself uses ".com". For example, is titled as such as the page, and you only see Toronto Star in the end section. wonder if its a legal thing?
      • I went ahead and added paper name, even there, as for some reason all the papers are doing that... --MTBW
  • FN75 and 78 are to the same website so should have the same formatting
    • fixed
  • FN136: would make sense to cite the original source directly
    • changed source
  • FN138 should be converted to a template to match the rest of the book citations
    • done
  • FN151 has a doubled archival statement
    • now FN152. fixed

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    • working on it! See questions. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Some web sources include both access dates and publication dates, others do not - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Access dates - used for all. Publication dates - added a few that were originally missed, but not applicable in many cases (eg, equibase is a database) or not given (eg, FN14 article has no date). Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pinging Nikkimaria and Ian Rose: I think we have addressed everything. Is there anything we have missed? Montanabw(talk) 02:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Two remaining concerns on my side - some persisting italicized publishers (such as the two examples mentioned above), and I'm not sure that this is a high-quality source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I could have sworn I'd changed those already. website= paramater automatically italicizes so I've changed Arlington Park to for example. The website is a publication, is it not? To be safe though, I changed the sources for the sections on the Meadow Event Park and Secretariat Centre to newspapers. As for truenicks, it really is a very high quality source. Here's a link to various articles written by Porter at the Blood-Horse. True Nicks is both the name of his business and a column he writes for the magazine. Jlvsclrk (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Okay, fair enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
            • Anything else? Are we ready to promote?

Cleveland Centennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... a less controversial half dollar than Thomas G. Melish's other venture, the Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar, which commemorated an anniversary that the government knew didn't exist. Thanks to the intervention of Congress, which was getting fed up with commemorative coin abuses, it was a fairly legitimate coin, and isn't that rare today. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Brianboulton[edit]

Minor prose quibbles:

  • "Brenda Putnam designed the coin" – presumably this refers to the latter of the coins just mentioned?
  • "to prevent repetition of past abuses" - a (very) brief indication of their nature, and by whom, would be helpful.
  • "In 1796, he set out a townsite along Lake Erie, that came to bear his name" – as [resently punctuated the sense is that the lake rather than the townsite came to bear his name.
  • "to commemorate an anniversary that did not exist." This wording may be a little confusing; the Cincinnati May Festival existed, and had an anniversary in 1936 – the 63rd by my reckoning. So what was the deception, if that's the right word?
  • Second sentence: suggest insert "both" after "honor", to clarify
  • "The bill was reported out of committee..." What does this mean, in layman's language?
  • "drastically amended" becomes "a new version" later. Not quite the same thing.
The new version was the amended bill. I think it can stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "by a 1921 executive order by President Warren G. Harding" – perhaps change the first "by" to "in"?
  • I'm not sure about this use of "transfixed", the secondary meaning of which generally involves something being pierced rather than merely marked, as is the case here.
  • The word "she" in the final line is unnecessary
Production etc
  • No issues here

All easily resolved – look forward to adding support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. With the exception of the one matter above, I've done more or less as you've suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Refs 11, 14 and 16: same source, but 14 has slightly different format.

No other sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Those are not the same document, but are from different stages of the legislation. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: all issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you indeed for the reviews and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review.–-Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

CMLL World Welterweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  01:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship, not just a list of champions but an article on the history of the championship, rules etc. This follows the format of the CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship and CMLL World Middleweight Championship articles which were recently promoted to FA. I have taken all input from those FACs, plus various GANs, FLCs and FACs I've done on Mexican wrestling championships to hopefully produce a high-quality article worthy of the Feature Article status. I am open to any and all suggestions and always willing to work on any issues there may be.  MPJ-DK  01:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't Say You Love Me (M2M song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the debut single by M2M, which was also the lead single from the Pokémon: The First Movie soundtrack. Article passed GA, has been peer reviewed and has received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn[edit]

  • Comment ah, one of the least-guilty "guilty pleasures". This is among my favorite late-90s pop songs, along with "Steal My Sunshine". Here are my thoughts on a first run-through of the article:
  • I see that genre was removed from the infobox with this edit. I think what was there, bubblegum pop, is basically self-evident, but it's surprisingly tricky to pin down a source that uses the word "bubblegum" — a few (this and that) call the band bubblegum, in passing, but not the song itself. But this article at Stereogum, while not about the band, does directly call the song "bubblegum", so there you go. I'd include it in the article body, and then you can put it in the infobox no problem.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I also came across this NY Times article that could be used — you may have already seen it and dismissed it, since there's not a lot there not said elsewhere, but it's worth a look.
Thanks for pointing it out but I don't think i'll use it. Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% sure about putting two critics' quotes in the lead. It's beautiful to see the famously cranky Christgau call M2M's music "impossibly touching," but still, he's talking there about their songs generally, not "Don't Say You Love Me" in particular. I'd consider cutting them.
I've removed Christgau's comments and left the other one. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The sample box caption talks about the lyrics, but not any traits of the sampled recording. You don't need a sample to discuss just the lyrics; fair use of the sample in fact requires discussion/commentary on the portion from the recording sampled. I'd reword the sample caption to talk about the style of the music and the lyrics.
Hmm after reading through the article the best thing I can think of to add is part of the review from Michael Paoletta saying how good the harmonisation is in the song. Do you think something like that would work? And if not, do you have another suggestion? Freikorp (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to put something together while I incorporate the music-sheet info. —BLZ · talk 18:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speaking of, there's almost no discussion of the music itself — only the lyrics. You can glean some basic but useful facts from the officially licensed sheet music (tempo/bpm, what key it's in, the fact that iirc there's a key change), and the rest would likely be a description of genre and production style.
Brandt Luke Zorn: I don't know how to read a music sheet. So this sheet says the song is 100 beats per minute, is that right? What key does the sheet say it's in? Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's 100bpm. The key is either E major or C sharp minor... I could probably figure it out if you, uh, "give me some time". If you buy the digital copy of the sheet music (at $5.50 it's not totally unreasonable), you can send me a copy via email (I've enabled the emailing feature). I'll happily interpret it and draft up a solid paragraph. The music theory doesn't have to be much more in-depth than what you could find in "Under the Bridge", "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or my own "Today", but I do think a song article needs to have some music-theory info where it's available (and since licensed sheet music exists, it is available here.) —BLZ · talk 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Every link in a source should be archived using archiveurl, archivedate and deadurl=no (unless the link actually is dead, of course). I think pre-emptively archiving all source links should be required in FAs because it improves the future reliability of the sourcing and saves a lot of time if links die.
I've archived all the URLs except the google book sources and some of the sources used for charting, which have been formatted in a manner which won't let me add the archiving parameters. Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
That's perfect. Sources that were originally print don't really need the same type of backup, since in a way the user is lucky enough to be able to access scans online in the first place. —BLZ · talk 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've addressed a couple points and will address the others shortly. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've now added the basic information from the sheet music to the article. You'll notice I also slipped in a new source that I came across: shockingly, someone in Oslo did their Ph.D thesis in musicology about M2M. I checked Wikipedia's sourcing policy to make sure citing to a thesis is OK, and in this case it seems appropriate; although caution should be taken with theses, they say that it's better if a thesis has been cited by others, and sure enough this one already has been cited, despite being only two years old and in the narrow field of scholarly pop-music analysis. I'm going to add a few more things that I think are useful from that thesis, but for now I have to run and do something IRL. —BLZ · talk 01:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, i'm really impressed with your work (and both amazed and fascinated to find out about this thesis!) Freikorp (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I've added what elements of the composition and thesis I thought were worth adding, as well as bringing in what there was in the sources about genre. You've done an excellent job with this article. I'm satisfied that this meets FA criteria. Incidentally, I've recently found a site called which is extremely useful and seems to work for some URLs that won't save. It should work for at least some of the links that didn't work earlier. —BLZ · talk 05:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]


Everything looks good. The article is of FA standard. All images have appropriate licences (two are Fair Use). Consider moving the image of Raven across to the right. I corrected one typo in the text. A minor quibble is that my Australian version of Shades of Purple has The Feeling is Gone as track 14. Anyhow, well done. (As a passing note, I saw M2M at EPCOT in 2000.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7. That's interesting about the Australia version; despited being an Australian myself I only have a digital copy of the album which contains the standard 13 tracks. Do you think I should add this information about the Australian version in brackets? The American version of the album is already used as a source for one thing; i'm guessing I might need to know serial numbers of something about the Australia version to differentiate it if I used it as a source, or would simply saying it's the Australia version in the reference be enough information do you think? I'm so jealous you got to see M2M at EPCOT. Haha you didn't happen to take any photos did you? Wikipedia is lacking a free image of both members of M2M together at all. Freikorp (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I have this version. I think going into this would be drifting off-topic here (although it should be noted in the Shades of Purple article!) I suggest instead just changing the text to say "which were left off the U.S. version of the album." It was pure coincidence that I happened to be there at the time. As for photos, alas, Hawkeye7 is not a photographer, I'm afraid. (I do recall that they sang the album version.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96[edit]

  • "There is a slight difference in lyrics between the version used in Pokémon: The First Movie version and the version released on Shades of Purple." - this could be better There is a slight difference in lyrics between the version used in Pokémon: The First Movieand the one released on Shades of Purple
  • "and reached an audience of 5 million people," - spell out 5
  • "The single was released in Norway on radio on 24 November,[17] and by 11 January the single was on sale in Norway" - reptition of single
  • Added a wikilink for NRK Petre to NRK P3
  • "M2M performed the song live at Walt Disney Worlds Epcot" - Walt Disney World's

This article was a nice read. I'm going to admit that I have never listened to this song. MWright96 (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and helpful suggestions. I've made all the changes. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I have read through the article again and could not find anything else that stands out. I therefore give my support. I have not spot checked the sources MWright96 (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Small point, but I changed it back to "5". Normally numbers less than ten should be represented as words, but forms such as "X million" are an exception. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers_as_figures_or_words. —BLZ · talk 15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Welcome back Freikorp, best of luck with your degree. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment from magiciandude (Erick)[edit]

Hey it's me again! Congrats on the nomination. Anyways a few comments from me:

  • You should mention that Chuck Taylor wrote for Billboard in the lead as you have done in the body, as readers may not know who he is.
Good idea. Done. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:SONGCOVER suggests that a cover version should only be included if it the cover itself satisfies WP:NSONGS. What makes Krissy & Ericka's cover notable? Was it released as a single?
WP:SONGCOVER says "discussion of a particular artist's rendition" should only be included if the cover is notable. I'm not discussing the cover, I simply mention it exists with one line. It doesn't say you can't mention it. From looking at other featured song articles it appears commonplace to list, with sources (as I have done), notable groups that have covered the song. The cover is notable because the covering group is notable. It was not released as a single. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • On the subject of the music video, are there any critical commentaries of the video itself? Did critics (dis)like the video? Was it in a top ten music videos of the year list? This one isn't a huge issue for me and it's alright if you can't find any, but I am curious nonetheless.
I spent a lot of time looking for information on the music video, what's in the article now is pretty much everything I could find unfortunately. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Any critical commentaries for the live performances as well? Again, not a huge issue for me. Erick (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll have a look. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Not really unfortunately. The limited coverage of concerts only gives passing mention of overall fan reception, and nothing in particular to this song itself. It's a problem I had in general for the live performances section. For example the 'Angels of Norway' reference, which is used to support that they played the song as an encore in Kuala Lumpur to a crowd of 4,000, also states they played for a crowd of 10,000 in Bangkok, but it doesn't explicitly state they played 'Don't Say You Love Me' at that concert (even though they obviously would have considering it was their biggest hit). I have plenty of sources that M2M opened for both Hanson (band) and Jewel (singer), but again, none specifically states they played this song, even though we know they would have. Freikorp (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That's fine with me. The article is still well-written. I now support this article. Great job...again! ;) Erick (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Aries (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Aries is the ninth studio album by Mexican singer Luis Miguel. While there were some reserves about the album by critics, I am particularly fond of the early-90's dance-pop music even if they are cheesy. This is my first article about an album by Luis Miguel that is not a Romance-themed album. Previously, I have contributed to make Romance (Luis Miguel album) and Romances (Luis Miguel album) FAs and now I am nominating this article to FA after getting a peer review done by Carbrera. I look forward to your feedback! Erick (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC) The article is in quite good but there are somethings that bothered me:

Background and recording
"The album, which was produced by Armando Manzanero and arranged by Bebu Silvetti,[1] was a success in Latin America and sold over seven million copies worldwide.[2][3]" The sentence seems quite long. I would recommend splitting it like "The album, which was produced by Armando Manzanero and arranged by Bebu Silvetti.[1] It was a success in Latin America and sold over seven million copies worldwide.[2][3]"
"Recording began on 4 July 1992.[8]" Now this sentence feels a bit small. Maybe I am nitpicking it so don't feel like an issue.
Singles and promotion
"The album's third single, "Suave", was released in September 1993 and peaked at number nine on the Hot Latin Songs chart;[22][23] its music video was directed by Kiko Guerrero and features Miguel dancing with several women on a beach.[24][25]" Also feels like a long sentence.
Critical reception
The first paragraph looks like it lacks some wikilink like Billboard
Reference 4 "Burr, Ramiro (11 July 1993). "Luis Miguel meets his challenges". San Antonio Express-News. Hearst Corporation. (subscription required (help))." seems like it lacking something.
Also, I would recommend archiving some citations in case they become dead links.

Other than that, I feel the article is well written and sourced. If the issues are solved, I'll give it my support. Additionally, I would appreciate if you could provide feedback to my own FAN (which is my first one), Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1, which has been quite inactive.

@Tintor2:, I believed I have addressed everything you brought up. As the last point about the reference, it's a paywall source, so it's acceptable the way it is. I don't have the album, otherwise I would've added where it was recorded on the sentence you mentioned felt too short. I'll see if I can find it online. Erick (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Magiciandude: Good work. I'll give you my support.Tintor2 (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Richard3120:[edit]

Good work Erick, just a few things (mostly grammar) that I think need to be looked at:

  • Second line – "Miguel decided to record an album of original recordings rather than a follow-up to Romance". Firstly, putting "record" and "recordings" almost next to each other sounds like repetition: perhaps it could be changed to "make an album of original recordings"? Secondly, surely the album WAS a follow-up to Romance, since it was his next record... I think what you mean is that he didn't want his next record to be in the same style as an album of cover versions of boleros. So this needs to be clarified.
  • Second paragraph – you say "Ayer", "Hasta Que Me Olvides" and "Suave" were the three singles released from the album. So we need clarification on what "Hasta el Fin" and "Tu y Yo" were if they were not official singles, but they still managed to chart on the Hot Latin Songs chart.
  • Background and recording, first line – sorry, and with apologies to Tintor2 above, splitting that into two sentences now is not grammatically correct... either it should go back to the way it was, or the first sentence should just be "The album was produced by Armando Manzanero and arranged by Bebu Silvetti", because otherwise you have a hanging clause.
  • Again, in the first paragraph of this section, I think you have to clarify "In spite of Romance's success, Miguel did not want to release an immediate follow-up to the album IN THE SAME STYLE", or something like that.
  • Background and recording, last line of the first paragraph – you might have to check the original quote, because it looks like it is missing the word "be" in two places... should it be "The creation of an album has to BE part of me or else I would not be able to interpret it, or BE in it"?
  • Composition, first paragraph – should be "a saxophone solo BY American musician Kirk Whalum".
  • Composition, second paragraph – you have to say "referred TO "Me Niego Estar Solo" and "Hasta El Fin"...".
  • Singles and promotion – again, not clear what the release status of "Hasta el Fin" and "Tu y Yo" were if they were not official singles.
  • Critical reception – we would call the writers "critics", not "editors", which usually signifies the person in charge of producing the magazine/website.
  • Commercial reception – just a couple of minor grammatical changes... "it debuted and peaked at the number two on the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart... "Aries remained IN this position until it was replaced by the Gipsy Kings's album..." "Aries HAD sold over two million copies worldwide as of 2000". Richard3120 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Hey Richard! I believed I've addressed everything in regards to grammar (especially the quote error that I overlooked). Now as for "Ayer" and "Tu y Yo", I will need your input on this on. When I started working on this article, I searched online to ensure that all the songs that charted were indeed singles. I find the first three through MercadoLibre, Todocoleccion, Eil, and eBay. I just found out through Discogs that "Tu y Yo" was released as a promo single for the US (source). I can just source the CD ID given Discogs is not accepted due to it being a user-submitted website. That only leaves "Hasta el Fin" which I still can't find an online to show it was released as a single. Erick (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Magiciandude, I'll have a look, but it may well be that it was not released as a single. I am wondering, seeing as the Billboard charts include an airplay component as well as sales, whether either "Tu y Yo" or "Hasta el Fin" were ever properly released as singles, and maybe they just charted on airplay alone? I think a US editor might be of more help here: I'm British and the UK charts have always been based on sales (and more recently, sales + streaming) only, so US chart positions have always been a bit of a mystery to me. Richard3120 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120: As far as the Hot Latin Songs chart goes, it was solely based on airplay at the time the album came out. It wasn't until late 2012 when they started factoring sales and streaming as well. Would it be alright with you if I just mention "Tu y Yo" being a promo single being released in the US for now? Erick (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that probably answers the question then – if it was just an airplay-based chart then it's very likley those two songs were released to radio stations as promotional singles only, and they gained their chart positions on airplay on those stations. I guess all you can do is say they were promo singles for the time being. Richard3120 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Alright, I went ahead and amended the sentence per your suggestion. I have one more question. In the same interview on why he wasn't making another Romance, he said would do it after making Aries. Should I mention that in this article or should it just remain in the article for Segundo Romance? Erick (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Richard3120: Hey Richard, it's been five days since my last comment. I need to know if everything has been resolved. Thanks, Erick (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Erick, my apologies, I've had a busy week and haven't logged on to Wikipedia at all. I think the only thing is in the second paragraph of the lead, where you might need to state, "Two further songs were released as promotional singles, "Hasta el Fin" and "Tú y Yo", and both peaked at number four on the Hot Latin Songs chart"... Otherwise, all good. Richard3120 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120:, That's fine. As long as I can get this FAC going, I'm good. Anyways, I've addressed your remaining issue. Thanks! Erick (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Montreal Laboratory[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Having written about the British and American components of the Manhattan Project, this article is about the Canadian part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. There have been no changes since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Support I could not find various issues other than the lead's first paragraph being a bit small and three references used for "They were succeeded by George Weil in November 1945." Other than that, I hope this article becomes a FA. Also I've recently made my first FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1 and I would appreciate any feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Overall, a worthy candidate.
  • Why are commonly known country-names ("Canada", "United Kingdom", "Switzerland", "Austria") linked? Why are three geographical names bunch-linked at the opening?
  • Uncomfortable switch from "United Kingdom" to "Britain" in the opening sentence. Later, I see "England". Me, I'd be using "UK" and "US", but it's up to you.
  • "The Maud Committee was uncertain as to whether this was relevant"—perhaps two words could be removed ... do you agree?
  • "although there remained a possibility that a reactor could be used to breed plutonium, which might be used in one."—"could/might have been used"?
  • "Due to American concerns about security (as many of the scientists were foreign nationals) and ..."—"as" is often a problem; I'd used "since", but here, why not just remove it altogether?
  • "Director"—MOS, CMOS, and the Oxford NHR all say to minimise unnecessary caps.
  • I guess two temporal vaguenesses are OK in the lead—"eventually" and "for a time"—presuming that they're clarified in the body of the article.
  • "in order to"? Please.

I've read through just the lead and first section. Tony (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Tony.

  1. Someone keeps linking country names. Unlinked them, and I'll keep a watch to make sure they don't come back.
  2. I have to use the future in the past tense about the plutonium. Today we know that you can breed plutonium in a reactor, and that it is fissile, and can be used in an atomic bomb. But back then neither was certain; the element had been theorised, but not yet discovered.
  3. All my sources agree that NRX was the most powerful research reactor in the world when it was started in 1947. However, they don't say what replaced it. In Canada it was superseded by NRU, which started up in 1957. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Chad Harris-Crane[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions, which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. The character made daytime television and soap opera history for participating in the first instance in a soap opera of two men simulating sex, and has also been cited as expanding the representation of LGBT characters of color on daytime television. I have worked on this article a lot over the past year, and I believe that it is comprehensive and covers all the aspects of the FA criteria. The article has gone through the GAN and Peer Review process I would love to have this article reach the level of a FA to attract more attention for improving articles on this soap opera and LGBT characters of color. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The article looks in pretty good shape but I'll leave some things. For now the lead

"which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. Passions followed the romantic and supernatural adventures in the fictional New England coastal town of Harmony" seems unnecessary for the character. Can you replace it with something about his creation?
  • Agreed, removed this from the lead. The link is there for anyone interested in learning more about the show. I am not sure what to add to the lead about the creation of the character, but I am open to suggestions.
"Divins discussed the storyline with his gay friends and researched LGBT culture to better shape his performance. Media outlets were uncertain of the exact nature of Chad's sexual orientation, debating if he was straight, gay, or bisexual." Seems rather redundant. I mean, is there another one?
  • True, revised this by removing the redundant phrasing.

Now moving to Development

It kind of feels like there too many quotes.
  • Agree. Removed some quotes, but let me know if more should be removed.
  • Can the storylines use some references?
  • As I stated in the Peer Review, the storyline section does not require referencing according to this. It would also be extremely difficult or impossible to include references for that section as some sentences cover weeks, months, and (in some cases) years of daily, weekday episodes.
  • I don't find any notable issues with the reception.

Other than I'm satisfied with the article. By the way, I also nominated Allen Walker here. I would appreciate feedback even if he doesn't pass.

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them. Please let me know if there is anything else I can clarify or revise with the article. I will provide a review for your FAC for Allen Walker sometime in the beginning of next week if that is alright with you. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Great, I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tintor2: Thank you very much for your comments again. You helped me catch a few really really silly mistakes lol. I will make sure to review your FAC in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Image review as requested[edit]

  • File:Chad Harris-Crane.jpg: Non-free image, which seems correct as it's a character from a copyrighted TV show. Source information is a bit vague, the scope of illustrating the subject of the article seems legit under WP:NFCI. I'd say it meets the WP:NFC criteria but it needs more source information.
  • Information has been updated. I did not upload the image, but I am very certain that it is a portion of a screenshot from an episode (and given the nature of the show, it would be extremely difficult to identify the episode it was taken from). Let me know if this needs to be updated further.
  • File:ChadVincentSex.jpg: Non-free image, which seems correct as they are characters from a copyrighted TV show. The non-free use rationale is much more detailed than in the infobox image. I have some doubts that illustrating a homosexual relationship in the show needs a non-free image, though (WP:NFCC#8) - was this scene explicitly discussed? Also, the article does indicate "mixed reviews" not "generally negative" ones as claimed in the caption.
  • Replaced "generally negative" with "mixed". I forgot to change this during the article's expansion. I felt the image was necessary since the article discusses how the character "made daytime history by being the first to represent two men simulating sex", and there was criticism about the sequences of sexual intercourse between the two characters being too graphic. I completely understand if you believe it should be removed and will do so. I admittedly need to learn more about the usage of non-free images on here, so I would greatly appreciate your input.

Lead image may need ALT text, the other image has already good ALT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review. I have responded to your comments above. I believe that I updated all of the source information for the lead image, but please let me know if this requires further clarification or expansion. I have clarified my intention for using the second image, but I could always remove it (I completely understand your point, and I understand the use of non-free images should be kept to a minimal). Also, the lead image already has an ALT text, but I can update it if you believe it is insufficient. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Going solely by WP:NFCC#8 using a shot of one of the complained-about sexual intercourse scenes seems like it would satisfy the NFC policy better, if text discussing these complained-about scenes is present in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the clarification. I do need to learn more about the NFC policy. The comments about the criticism are at the end of the final paragraph of the "Reception" section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have also updated the caption. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just to clarify, did this pass the image review? Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I generally do not explicitly say "passed" or "failed" when reviewing FAC images. However, you can read this as a) the first image is OK and b) the second one probably isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the reply. So just to be absolutely clear, do you think it would be best to remove the second image? I understand your point of view, and was thinking about doing so from your comments, but again, I just want to be clear. I apologize for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think it should be removed, unless consensus decides that it is OK to keep it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, it has been removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Aoba47 and Jo-Jo Eumerus, I just saw that File:ChadVincentSex.jpg was deleted (the image was on my watchlist). From my review of the article (seen in the peer review), I found the image to pass the WP:Non-free guideline because of number 5 at WP:Non-free content#Images and WP:NFCC#8. As noted above, the image was used to aid critical commentary about the characters' sexual relationship. Above, Aoba47 stated, "I felt the image was necessary since the article discusses how the character 'made daytime history by being the first to represent two men simulating sex', and there was criticism about the sequences of sexual intercourse between the two characters being too graphic." Those are solid reasons to maintain the image. One could, however, argue that the image isn't needed since readers can easily picture the two in bed together. Still, I think the image enhanced the article, especially since a picture is worth a thousand words. Keeping the image would be similar to keeping the Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer kiss image, which had a deletion debate. But if you both would rather that the "in bed together" image remain removed, I'm not going to drag out the debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I actually agree with you, and felt that the image was very important to visualize as I pointed out above how the sequence made daytime history and became a subject of criticism. However, I was hesitant as I am not as familiar as I should be with Wikipedia's policy on non-free content. I would love to upload the image again and add it in if that is a possibility. Thank you for your message, Flyer22 Reborn. Aoba47 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That image is indeed very marginal. Myself, I am not convinced that two men looking at each other in bed in an apparently sexual situation requires a non-free image to illustrate, but my opinion is not more important than yours. With a good fair use rationale, that image could be restored. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @Flyer22 Reborn: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you again for both of your comments. I greatly appreciate your input, and have put a lot of thought into my decision after weighing both of your arguments. I agree with want to be careful with Jo-Jo Eumerus in that I want to be really careful with using non-free images so I will keep the article as it currently stands as the information is already present though the text. I apologize for being indecisive and going back and forth on this issue, but I am happy with the article as it currently stands. Thank you again to both of you, and I apologize to both of you for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just so you know I replaced the previous image in the infobox with a promotional image from NBC Universal Photo that I found on TV Guide. That way, I knew exactly where the source of the image. I am included a detailed summary for the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" as well. I based that around those used for images from featured articles on fictional characters. I just wanted to let you know about the update, and thank you again for the above review! Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems like my comments on the prior image would apply here as well, save for the better source information of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

SupportAll my complaints have already been addressed by the nominator Carbrera (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Article meets Wikipedia standards and I see no reason to oppose this FA nomination. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Support – I can see no reason to oppose this candidacy. There's nothing really to nitpick over that hasn't been addressed at this point for me. The article is in fantastic shape. The prose is tight and clean, sourcing is good, and it is comprehensive in scope, a most interesting read. Well done and keep up the great work! DAP 💅 17:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @DAP388: Thank you for your comment! Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review - all OK

  • No DAB-links - OK.
  • No dead links - OK.
  • Thorough consistent sourcing - OK. AGF on plot information.
  • Reliable sources - obviously not Oxford University Press :), but reliable enough for a soap opera-related article (mostly TV sites, tabloids, specialist blogs).
  • If only I could find articles or books from the Oxford University Press about this character or soap opera lol.
  • I have fixed 2 broken archives, did some other minor tweaks, and removed a few overly detailed personal comments. Of course some relevant personal background details are useful, but the bulk of the article's information should be based on independent sources - not on actors talking about themselves. GermanJoe (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @GermanJoe: Thank you for your review and your revisions. Your revisions have helped to improve the article a great deal, and I always appreciate your input. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Pale Emperor[edit]

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about The Pale Emperor, the ninth studio album from rock band Marilyn Manson. It's currently a Good article, and has gone through the Peer review process. I believe it meets all the criteria for FA status. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Comment I reviewed this at PR, and I think the article is in good shape; once these minor points are fixed I expect to support.

  • One question left over from the PR: why do we care that Jimmy Chamberlin returned to the Smashing Pumpkins in an article about a Marilyn Manson album?
  • If you're going to quote "pure", I'd quote it first time and then not quote it afterwards, rather than the reverse.
  • I'd change "opined" to something like "said"; I know "opined" gets used a lot in this sort of section but I think it almost always sounds like the writer is straining for a verb other than "said". "Said" is almost invisible and very hard to overuse.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Mike. I've taken care of all your points. Sorry about the Jimmy Chamberlin one. It must have slipped through the net somehow. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Looks good now; I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi Homeostasis07, I think you've seen my first tentative poke of an edit. I'm going to give this a harder look today, which I hope to finish as quickly as possible. —Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Alright, here we go:
  • I see on Marilyn Manson/Brian Warner's Wikipedia page that he's said that "Marilyn Manson" is "not a stage name. It's not my legal name ... Marilyn Manson is owned by Brian Warner, my real name." This seems to be a preference for being called Warner, not "Manson". I happened to think of this because it seems somewhat odd to call him "Manson," the last name, alone, since this really is just part of a sort-of-stage name and not really a "last name" — sort of like calling David Bowie "Stardust" on second reference, only stickier since Warner is more closely identified by that name. I also know that there is a classic confusion/distinction between Marilyn Manson, the person, and Marilyn Manson, the band. This is a complicated issue that probably requires consensus across multiple pages related to him. It seems like it would be appropriate to refer to him as "Manson" if he's referred to on a page about, say, Industrial rock, or really anything outside of pages about him, since it would be potentially confusing. Maybe those issues also apply in pages about him. I'm not really sure, but I think it's worth pondering whether "Warner" is better, perhaps with some notice early on the page: more accurate, seems to be preferred by the man himself, possibly clearer writing.
This is a tricky issue. If you take everything that Manson has ever said, a case could be made for Brian Warner. However, he is known as Marilyn Manson professionally. The only time you ever see his given name being used is during album reviews written by someone who doesn't like him - this one, for example. Band members refer to him as Manson:! Even his dad calls him "Manson". Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you saw that I removed some of the Twiggy info from the lead. However, some of those facts would be interesting and better-suited for inclusion in the body, particularly the fact that this was his first time sitting out since his return to the band.
  • "On June 25, bassist Fred Sablan..." The tethering of a specific date here, but not other places, is a little odd, especially because I don't have a clear sense of what year it is by the time this is mentioned. I'd recommend either including more dates, or at least years or month/year (for example, when is "three days before he was due to begin a tour"?)
  • Template:Pull quote is supposed to be for pull quotes, aka magazine-like visual repetitions of quotes already in the text, not block quotes. I don't really think this is the best policy because people love to use that template for block quotes but people seem to adhere to it.
  • The sample of "The Mephistopheles of Los Angeles" requires a caption with a description of the sample and an explanation of what musical elements are commented on, to justify its fair use. As a model you can refer to the sample boxes on OK Computer#Composition.
  • This is neither here nor there, but I'm not totally convinced of the notability or need for a article.
Shall I remove the link to in the Release and artwork section, or—? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Editions of the album sold at Walmart stores..." This sentence screams out for a quote from Manson from the source, since Walmart-bashing sass is his bread and butter.
  • Since you discuss Bates' departure from the touring band, it would be a good idea to include an earlier sentence listing the original touring line-up, since the complicated lineup changes and inclusion of new members would make it difficult for even a long-time fan to keep track, let alone a reader with no knowledge of the band.
  • This is very recent but isn't Manson's tour with Slipknot getting bad press for his intoxicated appearance and sloppy performing? Worth mentioning here, or in that tour's article?
I've been procrastinating about making an article for the tour, because I think it can be adequately summarized in The Hell Not Hallelujah Tour. A lot of the stuff online is just tabloid fodder, and grossly exaggerated: Rock N Roll Experience Magazine created this video disproving a lot of the nonsense. I think it'd be sort of pointless to point out that a bunch of sources claimed that X and Y happened, but then be able to clarify in the next sentence that neither actually occurred. What do you think? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This article relies a lot on a narrative that The Pale Emperor is Manson's best work in some time. I think this narrative is well-grounded in the sources. However, there is an issue that a reader with no knowledge of Manson's previous works has no footing in what this means. I think a brief introductory paragraph in the background would serve the article well, just to generally acquaint the reader with the idea that Manson has a generally agreed upon golden era of his late-90s/early 00s work, that he's had various hiatuses or troubles, and that at a certain point critical response to his new albums had chilled. This will prepare the reader to understand the arc of his career and how The Pale Emperor fits in.
  • "with a Kerrang! review echoing a similar sentiment." I'd like to know a bit more here — Kerrang! is a big deal among hard rock publications, and especially consider the review is not linked, meaning the reader has to rely on whatever representation you offer.
  • You should include an archive link for every single source. Most can be found at or are easy to back up there. Trust me, this will save more articles at FAR in the future than any single improvement. Links die all the time and archived urls on deck, just in case, should be mandatory for featuring imho. Just add archiveurl, archivedate, and deadurl=no.
  • Let me know when you've responded and I'll take another look. —Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I've taken care of every point you've raised above, except for the 3 that I commented on. Let me know what you think. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks for taking care of all of those points. I think considering that this album was released not so long ago, you've done an amazing job aggregating all the sources into an FA-quality article, without the recentness resulting in any serious gaps in the story. The points you addressed above are fine as is — I think the convention of calling him Manson rather than Warner makes sense, but just wanted to double-check; as long as that article exists the links are fine; and whether accounts of Manson's behavior on tour are sensationalized or not (and as you pointed out it seems that they are), they're certainly not required for this article. Well done. —BLZ · talk 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Allen Walker[edit]

Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the D.Gray-man protagonist Allen Walker. I wish it to become a FA since the Wikipedia Project for Manga and Anime doesn't have one based a character. As a result, I based this article on the recent FA Lightning (Final Fantasy). The article has been copyedited twice and had two peer reviews. Regards. Tintor2 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from PresN
Review by PresN

Tintor asked me to serve as a mentor for this FAC through the new Mentoring project; given that the article has already been nominated, what I'm going to do is to review this nomination, and then go a step further and help out on solving any issues that come up.

  • The first sentence gets a little out of hand- you want that sentence to directly tell the reader who this person is, but here you're pulling in other appearances with similar names and it gets to be a bit much
  • The second sentence has a different pair of problems: first you say he's based on Robin (who?) only then to aside to who Robin is, and then aside to a visual difference between the character written in passive voice ("hair was lengthened")
  • "Allen's garment was designed to resemble nineteenth-century clothing" - "garment"? That's an odd word choice.
  • "As the manga progressed, Hoshino stated she was pleased with Allen's character development." - neat, but we just had 2 sentences about his physical appearance, so this sentence is unrelated. Also kind of pointless? She writes the thing, of course she likes it.
  • Also, we're describing Allen's clothing and differences from a prior version, and we still haven't told the reader who the heck this person is. And we've mentioned the manga and anime appearances, but there's more appearances at the end of the second paragraph.
  • In the second paragraph, you're using italics for emphasis (don't), and I still don't know after reading it when/where this story is set- the real world? Fantasy world? Space? Looks like it's 19th century Earth, which would explain the clothes.
  • "Allen later learns he is connected to the Noah and might turn into one of them." And... the end. I know that the series is ongoing, but this plot summary just cuts off abruptly.
  • Third paragraph is good enough as it goes.

So if we're going to rewrite the lead to flow better, it would work better as:

Allen Walker (Japanese: アレン・ウォーカー Hepburn: Aren Wōkā?) is a fictional character who appears as the protagonist of the manga D.Gray-man by Katsura Hoshino. He is also the protagonist of its two anime adaptations: D.Gray-man and its sequel D.Gray-man Hallow, and has appeared in three light novels, two video games, and several crossover fighting video games. In the series, set in 19th-century Earth, Allen joins the Black Order as an Exorcist: a soldier able to use a mysterious object known as Innocence to fight demons known as Akuma. While the Innocence takes the form of a giant left arm initially, over time it takes new forms and gives him new abilities. Over the course of the ongoing series, Allen uses these powers to fight the Millennium Earl, who created the army of Akuma to destroy the world, and his super-human followers, the Noah Family. During his adventures, Allen learns he is connected to the Noah and might turn into one of them.

Hoshino based Allen's character design on the shorter-haired female protagonist of a one-shot comic predecessor to the manga, Zone, named Robin. She designed Allen's clothing to resemble nineteenth-century outfits, and gave him a ribbon tie and other accessories to create a "gentlemanly image". She also gave him a scar in the shape of a pentagram to project a scary-looking image, and a calm demeanor different from her typical rambunctious and rude characters. Allen begins the series as a teenager, and matures throughout. Hoshino has stated she is pleased with Allen's character development as the manga's story has progressed.

Allen has been very popular with D.Gray-man readers, usually ranking first in the series' popularity polls. Reactions to him have also been generally positive in manga and anime publications and other media. His character design has been highly praised, with critics noting characteristics atypical of a shōnen protagonist, such as his calm demeanor and mysterious origin. Several pieces of merchandise have been released with Allen's likeness, including plush dolls and figurines, as well as clothing and cosplay pieces.

  • I'll stop there for a bit; I do want to draw your attention to a key point though- the order and details of the writing kept assuming that the reader knew what you were talking about (19th-century clothing when you haven't said that the series is set in the 19th century, for example). You do that as well in at least the next section- you start talking about the Black Order and Exorcists without introducing them first; you can't rely on the lead to inform the reader of all the concepts. See if you can run through the rest of the article as if you were a reader who had never seen the manga/anime, and hadn't read any further in the article than that point in the article, and make sure that everything still makes sense. --PresN 20:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I tried doing that for now.Tintor2 (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I tried following your advice of explaining who is who in every section User:PresN. Also, I rearranged the reception a bit.Tintor2 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Carbrera
  • The image in the infobox needs an alt
  • The image under "Reception#Popularity" needs an alt
  • More to come Carbrera (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Image review and comments from ProtoDrake
  • Image Review
  • Comments
    • Most of the comments I may have made on the lead have already been made above by PresN. But I would raise a different point: the use of "video games" twice in a single sentence grated slightly. You could cut out the second use's "video" and just link it to fighting game.
    • Really not sure about the use of a cosplay image here.
    • "Allen has also been popular with cosplayers.[26]" - Is there any specific cosplay group, or just a general favoring of the character?
    • "She also liked his new abilities, the Innocence Crown Clown and his sword (which was compared with the ones from Final Fantasy VII), also received praise.[39]" - This sentence is disjointed, and needs fixing.
  • May find more on a second run, but that's what leaped out at me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I tried addressing your points @ProtoDrake:. Thanks for the response.Tintor2 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tintor2: I've had another look through. It looks like any other points I may have raised have already been raised by others. While I still have some reservations about the cosplay image, it's not a fatal flaw. I'll Support this article's promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments by Aoba47
  • In the following line from the lead (While the Innocence takes the form of a giant left arm initially…), should you specify that “the Innocence” in this context is “Allen’s Innocence” as I am assuming there are multiple forms of Innocence through the manga?
  • Please use Allen Walker’s full name when you first use it in the article.
  • Define what “the Black Order” means in the context of this manga. Also define “Exorcist” in the context of the manga. You do a great job of this in the lead, but it is absent in the article itself.
  • I confused by your identification of Zone in the “Creation and conception” section. You identify it as “the D. Gray-man one-shot comic”, but I was under the assumption that the one-shot was created prior to the development of the D. Gray-man series? Would it be more appropriate to just identify it as a “one-shot comic”?
  • @Tintor2: This still needs to be addressed. Once this is addressed, I can add my final comments. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tintor2: No, I meant that how it appeared in the "Creation and conception" section, but it has been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Properly introduce Robin as the “protagonist” mentioned in the previous sentence. You casually mention “Robin” in the following phrase (When comparing Allen to Robin…) without clearly identifying Robin to an unfamiliar reader.
  • What do you mean by “most of them referring to the state of Allen and the other main characters”? If possible, I would expand on this a little bit more on how it relates to the character. If this is not possible, it is fine as it currently stands.
  • Define what you mean by “the previous story arc” in the final paragraph of the “Creation and conception” section
  • This line (Allen is a teenager who grows up as the series progresses) seems somewhat odd. Rather than saying the generic “grows up”, maybe something more specific about how his character develops over the course of the series.
  • Define what you mean with “His body’s age”.
  • Wikilink golem if it is not a series-specific creation. Also, is it necessary to capitalize this word?
  • Define “the Noah family” in the “Appearances” section. You did a great job identifying this in the lead, so remember to do so in the article itself.
  • Use “crossover fighting games” in the “In other media” section as you have done in the lead.

@Tintor2: I know there are a lot of comments, but you have done a fantastic job with this article. Once all of my above comments have been addressed, I will leave my final vote. It is great to see high quality manga articles on here. Good luck with this! Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @Aoba47:. I tried following all your suggestions. However, the series' title is still ambiguous as some friends I have even debate if the "D" stands for "dear" or "dark". My only theory is that in an early chapter, Allen sees the world "black and white" as he is able to distinguish demons from common people. Still, that's pure OR.Tintor2 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tintor2: That makes sense, so the statement about the series title is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Awesome work! I can now support this nomination. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Calling two users who were present in the second peer review to dig more comments @Garagepunk66: @Crazy runner:.Tintor2 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Also @Jaguar: since he reviewed the GA nomination.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from AngusWOOF
Review by AngusWOOF

I just had some comments upon reading this article:

  • characteristics: regressing? as in age regression? maturity regression? hair recession? should it be linked?
    • Done.
  • characteristics: teenager who grows up as the series progresses - change to something like: is introduced as a teenage boy. If you want to cover age spans in other media, you can discuss how many years the original series covers, and any notable ages he is for the spinoff / light novels.
    • Done. Well, in the first volume Hoshino said he was 15. In the latest she guidebook, Allen's age is 16. However, in the latest chapters Nea said he should be at least 25 in a confusing way.
Perhaps change "Allen is a teenager who grows up as the series progresses." to "The series follows Allen's adventures starting when he was about 15-16 years old.(reference about 15 in vol. 1, 16 in guidebook) Although most of his colleagues assume he ages normally, his former friend Nea has stated he should be at least 25 years old and is actually (regressing|growing younger).(reference)
  • characteristics: adjust "becomes white from shock" tense. I thought his hair was white throughout the series and the reddish brown was a flashback? If the entire childhood story is covered in chapter 1 as a present-tense, then retain this, but not if he's already white-haired and then has a flashback of his youth in chapter/episode 1.
    • Fixed.
  • one-shot comic Zone - did Hoshino write Zone? change to "a one-shot comic" to "her one-shot comic". It's not like Zone is a notable one-shot in the magazine's history.
    • Fixed.
    • Done
  • Introduction polls: "usually ranking first" as Walker was the most popular on 2 of the 4 polls for the series, with Yu Kanda topping the other 2. That's not usually. That's 2 of 4 polls, and there isn't any data to show where he ranked in the ones Yu Kanda topped.
This is better. I'd remove usually unless there are more than four polls?
    • Done.
  • Regarding the scar, where is it? On his cheek? Forehead? I can't tell on the cover image. Is it usually visible or covered? I'm reading later on that he has a deformed left arm, cursed eye, and stark white hair. Wouldn't those be just as frightening?
    • Done.
  • In other media / video games - Allen being a playable character. Is he the central character in the game or is he among several players in a party? I'm assuming in the fighting games, he's just one of many fighter options, and that he's the central in the D.Gray-man ones.
    • Done.
Okay, but I'm still curious as to whether in the two main non-fighting games, whether Allen is the central player character (played throughout the game) or just one among many choices in the game.
  • Was volume 1, p. 61 an in-volume interview? Is it in the same page location for both the English and the Japanese version? If so, you can keep this verbiage, but I would be cautious if the interview was placed in different locations across media.
    • The author listed that after the first chapter where she shared info about it.
  • Appearances in D.Gray-man. "All Exorcists are ordered to kill Allen". Isn't Allen an Exorcist? Does he get an order to kill himself? Change to "The other Exorcists are ordered" ? As this happens in 170 but he's already transformed into a Noah in chapter 167? Or is there some number of chapters where he struggles between being Allen and Nea?
    • Done. Allen and Nea became basically enemies to fight to become the owner of the body but lately Mana is winning.
Perhaps this should be mentioned more clearly that the struggle with Nea is an ongoing thing for a good number of chapters? Does that mean he exhibits a multiple personality? And reword that he is being hunted by his fellow Exorcists? It's hard to figure out whether most Exorcists are following orders and whether or not his closest friends are still siding with him regardless.
I'm not entirely sure. Allen forgets what happens when Nea takes control of his body. Also, about his allies, it's quite complicated. Both Johnny and Lenalee keep saying Allen is their friend. On the other hand, Kanda doesn't care, but later decides to help him. Wouldn't that be too much fancruft? Also added, a sentence about Allen's initial transformations.
It sounds like Nea's spirit has remained dormant inside Allen and then awakened to try to take over his body, succeeding on occasion, and then his fellow Exorcists are on alert to stop that if that were to happen? Maybe a rewrite like: "On returning to headquarters, Allen learns that Nea, who had betrayed the Earl and was killed, had implanted his memories into Allen, and plans to take over Allen's body to transform him into the 14th Noah. His comrades, which have been given orders to kill the 14th Noah, start questioning his identity. Allen experiences situations where Nea has taken over and where his Noah/Akuma-attacking Crown Clown's sword starts hurting him." This puts Nea's actions against the Earl in the past tense / flashbacks, as writing that in the historical present tense had me confused as to whether Nea was alive during the main storyline. Also is this the same Nea as his former friend? Perhaps remove that former friend Nea part from the other section as that can be confusing.
Yes, the same Nea. This is the guy who is both the 14th Noa as well as Allen's former friend. In volume 24, Nea wonder why can't Allen remember him as well as why he has not aged.
It's a bit confusing how Nea appears. Is he a separate person Allen encounters or is he inside Allen's body/mind when he interacted with him in volume 24? Is he both? And are they really friends?

@AngusWOOF: Tried to reword it. Nea makes brief appearances during early volumes especially when Allen plays the Noah's Ark piano. He had a body but before being killed, he transmitted his mind to Allen. According Nea himself, they used to be allies but when he saw a recording of Timcampy he said now they would enemies. However, their relationship is still a mystery now that especially since the manga is only published every three months.

  • Criticism in reception section? Should there be a paragraph that critiques the character or says what things weren't that impressive?
    • There are only two criticism about how they compared with cliche characters or deem his original powers simple (in the first paragraph of "critical response"), but reception has been mostly positive. (And I searched a lot). For example, fellow GA Yu Kanda had a lot mixed responses based on his introductions but then got praise for his development.
Fair enough for weight.

Those are my first thoughts. I like the detail on the various sections. Let me know if you need me to explain further. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Thanks for the review AngusWOOF. I tried covering everything you mentioned.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Indented with further comments. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @AngusWOOF:. Already tried to fix all issues.Tintor2 (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Added a reply above. Also some more:

  • In the third D.Gray-man novel, is Red supposed to be Allen, or a character that is similar to Allen? I'm wondering how that is relevant to Allen's article?
Red is Allen's nickname when he was in the circus. He took the name Allen from a dead dog. Should I reword it?
It could explain how it follows Allen's adventures in the circus when he went under the nickname Red?
  • Any coverage of Sanae Kobayashi's portrayal of Allen? Was there a reason given for why she was replaced by Murase?
Sadly nothing. The second anime replaced everybody from the cast.
This may need to be explained like "In the anime TV series and related franchise, Allen was voiced by Sanae Kobayashi. In 2016, for the new TV anime series D.Gray-man Hallow, the voice parts were recast with Murase replacing Kobayashi."

AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC), add'l replies 14:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Did I miss anything @AngusWOOF:? I'm a bit busy today and tomorrow, so I might not work too much in this.Tintor2 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Child voice actor portrayal. Is it relevant? Do they have a bunch of flashbacks, or is this just an episode 1 kind of guest role? If it's the latter, it doesn't need to be highlighted up front or put in the infobox.
Still a bit confused with Nea as a former friend. Were they friends from childhood? Was Nea more of a colleague? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: About Nea it's still confusing since Allen (and thus the readers) don't know the actual truth about Allen's actual past and his relationship with the Earl and Nea. I reworded it to be more consistent with the manga's present rather than the past. I hope it works. Thanks again for the feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, remove the age part since the chapter doesn't say he is 25 years old, and replace with "Nea, who possesses his body later on, suspects he hasn't really aged and could possibly be growing younger." Cite to chapter 215. Or strike that statement altogether as he isn't an authority on Allen's age, whereas the 15-16 is citable to the character profile at the end of chapter 1 and the guidebook. The guidebook also has timelines for each of the characters like at age 9, Allen does (event1). At age 11, (some event2). It also says his age is assumed to be around 15 so go with whatever figures the chapter / guidebook states. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: Like this? There is a brief timeskip in volume 16 of a year as mostly covered with Lenalee regrowing her lost hair.Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, but you don't need to say what his age is as it progresses, besides what happens in the introduction. Someone could start at age 15, have some birthdays and so forth and going through school years. You don't need to say that he becomes 16 or 17, unless there's an event worth mentioning like, "on his 18th birthday, he joins the army". AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Like this?Tintor2 (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I think it's clean enough now. Thanks for tweaking that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

In the "In other media" section, Remove or fix up "As wells as video games," AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked that sentence. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Issues have been addressed. I'm stamping it as a pass. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that the magic word for the nominations viewer script is support. --PresN 15:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC), updated 20:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Back from work. Thanks, @AngusWOOF: but shouldn't you change to support according to @PresN:? Tintor2 (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Support FA for this article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for coming to this late. I have read through the article and have concluded that the prose now flows much better than it did when I last read it during the GAN, and also everything else has been addressed thanks to other reviewers' input. I think this meets the FA criteria as it is and will support as a result. It's broadly well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out (though I only managed to look through the first half due to my poor internet connection at the moment). JAGUAR  14:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

First, let me say I don't envy anyone trying to write a clear summary of the plot points from a speculative fiction series, which can be quite convoluted. Since I'm not familiar with the source material, most of my comments are questions.

  • Lead: "His character design has been highly praised, ... . Still, some writers compared him with other series from the same demographic." The use of "Still" suggests a contrast between the two sentences, but if so that isn't clear. Was he compared negatively to other characters? I didn't get that impression from the Reception section.
    • Changed. There is only one comparison in the DVDtalk review.
  • Conception and creation: "The series' title, "D.Gray-man", is meant to have various meanings, most of them referring to the state of Allen and the other main characters." I'm not clear on what type(s) of "state" are being referenced here. Emotional? Physical? Ethical? I looked at the article about the manga, but it doesn't seem to clarify this point.
    • The author never explained it. She didn't even state was the meaning of the "D".
  • In other media: "As well as being in the manga and anime series, ..." The subsection above is titled "In D.Gray-man", which I initially took to mean it was a summary of the character's plotlines in the original manga. But this lead-in phrase makes me wonder if the earlier chronicle covers the anime also. Are the plots of the manga and anime sufficiently identical for that? If so, it should probably be stated explicitly. If not, it seems like a summary of his anime appearances is missing.
    • The anime adds some filler but they have had no impact on the character's traits.
  • Critical response: "The revelation that Allen was going to be become an enemy from the Order, the 14th Noah ..." Shouldn't that be "an enemy of the Order"?
  • Characteristics: I found this section confusing until I read the Appearances section, because it contains various mentions of plot events that are explained more fully under Appearances. It might flow better to have Characteristics after Appearances.
    • Moved.

I made some small copyedits directly; of course put them back if I messed up something. --RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@RL0919: Thanks for the feedback. Already tried doing all your recommendations. Ping me again if I forgot something.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@RL0919: I forgot to mention this but the characteristics section I based it on Ellie (The Last of Us)#Atrributes that was given as an example by another user in regards to how a FA could be made. Also, the first paragraph of Appearances shows the character's backstory. However, more parts about Allen's secret past are shown in later volumes of the series. Do you think's Allen backstory should be told in characteristics or would that be unnecessary?Tintor2 (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tintor2: As long as Characteristics comes later, I don't see a need to reprise. At this point I am willing to support with the caveat that it is based only on prose and layout. I spot-checked a few of the English sources, but a lot of the sources are in Japanese, so I can't cover that angle adequately. I assume the coordinators will want someone to speak to that before promoting. Two sourcing comments to help smooth your way with anyone who does:
  • Book sources such as We Love Cosplay Girls should have page numbers supplied, even if you use a Google Books link. Those links are not reliable for all users because access varies by location and whatever other factors Google feels like using. The one for that book took me to a "no access" view.
  • A couple of the items about merchandising are sourced to Amazon pages, I presume selling the indicated item. Since the only thing claimed is that such items have been sold, I guess that is acceptable, but only just. If there is a secondary source that mentions these items, that would be better.
Since I'm not able to check most of the sources, I won't withhold my caveated support over either of these items. --RL0919 (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@RL0919: So you'll support me if I remove the url to that book? I'm a nit confused.Tintor2 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Already did support. I just can't claim to have done any significant consideration of the sources. (A source review request on the FAC talk page might help you there.) The final bullets are simply suggestions. --RL0919 (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@RL0919: Thanks for the review. I'll try to correct that.Tintor2 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Review by magiciandude
  • Well now, looks like I've found another anime to add to my watchlist. I'll take a look and so expect a feedback sometime. Erick (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
"She also liked his new abilities, the Innocence "Crown Clown" and Allen's sword, comparing the latter to swords from the video game Final Fantasy VII." What does this mean? Now I am familiar with FF7 and all, but as a perspective of a reader who may not be, I think this should be just expanded a little bit. Erick (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Does this work?. Also, this page became huge. Should we make subsections to make it easier to read? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
So, is it referring to swords wielded by Cloud Strife or a specific sword (like the Buster Sword or Fusion Swords)? I think the change is good, but it just has to be a little bit more specific. Just a little bit. Erick (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Magiciandude:Allen's sword looks more like Buster one. But still, wasn't it that the Fusion Swords only appeared in the movie Advent Children whereas the Buster one is his initial one in the gam?Tintor2 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh that's right. I forgot about. Anyways, I've crossed it out and I'll have another look at the article. As a side note, it is not necessary to ping me as I'm watching this page. Erick (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


  • The foreign-language sources should use the trans_title parameter to translate the name of the site being sourced. Erick (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


Alright, I now support this article. Good work! Erick (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Hpesoj00

I didn't get around to peer reviewing the whole article, so I'll do it now.

  • "he briefly starts turning into Nea across the series to the point Crown Clown's sword starts hurting himself" – This sentence is confusing. The word "briefly" contradicts "across the series", which suggests a long-term change.
    • Changed to briefly. Across sounds like a long period of time.
  • "he sends him to another location" – Who does "he" refer to? The Black Order? Not grammatical.
    • Fixed. Allen sends him.
  • "several other playable characters from Weekly Shōnen Jump manga magazine" – You then list a bunch of games. Do you mean playable characters from games featured in the magazine?
    • No, those are games that collect characters from the magazine. I tried fixing it.

I made an edit to the article myself. Please check I didn't do anything silly. Hpesoj00 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Today I'm a bit busy due to work, so I might not be able to address anybody's issues until evening.Tintor2 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Will try to get to this today - might be a few hours though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Allen Walker joins the Black Order, a group of soldiers known as Exorcists. - are we describing an occupation, in which case "exorcists" should be lower case...?
I reworded it a little. Apparently, both the manga and anime use capital letters for Exorcists.Tintor2 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok no probs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
When comparing Allen to Robin, Hoshino notes that Allen is a "different kind of boy". - watch for repetitiveness, how about, "When comparing the two, Hoshino notes that Allen is a "different kind of boy"."
Done.Tintor2 (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, support WRT comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any prose clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


Source review from Jaguar[edit]

I'll spotcheck every source I can access, but if I can't translate a Japanese source then I'll be forced to skip it: JAGUAR  12:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Ref 4 needs a publisher, and "" should be in the website field. If "Animationinsider" is the publisher, then get rid of the ".net"
  • Ref 22 also needs a publisher (if you can find it)
  • Ref 34: IGN needs to be in the website field, and Ziff Davis as its publisher
  • Ref 46 and 47's publishers need to be linked
  • The manga volumes below the references should be split into two columns

I spent a while spotchecking every source to see if there were any errors in it matching the article's text, but there weren't any. I was also able to translate every source I came across. Since there are no issues with the sources and the points I made above are minor, I'll support the sourcing side of things. JAGUAR  13:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I managed to fix all the things you mentioned but I don't know to split the manga volumes references into two. Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I do! Done. --PresN 14:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Night of January 16th[edit]

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the debut play of author Ayn Rand. It was her first big professional success, and the only one of her plays to be a hit. It was also the last hit for Al Woods, one the most successful Broadway producers of the early 20th century.

Since the previous nomination there is some additional material and sources, as well as a couple of additional images. The article also went to the Guild of Copy Editors for a thorough copy edit. Finally, I approached User:Curly Turkey about mentoring under the new FAC mentoring scheme. He provided additional copy editing and some feedback. So now it's here for round three. RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I support on prose, as I did last round. The nom died last time from reviewer apathy rather than unresolved issues. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure different premiere-dates and theatres for each title in the infobox is necessary. It seems just the title changed; it wasn't substantially a different play. Otoh I think Woman on Trial and Penthouse Legend need to be in the infobox.
  • Jury element: the long list of celebrity of juror names is unnecessary and tedious to read. All you need is a couple of the most prominent names. If you don't want to lose the info, you can relegate it to a footnote.
  • Themes: surprised to see no mention of Objectivism. What place does the philosophy of Night have in her overall thought?—indopug (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I reduced the info to just the first premier, as Woman on Trial, so you can see what that might look like. {{Infobox play}} does not have a parameter for alternative titles, and the 'name' parameter creates the infobox header, so I don't know of any other way the other titles would be mentioned there.
  • I get your point on the juror list; will look at different ways of doing it and probably update tomorrow. See update below.
  • The play is from early in Rand's career and is by her own description not philosophical. Basically it pre-dates Objectivism or any systematic philosophizing by her. To the extent that it was influenced by philosophy, the common view in sources is that it was the philosophy of Nietzsche, which Rand was interested in at the time but which she later rejected. --RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    If you can find a source that says that, it would be good to say so for those who may be wondering. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I moved most of the juror details to a note. I did a draft of leaving it in the body with fewer names, but it seemed somewhat arbitrary as to who I might include. Regarding philosophy, most of what I said above is in the article, except the chronological point that this was written before she formulated Objectivism. I'll see if there is a source that says that or some equivalent. I did remove the addition of "philosopher" as a description for her, because that is anachronistic. --RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Turned out to be easier to source than I expected, thanks to a book published earlier this year. --RL0919 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Indopug:, it's been a while since your last comment, and I wanted to make sure you knew that I had responded to all of your previous input. Thanks for helping, and let me know if you have any other suggestions for the article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I am happy with the changes so far. My major remaining concern is with the structure of the article. History seems far too broad and unwieldy (stretching from 1933 to 1973 with many sudden narrative leaps in between), and Productions too dry (as a list of theatres, dates and actors) and somewhat repetitive of History (don't see why the month-long EE Clive production needs to be in two sections; ditto for the Ambassador run). I think having the entire History+Productions info recast completely chronologically and then split into new sections (Background, Writing, Creative conflicts, Productions, Aftermath maybe?) would solve these problems, but I'm not sure.—indopug (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I was a little skeptical, but actually that turned out to be a relatively easy change, and generally an improvement. Give it a look and see what you think. Section titles and image placement may need some tweaking, as might wording of specific sentences that are in new places within the narrative. --RL0919 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Indopug: Just making sure you saw the changes made following your last suggestion. I did do some further tweaking after my previous comment. Not sure if you are following this FAC page and/or the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Give me a day or two.—indopug (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


First time reviewing a play but I'll try to address some issues I find:
  • Avoid short paragraphs like "Despite the disputes between Rand and Woods, the play opened at Shubert's Ambassador Theatre on September 16, 1935, where it ran successfully for seven months. It closed on April 4, 1936, after 283 performances.[23]" If you can't expand them, merge it other paragraphs with others. Same is with "In 1989, Bollywood director Anant Balani's debut film Gawaahi, a Hindi-language adaptation of Night of January 16th starring Indian actress Zeenat Aman, was released.[99][100]"
  • In the "Cast of the Broadway production of Night of January 16th (in speaking order)" there are some blank parts in Other notable performers. However, are they necessary for this article?
Other than that I don't find other noticeable issues with this article (probably because I'm not new to them). However, I would recommend archiving some really old references in case they become deadlinks. Also, if you have time could you check my FAN, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1? Also, I would suggest you to review more FAN in order to get more feedback to this nomination. Good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tintor2:, thanks for the feedback. Added archive links for online-only sources per your suggestion. There are only a few of those. Many of the links are online archives of print sources, and as such are verifiable even if the linked sites cease to exist. I also merged one paragraph and expanded another. The paragraph about Gawaahi is still somewhat short, but the content doesn't really belong as part of another paragraph. Regarding the cast lists, the intention is that non-Broadway cast are listed only if the actor is notable, so there will typically be some unfilled slots. Hope that addresses all your concerns about the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@RL0919: Good work. I'll give you my support. I also suggest calling the GA reviewer through the ping's work to get to more feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

California State Route 76[edit]

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 19:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

State Route 76 is another highway in San Diego County. It has existed in some form since the 1930s and is still used widely today. Rschen7754 19:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Small Content Comment - In the "Major Intersections" subsection, it says
 R reflects a realignment in the route since then, M indicates a second realignment, L refers an overlap due to a correction or change, and T indicates postmiles classified as temporary
And then in the following table that this is supposedly a key for, there are only R's and no-letters. I question why this is necessary at all? Is information about realigned milemarkers not available for all the intersections? Why include M, L, and Ts in the key when you don't use them? Fieari (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a template that is used across many California state highway articles. Only routes with those particular realignments will have postmiles with those particular letters. --Rschen7754 06:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that's troublesome. The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template. That means I'm looking for "Brilliant prose", and... well, this isn't. I'd also want to know why some of the mile listings are 1964 based, and some are more accurate. This sort of information should be in a FA. Fieari (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
"The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template." -> it is part of a template, see Template:CAinttop. Also, all postmiles were measured in 1964, across the state. It is when a route was realigned after that a letter is added. --Rschen7754 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Fieari: In this case, after the FAC was submitted I discovered another source for the mileages, and have replaced all of them on this article. This should resolve your objections. With that being said, I am strongly concerned with the reviewing methodology of focusing on the legend for a table, rather than reviewing the other 98% of the article, the latter of which I would encourage you to focus on in future reviews. --Rschen7754 06:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Rschen, that does look better. I know I only focused on this one place, but that's only because it stood out to me like a glaring thumb after only a cursory glance over the article-- that is, it didn't make any sense to me, and context did not seem apparent. Please consider this a compliment... the rest of the article did not have anything jump out at me.
Allow me to be more formal about it:
Prose Check, Pass - The article is comprehensible, with no outstanding sections that are difficult to read or confusing. The prose is flowing, and free of grammatical errors (that I could find). The article is informative, and covers the points I would expect to find in an excellent article of this sort.
I have not conducted a sourcing check. Fieari (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for taking a look! --Rschen7754 07:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 14:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that the mileage in the infobox and the major intersections table doesn't match. Is there a way this can be fixed? Dough4872 14:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed now. --Rschen7754 00:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article against the featured article criteria during an A-class review, as well as verifying sources in the same review. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments on just the lead

  • "State Route 76 (SR 76) is a 52.63-mile-long (84.70 km) state highway in the U.S. state of California." The value–unit wording is very awkward—illogical, actually. -> "State Route 76 (SR 76) is a state highway 52.63 miles (84.70 km) long in the U.S. state of California."
  • Why is "U.S. state" linked (bunched with "California")—the state name barely needs linking, let alone a ... list of all US states???
    • I've been told that this is to provide the proper context for the reader - I think this was requested at FAC a while back for some U.S. roads article, and it is on many of those FAs. If the general practice at FAC has changed, I would be willing to adjust it. --Rschen7754 05:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
      • MOSLINK discourages bunched linking, for good reason. And unfocused linking (why do readers need to look at a list of US states right there?). Anyone who asked for it to be linked should have been ignored. Scripts remove it. Tony (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Removed the link to U.S. state. --Rschen7754 00:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is a frequently used east–west route"—ambiguous: could refer to repeated use by the same people. "much used".
    • I'm not sure what you're getting at here - it very well could refer to repeated use by the same people (commuters, for example). Changed --Rschen7754 05:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "The highway serves as a major route through the region"—"is".
  • "continuing east into the community of Bonsall while providing access to Fallbrook"—while? Simpler just to write "to provide" (if that is most or all of the purpose of the continuation); or ", providing".
    • Changed to "and providing", otherwise there would be two participle phrases at the end separated by a comma. --Rschen7754 05:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "and was officially designated as SR 76 in the 1964 state highway renumbering, though the route was known as SR 76 before then"—why "though"? Are you contraverting from the previous proposition? "was previously known" would be plainer.
    • I'm not sure that it would convey the same meaning. It was officially designated as SR 76 in 1964 (along with most state highways) under state law, but the signs on the road said SR 76 before that (a bit unusual, which is why there is a "though"). --Rschen7754 05:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
      • The unusuality is unclear to readers unless you insert that context. Why is it necessary in the lead? Tony (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Adjusted. --Rschen7754 00:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Caltrans"—what is it? Better to spell out on first appearance rather than requiring me to visit the link target to see whether it's a company.

At least as far as the lead goes, the writing is not yet up to FA standard. Tony (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

First section: Route description" This is the first time I've taken a good look at the text of one of these elaborate US road articles. It's challenging to write this section in particular, because of repetition temptations, a certain sameness in the sequencing, and a risk that it's at times hard-going and much less useful to follow in text than to see it on a map (or using Google Earth). I think some tips about the grammar and lexicon of these sections would be useful as a resource at the Wikiproject.

  • "The roadway carrying the SR 76 designation begins at County Route S21 (CR S21) in Oceanside, although Caltrans does not consider the road west of I-5 as part of the route,[3] and that part of the road is not in the legal definition." Would it be possible to avoid the repetition thus? "The roadway carrying the SR 76 designation begins at County Route S21 (CR S21) in Oceanside, although Caltrans does not consider the road west of I-5 to be part of the route,[3] and it is not within the legal definition."
  • Road articles are tricky in that they involve extended accounts of the route; it's hard to avoid repetitive wording. Here, in what must be a sustained attempt at variety, you use a metaphor actually travelling along the route (which could be temporal or spatial—you've chose temporal here, but "quickly" isn't ideal); and "and" is probably necessary after the comma (or as a replacement for "then"): "It quickly has an interchange with I-5, then becomes a four-lane expressway known as the San Luis Rey Mission Expressway." There's more repetitive wording, too. What about: "There is soon an interchange with I-5, after which SR 76 becomes the four-lane San Luis Rey Mission Expressway." You could then use "this" instead of SR 76 again, given that SR 76 comes again soon after.
  • "It then has two overpasses"—I'd minimise this metaphorical "ownership" grammar (also in "It quickly has an interchange"). Try to avoid sequence tags like "then" wherever it works without: "There are two overpasses: one ...". The readers are by now primed for a sequence in your description, so they'll expect that the sequence in which you describe the parts of the route is the sequence of the route, and usually won't need to pass roadsigns reminding them of this. "The highway then goes through Bonsall, ..." -> "The highway passes through Bonsall, ...". Maybe preserve one of these ubiquitious thens for "then meets the northern ...".
    • Adjusted. --Rschen7754 06:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "As it begins to enter rural Oceanside,"—laboured. Why not just "As it enters rural Oceanside,". I see quite a few "begins"; "starts" is also available where appropriate, for rotation.
    • Reworded. --Rschen7754 01:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is at this point when SR 76 becomes known as Pala Road, which narrows to two lanes ..."—"that", not "when", and "becomes known"? Perhaps simply: "At this point SR 76 becomes Pala Road, narrowing to two lanes" (but if Pala Road narrows after it starts, better ", which narrows to two lanes", making Pala Road the actor and losing the simultaneity in your meaning).
    • Made the first and last change. I'm reluctant to remove "known as" as "becomes" might make the reader think that it is no longer SR 76. I'm open to considering other possibilities. --Rschen7754 01:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "It intersects Via Monserate and Gird Road south of Fallbrook before encountering the former routing of"—nice metaphorical grammar: the road is personified as the experiencer. But you wouldn't want "encountering" twice in one article.
    • Removed the first mention. --Rschen7754 01:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "SR 76 then goes through Pala and the Pala Indian Reservation, passing by Pala Casino and intersecting CR S16, the turnoff to the Pala Mission and Temecula. Continuing to parallel the San Luis Rey River, SR 76 passes by ...". Not in love with "goes", but I suppose you've used "passes" enough (in fact, twice in the space of a few seconds—is there a list at the Wikiproject of verbs that can be rotated for this purpose?).
    • Reworded. --Rschen7754 06:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "the National Highway System,[7] a network of highways that are essential to the country's economy, defense, and mobility"—I hated this. It comes from a publisher that is almost certainly engaging in political spin—the Federal Highways Administration. So they're pushing for more resources generally by playing the defense card, naturally. I believe it does not belong in this article (so ... army trucks use the highways? Got it). That highways should be good for the economy and mobility is not worth including—or is this a stock proposition and reference for all articles in the class? You might just as well write that such highways are the sites of thousands of deaths and horrific injuries each year; and that they're part of a system that keeps the US enslaved to Saudi Arabia, through the part-funding of that state's support of terrorism.
    • Not all state highways are part of the National Highway System. In my opinion, it provides a bit of an outside perspective as to which highways are considered more important than others. Outside, because the federal government and the state government (that is actually responsible for the state highways) are two different entities. If you are concerned about NPOV, I can add "considered" or similar language. --Rschen7754 05:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Nothing wrong with mentioning the NHS, but the descriptor used by politicians and bureacrats brings unwanted angles. Tony (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Later: Why not just link the item: any reader older than 7 will know what a national highway system is; many countries have similar designations, by name and in funding protocols. A link alone would avoid undue detail of questionable relevance to this article, and out of context a set of misleading or unexplained epithets. Tony (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This will puzzle anyone not familiar with the topic: "SR 76 is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System,[9] but it is not officially designated as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation.[10]" We shouldn't have to look up the references to understand it, particularly the first clause. Tony (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Added "legally" to make the distinction more clear. --Rschen7754 06:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


  • "Flooding in January 1916 resulted in the closing of the road that existed between Bonsall and Pala"—"of the pre-existing road between"?
  • "did not reopen until two years later" --> "did not reopen for two years"?
  • ", and" × 2 ... could one of these joiners be different to break the cascade? "The Bonsall Bridge over the San Luis Rey River was completed in 1925,[23] and opened in 1926 as the county's largest bridge at the time, and served as part of the road from San Diego to Elsinore."
    • Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "was originally added to the state highway system in 1933.[27] However, it was not designated as legislative Route 195 until 1935." ... Could conflate these two sentences to simplify the join?: "was originally added to the state highway system in 1933,[27] but was not designated as legislative Route 195 until 1935."
  • Like most of these points, I'm relying on your contextual knowledge to judge whether to implement or not, or to use a different solution than my suggestion: "Plans for constructing a replacement for Mission Avenue date from 1950.[35] By 1961, there were plans to ..."—avoid plans twice with "By 1961, there was a proposal to ..."? Again, sets of synonyms—a field-related mini-thesaurus—would be a great service to editors by the wikiproject.
  • Tip to everyone: use the search function to identify repetitions, at a mature stage in preparation. You'll be shocked—I am, at my own repetiions when I write. "The next year," ... "next" appears later in the same para. Make the first one "following"?
  • "the construction on"—consider losing the "the". And it's repeated two seconds later, so perhaps then "until work was underway on"?
  • plans, plans.
    • Fixed. --Rschen7754 06:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • thereafter ... just "after" in the 21st century. Same for "afterward".
  • "Over the period from 1974 to 1977, Oceanside police kept track of over 1,000 accidents that occurred along SR 76 from that time period." Your repetition audit with the search function would have picked that up. Finish on "76". And your radar beam for shorter-and-straighter might have picked up the opening gobbledy: "From 1974 to 1977, Oceanside police kept track of more than 1,000 accidents on SR 76".
  • "In the meantime, the Oceanside Development Agency recommended extending the new highway west to Pacific Street". Bonus points for identifying "jingles" ... end/end. So ... "In the meantime, the Oceanside Development Agency recommended that the new highway be extended west to Pacific Street", maybe?
  • "In 1983, a federal gasoline tax of five-cents-per-gallon (one-cent-per-liter) was approved, which added more funding to". Why the hyphens? A five-cents-per-gallon tax, yes, because it's a compound adjective. But it's not here. And maybe: "In 1983, the introduction of a federal gasoline tax of five-cents-per-gallon (one-cent-per-liter) added more funding to". Simpler grammar, shorter and nicer for readers.
    • Fixed both. --Rschen7754 06:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Still only 2/3 of the way through. This is hard labour, but I've put in the effort in the hope that you might use the experience to lead others to systemically improve this class of articles. Tony (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

First Tennessee Park[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a minor league baseball stadium in Nashville, Tennessee. I believe it meets the criteria to become a featured article. The article's previous nomination did not receive enough feedback for consensus. I will be reaching out to WikiProjects Tennessee & Baseball this time. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Tentative support in comprehensiveness and prose, as last time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I tried reading the article twice but found no issues (except maybe two small paragraphs but that's too nitpick) so I support. Also, I'm also nominating my own GA, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1, so I wondered if you could check it. Also, about the previous review not receiving enough feedback, I have been told I could get more feedback by doing what I have just done: Review other FAN in exchange of another review or request other users you met (or the project) to check it. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Support Comments from RL0919

Looks pretty good from what I've read so far. Not entirely finished yet, but it's getting late so I'll leave some notes/questions and circle back tomorrow:

  • According to WP:CHECKLINKS (report here) there are five external links with significant problems.
    • I've replaced several dead references, and I think everything should now be in order. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Nashville Sounds had originally planned to leave Herschel Greer Stadium for a new ballpark called First Tennessee Field in the early 2000s, but the project was abandoned, partly because of the initial effects of the Great Recession." I find this wording confusing. I think you may mean they started working on a plan in the early 2000s (with the move date to be sometime later), rather than planning to leave their old stadium in the early 2000s. Otherwise there must be some explanation about what delayed the project to the point that it could be cancelled during the late-2000s Great Recession.
    • I included a more specific original target opening date and removed the recession reference. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify: "paid for by five city revenue streams". The property taxes from private developments are two of the five, yes? Otherwise I only count four listed.
    • Yes. In replacing dead reference links, I found a better reference that details each development's property tax payments. The sentence now makes the five sources clear. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The subsection called "Opening" seems to cover a number of things beyond the opening. Perhaps a slightly different header, or should some items be moved to the "Other events" subsection?
    • I renamed it "Minor League Baseball" with the intention of it covering the stadium's primary use as a minor league ballpark. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The site on which First Tennessee Park was built was formerly a run-down area of old warehouses and parking lots." It is mentioned multiple times above that it was built on the site of a previous ballpark. Suddenly it is warehouses and parking lots. I gather from checking the Sulphur Dell article that this is what happened after the old park closed, but this article doesn't explain. An extra sentence or two about the history would help connect it for the reader.
    • I added details comparing the neighborhood when Sulpher Dell stood on the location versus the present/soon-to-be future once other projects are completed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The ballpark's design is inspired by Nashville's heritage." This is immediately followed by discussion of concrete and metal rather than anything about the "heritage" design. I think this sentence would be better served if it was consolidated into the final paragraph of the Design subjection, which does discuss the heritage elements.

More to come. --RL0919 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes so far; I believe all the issues above are addressed. A few others and hopefully we will be looking good.
  • "One of Greer Stadium's most distinctive features was its guitar-shaped scoreboard. Having received overwhelming support from the community, a larger, more modern guitar-shaped scoreboard was designed ..." The placement on the "overwhelming support" clause in the second sentence makes it sound like the new scoreboard got the overwhelming support, but wasn't it support for the the old scoreboard that inspired the new one?
  • Yes. I added some details about why it wasn't moved and made it (hopefully) clearer that attachment to the old board was the reason for a new guitar scoreboard at the new park. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Seats on both levels are traditional, plastic stadium-style chairs, and all lower-level seats behind and between the dugouts, and all second-level seats have padded seat cushions." Seems like an excess of ands, but I didn't want to accidentally change the meaning by copy editing.
  • I agree. I think the seating description flows better now. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "A section of 4-top tables—semi-circular tables surrounded by four chairs—that can accommodate 108 people at 27 tables is located at the end of the lower seating bowl in right field near The Band Box." Since The Band Box isn't discussed until later in the article, it left me wondering about it here. Perhaps some description should be added? "... near a specialty concession area called The Band Box" or something along those lines.
  • Done verbatim per your suggestion. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
That's all my comments on prose. Will spot check some sources before finalizing on support or not. --RL0919 (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your changes and comments so far. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for the long delay since my last comments. I checked several of the sources and didn't find any issues, so happy to support. --RL0919 (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review: All the flickr images check out, as do the own work ones. Logo's fine as well. The only tentative issue is with this one, since it has the fair use logos quite prominently on the image. It is a nice picture, but if someone could provide a second opinion on the logo issue that would be helpful. (I'll try to provide a source review as well). Wizardman 00:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

HMS Alceste (1806)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th century frigate which fought on both sides during the Napoleonic wars. It took part in a number of notable actions but is probably best known as the ship that conveyed Lord Amherst on his diplomatic mission to China, following the Treaty of Vienna. Under Murray Maxwell, she was taken on an exploration of the South China Sea where it was discovered, amongst other things, that Korea was in the wrong place. Unlike most of her contempories, she was not ignominiously broken up at the end of her career but wrecked in the Java Sea. Her crew, marooned on the island of Pulau Laut, had to fend off pirates until rescued several weeks later.

Since being promoted to GA in December 2014, I have found additional sources and been able to provide much more information about Alceste’s capture and her previously unmentioned part in the occupation of Madeira. I have also added extra detail on: the Action of 4 April 1808, the incident in the bay of Agay, the raid at Parenza, and the Action of 29 November 1811. Ykraps (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Euryalus
*capacity of just over 1,097 tons BM - spell out tons burthen in this first instance in the main text, and its worth including the x/94 fraction if available. Also, the BM abbreviation isusually lower case, as it is in the infobox?
  • Done --Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
*Suggest a wikilink to naval long gun, and dropping the "s" off the end of 9-pounder (ie it's a nine-pounder long gun, not a nine-pounders long gun). The long gun article is woefully confusing, but it's better than nothing.
  • You're quite right about the "pounders"; I hadn't noticed it before. A conversion template has been used here which adds the "s" automatically. I will see if there is any way to over-ride it, otherwise I can write it out in full.--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
*Pierre Rolland - should this be wikilinked (but hopefully also piped) to Pierre-Jacques-Nicolas Rolland?
  • Done - Thanks. I thought I'd searched for an article but obviously I didn't.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
*Minor unit of measurement variation - the beam is listed only as feet while the other dimensions are to inches. Is the beam 40 ft 0 inches, or does this exceed the precision of the source (in which case for consistency I suggest taking all the dimensions to feet only).
  • Done - The beam was 40' exactly. I've added 0" for clarity.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
French service
  • What was the French squadron at Ile-d’Aix intending to do? Currently implies that anchoring there was an end in itself.
    At that particular time they were simply intending to gain protection from the shore batteries but I rather think you're wondering what their long term objective was. I am afraid sources don't say but for some days before Pallas arrived, she was engaged in the destruction of signal towers along the coast. The signal towers were keeping track of the British ships and relaying their movements to the blockaded French ships. I presume therefore that the French squadron was waiting to be told, literally, when the coast was clear so they could make a break for it. With a bit of searching I could probably reference all that but how much do you think needs including?--Ykraps (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    Not that much; if you can say it in a handful of words then fine, if not I suspect it would break up the flow of the section so better left out. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, I've added a bit. See if it's an improvement or not.--Ykraps (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Could reword second sentence to lead with Pallas being ordered by Thornbrough to go count the ships – the way it is now takes a while to work out who Thornbrough is ordering. Also isn’t clear that Thornbrough has a squadron of his own at his immediate disposal – we only discover this later when referencing Iris and then Indefatigable.
    Done (I think) - I've started the sentence with "Pallas" and also said she was part of a squadron. Is that what you meant?--Ykraps (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Third paragraph – could reword to indicate Allemande sent reinforcements (the frigates and brigs) to Minerve, ahead of of the reference to the winds and the British withdrawal.
    Okay, I've re-ordered the sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikilink topsail. We don't have an article on backing the sails, I wonder if most readers will understand the term? No big deal, just throwing it out there for any views.
    Perhaps not. I've added "slowing down" to indicate the result of doing such.--Ykraps (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • “guns jolted from their positions” – assume this is Minerve’s guns.
    The source is equally ambiguous but I assume so based on the premise that Pallas then fired a broadside. I'll see if I can find a more definite source.--Ykraps (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    Apparently not. Richard Woodman makes it clear that it was Pallas' guns that were driven inboard by the force, by adding, "Undaunted, Cochrane's gunners discharged so devastating a broadside into Minerve's hull..." I have clarified this in the article.--Ykraps (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
*Did Pallas also ground? Assume so because we reference her draft, but is not clear in the article. In passing, interesting that the British vessel is smaller but more heavily gunned.
  • I don't think so, no. She didn't ground because of her shallower draft but she became entangled with Minerve and had to free herself. Sources are not terribly clear on this point but that is my understanding. The official (a) French account says that Minerve didn't ground either but that her anchor fell because the stopper had broken. William James (naval historian) thinks this unlikely as she would simply have cut her cable.--Ykraps (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    I've reworded this to make it clearer and added the alternative explanation as a footnote. Again, see what think. Pallas was not the more heavily armed, she had 12-pounders and Minerve had 18-pounders. I need to take a look at that.--Ykraps (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    I think it's okay. The corresponding articles have Pallas carrying 26 x 12-pounder guns and 12 x 24-pounder carronades, and Minerve/Alceste with 28 × 18-pounder guns, 2 × 9-pounder guns and 16 × 32-pounder carronades (source=Winfield). William James says that at the time of her capture, Minerve was carrying 28 x 18-Pounders, 4 x 8-Pounders and 12 x 36-Pounder carronades. This differs from Winfield because he gives numbers "as built".--Ykraps (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Overall this section becomes occasionally confusing, because it is not always clear what ships are actually engaged or nearby. For example, the approach of the French frigates Armide and Indefatigable is a surprise – we had no inkling they were there until they drew near enough to involve themselves in the battle. Is there any way to detailing the relative forces of each side without this being too much detail for a single extended engagement?
    I'm still thinking about this. When Allemande sent out Minerve and the three corvettes, he also had Armide and Infatigable (not to be confused with the British Indefatigable) cleared for action and standing by. Perhaps if I mention this early on it might clarify things. I'm not sure about listing the squadrons as not all the ships are named and, as you say, it might be too much. Do you think a footnote would help?--Ykraps (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, I've had another look at this; moved the mention of Armide and Infatigable further up the page and tweaked the whole paragraph a bit. See if it's any better.--Ykraps (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Obscure one – the lighthouse is more commonly spelled Chassiron (French WP article here.
    Done - Spellings in old sources can be a bit of a problem and there doesn't appear to be a guideline for dealing with them. I usually stay faithful to the source and link it, but because there is no article, I think it's probably better to use the modern spelling.--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The forming of line-of-battle seems an unnecessary detail given the order was not actually followed. Should this simply be replaced with Hood ordering the general chase? Also, potentially wikilink general chase.
    Done - I wondered about that myself so I have removed. Good idea about the link.--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
*Needs to explain the French ships were still together when Monarch drew near. And (minor quibble), “run for it” seems a bit colloquial.
  • Done - Changed to "fled".--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

British service
*Alceste was the frigate unsuccessfully sent to rescue the Pope in 1808 so that he could seek asylum in Britain. While the rescue failed, it placed this vessel at the centre of what would have been a substantial European event. It would be good to include mention of this in the article.
  • Indeed, it would be very good to include this in the article but I'm afraid I cannot find any mention of it in the sources I have available. Do you have a reference?--Ykraps (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I've got a Mariners Mirror article on it that covers the main points - will work out how to get it across to you. It's not an earth-shattering addition, just think it's worth a few lines. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
That would be this then.[[8]] Unfortunately I can't access the article as I'm not a member. Although £40 pa doesn't seem bad value particularly as it gets you free access to the Royal Naval Museum and HMS Victory.--Ykraps (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added a piece based on the above article. Not sure about the length and detail; take a look and let me know what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • British service - Being part of Cochrane's squadron in December 1814 - not so much a convoy as a flotilla of armed boats proceeding to the Battle of Lake Borgne - do we know if Alceste was part of that action?
    The information was added by another editor here.[[9]] As you can see, the first part appeared to be referenced so I left that and removed the reference to Lake Borgne here.[[10]] Clowes Vol VI p.148 says Cochrane’s squadron escorted a large number of storeships and transports carrying troops, to the mouth of the Mississippi on 8 December, and so I took that to be the convoy referred to in that sentence. I couldn't at the time find a reference for the rest; Clowes does go on to say how Cochrane found five American gunboats in the bayou called Lake Borgne and dispatched 42 ships’ launches but the only one he identifies is that of HMS Seahorse. However, I have now found this issue of the Gazette[[11]] which states that Alceste was awarded a share of the prize money for the capture of the gunboats so I guess we could put the deleted sentence back. I'm going to think on this again tomorrow but in the meantime, if you have any thoughts, please share them. Your edits are fine by the way.--Ykraps (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    I'm uncomfortable with using the Gazette on its own to say definitely that Alceste’s boats were used. Receiving prize money from a capture doesn’t always mean a particular ship was present. I know for example that frigate captains often agreed to share prizes with each other. What if we say, "In late 1812, Alceste was decommissioned and placed in ordinary at Deptford. Between February and July 1814 she was converted at Deptford into a troopship; in this role, she was recommissioned in May 1814 under Commander Faniel Lawrence, and sailed with troops to North America. (Ref: Winfield, p.178) Alceste left Pensacola on 8 December 1814, in tandem with the 50 other vessels in Vice-Admiral Alexander Cochrane's convoy. (Ref: Marley, p 462) En route to New Orleans, the expedition discovered five American gunboats in the shallow waters of a bayou near the Chandeleur Sound. In what became known as the Battle of Lake Borgne, Cochrane dispatched 42 of the ships’ boats, carrying nearly 1,000 men, to capture them (Ref: Clowes, pp.148-149)"?--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    Euryalus, If this [[12]] counts as a reliable source, I think we can say that Alceste's boats were used. Several medals were awarded to members of her crew for a boat action on 14 December 1814.--Ykraps (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    I found some more sources and added a few sentences about the Battle of Lake Borgne.--Ykraps (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Image - haven't checked the licensing but in case you need another one there's a nice image of Alceste here. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    I also found that image but decided against its use because of copyright. Although the original image is in the public domain, the NMM's digital copy isn't; British copyright law differs to US copyright law in this respect. See National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. The NMM has released some of its images under creative commons licence but unfortunately this is not one of them.--Ykraps (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Alceste_at_Bogue.jpg: source link is dead and what are the two authors' dates of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    Judging by the address I would say that was from the National Maritime Museum [[13]]. I am afraid I'm not an expert on copyright legislation but the book it was published in is in the public domain.--Ykraps (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    ...and here it is.[[14]] This gives the year of McLeod's death as 1820.--Ykraps (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    And this says Dubourg died in 1838.[[15]]--Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria, Is there something you want me to do with this information?--Ykraps (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    Please add author dates and source details to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    Done - Although I'm only guessing the source based on the nmm (National Maritme Museum) part of the original link.--Ykraps (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

  • So far this looks pretty good. To explain my first edit summary from today: I deleted a bit from the first paragraph so that readers would find out sooner that the ship was captured by the British and renamed. The faster they have that information, the faster the article title makes sense, and the less effort they have to expend making sense of it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    I think that makes more sense. It's usual to keep everything in chronological order but in this case I think it's detrimental to do that.--Ykraps (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I just now saw your question at the peer review about that comma. The answer is that in a comma-heavy sentence, it's a common style (and seems to be FAC style) to also have a comma separating the two independent clauses, particularly when there's a comma nearby that might be mistaken, even for a millisecond, for the separation point between the clauses. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "40 feet 0 inches": I'm not sure what reviewers are going to say about that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    It originally said sinply 40' but someone made the point that it looked odd when all other dimensions were feet and inches. I thought that was a fair point at the time and changed it. Perhaps I'll see if anyone else weighs in on the subject.--Ykraps (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I got down to HMS_Alceste_(1806)#Capture. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sarastro covered a lot of the things that I was concerned about, so I'm done here, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • A bit hard to imagine how the ship looked, perhaps show a more "neutral" view of a ship of the same type (Armide-class frigate ?) somewhere?
That makes this (unimportant) issue the last one unaddressed. Any comment? FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
In terms of showing how the ship looked, the illustration in the Armide-class article is very good but I've been wondering how I can fit it in. Images ought to be relevant to the text so the obvious place would be in the construction section but this creates some nasty sandwiching of the text. I toyed with the idea of using it in the infobox and moving that image to where it talks about that engagement but I'm not sure about having a picture of another ship in the infobox when one of the actual ship is available. I've been looking for some sort of guideline but haven't found anything yet. Do you have any further thoughts or Dank, Euryalus? --Ykraps (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
No opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 08:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Prefer the Armide-class image for the lead - it gives a clearer representation of the general vessel design, and better fits thousands at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Support retaining the other image in the article body, as suggested. -- Euryalus (talk)
Okay, I've swapped the images as agreed.--Ykraps (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "built to a design by Pierre Rolland for the French Navy as the Minerve" Selflink.
  • I'm not sure about referring to the ship by its later name in a section where it was called something else? Perhaps just start with calling it "the ship was built to a design etc."?
    • Yes. SHIPS people tend to have definite opinions on names, and I have to admit I'm not sure how they like to handle this. I'm generally happy with their approach to these questions. If it were up to me, the first word both in the lead and in the first section below the lead would be "Minerve"; "HMS Alceste" would appear (bolded) in the second sentence in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think I have done that. I've referred to it as Minerve when it was called Minerve and Alceste when it was called Alceste. Or do you mean something else?--Ykraps (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Under Construction and armament you say "Alceste was built to a design by Pierre Rolland". FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes that's true but its relationship to Minerve is explained in the very same sentence. As with Dank's reasoning above regarding the intro, it is better that the reader finds out quickly that the ship was captured by the British and renamed.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
If Dank is happy with this, I am too. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
No objections. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "under Contre-Amiral Zacharie Allemand" Why is the rank in the link? Couldn't that link to something else?
    Linked to Contre-amiral although that particular article isn't very good. Perhaps it ought to link to Rear-admiral?--Ykraps (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Whatever you see fit. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mention what both names were based on in-text, and not only in the infobox?
    I'm unable to find any reference for either namesake and have therefore removed.--Ykraps (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No namesake in the infobox for Alceste?
    The British couldn’t retain the name Minerve because they already had a ship of that name so they named her Alceste probably after HMS Alceste (1793) which the French presumably named after Alcestis. This is unreferenced original research though, as is often the case in the articles that contain this sort of information.--Ykraps (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "and forced her to strike at 15:00." What is meant by strike?
    I've linked this for you.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What happened to the crew after capture?
    It's not recorded. They were usually locked in the hold until they could be put ashore either in a neutral port where they were released or in a home port where they were imprisoned.--Ykraps (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "to extract his holiness the Pope" I don't think honorifics are to be used.[16]
    Removed --Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Which pope are we talking about?
    Pius VII. I've added and linked.--Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Could we get date and maybe attribution for the captions of all the illustrations?
    I assume you mean attribution for the illustrations so I've added that. If you mean attribution for the captions, most of them were mine. :) --Ykraps (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Yup! FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is Fort Maxwell bolded in a caption?
    No idea. Now removed, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Madeira and La Pomone are overlinked.
    Removed - I think. Let us know if I've not got them all.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Napoleon is not linked at first mention, but way below.
    Removed - a paragraph was added later.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The intro seems short for the article length. Little mention of the ship's actions under French control, for example. Should summarise the entire article
    She had only been commissioned a few months before her capture and her only notable action was the duel with Pallas on 14 May 1806 so its inclusion could be deemed WP:UNDUE. There was a short paragraph detailing it in the intro but it was removed with this edit here [[17]]. I have added it back in a slightly different guise to see if I can please you both.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - every issue addressed nicely. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: Down to the start of the Diplomatic Mission to China section. Looking good. I've done some copyediting; most of it is just punctuation (I'm mildly addicted the mdash, so feel free to replace these) or fairly minor rewording. Just a couple of points so far, but the first one is quite a big one. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comma inconsistency: When we start a sentence with dates or adverbials, we need to be consistent whether or not we have a comma. For instance, we have "In 1814 Alceste was converted..." and "At 23:00 the British landed 200 seamen" but also "Two days later, Pallas..." and "On 22 May 1810, Alceste encountered ...". Whichever method we are using, the article needs a good check to make sure we are consistent.
    Ordinarily I would employ a comma because that's the way I was taught, although I think the modern trend is to omit them. Dank is midway through a copy edit so I don't want to put commas in where I suspect he will remove them.--Ykraps (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My preference is to include them too; I think the most important issue is to be consistent. If Dank doesn't get a chance before I finish, I can stick a few in here and there. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Do whatever looks right to you, Sarastro, I'm sure it will be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "It has been suggested by the British historian James Henderson that this action was a factor in Napoleon's decision to change the direction of his planned eastward expansion in 1812 from the Balkans to Russia": Does anyone else share this view? And how mainstream is Henderson? Is this a controversial theory or a respected one? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    I vaguely remember someone else postulating the same thing but currently I'm unable to find where. Are you suggesting it is WP:Fringe? To me it's not an unreasonable thing to think. The army at Trieste was poised to invade the Balkans, the cannon were bound for the army there, and shortly after their capture, Napoleon changed his mind and invaded Russia. Henderson suggests it may have been a factor. I would like to keep it as it's interesting and has been used for a WP:DYK but if it's a deal breaker...--Ykraps (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not saying it is WP:FRINGE, I'm sure it's perfectly respectable. I'm well aware that top academics can hold differing views from their peers without being dismissed as cranks! I was meaning more along the lines of is it only him that thinks so among historians, or do others share his view? I'd be very slightly happier if others said so too, but the way it is phrased here makes it clear that it is his view, and that makes it absolutely acceptable to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    I'm still looking. I thought William James (naval historian) also mooted the idea but apparently not.--Ykraps (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

More: Read to the end now. This is a rather marvellous article! If no-one else tackles the commas before I have a last look, I'll have a go myself, but I'll be more than happy to support when I've had a final read-through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I notice there is a little more about the journey up the Tigris in our article on General Hewett, but I've no idea if it's reliable or not. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Note, Tigris is not a river, it is the Bocca Tigris, Mouth of the Tiger, a stretch on the Pearl River. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That article is mainly the work of User:Acad Ronin whose sources are usually reliable and accurate. Is there a particular bit of information you would like to see included?--Ykraps (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Absent original research in logbooks, should they survive, my info is only as accurate as the published sources. Please let me know if you have any questions.Acad Ronin (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The main bit was this: "Alceste fired several broadsides at the fort and junks that attempted to block her way, and proceeded to anchor at the usual place. Shortly thereafter Alceste received fresh provisions, and General Hewett a cargo. The firing that had taken place at the mouth of the river was officially described as a "friendly interchange of salutes": I particularly like the official explanation! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    Sarastro1, I've added a little more detail as you suggest. The source [[18]] actually says, "publicly announced". I'm not sure that's the same as "officially" so see if you like my wording. Thanks for your comments and support by the way.--Ykraps (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Support: The last copy-edit seems to have sorted the comma consistency, and a last glance through hasn't thrown up anything else. I'm more than happy to support now, with the usual copy-editing disclaimer. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- Source review for formatting/reliability? You can leave request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Eega is a 2012 Indian film whose protagonist, a murdered man, reincarnates as a fly and avenges his death. Due to some personal reasons, i withdrew its first FAC. Dr. Blofeld, Baffle gab1978 (GOCE), Mike V. Christie have helped me in making this a better article since then. I look forward for some constructive comments from anyone interested to make this a better article, and eventually a FA.

Yours Truly, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, have read this and made some straightforward fixes. It reads well enough to me that I can't see any prose glitches remaining. And comes across as comprehensive. Thus I tentatively support it becoming a featured article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Cas Liber. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

I have read until the end of Filming and post-production; I am not finding much to criticize here as it has had enough commentators (and if I recall correctly, I took part in one of its peers). Here are a few to begin with.

  • "Eega (English: The Fly) is a 2012 Indian, bilingual, fantasy film" - what's with the commas? Are they necessary.
  • Removed.
  • I can understand the opening one-line paragraph of the plot section, but what's with the ending one?
  • It began as a bedtime story, and should end like one.
  • "Indian screenwriter and director K. V. Vijayendra Prasad" - do we need his nationality?
  • A suggestion by SchroCat. It may be helpful for non-Indian readers.
  • " tailor-made for the roles" - are we talking about clothes here? The "tailor-made" word is not very clear or maybe it's just me.
  • Changed it to "apt"
  • "Rajamouli's brother, S. S. Kanchi" - does a link within Wikipedia exists about him? – FrB.TG (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A few others:

  • "R. C. Kamalakannan and Pete Draper of Makuta VFX supervised Eega's visual effects,[45][46] while Rahul Venugopal was the film's set supervisor and matte painter" - supervis.. in close proximity.
  • Changed the first to "oversaw".
  • "he compared the battle between the fly and Sudeep, which the underdog wins" - who's the underdog here - the fly?
  • Yes. I've mentioned it.
  • I am counting "in an interview" six times. I am also seeing xx of xx quite a lot.
  • I agree that there are many. But, i feel it important to do so as someone is publishing a person's opinions on a film here.
Yeah, but some of them can be rephrased. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've removed a few. Hope it looks better now.
  • Themes: There are a few examples of "saidism": using words like "wrote" and "called" to avoid the repetition of "said". It's quite hard to overuse "said", but even when "said" isn't the best choice, there are usually better ways out of the problem than substituting this sort of word.
  • I don't know whether there is a word like "saidism". :) I do not have particular ideas to do so. If you can provide an example, it shall be very helpful.
I don't think such word exists either that's why I have given it in quote. What I meant by that is the you used words like "wrote" and "called" to avoid the repetition of "said", as in "he said," "he wrote" "he called", but upon rereading they don't seem to be a lot. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

These are suggestions from me you can adapt or dismiss. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

All constructive comments are welcome, FrB.TG. Please do revisit this candidate and help me solve those issues. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That's it - thanks for working on it. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the comments. I hopefully resolved all of them and am hopeful that it meets your expectations. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - sorry for the delay in finishing this review, but I decreased my workload in the featured area sometime during this. Anyway, other reviewers might or might not find issues, but to my inexpert eyes the prose reads well enough to be considered for FA promotion. Good luck and I do hope that more reviewers review it. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry[edit]

After having a quick run through, I feel that the article meets 1 (b) and 1 (c) of WP:WIAFA. However, I have some reservations about the prose. Not that I'm an expert, but still:

  • "K. K. Senthil Kumar was director of photography, M. M. Keeravani composed the soundtrack and score, and Kotagiri Venkateswara Rao edited the film." This needs to be rephrased (and possibly split) as the first two bits constitute a comma splice error. Also why there is sudden tense shift - the previous sentence reads, The film stars Sudeep, Nani, and Samantha Ruth Prabhu? It's not just this article, but I've observed this in a majority of our film articles. Is there a strong reason behind it or I'm missing something here?
  • Thanks for pointing out about the tense shift. The technical crew's work is not explicit, though you can sense it throughout; the cinematography is a good example. That was why past tense has been in use. I've hopefully fixed the comma splice error.
  • I'd suggest you to keep the cinematography and editing bits together. Vensatry (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • "Rajamouli revisited the idea after finishing ..." Not keen on 'revisited'. Maybe something on the lines of 'reconsidered'?
  • Reworded.
  • "The film received generally positive reviews" This! Aren't we experiencing a problem with critical response summaries of Indian films?
  • Removed the line. Hope the new one sounds good.
  • "It was screened at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival, the 2013 Shanghai International Film Festival, and the 2013 Madrid International Film Festival." Why not mention the year (or edition) of the first one?
  • I've mentioned it. Thanks for the heads up. :)
  • Why eighth Toronto, but 2013 Shanghai and 2013 Madrid? Vensatry (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If i did mention it as 2013 Toronto, i felt that it would be a case of close repetition. I've numbered the Shanghai festival and left Madrid festival as it was.
  • "The idea for the film originated in the late 1990s when during a conversation with his son S. S. Rajamouli, Indian screenwriter and director K. V. Vijayendra Prasad joked about a housefly seeking revenge on a human" It's better to split this one into two.
  • I'm afraid that the continuity would take a beating. I have no clue where to break it.
  • Kinda agree, but the level of detailing seems too much for one sentence. But we can make use of semicolons. Vensatry (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I tried doing that. Hope the result looks better.
  • So what happened to the English film?
  • The source suggests that the English film might have been shelved. But, making a change based on such assumption may be a case of WP:OR. What say?
  • "After completing Maryada Ramanna (2010), Rajamouli revisited the concept after thinking of directing a film that was distinct from any other" Sounds a bit vague. By 'any other' you mean films of the same genre/concept?
  • According to the source, Rajamouli said that he wanted to try something which "had never been tried by anyone".
  • Is there an explanation given by the director as to why he decided to film the project in two languages?
Rajamouli was asked the same question by Rediff. Slide 4 of the interview quotes him as saying, "From the word go it was a bi-lingual. The fly, the protagonist, doesn't speak so there is no dialogue half the time." Kailash29792 (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Apt is more of a showbiz cliche. Something like 'suitable' would be apt for the given context.
  • Done.
  • It's worth clarifying the language in which Bhakta Prahlada was made.
  • Done.
  • By 'styled the cast' you mean makeup?

Vensatry (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The source says "styling of the film". Changed it to overall styling. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • But what does it actually mean? Vensatry (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • From my past experience (Magadheera), i learnt that Rama Rajamouli basically looks after the costume designing (much like Nalini Sriram for Roja). I hence take the liberty to change it to costume design only.

@Vensatry: Thanks for the comments; they were very helpful. I hopefully have resolved the current ones and am looking forward for further comments if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Source check from Jaguar[edit]

Due to my temperamental internet connection at the moment, I only managed to spotcheck all of the sources leading up to 91. So far so good. However, I did spot one discrepancy:

"Makkhi's television-broadcast rights were sold to STAR Gold for ₹80 million" - neither ref 89 or 90 mentions it being sold for ₹80 million, unless I read it wrong. This was the only issue I could find so far. Very good work overall, I'm leaning to support.

JAGUAR  14:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, ref 89 reads "Rs 8 crore". That is 80 million. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that was my bad! JAGUAR  12:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Support I spent a while checking through all of the sources I could access and couldn't find any issues in them. Everything seems to be in order and is well written, so I think it meets the criteria. Good work! JAGUAR  12:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jaguar, I think you're not done yet. You must be familiar with the fruit of the poisonous tree concept here, which states, "If information from a reliable source (the "fruit") traces back to an unreliable source (the "tree") then that information is unreliable as well." The Times of India cites it's sources most of the time, so you could check that. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I was only making sure that the sources backed up all of the content in the article, as well as ensuring that there was no original research. I'm not aware of any unreliable sources as I'm unfamiliar with the publishers. I'll check The Times of India now anyway. JAGUAR  12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar and Kailash29792: Thanks for pointing out. I have replaced the TOI source with Hindustan Times and am hoping that the problem has been solved. Please go through the sources once again and let me know if there are some issues i must rectify/address. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find any issues with the sources themselves, but then again I'm not sure what is reliable or not. They all seem fine to me. JAGUAR  19:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments – I was asked for a review on my talk page, and here's what I found:

  • "and the visual effects were praised by the critics upon release." Don't think the second "the" is necessary here; "praised by critics" just sounds tighter.
  • How about "received critical acclaim"?
  • The abbreviation SIIMA should probably be spelled out.
  • Done
  • Plot: There are a few needless links sprinkled in here. Do fireworks, bedtime story, or cannon really need further explanation in other articles?
  • Done Removed them.
  • The last paragraph is stubby at only one sentence. Is there any chance that it can be expanded or merged elsewhere, so that its lack of size doesn't stand out?
  • Since it is a bedtime story and began like one, i also want it to end like one. But, considering that many editors now and before have pointed out the same, i feel it makes sense to merge it.
  • Filming and post-production: "Senthil Kumar had to use special lens with a minimum f-stop of f8.0". Was this meant to have "a" before "special lens"?
  • Done Added.
  • Visual effects: "The animators found the sequences between Sudeep and the fly much more difficult to execute because it had to...". "it" should be "they", since "sequences" is a plural and "they" works much better with it. Actually, from the next part it seems like "it" refers to the fly. If so, the article should state that because I was confused at first and can imagine others not picking up on it at first.
  • Done Rephrased
  • I went and edited it further. Hope this is okay. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Music: "Keeravani said because of the film's theme of revenge and the protagonist are universal concepts". This read awkwardly to me; try removing the first "of", which should improve it.
  • Done Removed.
  • Home media: Can I suggest that TRP be spelled out? I wouldn't have a clue what that is without cheating and hovering my cursor on the link.
  • Done As suggested.
  • Critical response: Very minor, but the comma after "criticized the performances and music" looks like it should be a semi-colon instead.
  • Done As suggested. And, going through the review, i realised that it was the opposite. Wonder where it went wrong. :)
  • Radhika Rajamini, Rediff awarded Eega..." → "Radhika Rajamini of Rediff awarded Eega..."?
  • Done As suggested.
  • Accolades: "year" is missing at the end of "becoming the second Indian female actor to win these awards in both languages in the same."
  • Done Added.
  • All caps in refs 42, 106 and 125 should be fixed.
  • I managed it for 42 and 125, but i have no clue about 106. Can you please help me?
  • As this was my last remaining issue, I took care of this for you. Take a look at the edit, and it should show you what to do in the future. It's as easy as modifying the ref title. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The article seems reasonably well-written overall, but some of the issues I found do detract from the quality a bit. If they can be fixed, I can see myself supporting the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Thanks for commenting. I hopefully have resolved the current ones and am looking forward for further comments if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Support – I jumped in and fixed a couple of remaining bugs. With that, I now think the article meets FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Images are all good but you need to provide alt text for them. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: All the images, both free and non-free, are provided with appropriate alt text. Thanks for the notice. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Support from Gerda[edit]

I was invited on my talk. It's no subject I know anything about but I always claim that a certain distance is actually helpful for a review. I am intrigued by certain similarities to Kafka's Die Verwandlung, where a person is turned a vermin.

  • Plot: nicely told, but I think the last line, "The young girl is impressed with the story of the fly her father narrates." should be a new paragraph, even if short, as no longer the bedtime story. Perhaps also a past tense ("narrated") because it's over?
That line used to be a separate paragraph. Many suggested me to merge it, and i did. But, somewhere i felt that it needed to end like one. So, i am making it a paragraph again.
  • Origin ...: "screenwriter and director K. V. Vijayendra Prasad's mind" - can that be said simpler?
Changed to filmmaker.
  • I could imagine a few lines about reception in the lead, added to the accolades.
I'm afraid that it would pose a problem to the lead. And, the opinions were like too similar to make note of something rather than summarising the elements praised.

These are so few and minor points that I support right away. Good reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the review. That was surely helpful. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The Turboliners were a fleet of gas turbine trainsets employed by Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States, between 1973–2003. Their usage, especially latterly in the state of New York, was a matter of intense controversy in the US railfan community which previously led to stability problems in the article. I've been improving it since 2012 and it was promoted to Good Article in 2014. I've tried to avoid getting too far into the weeds on railroading terminology. Somehow after all these years this is my first FAC nomination and I acknowledge that the article may be a little short. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments ok I'll take a look and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
They were among the first new equipment purchased by Amtrak and represented an attempt by Amtrak to update its fleet with faster, more modern trains. - you've said "Amtrak" three times in the first two sentences. I wonder if the first mention of Amtrak" in this sentence can go....
Removed. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think maybe a background section is needed before you launch into the trains - containing some material like the first sentence under the History section on the Amfleet page - just to give some context of how Amtrak was at the time and why they needed the trains. I'd move the first para of the Service section to here.
Excellent suggestion; I've added one. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Is the formatting right in the last sentence of the Design section?
It is not; fixed. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
They were retired from service after one caught fire in Pennsylvania Station in New York on September 11, 1994. - presumably because the cars were deemed faulty? Adding some material here would be helpful on the findings and closure.
Information on the RTG-IIs is scant (or at least not online). Appears to be poor maintenance as much as anything. I've expanded it a little. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Additional equipment allowed Amtrak to add a frequency in late April - umm,what's a "frequency"?
Sorry, it's transport jargon for a round-trip. I've replaced the usage. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
In 1998 Amtrak and the state of New York began.. - should "state" be capitalised here...we're referring to the government, right?
We're referring to the state, and apparently per the MOS it should be capitalized. I've changed it throughout. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Also are there any turboliners that have been kept for posterity anywhere? Museums etc. Be worth mentioning at the end...
Not officially, no. New York sold all of its RTLs for scrap. Amtrak sold its RTGs in the mid-1990s. I believe there's one out in a cornfield in the Midwest in private hands, but it's not open to the public and I haven't seen a reliable source discussing it. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your feedback, sorry for the delay in responding. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Now I am the one who is late - ok, looking better. A query below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
You mention in the lead they were sold for scrap in 2012, yet the last sentence does not say "for scrap". Some of the reasons (i.e. storage fees etc.) would be good to add too.
  • Thanks; added a source for the scrapping and for the storage costs. Mackensen (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, I think I can tentatively support on comprehensiveness and prose. I don't see any prose-clangers outstanding and suspect it is comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Support. The article says what it needs to say and no more, which should be a goal for any piece of writing. Two questions and one suggestion:

Is there any information about the riding characteristics of the trainsets?
Is there information about the economics and fuel efficiency of turbine power as opposed to diesel across a wide variety of speeds?
Please consider a statement at the end, or even a clause, such as ". . . ending turbine train service in the United States [North America?], if that is the case.

Kablammo (talk)

  • Thank you. I'm still reviewing the technical documents; I've added David P. Morgan's impressions of the RTG. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Placeholder. I'm reading through and intend to leave a few comments but I'm leaving for work imminently so I'll revisit tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the second studio album recorded by Romanian singer-songwriter Alexandra Stan. I believe it satisfies the FL criteria after its first run was archived. It has as well undergone a peer review. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

Note: User hasn't responded with a support or oppose, but seems not to be interested to continue his review in the future. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dan56[edit]

I'm leaning towards support, but please separate each writer's opinion so it is clear to the reader which is which; the same goes for the sentence about genres/influences. Also, the summary in the lead--about critics praising the album--doesn't seem accurate to me; there are only two reviews of this album discussed in the body, one which seems generally positive and another which seems negative. That "many" critics praised the album is a strong claim. If there aren't any more reviews to discuss, I would stay away from describing any kind of consensus or summary of critical reviews with only two that were known to have been published. Dan56 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from CaliforniaDreamsFan[edit]

These are just some points that I have noticed. It's good work, don't get me wrong, but small things like these are still big needs for a FAC. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Carbrera[edit]

  • Shouldn't the label in the infobox only list the record company from the initial release? In this case, being Victor?
Yes check.svg Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Adevărul should be italicized
Yes check.svg Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note A should actually be physically described in the "Track listing" section so it's complete
Yes check.svg Done written out Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The DVD release mentions a DVD format of Unlocked being released, yet there is no mention of it in the article
Yes check.svg Done mentioned about it in the "Background and development" section. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
More to come. Carbrera (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Carbrera: Everything done so far. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Carbrera, Any chance you'll get to this soon? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008[edit]

Note: User hasn't responded with a support or oppose, but has instead stroke out his previous comments. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

2015 Formula One season[edit]

Nominator(s): Tvx1 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is a comprehensive report of the 2015 season of the Formula One World Championship. I've helped this article being to GA status recently and through the rather high bar which was set for that promotion, I actually feel this is ready to be a Featured Article. Tvx1 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MWright96[edit]

  • All images would be better off with alt text for accessibilty per WP:ALT
  • Already done I have added those just prior to your review. Tvx1 14:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I note that you use a mixture of number and written format when you use numbers. You want to use a consistent from especially with numbers ten or over.
  • yellow tickY Possibly done. I have tackled those that were not in line with MOS:NUMERAL. It would be helpful if you would be more precise and state where (if any) problematic case still remain. Tvx1 15:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Three examples where its problematic:
  • "Honda therefore returned to the sport after a 7-year absence:"
  • "Lewis Hamilton had scored ninety-three points out of a possible one hundred, giving him a twenty-seven point lead"
  • " reducing the gap to Hamilton to forty-two points in the process, but fell out of a point-scoring position in Belgium after a tyre failure on the penultimate lap, dropping him to sixty-seven points behind the leader." MWright96 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the first one, but I really can't see what's problematic about the latter two. They satisfy multiple parts of MOS:NUMERAL
  • Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words.Green tickY
  • In spelling out numbers, components from 21 to 99 are hyphenated.Green tickY
  • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures.Green tickY
  • Additionally the majority of the prose has numbers written out, except those that have to be spelt with numerals according to the MOS. Therefore, spelling those two cases with numerals would make them out of step with the rest of the article. I really can't see your problem here. Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Driver changes
  • "They hired the former Caterham driver Will Stevens" - employed
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "and the 2014 European Formula Three third-place finisher Max Verstappen. Verstappen became" - Try not to have the last word of a sentence start the next one like this.
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "while Bianchi was in a coma at the start of the season and ultimately died from injuries sustained at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix." - Bianchi should have his full name and wikilink it
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Safety innovations
  • Pits should be changed to pit lane for non-Formula One readers
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "and if such a grid place penalty was imposed and the driver's grid position was such that it could not be applied in full," - change grid to start to avoid reptition
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikilink formation lap
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Manor Marussia elected to abandon those plans in favor of developing the car for the following season" - favour
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Opening rounds
  • "both cars qualified ahead of only the Manor Marussias and eventually retired." - Manor Marussia cars
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
European and Canadian rounds
  • "Rosberg and Sebastian Vettel did not pit" - make pit stops
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "with 3 successive 1–2 finishes," I think this is better with three successive first and second finishes
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Asian, Russian and American rounds
  • "Vettel capitalised on the results with a third-place and second-place finish, respectively," - This sounds better Vettel captalised on the results with third and second-place finishes respectively
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Fix the link for Blanchimont corner to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps#Blanchimont
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I was told at my 2007 Coca-Cola 600 FA nomination that the publisher or works where the publisher name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example fn 3, 5, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20) should be omitted
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I can see that only some of this have been done. e.g. This specially applies to all references by BBC Sport,, The Guardian, Sky Sports. See how I referenced sources in 2014 Japanese Grand Prix
  • It would be easier if you just list the numbers of the refs which need to be fixed. Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth forever. I also don't understand your issue with the Sky Sports ones. The work and publisher have clearly different content. Sky Sports is just a part of British Sky Broadcasting which is active in other area's to. Also I don't see what's wrong with the one Guardian ref. It doesn't use both a work and publisher parameter. Anyway, I'll do the BBC and Formula1 refs. Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have done the BBC and Formula1 refs and some others. I think I also identified and the fixed the Guardian ref you mentioned.Tvx1 19:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Refs 28 and 34 should have the work as Sky Sports
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The publication date for Reference 75 should be spelt as 25 November 2014 for consistency.
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Also is a reliable source?
  • Yes check.svg Replaced Tvx1 16:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That's my lot. I may be have a second look if I got the time. MWright96 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

MWright96, can you make a status report? Tvx1 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tvx1: Overall it looks a little better. My second lot of comments will be up later. Also since it's your first FAC nomination, it would be a good idea to have a look at this mentoring scheme to help you better the chances of this article passing without being failed due to a lack of response. MWright96 (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
MWright96 I have fixed some and left some replies. Can you have another look? Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Tvx1 I have no more issues I can point out. I would like to hear from other reviewers before I make a vote. MWright96 (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments – It's been a while since I last did a review for a Formula One-related article here, so this is good to see. I'll jot down a few thoughts from a reading of the article:

  • First, what is meant to be citing the results and standings tables at the bottom of the article? Tables should be verifiable as well as prose. I'd suggest adding references at the bottom, like the drivers list has.
  • Yes check.svg Sources added Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Team changes: "in favour of return to Honda" needs "a" before "return", I'd imagine.
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Honda therefore returned to the sport after a being absent for seven years." On the other hand, this "a" should clearly go.
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Driver changes: "replacing Merhi. Merhi...". Try not to have the name repeat from the ending of one sentence to the start of another, like here.
  • Yes check.svg Fixed Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The Brazilian track's diagram caption has "and the redeveloped used from 2015." There should probably be a word before "used".
  • Yes check.svg Fixed, though I think you meant the Mexican track's diagram. Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was the one. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weight and bodywork: "was increased to 702 kilograms, an increase of...". To reduce prose redundancy, you should probably use another word for "increased", such as "raised". That's really repetitive.
  • Yes check.svg Fixed Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Opening round: "Kevin Magnussen failed to reach the grid after suffering an abrupt engine failure during while on his way from the pit lane to the grid." Remove "during" as an unneeded duplication of "while".
  • Yes check.svg Removed Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have trouble with jargon in sports articles since I'm a sports fan, but even I was confused by "flyover rounds". I can't imagine a non-Formula One fan understanding what that means. In fairness, I'm able to understand much of the rest of the article.
  • Yes check.svg Fixed Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • European and Canadian rounds: I assume the FIA Pole Trophy goes to the driver with the most pole positions in a season? That could be made clearer here, instead of in the awards section.
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Awards: If the source allows, we could say what the fastest lap was that got Hamilton that DHL award.
  • The fastest lap is not awarded for a particular fastest lap. It's awarded to the driver who achieved the most fastest laps during a season. In this case, Hamilton secured it at the Singapore Grand Prix through Vettel (and thus Rosberg failing to) posting the fastest lap of the race. Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The note at the bottom of the Drivers' Championship standings table has "The driver did not finish the Grand Prix, but were classified...". "were" → "was". Giants2008 (Talk) 20:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Fixed Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – After the fixes, I think this meets the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Super Mario Galaxy[edit]

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well this was unexpected. I first started work on this article in May when I went through my loft and found my old collection of ONM issues which spanned from 2006 to 2011. I remember my ten year old self reading through one of those issues and looking forward to this game. I've used a couple of those issues for this article, and my subsequent expansion and redevelopment of it carried on for a while. It has just gained GA status, and to be frank I think that this is ready for FAC. For a game considered "one of greatest" I tried making a comprehensive reception section, and even went overboard on development I think. JAGUAR  21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Well that was certainly fast. Personally, I would have combed through the article a few more times before nominating it for FAC, but if you believe it's ready, then let's put it to the test.

I think the most important thing was to make sure that all of the sources verified the content in the article (something I used to struggle with), but I took extra liberties to make sure that I got it right while developing this for GA. In particular, I basically wrote the development and reception sections from scratch, so I found sourcing it quite easy as I had everything there (including the physical magazines). I know that comprehensiveness is more of an issue for the FA criteria, and minor issues on prose would definitely be tackled in the review. Anyway, I'll be happy to address these issues! JAGUAR  20:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


  • It was first released on 1 November 2007 in Japan, 12 November 2007 in North America, 16 November 2007 in Europe and on 29 November 2007 in Australia. This is just a long list of release dates that most people don't care about. According to WP:VG/DATE, the release dates should be generalized, so maybe just say it was released in November 2007, it covers every release date.
  • Done. JAGUAR  19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It is the third 3D original game in the Super Mario series and the eighth main instalment overall. Link 3D. Also, what is original supposed to mean? Why not just say third 3D game, since I'm assuming your referring to SM64, Sunshine, and Galaxy.
  • Done, and I went with just 'third 3D game', although original tends to mean that it is the third main 3D game. JAGUAR  19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The game was re-released as a Nintendo Selects title in 2011, and as a download via the Wii U's eShop on 31 May 2015 in Japan, 24 December 2015 in North America, and on 4 February 2016 in Europe. Once again, just a list of release dates that no one cares about. Why not just simplify the sentence to say something along the lines "The game has was re-released as a Nintendo Selects title in 2011 and on the Wii U's eShop in 2015"
  • Done, although it was released in Europe in 2016. JAGUAR  20:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It has since won several awards from gaming publications, including multiple "Game of the Year" awards and a BAFTA. What you linked was the BAFTA award show, so a game can't win an award show. Since it won the BAFTA award for Game of the Year, why not just remove that bit and keep it as "including multiple "Game of the Year" awards"?
  • I think a game winning a BAFTA is very significant, and the article links to the charity itself. I've rephrased this slightly so hopefully it's clearer. JAGUAR  19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It is listed among the top-rated games on various aggregate sites, and is the highest-ranked title on review aggregator GameRankings. This line is redundant. You already mentioned this game's critical acclaim, and how it's regarded as one of the best games ever. This line show be removed
  • Removed. JAGUAR  19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Super Mario Galaxy is set in outer space,[1][2] where Mario travels from galaxy to galaxy to collect Power Stars, which are earned by completing levels in galaxies or defeating enemies.[3][1] The last two refs are out of order, always keep the refs in numerical order if they are next to each other
  • Done. JAGUAR  20:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The game uses a new physics engine that allows for a unique feature; each astronomical object has its own gravitational force, allowing the player to completely circumnavigate rounded or irregular planetoids, walking sideways or upside down. Is it important to mention the new physics engine here? This section is about the gameplay, anything game engine related stuff should be kept in the development section.
  • Removed the bit about the engine. It's explained thoroughly in development. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The game's main hub is the Comet Observatory, a spaceship which contains six themed domes that provide access to the 42 galaxies available in the game.[3] Five of the domes end with a boss level in which the object is to defeat Bowser or Bowser Jr., which then allows the player collect a Grand Star in order to access the next dome. Why do only five of the six domes have a boss? What's unique about the sixth dome?
  • I'm not sure, I looked it up on its wiki and found that one of the domes had no boss for no particular reason. The reason for this isn't covered in any RS, although the manual mentions it. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • When the player first begins the game, access is available to only a few galaxies. This reads a bit awkwardly, try "The player only has access to a few galaxies when they begin the game".
  • Thanks, done. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Once 120 Power Stars are collected with both characters, the player is rewarded one additional challenge for Mario and Luigi to complete, as well as two commemorative pictures that can be sent to the Wii Message Board upon each brother completing the challenge. I vaguely remember what the message board was, but for someone who doesn't have a Wii, they won't know what it is. This should either be linked, or explained in more detail.
  • I linked it. Seems better that way JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The most basic feature is the Star Pointer, which appears on-screen (as long as the remote is pointed at the screen) for the entire game. I don't get this line. Is the Star Pointer a cursor? If so, then the line should read "The most basic feature is the Star Pointer, which is a cursor that appears on-screen..."
  • Yeah, it's a cursor. I should have been clearer. Fixed. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Firstly, the Star Pointer is used to pick up special konpeito-shaped objects called "Star Bits", which are then shot to stun enemies, manipulate obstacles, or feed Hungry Lumas. What's a Luma?
  • Added. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Nine power-ups supply Mario with a special costume that grants him new abilities. For example, special mushrooms bestow the player with a Bee, Boo, or Spring Suit. First, link power-up. Secondly, I actually don't like how certain words are linked. For example, I think we all know what a bee is, so that doesn't need to be linked, and neither does spring. As for Boo, it should be linked to Boo (character).
  • Good catch, removed bee link and added others. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The Super Star grants Mario invincibility, allowing him to destroy any enemies that he touches, as well as jumping higher and running faster. The Super Star link just leads to the Super Mario page with no context.
  • Removed. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • When the power meter becomes empty, the player loses a life and must go back to a predetermined checkpoint.[16] The power meter can be temporarily expanded to six units... This threw me for a loop. Why not just say health meter instead of power meter, as I thought power meter was a new gameplay aspect.
  • Good catch, I see how that sounds confusing. Fixed. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Not much to say, as it's well written


  • My biggest problem with the development section is how all of the sources are from Nintendo. Obviously, if that's all you could find on the game's development, that's fine, but there are several interviews about the game, such as IGN, Wired, and Music4Games. I'm not sure how much info you'll be able to get out of those interviews, but if there is some additional information, it needs to be included in the article.
  • I've added the citations in the article, and should hopefully begin to expand the development using those sources you gave me. Thanks for that! JAGUAR  14:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Mario creator Shigeru Miyamoto suggested to work on the next large-scale Mario game after Nintendo EAD Tokyo finished development on Donkey Kong Jungle Beat in late 2004,[26][27] pushing for the spherical platform concept to be realised. Are you referring to the character Mario, or the series? If it's the series, then it should be italicized
  • I should remember to use Super Mario when mentioning the series. JAGUAR  14:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The game's script was written by Takayuki Ikkaku. This seems rather thrown in, as Ikkaku is not mentioned at all in the rest of the article. I noticed that the source you used was the game credits, which is fine, but are there any other sources mentioning Ikkaku's role in the game? If not, I'd just remove that line.
  • I couldn't even find him in the game's manual, so I removed that line. JAGUAR  15:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The composition was approved by Yoshiaki Koizumi, the game's director and designer, but when Yokota presented it to Koji Kondo, he stated that it was "no good". You already linked and explained who Koizumi was earlier, while on the other hand, there is no explanation as to who Kondo is. Also, what was Kondo's role in the development? If Yokota was in charge of the musical direction, was Kondo just there for moral support?
  • Kondo was technically in charge of the soundtrack although Yokota did the majority of the work. The source you gave me mentioned that he acted as sound supervisor, so I mentioned that. JAGUAR  15:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yotaka revealed that he initially struggled to create music that sounded like Mario, but as time progressed he declared that the songs he made for the game had "become natural". A song can't sound like a character.
  • Changed to Super Mario. JAGUAR  15:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


  • It is the second best ranking game with at least ten reviews on the review aggregator website GameRankings,[58] and the best ranking game of all time with at least 20 reviews,[59] having a score of 97% based on 78 reviews.[37] As discussed a while ago, GameRankings should only be used if Metacritic is not available, which it is. With that said, every Gamerankings sentence should be removed, including from the review score box.
  • Removed all, with the exception of the awards (for now?) JAGUAR  15:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The game is also the sixth highest rated game of all-time on Metacritic,[60] with a score of 97/100 based on 73 reviews. A 97/100 means nothing, as it is just a number. I'd recommend looking at how Pokémon Black and White does its Metacritic section, by saying what the score equates to.
  • Rephrased. Yup I sent Black and White to GA ;-D Would I need to say what 97% equates to? The introduction states that the game received critical acclaim and I think that a reader could gather that 97% based on 74 reviews means that it was well received. I'm not too sure on this, so let me know if you want it rephrased further. JAGUAR  15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This was something that was pointed out in the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward FAC. PresN said "Try mixing up the "Bob of Website" formula- "Website's Bob", "Writing for Website, Bob"
  • Good idea. I tried mixing it up throughout. JAGUAR  15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Jeremy Parish of 1UP noted that despite the Wii's limitations, the visuals were "absolutely impressive", especially when modified at a higher resolution. It's, not just 1UP.
  • Fixed. JAGUAR  16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • However, Hudak criticised the "traditional Mario-esque" lack of voice acting, despite admitting that if the game did feature voice acting it would "probably seem lame and wrong". This sentence seems completely out of place in the music paragraph, as every other sentence discusses the music
  • I think it still belongs in that paragraph as it covers all things audio-related, whereas putting it in another paragraph would seem even more out of place. To help matters, I rephrased the introduction to "The soundtrack and audio were well received by critics" and moved the lack of voice acting criticism to the end. Hope that helps. JAGUAR  16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Super Mario Galaxy received Game of the Year 2007 awards from IGN,[52] GameSpot,[53] Nintendo Power,[54] GameRankings,[55] Kotaku,[56] and Yahoo! Games.[57] Why seperate this line from the rest of the section? Also, don't use GameRankings.
  • Organisational purposes; I thought it looked weird having a 'listy' sentence in the same paragraph as one filled with prose. I can merge it if you think it's best. Is it really necessary to remove GameRankings here even if it's being used for awards and not an aggregate score? I'm not sure myself. JAGUAR  23:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Czar: I know that czar knows a lot more than me on when GameRankings should be used! Sorry to ping you, do you think it's OK if GameRankings should be used for citing awards and not aggregate scores I think that being the highest ranking game of the site should also be a significant mention. JAGUAR  15:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    (Ping me anytime) I'd distinguish between when editors bestow an award and when an item tops a list, but that's editorial discretion. In this case, GameRankings didn't give a GOTY award, so I'd recast the sentence as journalists who named the game the best of the year and then treat the aggregators and any other list-making groups separately. Definitely worth including, but in a separate sentence and not as a GOTY "award". czar 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I'm okay with what Czar suggested. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, I've moved the GameRankings mention to the end and separated it from the other GOTY awards. JAGUAR  16:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • On 7 February 2008, the game received the "Adventure Game of the Year" award from the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences at the Interactive Achievement Awards. Why is it necessary to mention the exact day it won the award, while all of the other awards were simplified to the year they were given.
  • Mainly because it was the only source which mentioned a date, I think.
  • One thing that bothers me about the Awards section is that it just seems like a long list, and I really don't like how most of the sentences begin with "In 20XX". Try mixing up the wording so that it doesn't get so monotonous to read
  • Rephrased. JAGUAR  16:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Overall, a very solid article, but it does have a number of issues that must be addressed before I can support it. Also, do you think you could return the favor by reviewing the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward FAC. It just needs one more support, and while it looks like David Fuchs will be doing a review, any additional comments always help. Alternatively, there's that No Russian Peer Review I've got up. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • U R MR GAY. This should be in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Wow that is such a trivial thing to place in an article I have no clue why you think it should be used. GamerPro64 14:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I was about to say that I don't think it would be worth mentioning. JAGUAR  14:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
"Trivial"? It was huge at the time. Here are more reliable sources. I am asking for one sentence in the article about it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Just because it was used on sites like Kotaku doesn't mean it isn't trivial. What does it add to the article? What does it do that will help improve the article? GamerPro64 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This nasty personal attack followed by deletion of my legitimate opposition reflects very badly on the nominator. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You seriously want to add a sentence about "U R MR GAY" in this article? I thought you were joking. It's pointless, trivial, and isn't worth mentioning. JAGUAR  17:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
"I thought you were joking." That doesn't explain why you called me a "fucking moron". Several reliable third-party sources have described it. That makes it non-trivial. Also, I expected to see it mentioned in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Where do you want this in the article, then? In the development section? Reception? And what is it going to look like? Upon release, some fans reported that the stars aligned on the game's cover art read out "U R MR GAY". I'm not putting a derogatory and infelicitous statement anywhere in this article, it doesn't belong here. It doesn't add any value. It's not worth it. It's trivial. It's almost like a joke. And another thing that's a joke is the fact that you had the nerve to oppose this FAC because I refused to put "U R MR GAY" in this article. Nevermind the fact that I've spent over a dozen hours of my time writing, researching and putting the effort into building this article up to an FA standard only to get derailed by somebody like you. I honestly thought you were trolling. Just because reliable sources cover it doesn't make it non trivial. Many reliable sources at WP:VG/S like IGN, Polygon and Kotaku also cover many trivial things like what the colour of a new Pokemon is going to be or a journalist's thoughts of a game's lore. It doesn't make it a pre-requisite reason to add something in an article. I thought that you were an intelligent person but the fact that your oppose read "It makes me sad that this glaring omission has spoilt an otherwise excellent article. I was expecting to read about this phenomenon in Wikipedia's article" made it look like you were tormenting. "U R MR GAY" is a glaring omission and a phenomenon, is it? JAGUAR  12:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
While I don't condone Jaguar's personal attack-- Axl, your request for "U R MR GAY" was challenged with "why is it notable?" and "what does it add?" and you immediately jumped to opposing the FA nomination. This was an extremely petulant move. "U R MR GAY" was already determined to be coincidental and non-notable through previous consensus. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
When multiple independent reliable sources describe a phenomenon, that makes it notable. Asking "what makes it notable?" after these references have been clearly linked is... not sensible.
I still believe that a sentence about this should be in the article, and I stand by my opposition. If the community consensus is against me, I shall of course submit to the consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: thank you for your comments! I should have hopefully addressed everything above. JAGUAR  16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments – Although I've never played this game, I've been known to take on a Mario platformer from time to time. I haven't read through much of the article yet, but here are a few initial thoughts:

  • This might be a British English thing, but is "instalment" meant to have only one l?
  • Yep, 'instalment' with one 'l' is used everywhere outside the US JAGUAR  14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "with different variations of gravity being the central element of gameplay." Since this is one of those "noun-plus -ing" connectors that us prose people don't really like, how would you feel about dropping "being" altogether?
  • So it would just read with different variations of gravity the central element of gameplay? I've removed "being", I hope it sounds OK. JAGUAR  14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The concept for the game's use of spherical platforms were first conceptualized...". "were" → "was", since this refers to the concept (singular), not the platforms themselves (plural).
  • Thanks, fixed JAGUAR  14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The U R MR GAY stuff seems like indiscriminate information for this article, at least in my view. Not everything published in reliable sources should be included in articles, and I wouldn't expect to see cover art issues be prominently mentioned, unless there's some new video game style standard I'm unaware of. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: I agree, I don't think it's worth mentioning in the first place. Anyway, thank you for your comments! I've addressed all of your points above. JAGUAR  14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Development: "desired that one its distinguishing features" needs "of" after "one", I reckon.
  • Added, I think that was a mistake. JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I doubt that gravity needs a link, since that is such a basic concept.
  • Removed. JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The grammar in "Iwata noted an increasing number of consumers to give up during a video game" doesn't seem to be that great. Maybe try "giving up" in the middle?
  • Added. JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't a 1-Up link be somewhere in the gameplay section instead, where its first mention is?
  • Well spotted, fixed JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "and devised ways on how they should incorporate an idea into the game and make it the most entertaining." The beginning of this bit is a little wordy, and the "most entertaining" part doesn't make sense (most entertaining what). How about "and devised ways to incorporate an idea into the game and make it entertaining (as entertaining as possible?)" instead, or some variant of that?
  • I went with your suggestion, but added "more entertaining" at the end. JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove "the" from "that the Super Mario Galaxy's co-operative mode".
  • Fixed JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Music: Minor, but refs 28 and 35 could be reversed to numerical order.
  • Done. JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Super Mario Bros. has a double period at the end. You just need the one from the game's title.
  • The Super Mario Bros. title has a full stop in itself, but I removed it anyway as I know it will only cause confusion with more readers. I thought Nights into Dreams... was bad enough. JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I still see this one in the article. It's in the second paragraph of Music, in case there was another one I didn't notice. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Didn't spot that, removed. Thanks. JAGUAR  22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If we don't have a Donkey Kong Jungle Beat link earlier, please consider adding one here.
  • There was already one in the development section JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reception: Super Mario Sunshine probably doesn't need the link, since there was one earlier.
  • Removed JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Same for Super Mario 64.
  • Removed JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The gameplay ... were also praised." "were" → "was". That word is referring to the gameplay itself, not the specific elements I skipped over; therefore it should be in singular tense. If it was "gameplay element" or similar, then you could get away with a plural.
  • Fixed. A mistake on my part. JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sequel: Remove "the" before Famitsu.
  • Done JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Add "was" before "originally called Super Mario Galaxy More". Giants2008 (Talk) 20:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: thanks for the review! I've addressed all of your comments. And sorry for the delay, I've been having internet problems lately. JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – The article seems to be comprehensive for its field, and I'm satisfied with the writing after the above fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from ThomasO1989[edit]

I've got more comments on the way, but I can finish those up later tonight or this weekend.


  • Super Mario Galaxy is set in outer space, where Mario travels from galaxy to galaxy to collect Power Stars, which are earned by completing levels in galaxies or defeating enemies. This sentence reads a little funny. Maybe change "from galaxy to galaxy" to "to different galaxies"? The "completing levels in galaxies" is a bit redundant, how about "earned by completing missions". You could then quickly cover one or two types of missions ("defeating a boss" or "reaching a particular area").
  • Thanks, I went with all of your suggestions. Not sure if "missions" are applicable for the genre of this game but it sounds better that way. JAGUAR  13:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Mario is given new moves that take advantage of the Wii Remote's pointer and motion sensing. I think it might make sense to cut out this part of the sentence altogether and mention where the Wii Remote's functions are used only when it's the main point. So in this paragraph, you may have like "The player controls the Star Pointer, a cursor that appears on-screen, with the Wii Remote pointer". Since the use of motion controls used to do a spin is explicitly brought up in Development, mention them in the second paragraph when talking about the spin.
  • Cut and rephrased. I hope I got this right. JAGUAR  13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • the Star Pointer is used to blow air at it to influence the direction and speed it moves. This sentence seems a bit wordy, though I believe it's been there for years. Maybe use something simple, like the Star Pointer is used to push the bubble around.
  • Done. JAGUAR  13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Someone else could chime in, but should adverbs like "firstly", "secondly", and "thirdly" be used in formal writing?
  • I think it sounds formal? I changed them anyway, with the exception of "secondly" (I think that should be fine). JAGUAR  13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Nine power-ups supply Mario with a special costume that grants him new abilities. Add the word "each" to imply that the power-ups are different and the word "temporary" (or a variation thereof) to imply they're not permanent.
  • Well spotted, added! JAGUAR  13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Instant death can occur by being swallowed by quicksand or dark matter; falling into bottomless pits, which either consist of black holes or leaving a planet's gravitational pull and falling into space; getting crushed between objects; losing a race against a non-player character; or other special challenges. Is it truly necessary to list all potential ways Mario could die?
  • Probably not, so I cut down on a few. JAGUAR  13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


This section could use some trimming. Not that it's overly long, it just seems a bit wordy, like it's describing certain cutscenes in more detail than what is necessary. I can help out with this one if you'd like.

That would be appreciated! I don't think it's too long, in fact I think it's just about right for a game like this since it's not plot-heavy. Anyway, I'll try and cut it down slightly. JAGUAR  13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


My issues with this section stem from certain points being presented a bit haphazardly... it could use some re-arranging. There is also many passive sentences.

  • Takeo Shimizu, the game's producer and programmer, noted that the most basic action in a 3D action game was to simply run, and concluded that the easiest way to attack was to "spin", not jump. Move this sentence before the immediately preceding one, since it is directly related to why spin was done in the first place.
  • Done. JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • the "spin" was changed to be activated through shaking the latter. Technically both controllers' sensing activate the spin, so this should be changed.
  • The "spin" is only activated through shaking the Wii Remote, not the Nunchuk? JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the player can actually shake either controller to activate Mario's spin, not just the Wii Remote.-- ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Regarding this decision, Koizumi said that he wanted... You could do away with "Regarding this decision" since the topic is still on Koizumi.
  • Done. JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, Iwata added that decreasing... Add "retrospectively" and remove "furthermore".
  • Added. JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The images are pretty, but what do they add to the article? They just seem decorative.
  • I think that they're important as they display key factors of the gameplay/development and show the reader what the developer's focus was. The top image shows a galaxy and the bottom image shows a spherical planetoid, with both featuring prominently throughout the article. I'd prefer to keep them, but it would be a shame to lose them. JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with this. I don't think a picture of outer space is necessary to show that the developer's focus was on space anymore than Super Mario Sunshine needs a picture of water, or Pikmin a picture of a garden. The "spherical planetoid" is just a panoramic image, not an actual planetoid. It would make more sense to include them if these exact pictures inspired the gameplay, art, or story. A good example is the picture of "The Swing" used in the article Tangled, since the artist's work was actually used as a direct reference. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You make some good points, so I removed the images from development. JAGUAR  20:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the paragraph on the level design should be combined with the initial idea to use spherical platforms in the first place (first paragraph) since they are directly related.
  • Like this? Won't that make it too long? I don't understand JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I do think they can be merged into a subsection, "Design", like what is done with Music. Some information could also be cut or condensed. I can write up a draft in my sandbox and present it for comments. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A "Design" subsection before the music section? I'll try something in a minute. I'm not sure if it would its chronological order. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


  • The task of creating the game's sound effects [...] like they were having that experience. This reads a little too long and doesn't paraphrase the source well. Here is a suggested condensed version: The game originally heavily utilized the Wii Remote speaker for "all sorts of sound [effects]", but Masafumi Kawamura, the game's sound director, decided they were redundant when played in tangent with those from the television. Kawamura decided to restrict Wii Remote sound effects to those triggered by Mario's actions, such as hitting an enemy, feeling that it better immersed the player.
  • Thank you! I went with that. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@ThomasO1989: thank you for your review! I've tried to address everything but I didn't understand a couple of your points, such as merging the level design paragraph into the first and the "spin" attack sentence, as the attack itself is accomplished by shaking only one of the controllers, not both. I prefer to keep the images as they show significant symbolism, but I'll remove them if I must. Sorry for coming to this review late, as I've been very busy with RL as well as sorting out a grant I applied on Wikimedia. If you have more comments, I'll be happy to address them. Thanks again! JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's already an article deserving to be an FA but there are somethings I would like to point out:
    • There are some references that are used about four times. I would suggest archiving them but that's not an issue (I'm looking at you 1UP)
      • I archived 1UP through WebCite as well as the more prominently used ones. It would be a nightmare if they all expired. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The plot section is unreferenced. I know that's not relevant, but could the "Super Mario Galaxy instruction manual" be used to reference some parts?
      • The manual only mentions the prologue, so I sourced whatever I could from it. I know that sourcing the plot isn't usually required (thank god), but it wouldn't hurt to have a citation or two in there. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Lastly references 79 and 80 look a bit redundant since Metacritic already has all the review.
      • Well spotted! Removed both. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway good with the article, I really hope it becomes a FA. Also, if you have free time could you provide feedback to my own FAN? It's a bit inactive. Cheers.

@Tintor2: thank you for the comments! I promise to take a look at your FAC soon, I've been held up with other matters lately. I have addressed everything you mentioned above. I've archived the more important references, and sourced some parts of the plot via the manual. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Well then, now you have my support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

I'll be doing the source review @Jaguar:. It'll take a bit of time but everything seems well. I would appreciate it if you do the source review for Allen Walker.Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'll start the source review tomorrow. Making sure that the sources confirm the article's prose is easy but takes a while. JAGUAR  20:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll let it support or pass (it's my first time dealing with FA...) this review since all sources are reliable and are used well such as when quotes are used. However, I would recommend removing the GameRankings' cheats since that while is reliable, the cheats are provided by random users.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the source review, Tintor! I'm so relieved that I wrote the majority of this from scratch, as that way I can be sure everything is sourced properly and not have it struggle like my earlier FACs. Anyway, I've removed the GameRanking cheats. 13:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: just checking if there's anything else needed for this nom? Source check is done, and the prose comments above have all been addressed. It's just that I hope to get this one done a bit quicker in stark contrast to last time! JAGUAR  11:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I know you pinged them both last month but I'd like to see again if we can't confirm from Famous Hobo and ThomasO1989 that they're satisfied with responses/actions re. their comments. Failing that we may need another pair of eyes, but let's see how we go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@ThomasO1989 and Famous Hobo: do you have anything more to add? It's just that I'm really anxious to see this out of the way! If not, don't worry. JAGUAR  16:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Fallout 4: Far Harbor[edit]

Nominator(s): Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an expansion pack for Bethesda's 2015 action role-playing game Fallout 4. I've been working on this article for just over two months and after going through two peer reviews, passing a GA review and being copyedited by the Guild of Copy Editors, I think it's finally at FA standard. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer, Czar, David Fuchs, Jaguar, and Rhain: Pinging all users who have participated in the peer reviews and the GA review. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Just in case you forgot Face-smile.svg. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Having gone through the article I think the biggest issue is it still needs a touchup on the prose front. There's just a lot of stilted language, with explanations for what things are rather ungainly shoved in, for example The V.A.T.S. system carry over from the main game. V.A.T.S. slows the real-time combat—repetitious phrasing, "VATS slows the real-time combat" is hardly illuminating. The article really needs a copyedit from someone capable who hasn't touched the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Happy to take a look. I've played some Fallout games but never really got into them. I've sunk far more hours than I care to admit into Elder Scrolls games, though.

Comments from J Milburn that have since been addressed
  • "Being an expansion pack that requires the main game, the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. and V.A.T.S. systems carry over." This is tricky for someone who doesn't know the games well.
    Explained it a better
  • "the season pass price was increased" I don't understand. What's a season pass in this context? Increased relative to what? By whom?
    I've added what a season pass is in this case, but I don't understand what you mean by "Increased relative to what".
  • "Similar to the base game, in which the player character is tasked with finding their lost family,[2] Far Harbor has the player controls the Sole Survivor, who is enlisted by the Valentine Detective Agency—an company run by detective Nick Valentine—to investigate a disappearance, this time of a young girl named Kasumi." This sentence (which I've tweaked) is a bit too long. Also, I don't know what "the Sole Survivor" is.
    Cut it down a bit, is it better now?
  • "While using V.A.T.S. (Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System), a feature first introduced in Fallout 3, the real-time combat is slowed, allowing the player to choose where to shoot the enemy." This is the first mention of combat or enemies. Give us context! I am left wondering how necessary these kinds of details are; discussion of the basic gameplay of Fallout is good, too many details about how combat works (unless specific to this expansion) probably are not needed.
    I've rearranged the gameplay section so that it mentions the enemy NPC before V.A.T.S., is it better now?
    I suppose my question is why we're talking about VATS and Power Armour and SPECIAL and whatnot at all. The information seems very specific; in this article, we need to get a general idea of how gameplay works in Fallout 4 and a specific idea of what the gameplay is in this expansion (and/or how the gameplay in this expansion differs from the gameplay in Fallout 4). This seems to be specific information about gameplay which is not unique to this expansion and nor is it necessary to understand this expansion. Or am I going wrong somewhere? Josh Milburn (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    @J Milburn: I included the information about the vital parts of the base game because it was suggested by Czar in the first peer review:
    Part of the nature of a standalone DLC article is that you'll need sources from the original article to explain the basic gameplay. You should assume that readers have only a cursory knowledge of video games but want to know about this topic, so they likely don't know much about Fallout 4 and would need to know its basic gameplay to understand what Far Harbor adds. In terms of being true to the sources, I would preface such a recap as: "Far Harbor is an expansion of the main game, Fallout 4. It builds upon the basic game, which ..." so it's clear that the basic game explanation can come from sources about the basic game.
    along with: Work from the assumption that the reader is competent but doesn't know anything about Fallout—what is the game about? What do you do? What kinds of mechanics does it have? It only needs to be cursory and you can direct them back at F4's article for more info, but it should at least tell you how the game plays—it's not exempt from that simply because it's an article that expands on the original.
    I read those messages as a sort of "try to include basic information on the base game's mechanics as the reader may not know anything about Fallout". Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    I agree entirely with Czar; I'm just not convinced that this is what you're doing. Let's try it like this; in order to understand what Ned Flanders adds to The Simpsons, I need to know a bit about Springfield, I need to know a bit about the Simpson family, I need to know a bit about the kind of humour there is on The Simpsons, I need to know a good bit about Homer, and I need to have an idea of the role religion plays in the series. I don't need to know anything about Springfield Elementary School or the Springfield Power Plant. If I want to know about Ralph Wiggum, I'm going to need to know a bit about Springfield Elementary, but very little about Homer and nothing about religion. If I want to know about Smithers, I need to know about the Power Plant. And so on. So, if we're writing about Far Habor, we have to ask what in the base game we need to know about to get why Far Habor matters and what it does. Do we need to know about Springfield Elementary? The Power Plant? Both? Neither? Josh Milburn (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    @J Milburn: Hmm, fair enough. I think the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. section can be removed because it's early-game Fallout stuff, but I think the V.A.T.S. and Pip-boy can stay because during combat [in Far Harbor], V.A.T.S. still plays a big role. The Pip-boy is used in Far Harbor for the map feature (example source) and the player will receive a message on the Pip-boy when they can visit it (source. I'll update the article accordingly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Weapons can also be shot at, disarming them." One does not disarm weapons, one disarms an opponent of weapons.
  • "Unlike the previous iterations" Of what?
  • "Even quests done back at the Commonwealth will affect the story" The tone's a bit off, here, and I think more explanation is needed.
    I don't remember reading about that or adding that and it's not found in the given reference so I've removed that sentence.
  • "The Island, where many of the creatures native to it reside" Huh?
    Changed to "The Island, where many creatures reside".
  • "The town uses fog condensers which turn the fog into liquid in order to protect its inhabitants, due to the creature's unwillingness to go anywhere without fog." No idea. What creature?
    Does the previous change help answer this?
    Do you mean creatures-apostrophe rather than creature-apostrophe-s? Josh Milburn (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    @J Milburn: Yes, it was fixed by ‎Prisonermonkeys. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    Uh-huh. It was written in the possessive when it should have been plural possessive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "who is against the destruction of the Church of Atom" Context?
    Reworded the sentence and removed that bit.
  • "The Children of Atom reside in an old nuclear submarine base called The Nucleus and are led by High Confessor Tektus, a fanatically devout follower of Atom who seeks to disable or destroy the fog condensers, since the Church believes that The Island is the holy land of Atom, and the contraptions' mere existence are an affront to him." Too long. Also, singular/plural confusion.
  • What are Synths? Also, Synths or synths?
    I thought I fixed that, obviously not. Fixed now. Changed all to "synths/synth".
  • "Kasumi Nakano, the person the Sole Survivor is tasked with finding, resides in Acadia." Presumably you mean to say she resided there before she went missing? You should check your other mentions of the character, too.
    She fled there. Fixed wording.
  • "The expansion starts after the end of the "Getting a Clue" quest." Context? The way you've written this, it's like you expect readers to know what this means.
  • "Children of Atom's base of Operations" operations?
  • "three main Factions there and let them decide their fate themselves" Capital F? Also, the "their" is ambiguous.
  • "dungeons" is jargon
    Don't really know how I can fix this, the reference says "dungeons".
  • "It added the largest landmass, hence the higher price compared to other DLC releases." Again, this is the first mention of a higher price. How about something like "Of the three, it added the largest landmass, and hence was sold for the highest price."
  • "The expansion was included in the Fallout 4 season pass, the price of which rose from US$30 to $50 due to the large amount of additional content." As above, I'm afraid I don't know what this means.
  • "and didn't turn out as they planned" Informal, ambiguous. Also, whose feedback? Players'?
  • "the game worked better." Informal
  • " but many, including Metro" First, I'm not keen on the personification; second, you don't cite Metro at the end of the sentence?
    I've changed it a bit. It's actually "GameCentral", but I've fixed the issues.

Gotta dash; I'll be back for more... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, back.

  • "block-related parts were compared" What are these?
    The block sections are explained in the gameplay section: In some of the puzzle rooms, the player directs lasers to hit the designated targets, and in other puzzle rooms the player builds using blocks, similar to Minecraft.
  • "Peter Brown (GameSpot) commended the addition of "hours of side quests driven by curious characters" added." ?
    Removed the "added" at the end.
  • I generally find the reception section a little repetitive. For a slightly ironic example, consider the multiple times you mention that reviewers found the game repetitive.
    I think I've fixed it.
  • "in the article by Paget" What article by Paget? This is the first mention.

From the first read-through, I feel that this is a strong article, but that the writing is a little below what is expected of FAs. I also did some copyediting (but more is needed); please double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I've fixed and striked the majority of the issues you mentioned. I left a few notes under the comments I didn't understand. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@J Milburn: Were the edits for dot points 3 and 4 sufficient or are there any more comments/questions surrounding those? I've collapsed all the other comments underneath that as I've fixed them and FACs tend to get fairly long. Feel free to revert that if you don't want it to be collapsed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@J Milburn: In your opinion, have all the issues you mentioned been addressed? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(undent) Looking again, even in the lead, I'm not convinced that the first person/third person and VATS details are portrayed well. They come across as trivial details, and the fact you're talking about VATS's effect on combat before you've mentioned combat in its own right is a bit weird. The gameplay section a bit better, but I wonder why you jump into the some of the details (like VATS) without giving more basic info; dude in post-apocalypse landscape stomping baddies, fleeing from monsters, collecting stuff, doing quests, making friends. Some more specific bits:

  • You mention the lazers in the lead, but not the building blocks.
  • V.A.T.S. or V.A.T.S?
  • You need to explain somewhere what a synth is. A half-line description of the Church of Atom/Atom wouldn't hurt, either.
  • "start a war with Acadia" do you perhaps mean something like "trigger a war between the Harbormen and Acadia"?
  • "The Institute will send agents to reclaim the synths, while the Brotherhood of Steel will launch an expedition to exterminate them. The Railroad will send an operative to make contact with Acadia, though Acadia will reject their help." You're going to need to explain who/what The Institute, the Brotherhood of Steel and The Railroad are.
  • "dungeon" is jargon (I know I mentioned this above- I know what it means, but I'm a roleplayer. How about "self-contained quest locations"? That's a slightly more explanatory and formal way to say what you say.)
  • "Reviewers highly praised the addition of new quests but disliked the puzzle sections" That seems to just repeat what you said in the previous paragraph.
    How do you suggest the paragraph be started? I don't have any ideas on how it could be changed.
  • This isn't a view universally shared, but I find that "Game Revolution similarly expressed", "Metro liked" and "Game Revolution admired" is clumsy/colloquial. Publications don't express views and like/dislike things; writers do.
  • "Reviewers were also divided over the storyline: Game Revolution admired the story and new characters,[27] while Peter Brown found it uninteresting.[29] Game Revolution admired the storyline and new characters.[27]" Repetition!
    Good catch.
  • "Some reviewers had problems with the expansion's repetitiveness" As you've already said!
    I removed or changed all mentions of it being repetitive so that it's first mentioned in that paragraph.
  • From checking references, I see that the puzzles were new to Far Habor, and not something in the main game; this could be made clearer!
    Done, but I don't think it's worded too well.
  • "was disappointed that it was somewhat wasted" This suggests that we are endorsing that it was wasted, not something we can do in Wikipedia's neutral voice
    Fixed, I think.
  • Italics for websites or not? I personally prefer not to; YMMV.
    I typically add italics for all websites. I've made it consistent to this way.

Much better, but not there yet, for me. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I've fixed the majority of the newly mentioned issues, but I'm not entirely sure how to rework the synopsis sections. @Prisonermonkeys and Shadeblade11: Pinging the users who worked on that section the most. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Anarchyte — I will have a look when I get a chance, but if I am honest, I am not optimistic; I feel that the prose of the article as a whole needs work. To my mind, it lacks the flair that a GA/FA needs. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Operation Infinite Reach[edit]

Nominator(s): GABgab 16:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the first-ever American attack against al-Qaeda: the Clinton Administration's August 20, 1998, cruise missile strikes against bin Laden's Afghan bases and a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant suspected of manufacturing chemical weapons for militants. This GA, which incorporates international journalism, academic and popular literature, and government reports, has already received a peer review. I hope you find this interesting! GABgab 16:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Operation_Infinite_Reach.jpg: I don't see this image on the given source page, and the only Sudanese photos there are credited to a private company. Do you have a source to support the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: Upon further inspection, it doesn't appear that the photo was correctly attributed by its uploader (indeed, it's not on the given site); I've removed it and replaced it with a separate photo. I've also taken the liberty to upload a new, public-domain version in place of the old one. Thank you for pointing this out. GABgab 00:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Hi GAB, welcome to FAC.
  • First up: See WP:INTEXT. All quotes need to be attributed to whoever said them, with a short (sometimes one-word) description of the author (such as "historian") at the first mention of that author. Also, there are too many quotes for FAC; reword at least two-thirds of them. Keep the quotes that are memorable, or the quotes that have some subtle or precise meaning that might be lost in any paraphrase. Also lose the quote marks in almost all cases where you're not actually quoting someone. (For instance, I'd paraphrase "green light" as approval, regardless of whether someone said "green light".) - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the advice, Dank. I'm in the process of reworking the quotes right now. GABgab 22:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I know it's annoying, but I'm 99% sure this is a standard request at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
        • No, I understand; in hindsight, I am a bit quote-heavy in my writing, so this is a good time to kick the habit Face-smile.svg GABgab 22:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
          • @Dank: I have removed a large number of quotes - I'd appreciate any other suggestions you might have to offer. Thanks, GABgab 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
            • That's a lot of work, and looking quickly, you did a spectacular job with it. It should be much easier to get this through FAC now. Unfortunately, I'm not going to have time to review. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
              • Thank you - I made a trip to the library and looked around on Proquest, and I should be able to add a final batch of books and news reports this weekend. After that, I think I'll be happy with it Face-smile.svg GABgab 20:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment:
  • This appears to be a case of wp:overcite: could the citations be consolidated, or at least put to the end of the sentence?
At about 01:30 EDT (17:30 GMT),[1] two American warships in the Red Sea[2] fired thirteen missiles[3] into Sudan.


  1. ^ "U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan". CNN. August 21, 1998. Retrieved 17 August 2016. 
  2. ^ Younge, Gary (August 22, 1998). "We are in a new ball game, says Pentagon". The Guardian. 
  3. ^ Wright 2006, p. 282.
  • The sections are quite long. Has there been any thought given to breaking up some of them into subsections? I.e. the Aftermath section could be subdivided into "Reactions in the West"; "Reactions in the Arab world", etc. Same could be perhaps done to the the factory attack section and some others. I think this would improve readability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I'll work on the overcite. I think the aftermath section could be easily broken up by region, and the Al-Shifa section could be split into 2 on the attack and the subsequent controversy. GABgab 01:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've broken up the Al-Shifa section into two separate sections on the attack and the controversy; I've also dealt with the aftermath section, as recommended. GABgab 22:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the U.S. reaction section could do with some extra meat on its bones; I'll see what I can do to augment that part. GABgab 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments Support (Harry Mitchell)

  • Nice chunky background section; I like that. It nicely sets the scene.
  • I note that Bin Laden isn't linked in the background section. My general rule with linking (especially for key subjects) is to link once in the lead and once in the body, but it's up to you.
  • "Turki demanded that the Taliban either expel bin Laden from their country or hand him over to the Saudis, insisting that removing bin Laden from Afghanistan was the price of cordial relations with the Kingdom". This is the first mention of Afghanistan in the body—perhaps put it earlier in the sentence so we know what "their country" is referring to.
  • Is it really necessary to link all the job titles in the sentence that starts "That day, Clinton started meeting with his "Small Group""?
  • "On August 11, according to the 9/11 Commission Report," Is the information following this disputed? If not, is it necessary to specify its origin? There are quite a few occurrences of this phrase in the article
  • "slam dunk," I know this is common in American writing but our MoS frowns on it, see MOS:LQ.
  • "At 7:30 PM local time" What is the local timezone, and can we have a conversion to UTC/GMT like we do for the preceding EDT time?
  • "American military personnel based in Saudi Arabia.[71][72]" isn't the link on "based" a bit of an easter egg?
  • Would the "Al-Shifa controversy" work better as a subsection of the "Al-Shifa plant attack" section, rather than as a section in its own right?
  • The first paragraph of the "Attack on Afghan camps" section in particular feels very cluttered with references; are they all really necessary?
  • Perhaps link salvo? I'm not sure it's a common term.
  • Watch out for more easter egg links; I removed one besides the one mentioned above, the link to flag desecration is another (and is also unlikely to aid the reader's understanding)
  • Were there any longer-term impacts on the forces involved or US politics? See the bottom of British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War for an example. It might be that the answer is no, especially given that this is only a few years before 9/11 and that's fine, but you know the source material.

All in all a nice, well-rounded article that you've obviously put a lot of work into. I can't see any major stumbling blocks to promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    • @HJ Mitchell: I've done most of the fixes you've suggested - I'll handle the last ones soon. Regarding the long-term impacts, I think the true significance of Op. Infinite Reach was that there really weren't any; Bin Laden survived, of course. The later sections do go on to mention how the strikes enhanced his public image in the Muslim world as an anti-American champion, and how the strikes' failure spurred the UAV program. Not to mention the fascinating tidbit from the PDB, and that the Tomahawks may have helped out Pakistan and China. Regarding the Al-Shifa section, I really don't know, since it looks rather bulky with the two sections combined. Thanks for all your help, GABgab 01:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. I'm happy with your responses and the tweaks you've made so I see no reason not to support. Very impressive work; hopefully this will be your first of many FAs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Comment -- I made minor adjustments to section headings for easier navigation, but there's not much else I can see that needs improvement. Very well researched article and an interesting read. One suggestion would be to highlight "propaganda victory" (mentioned in the infobox) but turning it into its own subsection in the Aftermath section. This way people who read the infobox can easily find the material to learn more. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @K.e.coffman: I've given that a shot - please tell me what you think. GABgab 19:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Gottlob Berger[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Gottlob Berger, one of Heinrich Himmler's key aides, who was responsible to a significant extent for the expansion of the Waffen-SS from a supposedly "racially pure" organisation to one which made a mockery of Hitler and Himmler's racial ideas by recruiting from almost all of the countries occupied by Nazi Germany during WWII. Berger was arrested and tried for war crimes after the war, but got off pretty lightly in the end, despite his responsibility for several significant crimes. He was also a close friend and ally of the notorious Oskar Dirlewanger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:War_Ensign_of_Germany_1903-1918.svg includes an error tag
    • I've deleted all the flag icons, I'm not a huge fan of them anyway.
  • File:Uw_plaats_is_nog_vrij_in_de_Waffen_ss.png: what is the copyright status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Good point, wasn't PD in The Netherlands in 1996, so not PD-US. Have replaced it with one from the Bundesarchiv. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments This is a very good article about a horrible person, and a good snapshot of the crazed empire building which was a feature of many senior Nazi officials. I have the following comments:

  • "but his organisational skills were largely responsible for the growth of the Waffen-SS to a total of 38 divisions by war's end" - this is probably too strong given that the expansion of the SS was also due to Hitler's preference for it over the Army. Berger seems to have made the "best" of this opportunity.
    • Adjusted.
  • "briefly held in custody after Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923" - did he play any role in the Putsch, or was he arrested as part of a general round up?
    • the sources don't mention any part he played in the putsch, so I assume he was just rounded up with the rest of the Nazi's.
  • "Berger played a key role in directing the fifth column Sudetendeutsches Freikorps during the Sudeten Crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1938,[12] and the organisational skills he had displayed there marked him as highly suitable for the SS recruiting role" - this seems a bit out of place at the end of the para
    • moved it to the end of the subsection.
  • Was Berger's duties at the outbreak of war limited to recruiting members of the SS only, or was he also involved in overseeing recruit training?
    • In September 1939 he was only the head of the recruiting department, training was the responsibility of several other departments within the SS-HA.
  • " Waffen-SS,[20] a term he coined in an agreement dated 2 March 1940.[21] He used the new term..." - I'd suggest including a translation of the term here - noting that the name means "Fighting SS" would help to illustrate why it was seen to be attractive to the other branches of the SS
    • Done. "Armed SS" is probably the more common translation.
  • The final sentences of both paras in the "The "national legions"" section are a bit too similar. It also seems a bit narrow to attribute the German failure to expand these units to administrative issues: very few people in occupied countries were willing to volunteer for the German military.
    • Tweaked the first para a bit with some more material from Stein. The willingness of people from occupied territories to enlist varied across the board, for example, the pro-German nationalists among the Dutch were fairly keen, at least early on, but the Flemish less so.
      • The wording is still a bit similar: the first of the two paras could cover the problems during recruitment and initial training, and the second the problems which arose later on? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • How did Berger handle what look to be multiple full-time jobs during the war? Did he delegate the work to others, or leave it undone?
    • He had multiple department heads and a good-sized staff. I haven't seen any information indicating that he delegated any more than would have been usual for a man with multiple departmental heads, or that he failed to address any work he had. He was obviously an excellent administrator, which was probably why Himmler wouldn't give him a combat command.
      • OK, but it seems likely to me that corners would have been cut. Himmler also had lots of jobs, and didn't do most of them - the idea was to get his finger into as many pies as possible. This kind of double up and empire building was common for the senior Nazi bureaucrats, with historians noting that it messed up the processes of government, such as they were. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
        • You may well be right, the overlapping chains of command that Hitler (and Himmler) implemented certainly had that effect in a lot of places, notably in German-occupied Serbia, but I haven't been able to locate anything that says this of Berger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • When did Berger assume command of XIII SS Army Corps?
    • He didn't, his was more of a kampfgruppe command, which included the XIII SS Army Corps, itself commanded by SS-Gruppenführer Max Simon. I've tweaked it.
      • That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • More generally, it's not really clear what he did during 1945 prior to the German surrender at present - can this be fleshed out?
    • There isn't much to go on. He was obviously involved with the POW role (particularly with the Prominente), and had the kampfgruppe command as well, so they put him in the Alps. There can't have been too much going on with Waffen-SS recruiting at that stage...
      • Fair enough. Some of the other senior Nazis also went to ground at this time. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "He was convicted under that part of count three relating to the murder of French Général de division Gustave Mesny, a POW who was killed in reprisal for the death of Generalleutnant Fritz von Brodowski at the hands of the French resistance in October 1944" - this isn't mentioned earlier in the article. What was his role here? Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I've moved the mention up, it was a command responsibility-type charge applied to Berger because he was in charge of the POW camps at the time of Mesny's murder.

Support All my comments are now addressed. Great work with this article - having high quality articles on Nazi functionaries is an important element of building our coverage of Nazi Germany. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. A pretty nasty lot, but I agree, we need to improve our coverage of them. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Assayer[edit]

I am not sure, if a featured article of the English wikipedia has to be based on the relevant Non-English literature as well. Nonetheless, since the subject is German history, I will name a few studies. While there is no book-length biography of Berger, a couple of articles have been published in German by:

  • Alfred Hoffmann: Der "maßlose Drang, eine Rolle zu spielen": Gottlob Berger. In: Täter, Helfer, Trittbrettfahrer, ed. by Wolfgang Proske, Vol. 1, Reutlingen 2010, pp. 21-51.
  • Gerhard Rempl: Gottlob Berger. "Ein Schwabengeneral der Tat". In: Die SS. ed. by Ronald Smelser & Enrico Syring, Paderborn 2000. pp. 45-59.
  • Joachim Scholtyseck: Der „Schwabenherzog“. Gotthold Berger, SS-Obergruppenführer. In: Die Führer der Provinz. NS-Biographien aus Baden und Württemberg, ed. by Michael Kißener & Joachim Scholtyseck, Konstanz 1997, pp. 77-110.
  • Gerhard Rempel: Gottlob Berger and Waffen-SS Recruitment: 1933-1945. In: Militärgesch. Mitteilungen 27, (1980), pp. 107-122.

The article is largely based on books by Adrian Weale and George Stein, respectively. While Weale's book is apparently a synthesis of various studies studies published in English and suffers from the author's apparent inability to read German (review by Richard J. Evans), Stein's study was originally published in 1966 (1984 reprinted in pbk). It is by now considered to be outdated. Publications by Rupert Butler, Chris Bishop, Chris McNab, Jonathan Trigg are not high-quality. Kübler is national-socialist in outlook.

The standard work on the Waffen-SS is still Bernd Wegner's study of 1980, 9th ed. 2010, published in English as "The Waffen SS" in 1990. In recent years the interest in the Waffen-SS has reinvigorated. A representative collection of essays is Die Waffen-SS. Neue Forschungen. ed. by Jan Erik Schulte, Peter Lieb, Bernd Wegner, Schöningh, Paderborn 2014. Many of the contributing authors have also published monographic studies (mainly revised PhD. theses). On the recruitment process, see in particular René Rohrkamp, »Weltanschaulich gefestigte Kämpfer«: Die Soldaten der Waffen-SS 1933-1945. Paderborn 2010.

On the whole the article seems a little unbalanced. There is much information about the organization of the different units, but it is not always clear what Berger has to do with this. For example, the paragraph about the Baltic divisions doesn't even mention Berger or his and Himmler's promises of autonomy to Latvians and Estonians. His role in crushing the Slovakian uprising is passed over rather quickly. Neither do we learn much about Berger's ideology. As early as 1938 Himmler had proclaimed that he intended to recruit "non-German Germanics" for the SS, and in 1940 Berger dreamt to win over millions of men with German ancestry in the Americas and Australia at some point. Moreover, Berger reasoned that by transforming the SS into a full-scale army it could be established as a real alternative to the Wehrmacht. On this see Bernd Wegner: Auf dem Weg zur pangermanischen Armee. Dokumente zur Entstehungsgeschichte des III. ("germanischen") SS-Panzerkorps In: Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 28 (1980): pp. 101–136. More material on the soldierly role models of the SS can be found in Knut Stang: Ritter, Landsknecht, Legionär: Militärmythische Leitbilder in der Ideologie der SS. Frankfurt 2009; Berger's and Himmler's ideas of the Islam have found some attention in recent years, for example by David Motadel: Islam and Nazi Germany's War. Cambridge, MA, 2014. --Assayer (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm also not sure of the requirement for non-English sources on en WP, although there is no doubt that biographical articles on non-English-speaking people have made it to Featured status without a significant weight of foreign sources. I will see if I can get access to Wegner, thanks for that advice and the pointers to other sources. I would ask that you provide some evidence that Stein is outdated, particularly given that you have listed a 35-year-old book as being the standard work on the subject. For example, in my main area of specialisation, books from the 1960s and 70s remain standard texts on aspects of interwar and WWII Yugoslavia. Same goes for the reliability of the other sources. A negative review in an academic journal would be the sort of evidence I'd be looking for. Having said that, this isn't a dissertation, it is WP, so the issue is meeting the reliability requirements unless you consider an extraordinary claim has been made somewhere. Berger was the head of recruiting, not the organiser of the new divisions, so the history of the changes in recruitment is germane to his biography. Finally, thanks for the mention of the Slovakian uprising, I will take another look at that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The main issue with Stein's work is, that it reproduces the image of the Waffen-SS as an military "elite". Sönke Neitzel characterizes this (with reference to Stein and Höhne) as a myth which originated with the Nazi propaganda during the war. ("Des Forschens noch wert? Anmerkungen zur Operationsgeschichte der Waffen-SS," In: MGZS 61 (2002), p. 406, 415) According to Jens Westemeier recent research has shown that Stein's overall judgement, namely that the significance of the Waffen-SS is to be found "in its part in the great battles for the defense of Hitler's Europe", is grossly misleading. (Himmlers Krieger, 2014, p. 13.) Thomas Casagrande criticizes that Stein takes judgements by Eicke and other commanders about the military worth of the "Volksdeutschen" at face value. (Die volksdeutsche SS-Division "Prinz Eugen", 2003, pp. 305-6.) Wegner provided a social history of the Waffen-SS and in that respect his work is still unsurpassed. Later editions have been revised and improved. Considering that it is available in English I am surprised that it is not being used more often in the English Wikipedia.--Assayer (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that is a fair analysis of Stein, despite the title of his book. He outlines what was essentially a two-tier system, the second of which he describes as far from "elite". He's also far from the only writer that identifies what was effectively a two or multi-tier arrangement within the 38 divisions of the Waffen-SS. He observes that what made the first tier "elite" was largely about the size and equipment of those formations, not necessarily the personnel or even training, although indoctrination obviously played a part. Other authors have observed better relationships between officers, NCOs and men in Waffen-SS formations when compared to comparable Army formations, for example. Comparable Army formations would also fit the "elite" description, largely for similar reasons. I have found that Wegner is held by my state library, so I will go and have a look and see what he says about Berger and his recruiting activities. In response to your comment I have added more about the Slovak uprising and some additional material about Berger from Kroener et al in various places. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 420[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This article, which recently passed a long-overdue A-class review should be set for the star. The only significant issue that I expect to crop up is the sel-published source (SPS) that is Niagara Thunder Alley. However, I feel this source meets the reliable source criterion for SPS exceptions, in that it "may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", of which there are several.[19]. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Floydian: do you mean to transclude this? --Rschen7754 07:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Now that it's been transcluded, Support per my review at the ACR. I also did an image review. --Rschen7754 01:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "Several explosions followed": That's unexpected ... what exploded?
  • "the DHO": What's that?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I hope to see more Canadian highways on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I fully support all the changes you've made, and have adjusted the text with regards to your comments. Thank you! :) - Floydian τ ¢ 23:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 15:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment A tangential point (frankly the note in question feels rather off-topic), but the note distinguishing Cootes Drive from the QEW could be worded better: Cootes Drive connects Dundas with Hamilton which were separate cities at the time, so the inner-city/inter-city distinction rings hollow. Cobblet (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Made some changes to the wording. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Neal Dow[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Neal Dow, the "Napoleon of Temperance". Dow was a politician and orator who spent his life in pursuit of a single goal: banning the consumption alcohol. In the process, he made and broke political alliances, alienated neighbors and friends, and generally made himself obnoxious to everyone he encountered, but he was (briefly) successful in imposing the first statewide prohibition law in the United States. I hope you enjoy the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Nikkimaria. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments Interesting article on a figure I didn't know much about. My usual quibbles (part 1):

  • Should his state legislative service be included in the infobox?
  • Yes? I don't usually bother with the infoboxes (they tend to sprout on their own). But I'll add it if you want.
  • "Dow retired from the military " I would say resigned as you do in the body.
  • Fixed.
  • "and the daughter of a prosperous Maine family headed by her prominent grandfather, Hate-Evil Hall." Leaving aside the breathtaking cognomen, "daughter' and "grandfather" don't mesh well.
  • changed to "a member"
  • "Friends school" possibly the term "Friends" as an alternate for Quaker could be introduced in a way that makes it clear they are synonyms. Also, I'm not sure you "attend" "further schooling".
  • Done
  • Can we have a year that Dow entered the work force by getting his hides tanned?
  • Ha, done.
  • Can steam power really be described as "new technology" in the 1820s? Even in Portland?
  • One the one hand, it had been developed a long time before, but on the other, no one else in Portland was using it for tanning. I just cut the word "new".
  • "out of a Quaker belief in pacifism." I would strike the word "a" to make it clearer this was a widely-held view in the religion.
  • Done
  • "now a museum administered by the local chapter of the Women's Christian Temperance Union" I would say inline what the museum is memorializing.
  • Done
  • 1832 presidential election. Did JQA really run? Our article says he wanted to but was too unpopular to get a nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You're right, and the source mentions Clay, not Adams (Dow disliked Clay for his reputation as a dualist!). Fixed.
  • "In the 19th century, the average American" isn't the entire century a bit of a broad brush to be painting with?
  • Clarified that this was meant as an average (I was trying to avoid using the singular).
  • A brief sampling of the evils the prohibitionists hoped to prevent might not be a bad idea. The fact that workingmen got paid in rum isn't sufficient.
  • I added some details.
  • "who made their own organization" possibly "formed" for "made"
  • Done
  • "a similar law ... they continued to be defeated". Tense mismatch
  • Fixed
  • "and came to detest the Democrats as the tools of the alcohol industry" I would strike the "the" before "tools"
  • Fixed.
  • "prosecutions were deferred" possibly "halted" for "deferred"
  • I changed it to "deferred indefinitely," which seems to be what Byrne is getting at.
  • " he lobbied the state legislature ... They did so" tense issue
  • Fixed
  • "He and his detractors engaged in anonymous newspaper campaigns against one another," maybe "both Dow and his opponents engaged in anonymous newspaper campaigns against the other,"
  • OK, changed.
  • "Maine Temperance Society, William P. Fessenden." I might give him the false title, "future senator"
  • Done
  • "promised effects" better, "promised benefits"
  • Done
  • "Dow had backed some of Peck's borrowing" I would say "guaranteed" for backed if this is like I suspect a McKinley 1893 situation.
  • Yes, it is. Didn't know if guarantees were too technical. Changed.
  • "In September 1860, he declined to run for re-election" Wasn't that when the election was held (As goes Maine ...)? Presumably his decision had to be at some point before that?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Clarified.
  • OK, I'm finished up to here. Thanks for the thorough review so far! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "outbreak of Civil War" why the caps? And why no pipe? There's no link to the war in the area.
  • Fixed.
  • "He also confiscated property from nearby planters, including those who supported the Union, and tried unsuccessfully to claim salvage rights over Confederate military property abandoned in the river.[70]" salvage rights on his own behalf or on the U.S.'s?
His own! I clarified.
  • "In October 1862, Dow was given command over the District of Pensacola, and moved to join other units there.[70] He immediately earned the troops' disfavor by placing Pensacola under prohibition" He was provost marshal for Pensacola or what was his role?
  • The source just says "Dow received Butler's order to take command of the District of Pensacola". I'll see if I can find something more specific.
  • Not really necessary. I wasn't clear on the chain of command. I'd make it clear it was Butler's order, that explains how Butler could countermand.
  • "Butler soon countermanded the orders" for what? Prohibition or the slave liberations/property confiscations?
  • Confiscation. I clarified it.
  • Link US Grant.
  • Done
  • Dow's travels as a prisoner were wide enough to make me wonder how he was taken. Train?
  • Wagon and train, according to Byrne.
  • Did Dow give any sort of parole?
  • The source doesn't say so. I think because he was exchanged, he could have returned to the fighting if he wanted to. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In the 1874 UK election, did he give speeches? I'm not clear on what his "effort" was.
  • Yes, speeches and some "organizing" (not terribly well defined in the source). Added it.
  • "Maine's legislature strengthened the weak prohibition law there by banning distilling in the state" the last state of play was repeal. For the sake of continuity, you might want to say something like "Maine's legislature had enacted a weak prohibition law in 18xx; thanks to Dow's influence ..."
  • I think the last thing I wrote on the subject was "Maine passed a new, much milder Maine Law in 1858..."
  • "and disappointed at their failure to enforce Reconstruction in the South" I'd say, if possible, what specifically disappointed him.
  • Byrne is not much more specific ("failing to protect the rights of Southern Negroes") but I added that.
  • "James Black's request that his name be placed in nomination for the presidency at the 1880 convention." Two issues. James who? and "his" is uncertain.
  • Fixed (Black is linked in the previous section).
  • "The convention that met in Cleveland that June welcomed delegates from twelves states" typo (doing this offline)
  • Done.
  • "Dow himself did not attend, staying home with his ailing wife" well, this was hardly unusual, and the reader should probably be told that in that day, candidates stayed away from the convention. Although you do more work with the minor parties than I do and perhaps things were different.
  • I think it was different--Weaver attended the Greenback convention that same year (so did Garfield attend the RNC, of course, but that's different since he was a dark horse). Still, it's worth noting.
  • Are there sites etc in Portland or elsewhere with a Dow connection worthy of mention?
  • Other than his house, I don't think so. I'll double check, though.
A most interesting article on someone I'm glad to know more about.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. Dow is an interesting, quarrelsome man. I enjoyed learning more about him, myself. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Support Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Leo Frank[edit]

Nominator(s): Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Born in 1884, Frank managed a pencil factory in Atlanta, Georgia. When a 13-year-old girl who worked at the factory was found dead in the factory’s basement, Frank was arrested and charged with the crime. After a highly-publicized trial, Frank was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to no avail, but had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment by Georgia Governor John M. Slaton. In addition to being political suicide, Slaton’s action was ultimately fruitless, as Frank was kidnapped from a rural prison, driven across the state, and lynched in a remote wooden area. His case coincided with the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan and the question of whether he was guilty continues to be debated.

The article went through another FAC way back in 2004, and is currently a good article. There have been some issues with sockpuppet editing, and while this has usually been nipped in the bud at SPI pretty quickly, the article has indefinite semi-protection and I'll be sure to monitor the article in case any issues arise. I've put a lot of work into the article, as have several others, and I'd appreciate any feedback! Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments by Maunus: I will take a look at this article over the next weeks. My first immediate suggestion is that the references section is a little unwieldy and untidy, I would would suggest separating text notes and short citations in the references section, and make the referencing use short citations consistently by moving all long citations (e.g. note 84 and several others) into the bibliography.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Maunus, do you think it would be good to have a "Notes" sub-section with any long notes, then a separate "References" sub-section with short ones? It would thus be:
10 Notes and references
10.1 Notes
10.2 References
10.3 Sources
Let me know if this looks good or if I should take a different approach. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be best, given how many long textual notes the article has.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. There are a few references with several bullet points that I left as references, but overall it should be a lot better. Feel free to take a look and let me know if there is anything else that can be improved. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I think this is much better - there are still some long refs that I think should be moved to the bibliography and cited as short refs for consistency. And I would prefer the bullet points in the notes section because they have explanatory text.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've noticed that trying to put bullet points in the notes formats them incorrectly, to where they are simply inline rather than line breaking before each bullet. You're welcome to make the changes directly if you like. Note that I also made some changes to your lead edits, although I made sure that the parts you edited would still make sense. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the bullet points are really important, so I would not have a problem getting rid of them for the sake of separating notes and references. I think Im about ready to support this but I want to read thhrough it one more time to be certain. Best, ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. Let me know what you think about it as well as the article overall when you get the chance. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Leo_Frank_Signature.png needs a license tag for the original work
  • File:FrankLynchedLarge.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know he died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for looking this over. The Signature image has a {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} tag already, but if there's another specific tag I need please let me know which one it is. For the lynching one, I replaced the 70 years tag with a US one, so that the death date of the photographer doesn't matter. If there's anything else, feel free to make the edits directly or let me know below. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The CC tag on the signature covers the derivative work - the reproduction by tracing - of the signature, but it does not cover the original signature. That is quite likely PD, but I don't know for certain which tag would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a PD-US tag here, but I'm not sure if there is a proper way to format the page. I tried to say that the original is PD and the derivative is CC4, but if there's a better way to do it feel free to edit that page. This is my first FAC, so I'm still learning some of the finer points. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Any formatting is fine so long as it's clear, and I think yours meets that standard. However, that tag requires pre-1923 publication, not just creation, which means we need to know where you traced it from to ensure that requirement is met. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I added a link to this document, where I traced the signature from the second page. As this is a notarized petition to a government agency, I believe it should be adequate for "publication", but please let me know if this is incorrect. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I peer-reviewed this in Nov/Dec 2014, since which time it has doubled its le