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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Tidus[edit]

Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Tidus the male main character from the 2001 video game Final Fantasy X as well as a playable one in other crossover titles. I originally didn't make this article Good but I expanded some parts with out-of-universe information to the point a former user congratulated me. Since my English is not very good, I've had this article copy-edited by a member from the Guild of Copy Editors. The article's design is based on the recent FA Final Fantasy character Lightning and my first FA, Allen Walker. I'll try to live up to all of users' demands to make it FA. Regards. Tintor2 (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would like to invite all the users who helped in the article's last peer review. User:Aoba47, 凰兰时罗, User:Jaguar, User:ProtoDrake, Freikorp.Tintor2 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel Pleydell[edit]

Nominator(s): Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel Pleydell was a controversial politician from Wiltshire who served in the English Parliament throughout the 1550s and 60s. He is mostly remembered for his involvement in several court cases, ranging from illegal hunting to conspiring against "Bloody" Mary I. This article also describes his family's origins, rise to the House of Commons and information surrounding his death. I've worked hard on this article, having created it and responded to GA and PR feedback. My prose isn't the best, but I've benefited from a thorough copyedit by a user from the guild. I'm not expecting this article to be perfect as this is my first FAC nomination; I will say, however, I believe it to be comprehensive and reliably sourced. Your constructive feedback will be much appreciated. Yours, Curlymanjaro (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I reviewed this at PR, and it's in very good shape. I have copyedited -- please revert anything you disagree with. A handful of minor points:

  • What does "permissible" mean in "the acquisition of property in Chippenham and Preshute (a permissible distance from Marlborough)"?
Detail added in a note, feel free to copyedit if necessary.
  • Direct quotations such as "Regarded as a ringleader" should have a citation immediately following.
Cited.
  • "Although the Star Chamber considered his comments slanderous, it took little judicial action against them": little, or none? If the source isn't specific it's fine as is. Also, I'd change it to either "action against him" or "action regarding them" as an action would have been against Pleydell, not against his comments.
You were right to point this out, Bindoff suggests the "result is unknown" regarding the matter. Hopefully I've rectified.
  • "a kinsman of William Garrard, with whom Pleydell served as Member for Wootton Bassett": perhaps "a kinsman of the William Garrard with whom Pleydell served as Member for Wootton Bassett".
Added.
  • It looks like Alison Wall's description of Pleydell and Sharington as "scoundrels" is only cited to Hasler; I think it should be cited directly to the ODNB.
Citation added.
  • Are "corrupt" and "notorious" from Bindoff? If so, that's fine; otherwise I'd cite them directly following the quoted words.
They're from Wall; the citation is included in the note correcting her description. I've added another footnote for good measure.
  • How confident are we that Cordell is the gentleman depicted? Unless we're pretty sure I think the connection is too minor for a possibly unconnected picture.
Most online references to the picture describe the painting as "Portrait of an Unknown Gentleman (sometimes called 'Sir William Cordell')". Given the obscurity of much of Tudor history, I feel it's acceptable. I trust your good judgement regardless.
  • "several Members of the Wiltshire gentry": should this be "members"? Or were they all MPs?
My mistake, just a typo. Duly corrected.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much, Mike Christie. Once again, you've been incredibly helpful. Curlymanjaro (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

With peace and joy, Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, is another cantata by J. S. Bach, for the first time a chorale cantata. The idea grew discussing what we can do about celebrating 500 years Protestant Reformation. My 2ct: this article on music by Bach who set a text by a contemporary poet who included and paraphrased Luther who paraphrased Simeon's canticle which is part of the prescribed gospel for Purification, 2 February. With such a great story, I was surprised that it's rather a work not published and recorded often. - The article received a GA review by Sainsf in April. I went over it, moving Mincham to external links (as Brianboulton advised) and checking for double links (as Tim would have done). - Previous cantatas didn't rely so much on other articles (look for "Main"), - I am a bit unsure how much from them needs to be taken on board, tried to include a bit but am open to suggestions about less or more. Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Burning Rangers[edit]

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Behold, one of the least respected video games of the 1990s. What makes this article different—at least for me anyway—is the fact that it relies on mostly offline sources, which were all accessible! It was something of a minor miracle that I was able to squeeze as much information out of this incredibly rare product. I believe that this article meets both the 1b and 1c aspect of the FA criteria as it is comprehensive for the subject matter. A couple of scans have missing urls because they are only accessible through sites like Sega Retro and the like. If you want access to a particular source for spot-checking, just let me know. I learned from my past mistake on Nights into Dreams... that having at least one Japanese source for a Japanese game in necessity for FAC, so I've added some snippets from the Sega Saturn Magazine's review of this game. As if that wasn't enough, I have access to a couple more issues, but implementing Japanese sources is a slow process.

Burning Rangers was released at the very end of the Sega Saturn's life span (it was among the final five games released in America). But what makes it so sad is the fact that it demonstrated that the Saturn was a more powerful machine than its rival, the PlayStation. Still though, it faded into obscurity and thus I'm trying to promote this to FA status in hopes that some people would appreciate it. Despite the broadness of the article, I have never played this game. Please don't hold it against me as last time I checked it was something like £200 on eBay! JAGUAR  21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
Resolved
  • I would recommend adding ALT descriptions to all of the images in the article.
  • Added. JAGUAR  16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't it "most of which are" rather than "most of which is" since you are referring to "tasks"?
  • Good catch, fixed. JAGUAR  16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do you think the article needs a "Plot" section, similar to the one used in the Nights into Dreams... article? This may not be necessary as the game may not have a narrative (which is why I am assuming you do not have this kind of section in this article), but I just want double-check that this assumption is correct.
  • I don't think there is any kind of narrative in this game. Before I came to this article there was a small plot section, but I found expanding it to be impossible, and WP:VG/GL recommends merging some aspects of the plot into the gameplay section if there is nothing to expand upon. Hopefully the reader can surmise that the game revolves around a group of rangers putting out fires and rescuing people, as that is the only thing it is. If anything is unclear please let me know and I'll try and clarify it. JAGUAR  19:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. The "Gameplay" section makes it clear that the game is about a group of rangers. I just wanted to double-check to make sure that there was not a major narrative in the game requiring a separate section. Merging it into the "Gameplay" section was definitely the right decision. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section reads somewhat awkwardly to me. It runs rather long and may benefit by splitting into multiple sentences. I am also wondering if a reader unfamiliar with the Sonic the Hedgehog games (as I am sure there are still some out there) would understand the concept. I would suggest revising this part to make it a little clearer and stronger.
  • I thought that the latter half of the sentence (marked by the semi-colon) describes the similarities with the crystals and rings, but I see your point. I've split and reworked the sentence to explain the crystals' function in more detail. JAGUAR  21:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and I think your revision made that part much stronger. Your original wording was good, but I think it is important to be as clear as possible when it comes to one of the central gameplay mechanics. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Gameplay" section sounds somewhat odd to me. When listing the locations, you mention burning buildings and a few other places. However, I would imagine that all of the locations are burning considering that it is a firefighter game. It might be better to state what type of building if possible rather than describing it as burning, as the presenting wording could make it seem like the "burning" part is unique to the building stage if that makes any sense.
  • I understand what you mean. I've removed the "burning" part and further elaborated that the game also takes place in apartment blocks and factories too. JAGUAR  21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and the revision looks good. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Did the development team provide any reasons for why they believed "the element of fire was the most appropriate way to create fear and tension"? This is more of a clarification question and I understand if this is all the information given in the source, but I just want to double-check.
  • I double-checked the source and it doesn't give a reason a why, as it just says "it seemed that fire was the most appropriate way to cause fear and tension", along with the 'rescue game' element. It's always good to check these things over though! JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I just wanted to make sure about this point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In the first sentence of the third paragraph of the "Conceptualisation and planning" subsection, you use the term "targeted" twice in a close proximity and I would suggest revising for variation.
  • Good catch, rephrased. JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I do not believe the "interesting things" quote is really necessary. It might be stronger to simply say "in hopes that they would find inspiration for designing the game's stages". I am only suggesting this as I have received a note in the past about only using quotes when absolutely necessary, so I think this part would benefit from your own words.
  • That's much better, thanks! I try my best to cut down on quotes but sometimes it's difficult to paraphrase. It didn't seem to be the case here, though. I'll go over the development section once again and see if I can paraphrase anything else. JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I definitely know that feeling all too well. You are much better at paraphrasing than I am. The section looks great! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Great job with the article. It is a very interesting read! I found relatively few areas for improvement. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. I will support this once all of my comments are addressed.

@Aoba47: thank you for the review! It looks like I owe you another one. I think I've addressed all of the above; even though I would have done it a lot quicker but I found myself going in and out of sleep last night. This was a nice little article to write, and I'm glad that it's going smoothly. JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar: No worries. Sleep is definitely more important so no need to apologize for that. I really enjoyed reading through this article. I never heard of this game before, so it was cool to learn about it. I would love to play it (if only it wasn't so expensive lol). If you have time in the future, could you help me with my FAC for Love, Inc.? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. I did the review for this article primarily because I was really interested in the subject (maybe one day in the future I will work on more video game-related articles) so don't feel pressured to owe me a review or anything like that. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Aoba47! Don't worry, I'll leave some comments at your FAC soon. I'll probably read through it tonight and will leave some comments tomorrow, if that's OK. I make sure to always keep my promises. To be honest I hadn't heard of this game until a couple of years ago, but I became interested in this because it showed that the Saturn was a more powerful console than the PlayStation, and this arguably had better graphics than anything else. It's unfortunate that this costs so much as my writing of this article would have been more articulate had I owned it! JAGUAR  18:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I know my article is not particularly in your field of interest so I greatly appreciate your help. And the history about the Saturn is very interesting. You did a wonderful job on the article, especially since you never actually owned the game or played it. That is very impressive. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: Great work with the article, and good luck with getting it promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Paranthodon[edit]

Nominator(s): IJReid discuss 02:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the dinosaur genus Paranthodon, arguably one of the most obscure dinosaurs, with the only bone known being part of a skull originally identified as a pareiasaur. From what I can tell with a simple Google Scholar search, every verifiable publication on the taxon has been included at some point, as well as most sources mentioning the taxon. While being fully comprehensive, this article has remained quite short due to lack of literature. No major changes should come anytime soon, as in a short email conversation with palaeontologist Susannah Maidment (several of her publications are referenced here), it was brought up that an project on the taxon was going to be started by one of her students, but that she didn't expect anything on the taxon to change. This article has been copy edited, and is as comprehensive as it can be with the current literature, and that is why I am nominating it for FA. IJReid discuss 02:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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

  • There are 3 instances of "however" in the Classification section; see if you can trim one or two of them.
I have cut out two, in addition to grammar and flow fixes. IJReid discuss 03:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Wow thanks for the support! I see nothing wrong with your edits, every little fix helps. IJReid discuss 03:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Since I GA reviewed this, and have drawn one of the images in the article, I'll wait doing a review/support after some more uninvolved users have left their comments. But two image things that could be done is to link and attribute the base map this map was cropped from[1] on the file description, and add the source for the size given in this size estimate[2] in the file description there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Both are done. For the first image, the base was already in the description, so I added it under Other Versions as the base map. However, I am considering using the base .svg instead, with a locator to indicate where the formation is (if I figure out how to add the red dot things). IJReid discuss 02:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice, then that at least won't be a problem during the image review. FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Support and comment from Jim[edit]

I'm happy to support this well-written article, just one minor point though. In the body of the text, when you name a person you put, for example, British paleontologist Richard Owen. Wouldn't it be more helpful to put this fuller description at the first mention instead of just "Owen"? At first glance, I thought Nopsa might be an acronym until I hovered on the link! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I have fixed your comment, moving the "british/south african/hungarian paleontologist" to the first mention of each person in the lead. IJReid discuss 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The American Bible Challenge[edit]

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about The American Bible Challenge, a Biblical-themed game show that aired on Game Show Network from 2012 to 2014. The series was hosted by Jeff Foxworthy, perhaps best known for his career as a comedian and host of the highly successful Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? on Fox. The series received a Daytime Emmy Award nomination and broke several ratings records for GSN over its three seasons. I brought it up to GA status a couple of years ago and am now nominating it here. Any comments and/or feedback would be greatly appreciated. Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved
  • The image of Jeff Foxworthy seems rather large in comparison to the text and the other images. I would recommend re-sizing this so it doesn't seem so out-of-place, or interrupt the flow of the article as much.
  • I am not religious so I may be incorrect about this, but would "biblical characters" be a more appropriate phrase rather than "Bible characters"? "Bible characters" just sounds odd to me, but it could be a correct phrasing of it.
  • I am a little confused by the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Main game" subsection. I understand the bit about the physical activity/stunt, but I am confused by the sentence about the questions, specifically the line: "with the same set of choices given for each character." Could you please clarify what you mean by "the same set of choices"? I believe this needs to made clearer as it seems to a central structure of the game show. The following sentence after this part also adds to my confusion as it names an example of a physical stunt, but the "question" and "answer" still seem rather vague.
  • I would rephrase the first sentence of the "The Final Revelation" subsection as it is somewhat awkward. The phrase "Before this game" seems a little strange, as it could read that it is transitioning to a completely different game rather than being the final round of the game as a whole.
  • In the last sentence of the first paragraph of that same section, I would clarify "along with a physical copy of the Bible".
  • The phrase "After the 10 minutes are up" seems rather informal, so I would suggest revising with stronger word choice.
  • The "many" in the phrase "many new staff members" is not necessary. Either state the number if known or just say "new staffs members" as the "many" does not add much to the sentence as it is vague and could represent a majority or a few depending on reader interpretation.
  • I would separate the first sentence in the "Season 1" subsection into two: with the first saying the premiere date and the second about the ratings/records.
  • Please add ALT descriptions for the images (including the image in the infobox)
  • Do you have any information on the show's cancellation, such as the reason behind it? This would be helpful, but I understand that this information may not be out there. You should at least say that the show was either cancelled or ended somewhere in the body of the article (most likely in the "Season 3" subsection).
  • GSN is a (very) small cable network (though perhaps not as small as it was before Bible Challenge's success...), and because of this, their shows are usually just quietly dropped. The fact that new episodes haven't aired in nearly 2.5 years certainly implies production has stopped, but I'll do my best. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bcschneider53:Understandable. You could use the following source here to support a small line that the show was canceled/ended in the 2013-2014 television season. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There are just three reviews in the "Reception" section: with two that seem positive and one that seems negative, so I do not believe the first sentence of the "Reception" section is quite needed. 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 three that were known to have been published. This could be more of a personal preference, but it just seemed odd to me to make a consensus after three reviews so I wanted to draw your attention to this.
  • Remove "also" in front of "honored" in the same section. The previous sentences did not mention anything about the show winning a reward so it cannot also be honored if it is the first sentence that discuss the show's accolades.
  • Shouldn't the third paragraph of the "Reception" section be moved up to the "Season 1" subsection as it deals directly with the first episode? You already mention briefly something about the records/ratings there so it would be better to group the information together.

@Bcschneider53: Great work with the article as whole. If promoted, this would be the first featured article on a game show so that is very exciting. A lot of more comments are more minor notes/nitpicky questions about sentence structure and confusion on certain parts, but otherwise, I will mostly likely support this after you address my review above (I will give one or two more look-throughs after you address my comments just to make sure I caught everything). If possible, could you help me with my FAC for Love, Inc.? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for your comments! I will take a look later this evening when I get home from school. I believe I added alt text everywhere except the infobox but I could be mistaken. As my user page notes, life is very busy for me right now but I'll try to make time to look at your FAC as well. Cheers, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Bcschneider53: Awesome! And thank you for adding the alt text. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about my review. The article was an interesting read, as I never heard about this show before this. And no worries, life is extremely busy for me too so I completely understand that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I believe everything here has been addressed; let me know after you give it a second run-through. Thanks again! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Support: Great work with the article, and good luck with getting it promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

2014 Japanese Grand Prix[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix, a Formula One motor race held on 5 October 2014 at the Suzuka Circuit in Suzuka, Japan. It was the 15th round of that year's season and the 30th running of the event as part of the Formula One World Championship. The 44-lap race, which was affected by Typhoon Phanfone, a category four tyre storm, was won by Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton. However, the race was overshadowed by a major accident involving Jules Bianchi of the Marussia team in which he collided the rear of the tractor crane which was tending to the recovery of another car. Bianchi remained in a coma until his death nine months later on 17 July 2015. I started working on this article in July, and after an extensive copy-edit from the GOCE in August, I believe it meets the FA criteria. All constructive feedback is welcome. MWright96 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Support – I fixed a few typos and only see one minor issue: reference 4 appears to be dead, or at least is not working for me. Assuming that can be fixed, as Jaguar put it, this is pure FA material. Well done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support Benjamin. I have removed the dead link since the same issue has reoccurred in the past. MWright96 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Support I rarely quick pass articles but in this case I'd say that this article is flawless both in terms of quality and comprehensiveness. Outstanding work. JAGUAR  12:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Template:Interlanguage link multi: Consensus seems to be against this template at FAC, and I've converted both links to standard red links. Blue links would be better, if you can create stubs, but a couple of red links won't disqualify this article at FAC. (The template serves as a warning sign that something needs to be fixed. FAC is the place for articles where the things that need to be fixed already have been fixed.)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Make Me Like You[edit]

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the second single from Gwen Stefani's third studio album, This Is What the Truth Feels Like. It recently underwent a major copyedit that has heavily improved the prose, which was likewise the main reason why it failed its previous FAC. Like I previously said, I am willing to do anything to bring this article to the FA status! Carbrera (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Aoba47
  • I could be wrong, but I think that if you include a quote in the lead, then you still have to cite it even if it is in the body of the actual article. I am referring to "beachy" in the first paragraph of the lead. There is an "attribution needed" tag for the "colorful" quote so I think I am correct on this, but you can always double-check with a user experienced with working on music-related articles.
  • I would suggest revising the sentence concerning the critical response to the video by removing the "colorful" quote and making it more reflective of the response as a whole (as you do cite multiple reviews and this should be touched on in the lead somewhat).
  • If the "Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows" are counted separately from the "This Is What the Truth Feels Like Tour", then please make a note that she performed the single during this tour as well.
  • The phrase "new ones" sounds too informal to me. I would simply say "she began recording music based on her relationship with singer Blake Shelton" instead. This is my personal preference, but I think it would strengthen this part, especially since it is the first sentence of the body of the article.
  • I am not sure I understand what you mean by "lyrical transition". Do you mean the transition from writing about Gavin to writing about Blake? What do you mean by it "ended? Could you make the meaning of this a little more clear.
  • I would say "she called it her favorite self-composed song" to make it clear that you are referring to that it was one of her favorite songs that she wrote it.
  • I would cut down the sentence about the Jimmy Kimmel to simply say that Stefani confirmed that the song was about Shelton. You could add that Stefani was initially resistant about answering Kimmel's question or something along those lines, but I do not find the quotes to be entirely necessary to get the point across here.
  • I would replace "and Tranter contributed to" with "with Tranter contributing to" as I feel that it would make the sentence flow a little bit better.
  • What do you mean by "a vibrant melody"? It can sound a little like a peacock term, in that it sounds more like praise for the song rather than an objective observation on the song's production. I would either suggest removing it or clarifying this point to avoid misinterpretation.
  • I would recommend listing the names of her two previous albums in the Zach Gase sentence in the "Composition and Lyrics" with a wikilink and dates for both.
  • The phrase "the pluses of a breakup" sounds a little too informal to me. I understand what you mean and I personally like it, but I am not sure it fits on Wikipedia. Maybe "the benefits of a breakup" instead?
  • The quote "inflect[s] emotion in her voice" sounds somewhat POVish to me. Like I stated with one of my previous comments, I want to advise that the section stays as objective as possible, and this seems a little too strongly written with praise in mind. Who is the person/publication saying this? I would recommend you attribute who is saying this in the article, and use your own words to describe Stefani's vocal performance as emotional to avoid this. When looking at the source, I find the quote to be odd as the reviewer mentions Stefani showing her emotions, but the he also says the audience may ignore it completely so be careful with the use of the source in this context.
  • You use "confront" and "confrontation" in close proximity in the "Composition and lyrics" section. Please change one of these for variety.
  • There are a lot of quotes in the "Critical reception" section. I know that I am very guilty of doing this in my own writing on here, but I would advise cutting back to using quotes in which the word choice is very important and paraphrasing with your own words in other sections.
  • I would add "becoming" in front of "Stefani's least-successful release in that country".
  • You repeat "directed" twice in close proximity in the "Background and development" subsection of the "Music video" section. Please change this.
  • Add "the" in front of "exclusive distributor".
  • I would replace "After it was over" to "Following its broadcast" to sound a little more formal.
  • Do you need to add a reference for the last sentence of the first and second paragraphs of the "Synopsis" subsection? This is more of a clarification question.
  • The construction "with, near the end of the song, image of the singer" is awkward and needs revision.
  • Add that she performed this during "Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Final Shows" in the "Live performances" section.
  • Make sure to check and see if this song appears on any year-end charts for 2016 in the future. I am not sure if it will chart or not, but keep this in mind.
  • Was "The Remixes" EP released only in the United States? If not, then revise this.
  • E! Online should be in italics in the "References" section.
  • iTunes should not be in italics in the "References" section (See reference 16)
  • I hate to call this out, but what makes the "Magical World of No Doubt" a reliable source? I would imagine you could find a more reliable source to support the information about Sophie Muller's previous work with Stefani.

@Carbrera: You have done an excellent job with this article. I have a lot of respect for you in that you are putting a lot of work and dedication in this. Your work actually makes more interested in returning to writing and expanding articles related to music (as I was starting to move away to do articles on television and fictional characters more instead). Let me know if you have any questions about my review. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the article one more time and then most likely support it for promotion. If you have time in the future, could you help me with my FAC for Love, Inc.? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. Good luck with this nomination, and I will send some positive energy your way that it does well this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Coloman, King of Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a king of Hungary who was regarded one of the most learned monarchs of his age. Borsoka (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "His proficiency in canon law was eulogized in a letter that Pope Urban II addressed to him in 1096.": You can't eulogize someone until they're dead, so why would the Pope be addressing a letter to him?
  • "contemptile": contemptible?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Dank, thank you for your copyediting and support. I fixed the above problems. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Oton_Ivekovic,_Smrt_kralja_Petra_Svacica_u_Gori_Gvozdu_1097_god.jpg: assuming the attribution in the caption is correct, the given tag cannot be
  • File:Seal_of_Coloman.jpg is not a 2D work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

SMS Schwaben[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Another German battleship, this one spent much of its career in a training role. She was also one of a handful of old battleships retained by Germany after war, though only after having been converted into a depot ship for minesweepers. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  • My suggestions would be the linking of launching, commissioning, mines and ship breaking. Armored cruiser should be linked at the first instance in the third paragraph in service history instead of by Blucher. Also would link tender next to Ulan. Llammakey (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Good ideas, all. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    • Done
  • File:Wittelsbach_class_linedrawing.png: do we know the status of this image in its source country?
    • No, so that's why it's here on en.wiki instead of Commons.
  • File:North_and_Baltic_Seas,_1911.png: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Added the original source. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC) This article is in great shape. I have only one point:

  • The low range of the belt in the infobox isn't reflected in the body
    • Fixed - thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Query Why not use File:SMS Schwaben.jpg? ϢereSpielChequers 20:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no source for a pre-1923 publication, so we can't prove it's PD in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the flotilla leader (large destroyer) Dubrovnik, a British-designed ship that was the de facto flagship of the Royal Yugoslav Navy during the late interwar period, and saw service under three flags during World War II. She conveyed King Alexander home after he was assassinated at Marseilles in 1934, and was captured by the Italians at the Bay of Kotor during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. As Premuda she was the most important and effective Italian war prize ship of World War II, doing duty on as an escort on over 100 North Africa supply runs. After the Italian surrender, she saw service with the German Navy as TA 32, during which she notably clashed with Royal Navy ships in the Battle of the Ligurian Sea. She was scuttled by the Germans at Genoa in April 1945. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support -- recusing from coord duties, with the caveat that I don't know as much about ships and navies as I do about aircraft and air forces, but I have reviewed a few of these over the years and note that a couple of our more naval-minded editors looked this over at MilHist A-Class Review last year...

  • I think I've managed to cross-check everything in the infobox with the cited material in the text and it all seems to match except for one technicality: as obvious as the case may be, I couldn't see where the ship's naming for the Dalmatian port city was cited.
    • Good pick-up. I found the reference.
  • Prose-wise, pls let me know any issues with my light copyedit; outstanding points:
    • "and they had to build their naval forces from scratch" -- Is this strictly accurate if they had 12 modern MTBs, even if those do seem a pittance? Can we qualify as "ocean-going naval force" or some such? Alternatively, you could perhaps do without that bit entirely, as the pursuit of bigger vessels follows soon after...
      • tweaked with "almost"
    • "an expanded version of the British Shakespeare-class" -- "expanded" sounds a bit odd, do we mean "enlarged" or perhaps "enhanced"?
      • Good point, enlarged is probably best.
    • "In the late summer of 1929" -- Can do better than the seasonal reference from the sources?
      • The source isn't any more specific.
    • "she had been damaged by Yugoslav civilians prior to her seizure" -- I don't suppose we know their motivations or whose side they were on? Axis sympathisers, proto-partisans, run-of-the-mill anarchists, kids on schoolies...?
      • I'm guessing they were either patriots or Ustasha sympathisers, but Freivogel doesn't say.
  • Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
  • I haven't done a source review per se but could have a go later if no-one else does.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Ian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Banksia aculeata[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This article got promoted to GA earlier this year (a fairly detailed review by Funkmonk, thanks!). Anyway, I think it is the equal of any of the other 28 banksia FAs. Should be simple fixes which I will fix pronto. and a short article. have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I'll have more comments later,but just some number stuff to kick off. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Why fractions eg 1 1⁄4 rather than decimal 1.25?
someone objected to the use of decimals with imperial units in a past FA, so have been using fractions ever since. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Numbers in a range should be quoted with the same accuracy, so, for example, I'd have 2.5–3.0 cm (1–1 14 in), not 2.5–3 cm (1–1 14 in)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In late bud the end of the perianth has a characteristic...— comma somewhere?
comma added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
my bad - I use the names in my head interchangeably and changed to the wrong one. Changed to "range" now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • rendering it a valuable food source.— for what?
for animals - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 13 (!) is giving a 404 error
have replaced with a 2013 paper I found Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Changed to support above. I was hoping that the food source bit might be more specific (insects? honeyeaters? both?) but it's not a big deal, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
source doesn't specify but is talking in general terms. Correct answer is likely all of the above...thx 4 support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Josh[edit]

  • "It does not have a woody base, known as a lignotuber, that many other banksias have." This doesn't quite flow right, for me.
flipped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is 3.0–4.3 cm (1 1⁄4–1 3⁄4 in) long and pink at the base grading into cream." It's not fully clear what the it refers to, here.
the perianth - clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The obovate (egg-shaped) seed is 4–5 cm (1 5⁄8–2 in) long and fairly flattened, and is composed of the wedge-shaped seed body (containing the embryonic plant), measuring 1.0–1.2 cm (3⁄8–1⁄2 in) long and 1.5–1.8 cm (5⁄8–3⁄4 in) wide, and a papery wing." Perhaps this could be split; four ands!
split sentence and removed another 'and'... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I personally hate "empty" external link sections like that. Is there a database record or something that could be linked to? Alternatively, we have Template:Sister-inline and similar.
the sister template is good and tweaked- all other good stuff is referenced already Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Images:

agree, Hesperian made the map in 2009 and I can't find the blank one on commons... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys. See the image source= parameter: "It was created by Hesperian, using the IBRA 6.1 data...." That is, I created the base map myself, using a GIS and publicly available vector data. Hesperian 00:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hesperian: My apologies! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The photos are great.
great subject matter Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's all that's jumping out at me. Short, but key questions are answered, and you do have sourced mentions of how the species is little-known, so I'm not too worried about that. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources:

  • It seems that you're missing locations on your Flora of Australia source, but I admit I'm not sure how that is handled when there are multiple publishers. Is this perhaps published by CSIRO on behalf of the ABRS? The way you cite The Banksia Book may be viable.
added. tweaked as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you linking publishers? Providing states for city locations? There's a little inconsistency, it seems.
notable publishers linked, states added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There's an inconsistency between "George, Alex S." and "George, Alex".
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, George's name is sometimes linked, sometimes not. There doesn't seem to be a clear pattern; judging from the other names, first mention in the cites only? What's the pattern for linking journal names?
yeah I think first mention of author names is best. Some reviewers have been keen for journal links. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't both including the publishers of journals, but, if you do, do so consistently.
not sure how that got there - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • If you're including PMIDs, do so consistently, but I'd call them redundant to DOIs.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ISBN 10 or ISBN 13?
the books from the 80s didn't have 13 digit isbns... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

All sources appropriately scholarly; no spotchecks done. I can't speak to comprehensiveness. (Sorry- that was picky.) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I also note that there's some inconsistency between title case and sentence case article titles. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
title cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Placeholder / Singora[edit]

I'll review this next week. Singora (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Choess[edit]

  • In "Description", is "embedded with" idiomatic? I'd say "in which up to ...follicles are embedded".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In "Taxonomy", "this was only discovered only a century later": I'm not sure "discovered" is the right word I'd use for the recognition of a segregate species. In this case, I might say something like "this distinction was first made over a century later". Instead of "He based the species on...", I might say "As the type of the species, George chose..." The article on B. caleyi links Taxonomy of Banksia as the main article from its Taxonomy section; is this suitable?
tweaked x 3 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In "Ecology", the same article is linked twice: once at "canopy seed bank" and once via redirect from "aerial seed bank". The terminology should be made consistent and linked at first occurrence. I would say "dependent on" instead of "depend upon", although I'm not sure why.
tweaked x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • For "Cultivation", is this of interest as an anecdotal report?
yep. added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Other than that, this looks pretty good; comparable to the B. caleyi article. The shortness is understandable given that the taxon doesn't have a long history. Choess (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Devon County War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the second of my series of war memorial articles to make it to FAC, following the promotion of Northampton War Memorial. This one is a smaller monument (a single cross on the cathedral green in Exeter) but it has an interesting history, not least the contrast Exeter's own war memorial five minutes' walk away. The article has had some very useful feedback from a GA review and an A-class review and I think it's up to scratch, but all comments are welcome. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 19 November 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) 01:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments (in no particular order) / Singora[edit]

  • 1. You have "including a baths"
    • I believe this is correct when referring to Roman baths.
  • 2. You have "a set of steps and a platform leading to the memorial which emphasises". Subject-verb agreement blah blah blah.
    • I've re-worded this slightly.
  • 3. You have "described by Lutyens researcher Tim Skelton". Possessives, etc.
    • And this.
  • 4. RE: "all 44 of his free-standing memorials in England". Should you not add the number (44) to your previous article?

Singora (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Singora. As you can probably see these articles are all similarly structured, but I'd like to think it got more refined with practice. I've got another four in the queue and more that I'm still planning to write so your feedback will affect more than just the one article. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC) This article is in fine shape, Harry. I've tweaked some minor grammar, but feel free to revert if it isn't to your taste. I only have a few points:

  • the quotation from Lutyens appears twice, I think once would be enough.
    • Agreed. (How did I miss that?!)
  • I think it should be just baths, drop the "a"
    • I'm not sure but I don't feel strongly either way, so done
  • strengthens → strengthening?
    • done
  • I think WP:FNNR indicates that general references are listed after rather than before short citations
    • And WP:CITEVAR says I can use any style I want; the MoS is full of contradictions and arbitrary dictats.
Thanks for the review, PM. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
No prob, always a pleasure. I like the work you are doing on memorials. Inspires me to improve the articles on some of my local ones. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Tahiti rail[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's a short article about a bird known from little else than an 18th century drawing. In spite of this, quite a bit has been written about the bird, practically everything of which is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Your usual comprehensive effort, but of course I have some nit-picks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, nit-picks are always welcome, I'll answer and fix issues soon. There are a few issues where I'm unsure what to do, so I have left some questions too. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • 9 inches (23 cm) and similar. I think we normally put metric first in scientific articles, and in this case the islands were French, a long-time metric country, so all the more reason to do so
Yeah, I'm aware of this, but I was unsure because the only measurements ever given are Forster's, who only used inches, so I was thinking it would be "misleading" to state he gave them in metric units first? Also, the Pacific islands weren't French at the time, but ruled by native Polynesians. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not totally convinced, but I'll accept that for now and we'll see if other reviewers pick up on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Alright, it should be easy to flip the numbers if the time comes, I recall there is some kind of parameter for this, if I can make it work... FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • 12 3⁄4 and similar. I don't like the look of these, why not 12.75?
Hehe, I don't like them either, but that's how they were given by Forster, and I have no idea how to convert them (I am very bad with numbers)... So any help would be appreciated. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I changed to decimal, please revert if unhappy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks fine to me! FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think we normally link sovereign countries like Tonga, also a dup link of this
Here, it is more to direct readers to the island (not the state), like the island of Tahiti, but the subject of the island and the state just happen to overlap. I will remove the duplink, but I'm sure readers would like a link to Tonga, which is not necessarily familiar to most people? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • James Cook's second voyage around the world (1772–1775), on whichduring which?
Then we'll have two "during" in the same sentence, which I think would be a bit repetitive? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ferruginous (rufous) —I've sometimes been told that "rufous" is too obscure by FAC reviewers, better "rusty", as you have later
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The father and son were tasked with—were they paid professionals? Sometimes travellers were amateurs like Darwin, and your phrasing isn't entirely clear
None of the sources about the bird specifically state whether the Forster's were hired, but I assume that would have been the common practice. Only way to source this would be to some literature about the men themselves, but I think this might be a bit off topic? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ''only specified Tahitispecified only''
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Tongan bird was placed on a list of extinct birds in a 1981 book, and Forster's plate of the Tahiti rail was used to illustrate the Samoan wood rail (Gallinula pacifica) in a 1989 book.[2]—any reason to not name the books?
Didn't find it necessary, but now added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • of predatorsland predators
The source says "One often reads that flightlessness comes about as a result of the absence of predators, and while a number of islands where flightless rails occur do have avian predators, it is probably true that where one finds flightless rails one does not encounter native mammalian predators that are so destructive to ground-dwelling and nesting birds." So I added "(especially mammalian)", since land isn't specifically mentioned, and also added "and reduced need for dispersal" to the factors that allow flightlessness. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ("eyebrow") probably only needed at first occurrence
You mean only in the intro? I was under the impression that there should be no information in the intro not present in the article body? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a gloss is new info. Also, we often have uncontroversial info, such as alternative names, only in the lead (as here) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Removed, but I personally like to have such explanations in the article body as well. You never know if the reader has read the intro, sometimes I don't, because I know the intro is just supposed to be a summary of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Forster's Latin description of the bird translates as follows— If it's not your translation, you should acknowledge the translator
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • too bright redtoo brightly red?
Yep, was my initial choice as well... FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • end of the 19th century, where after it began to decline; it had disappeared from there some time after 1844.— "thereafter", one word, would be clearer
Not sure how you mean, it should be "it had disappeared from thereafter 1844"? Seems a bit ungrammatical?
I had to read the sentence twice to make sense of it because "where after", as two words, seemed odd, at least to me. What about "...19th century, beginning to decline thereafter;? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Took that. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a couple of very minor loose ends now to sort out before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Changed to support above, the parameter you mentioned, if you need to use it is, unsurprisingly, order=flip (I had to read through them all recently to find how to do "million" as part of the string). Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Gallirallus pacificus.jpg: Free image on Commons, the license seems to be correct. Also, apparently this watercolour is the primary source of information we have on this bird.
  • File:Hodges, Resolution and Adventure in Matavai Bay.jpg: Free image on Commons, the license is also plausible. Source link seems to be offline at the moment. It's a painting depicting the landing of James Cook on Tahiti, which is discussed in the section.
  • File:Societe isl Tahiti.PNG: Free image on Commons, derived from File:Karta FP Societe isl.PNG which is also a free image. A map of the place the bird existed on is obviously germane in the infobox.
  • File:Gallirallus.pacificus.jpg: Free image on Commons, caption has a caution note on the colour of the legs, something discussed farther down in the section. License is well supported. An image of the bird in the section describing it seems pertinent to me.
  • File:Buff-banded Rail Fafa Island.jpg: Image of a related bird, free image on Commons. It's used as a comparison image, given that this bird actually still exists. Own work, free license, lower resolution versions of this image taken from Commons exist elsewhere on the web.

Might want to use ALT text for the images, but other than a broken link I see no issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe I can link to an archived URL... FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Dark Angel (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the short-lived cyberpunk TV series that launched Jessica Alba's career. Article is GA, has received a peer review and two copy edits from the Guild of Copyeditors. Freikorp (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: I did a read through and it seems pretty good. I enjoyed many of the interesting details it presented, and it looks comprehensive. There are just a few minor nits I noticed. Otherwise it looks close to FA worthy.
    • "The creators of the comic series Cybersix filed a lawsuit accusing Cameron and Fox of plagiarizing their story which was later dropped": I know what you mean here, but the final clause still seems ambiguous.
    • "...secret government institution...": a secret U.S. government institution?
    • I think its relevant to mention in the Plot section that Logan Cale is physically handicapped. That was a key element in some episodes.
Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your comments. I've reworded the intro to give indication of why the lawsuit was dropped, and i've added that it was 'US' government institution. I've given some explanation in the plot to how Logan becomes a paraplegic; it's a bit complicated. Let me know if you have any further concerns, or if you think it could be worded better. Freikorp (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
Resolved
  • At the end of the second paragraph of the lead, I would recommend combining or revising some of the sentences. The sentences about the second season and cancellation are short and choppy and could be run together better. I would combine the criticism for the new plot elements with the sentence about the second season and the part about the ratings drop with the cancellation bit to make it flow better.
Reworded. Let me know if you think it still needs work. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks great to me, thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Add a comma after the phrase "Over the season" in the "Season two" subsection.
  • I would clarify that Cameron was initially not impressed with Alba's audition tape, as he did feel something from the tape that was strong enough for him to keep going back to it.
  • If possible, could you expand on why Fox "just barely" renewed the series? Was it due to ratings? The budget? If you cannot find more specific information, it is fine as it currently stands.
The source doesn't really say, other than that Fox 'appeared to lose interest' in the show. Freikorp (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought as much, but just wanted to make sure. It is good as it is. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I would suggest combining the two paragraphs in the "Cancelled season" section.
  • I would suggest using "Unproduced season" rather than cancelled season. A similar thing was done on the page for the television show Firefly. This is a more stylistic choice so it is up to you on this one.
  • You repeat mythology twice in close proximity so I would suggest revising to avoid this.
  • You use the phrase "Writing in X" a few times in the "Themes" section so I would add more variety and revise this.
  • I would split the Butkus sentence, with Max's identity as a feminist warrior was one sentence and the part about Original Cindy as another. Also add a comma after "For example" in the next sentence.
  • You use the word "nominated' a lot in the "Accolades". I would highly recommend that you add more variety to avoid this. I understand why you did it this way as it is the easiest verb to go to for an award section.
To try and break it up a bit i've done some very minor rewording, replacing two instances of "was nominated" with "received a nomination", but I just can't think of any other way to reword this. If you have any suggestions let me know. Freikorp (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Breaking it up with minor rewording made it a lot better. It is difficult to reword it for an award section, but your edit added enough variety in my opinion Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, but do the two sources (12 and 77) cover all of the information given about the novels. Just want to make sure this is clarified, otherwise more references would be needed for the "Related media" section.
No, sources 12 and 77 only back up the sentence they are used in. I assumed the plots of the novels would not require sources, for the same reason the plot of the series (or any TV series or film for that matter) doesn't require a source - the medium itself is the source. I am happy to add the novels as inline citations to support themselves if that is the appropriate thing to do. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I completely forgot about using the medium as the source itself so I see no issue with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Great job with the article! Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks so much for your review. I've put a strikethrough on all the stuff that was easy to address and have replied to anything that might need reviewing. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Freikorp: Awesome work with this article. I now support this article's nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Since the Unproduced season section isn't about the actual show, I'd recommend trimming away maybe half of it.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You're right, it was too long. I trimmed away a quarter of it. Thanks for your copy edits yet again; it's always appreciated. Freikorp (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Nike-X[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Nike-X was the first ABM system intended to deal with full-scale attacks; it envisioned thousands of missiles flying every which way in a war that would last only a few minutes in total. Even with this protection, tens of millions would die, and it was this fact that ultimately led to it being abandoned - if the goal was to save lives, fallout shelters were both cheaper and more effective. Although Nike-X is certainly one of the most technically advanced ABM systems, it is also perhaps the least well known - I was something of a kid-expert on ABM back in the 80s, and I never even heard of Nike-X until recently. The article went through A-class on MILHIST with relative ease, and I've only done minor tweaks since, so It's time to go! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments here as I go through the article. Not sure how much I can get done tonight. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert anything I screw up.

  • "1,700 TJ": I assume TJ is terajoules? Suggest glossing or linking or both.
This is something the convert template does, and frankly, if people don't know what a kT is then they definitely won't know what a PT is. Just remove it and list kt perhaps?
I'll strike, since I don't think it's a big deal. Yes, maybe remove the conversion in this case as not being useful. That would also let you make it "...a large (400 kilotons of TNT) warhead..." which avoids "large 400 kilotons", which isn't quite right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I did the conversion anyway, it was bugging me too.
  • Why is "cost-exchange ratio" italicized?
Good question. Fixed.
  • "Additionally, the non-moving phased-array antennas were mounted directly in concrete and could be hardened to much greater strengths, which, given the accuracy of Soviet missiles of the era, would require several warheads to guarantee its destruction": suggest "Additionally, the non-moving phased-array antennas were mounted directly in concrete and could be hardened to much greater strengths. Given the accuracy of Soviet missiles of the era, this meant several Soviet warheads would be needed to guarantee destroying the antennnas."
Yes, that is much better.
  • "As warhead weights began to decrease in the late 1950s, existing missiles had leftover throw weight that could be filled with enough decoys to create significant clutter" is unsourced.
In a note, does it need to be? I added Teller's book which explains what happened during Naboska and lowering weights in general.
I think it wouldn't hurt to add the source, since you have one. I see you have some unsourced notes later. If there's something that is hard to source because it's a fairly obvious deduction from sourced information, that might be a case for not citing anything. That happens in maths articles occasionally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The system optionally retained Zeus, which could be used as a longer range system in areas away from cities": given the problems with Zeus, how did this argument go? What could make Zeus useful in any area?
Explained, hopefully.
Looks like you accidentally chopped part of your intended edit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed!
  • Some of the image captions simply repeat information from the article, but for example the "typical Nike-X deployment" caption should probably be cited, presumably to the source given with the image.
Done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Continuing:

  • "This did not come to be": suggest "Colgate's suggestion was never adopted".
Much better.
  • Can we put a date on Colgate's letter to Science?
We can!
  • "Colgate's New Mexico Tech": it took me a few seconds to realize that the possessive indicated the institution where Colgate worked. Perhaps "New Mexico Tech, where Colgate was a professor" or whatever position he held at the time.
Rewrote the whole section, should be improved.
  • A couple more italicized terms that I think don't need to be: clutter fence and pulse chain.
Done!
  • The sources may not give this explicitly, but the top speed and top acceleration of the Sprint would be interesting to note. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (actually done on the back of an envelope, for the first time in all the times I've used that phrase) tells me it was over 40g acceleration and probably about 2.5 km/s. Not an issue if this isn't in the sources.
I definitely can find this - IIRC it was over 100g and that does seem like something the reader would like to see.
Ok I added this.
  • "The W66's explosive yield is reported as being in the "low kiloton" range, with various references claiming it is anywhere from 1 to 20 kilotons of TNT (4.2 to 83.7 TJ)." Since it's not currently in service, I'd suggest either "is reported as having been" or "was reported as". For the second part of the sentence I think "was" is better than "is".
Done

-- I've completed a read-through; the prose is in pretty good shape. I need to read it through again for structure -- tomorrow, if I get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

More comments on a second read-through:

  • "it was calculated that a salvo of only four ICBMs would have a 90% chance of hitting the Zeus base": "a Zeus base", not "the", surely?
It reads ok with "a", but I am curious about this... the "the" was "the base that was being attacked". Does this need to be re-worded?
Well, there's no explicit mention of an attacked base, so I think "a" works better. If the sentence had been "it was calculated that if a Zeus base were attacked by a salvo of only four ICBMs, the missiles would have a 90% chance of hitting the base", then it's "the base"; or if you had "it was calculated that a salvo of only four ICBMs would have a 90% chance of hitting the Zeus base being attacked" then that could also work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Judging from the missile gap article, and the dates given in this article, at the time Nike-X was authorized it may still have been the case that the USSR did not actually have enough missiles to overwhelm Zeus. Is that the case? The lead says it was "expected that the Soviets would have hundreds" so I'm guessing that it is, but I think it would be worth mentioning the uncertainty, and giving whatever information is known now about how many missiles the Soviets really had.
Yes, they did not actually have enough until the late 1960s. I changed expected to believed, which I think helps, but maybe there's a good point in the body where I could insert more?
That might be good; when I get a bit more time I'll see if I can suggest where. I should be able to spend more time on this over the weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Continuing:

  • I think a date is necessary in the first paragraph of the lead -- perhaps "... designed by the US Army in the 1960s to ...".
Done.
  • Suggest making it "Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, felt ..." in the lead.
Indeed.
  • The first and last sentences of the third paragraph of History/Nike Zeus are too similar in structure and wording: "Test firings...began in...and were generally...successful".
Fixed.
  • "The primary Zeus deployment concepts were intended to protect against the ICBMs being fired at these bases, or a larger network to defend against attacks with two ICBMs being launched at the largest US cities": I don't think this sentence quite works -- the way the concepts are described isn't syntactically parallel. How about "The primary Zeus deployment concepts were either to protect against the ICBMs being fired at these bases, or to provide a larger network to defend against attacks with two ICBMs being launched at the largest US cities"?
Rewrote this section.
  • The paragraph starting "Technological improvements in warheads and missiles" might be a good place to insert a note about the missile gap being imaginary.
    Added.
    I see you have this in a footnote in the previous paragraph, but I think it should be in the main text; and where you have it now it's talking about the past. I think the reader needs to know that it was some years past Khrushchev's comments that the Soviets finally started to have a significant number of ICBMs.
    Done.
  • "By the time the warheads passed through the fireball, about 60 kilometers (37 mi) above the base, it was only about 8 seconds from impact. That was not enough time for the radar to lock on and fire a Zeus before the warhead hit its target." Plural "warheads" at the start; then singular at the end. I tried a copyedit to make it plural throughout, but I don't know what the natural plural of Zeus would be: "...lock on and fire Zeuses before the warheads hit their targets"?
Zeus' <- note apostrophe?
I went ahead and changed it to singular throughout; I've struck this point but tweak my edit if you don't like it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest eliminating the italics on "nuclear blackout" and "threat tube"; I think it generally works better to use quotes to introduce these terms. Although on further consideration I wonder if this is a MoS issue; if you prefer italics for this and MoS is OK with it then you shouldn't change just for my preference. I'll see if I can find a discussion of it.
It is MOS. It's quotes for nicknames, italics for "first instance of a term using common words used in a different fashion. Who knows though, the MOS seems to change a lot...
OK, I'll quit complaining about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Exploding a single warhead just outside the Zeus' maximum range, or even the explosion of the Zeus' own warhead, would allow warheads following it to approach unseen": needs some restructuring since "following it" doesn't make sense for Zeus' own warhead. How about "Exploding a single warhead just outside the Zeus' maximum range would allow warheads following it to approach unseen; the explosion of the Zeus' own warhead could have the same effect."?
Oh yes, I definitely like that.
  • "Known as the Zeus Multi-function Array Radar, or ZMAR, initial studies at Bell Labs started in 1960": needs rephrasing; the initial studies weren't known as ZMAR.
Corrected.
  • "The system optionally retained Zeus": I think this refers to the fourth system listed in that paragraph, but it should be clearer.
Some more cleanup there.
  • "the funding would instead be used for development of the new system": did McNamara specifically pick one of the two "new missile" systems from the previous paragraph, or was the choice between those two not made at this point?
Yes, he chose the most complex. Fixed.
  • "Low-altitude intercepts would also have the advantage of reducing the problem with nuclear blackout. The lower edge of the extended fireball is also at about 37 miles (60 km) altitude." I think it might be better to lead with the connection with the altitude in the previous paragraph. How about: "The lower edge of an extended fireball used to induce nuclear blackout would be at about 60 km (37 miles), the same as the altitude at which decluttering began. Hence low-altitude intercepts meant that deliberate attempts to create a blackout would not affect the operation of the Sprint missile."?
Used.
  • "would hand that information off to the DCDPS over voice-quality phone lines": I would guess this means that in the era before the internet, an existing POTS line was repurposed as a direct communications line? This is going to be a little obscure to many readers. If there's enough information in the source to put some explanation in a footnote I think it would be worthwhile.
OK.
  • "By 1965 the growing fleets of ICBMs in the inventories of both the US and USSR was making the cost of such a system very expensive": again I think it needs to be clear to the reader what was real and what was imagined to be the Soviet ICBM count.
Edited as above.
  • You have "became clear" twice in a short span in the "Problems" section.
Fixed.
  • The caption for the HIBEX says 400g, which isn't in the article, so I think that needs a citation.
Added.
  • "Hardsite proposed building small Sprint bases close to Minuteman fields": this is the HSD-II concept, I gather, and I think it's worth spelling out, even though the prior paragraph does say subsequent work focused on HSD-II.
Indeed.
  • "by 1966 the Air Force came to reject it largely for the same reasons it had rejected Zeus in the same role": is "reject" the right word here? They opposed Zeus; it was McNamara who rejected it, wasn't it? For the first use of "reject" I'm unclear on the context of their rejection: Hardsite was an ARPA study, not an Air Force study, so I assume this is the Air Force telling ARPA they weren't interested. Since the missile sites were their responsibility, was it their choice in this case to reject Hardsite, so "reject" really is the right word here?
Changed.
  • "By 1964 SCD had become part of the baseline Nike-X deployment": I think we need "planned" somewhere in the adjectives for "deployment", to make sure readers are clear it was never actually deployed.
Done.
  • "The deployments were arranged to be able to be built in phases, working up to complete coverage": suggest "The deployments were arranged so that they could be built in phases, working up to complete coverage".
Indeed.
  • "Through late 1964 Bell was considering the role of Zeus in the Nike-X system": given that Zeus had been cancelled in January 1963, what does it mean here to say "the role of Zeus"? And later in the article I see that DEPEX and I-67 concepts incorporated Zeus; so maybe the right question is what does it mean to say Zeus was cancelled?
The missile itself, not the system as a whole. Fixed.
  • There are four subsections under "Problems", but they don't really address problems; they're about studies of ways that Nike-X or Zeus could be used in other ways. It might be better to follow the "Problems" section with another subheading at the same level, titled something like "Alternatives".
Well it is both really, the problems with X and the alternatives. So I put in both.
  • "DEPEX described a system similar to that initially considered under Nth Country, but was designed to grow as the nature of the threat changed": needs rewording, I think -- shouldn't "system" be the subject of "was designed"? As it stands "DEPEX" is the subject.
Should be better now.
  • A couple more infelicities in that paragraph: "initially" used twice in quick succession; and "They imagined": I don't think there's a clear referent for "they".
It seems I use that word a lot...
  • "This was the first strong vote of support from the JCS for ABM; the Air Force had previously been dead-set against any Army system and had publicly criticized their earlier efforts in the press": a couple of things. First, I don't know much about how the JCS works, but is it the case that the Air Force has an effective veto over JCS decisions, so this indicated a change in the Air Force's position? If not, then I don't understand what the sentence is telling me. Second, the date of the JCS comments isn't given in the article, but it appears to be early or mid 1966. Earlier in the article you say that the Air Force were "initially supportive of the Hardsite concept"; isn't that in conflict with this?
Well the JSC includes everyone and the Air Force's input was enough to keep the organization as a whole against the ABM. I'm not sure the AF ever changed their mind, there seems to be enough evidence against it, but what did happen was that the Soviet deployment was so politicized that the US had to do *something*. I've re-worded some of it, see if it's better.
That's much improved. How about: "but the construction of the A-35 ABM systems around Tallinn and Moscow persuaded the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), who had previously had no strong opinion on the matter, to override the Air Force's opposition"?
  • Suggest adding either a link or a {{main}} hatnote pointing to Sentinel in the "Nike-X becomes Sentinel" section.
Indeed.
  • In the MAR section, it took me a minute to figure out that GE and Sylvania's experimental systems were built under Zeus, but Sylvania's contract was awarded under Nike-X (at least, that's how I read it). If we could put a date on the contract award that would help make it clearer. I see groundbreaking started in March 1963, which is only two months after McNamara terminated Zeus, so perhaps the contract was actually awarded under Zeus?
It was indeed. It should be clearer now.
  • Was Sylvania also the contractor for MAR-II?
This too.
  • "Having learned more about nuclear hardening, this version was built": needs rephrasing; the version hadn't learned about nuclear hardening.
Indeed.
I tweaked this some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • What does "horizontally" mean in "horizontally truncated pyramid"? Do you mean this shape?
That would be (in my terms) vertically truncated - the top is cut off. In this case the back half was cut off. Is there a better term?
I think I'd call that half a pyramid. How is it explained in the source? Is there an image? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The only image is the one in the "This image shows". If you open the thumbnail you can make it out. That was almost identical to the one they were building on Kwaj.
  • The MSR paragraph has "This led to a design with... This led to an upgraded design with..."
Done.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to point out repetition: you have two sentences with identical sentence structure within a line or two of each other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I think I got those.
  • The Safeguard program is mentioned twice with no link and no explanation.
Fixed.
  • Is PRESS or TRADEX worth a redlink?
Both, but not yet, I've started them but it will be some time.
Struck, but I'd suggest linking them anyway; redlinks are a good thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
And I added them anyway.
  • "MAR was an L band active electronically scanned array phased-array radar": just checking that the repetition of "array" is correct, since I know almost nothing about radar terminology.
It is not.
  • The caption to the image of the Mickelsen TACMSR seems to be the only reference to that structure, so I think it needs a citation. You might also mention in the adjacent paragraph that only one was built.
Added.
  • The second paragraph of Description/Sprint is mostly in present tense, but the rest of the section is in past tense.
Should be better now.
Tweaked some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

-- I've finished this pass. Generally the article is in excellent shape; most of what's above is minor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments updated above; just a couple of minor points left now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. The only remaining question I had was whether "horizontally truncated pyramid" is the best way to describe the shape in question (a pyramid with the back half cut off). I'm not going to hold up support for something this minor, but I'd suggest "half a pyramid", and then perhaps a note saying "the shape was a square pyramid with the rear half cut off" or something similar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Zeus system illustration
Scaled.
  • File:Nike_family_02.jpg: source link is dead
It is, but what do we do about that? Is there a way to do an archive url? Or is one needed at all?
If you can find an archived url (perhaps through Archive.org), that would be the best solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Nike-X_deployment_concept.gif: is there a link to the report available?
I did some googling without much luck. It appears to be a single slide from a viewgraph report.
  • File:Fallout_shelter_photo.png is tagged as lacking author information
Added, from archives.gov.
  • File:LIM-49A_Spartan_mockup.png: we credit the Air Force but the tag is Army - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Definitely Army, specifically U.S. Army Strategic Defense Command

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

  • "Zeus would have been useful in the late 1950s when the Soviets had only a few dozen missiles, but it was of little use by the early 1960s when it was believed the Soviets would have hundreds. ": Throughout, I'm not taking a position on verb tenses and auxiliaries. There's an argument that "might have been useful" and "they had [however many they had]" would be better, but tenses can be a matter of taste.
Seeing as I barely understand these I'll avoid this, but I'm open to any specific suggestions.
  • Also, I'm not taking a position on inflation figures.
  • "The following section discusses the main developments during the Nike-X period.". Better would be something along the lines of "MAR, MSR, Sprint and Spartan were the main programs during the Nike-X period"
Agree, changed.
  • "Sylvania's design used MOSAR phase-shifting using time delays": Avoid used ... using.
Someone edited this it seems.
  • "a number" (a number of them): Some reviewers find "a number" to be ambiguous on Wikipedia, and I tend to agree.
In this case, the small number is definitely worth mentioning. But this was the only "a number" I found, is there another example?

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC) I reviewed this article in considerable detail during Milhist ACR, and at that time I indicated that while I supported it at ACR, I wouldn't support it at FAC entirely due to its size and the scope for spin-offs. I have reconsidered my position given the complexity of this weapons system and its development, and am happy to support on that basis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most significant political figures of the second half of the 20th century, a man who needs no introduction. This is classed as one of our Vital Articles, and is a page that I have been working on for several years now. User:Khazar2 (since retired, sadly) and I brought this up to GA quality shortly before Mandela's death in 2013; since then I have consulted more sources, kept the article up-to-date, and obtained a peer review for it in June 2016. I now feel that it is ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be at Peer Review at the same time as FAC. This isn't a good look, I suggest asking for a close of the PR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh dear - that PR was launched in June I believe, and had effectively terminated by August. I was under the impression that it had been archived, but apparently it hasn't. I shall ensure that it is closed asap. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Peacemaker67. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro1[edit]

Quick comment: I've just skimmed the lead and the first section and this looks impressive from a quick glance. One thing I wasn't sure about: we mainly use "Mandela" but occasionally use "Nelson" for no reason that I can see. Unless there is a good case for "Nelson", perhaps switch them all to "Mandela"? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Sarastro1. At present, the article uses "Nelson" in place of "Mandela" in two locations: four times in "Childhood: 1918–34" and once in "Presidency of South Africa: 1994–99". In both of these instances, the text discussed Nelson Mandela alongside other family members, and thus the use of the family name "Mandela" could cause some confusion. Using "Nelson" in these circumstances circumvents this problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments: This is looking really, really good. I've got as far down as "Clarkebury, Healdtown, and Fort Hare". Just a few little issues, for this is a hugely important article and I think it is worth polishing up as much as we can. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  • "After the Afrikaner minority government of the National Party established apartheid—a system of racial segregation that privileged whites—he and the ANC committed themselves to its overthrow.": A little unclear (although perhaps a moot point!) whether they planned the overthrow of the minority government, the National Party, or apartheid.
    • All three, basically! If you feel that there is a way that this wording could be improved then I'm certainly very open to suggestions, although feel that we need to be careful not to excessively lengthen the prose here. Perhaps "to the apartheid government's overthrow"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I think "apartheid government's overthrow" would work well here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I might also be a little cautious in using "minority government"; for example, in the UK a minority government is a government that does not have an absolute majority in the House of Commons. We link to "dominant minority", which wouldn't work in this sentence, but I would prefer a little rephrasing.
    • Perhaps we could replace the term "minority government" with "whites-only" or something of that nature? Do you think that that would be an improvement? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I think so, yes, and keep the same link? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Very minor point: "rising to prominence for his involvement in the 1952 anti-apartheid Defiance Campaign and the 1955 Congress of the People": I wonder could we rephrase "rising to prominence in the early 1950s and stop there. It's quite a heavy sentence, and perhaps the individual events are a little too much for the lead? But not a big deal, and ignore this one if you want.
    • I see your point but I would personally prefer to leave them in, particularly given that these were significant events in the history of the anti-apartheid movement, the Congress of the People in particular. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "He was repeatedly arrested for seditious activities and was one of the activists unsuccessfully prosecuted in the 1956 Treason Trial": Could we avoid "activities... activists"? I wonder could we simply have "and was unsuccessfully prosecuted in the 1956 Treason Trial".
    • I would be happy with that change, and will implement it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • One little point about the lead, which may be worth thinking about. A lot of the sentences have a very similar grammatical structure, and are quite long. The overall effect of this is a little repetitious and makes it a little harder for the reader. Perhaps breaking some of these sentences up would help. (This only seems to be an issue in the lead)
  • "a so-called "Left-Hand House"": Unless I'm missing something, not too clear what this means.
    • It's a difficult situation to reconcile. Traditional Southern African systems of family lineage appear radically different to those most Westerners are accustomed to. For obvious reasons we don't want this article to start going into depth into these systems, but at the same time the links to cadet branch and morganatic marriage have been put there to try and make things clearer. It would be best if we actually had an article on family structures in southern Africa to link to here but I am not aware of any such article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • What about a note which summarises it briefly? In any case, I think we need a little more here as "Left-Hand House" is going to be meaningless to most readers. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Later stating that his early life was dominated by traditional Thembu custom and taboo,[13] Mandela grew up with two sisters in his mother's kraal in the village of Qunu, where he tended herds as a cattle-boy, spending much time outside with other boys.": A few little issues here. The first clause seems to bear little relation to the second clause; it's quite a hard read to see "later stating that his early life" and I had to read a few times to get the meaning of the whole sentence. Presumably this means that he said, when he was older, what his childhood was like. Why not give this its own sentence? And it's not too clear what Thembu custom and taboo might be. I would also suggest that "spending much time outside with other boys" is a little redundant: show me a boy who doesn't do this! Even if we keep it, "much time" is a slightly uncomfortable phrase and I think the longer "a lot of time" works better.
    • I've divided this sentence into two, which I feel deals with many of the concerns here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "of the visiting Chief Joyi": Presumably this was someone important. If there is no article to link to, can we give a few words to say why this is a big deal? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    • We have no article to link to, and I'm not sure how important Joyi himself was; what was significant was the fact that his rhetoric influenced Mandela. I'll change this wording to a "of a visiting chief, Joyi". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Next batch: Sorry for the slow pace. Real life has been a little insane this last week! I'm down to the end of "Defiance Campaign" and this is very well written. A few more nit-picks, but feel free to argue as a few of them may just be personal preference. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Sarastro1. There is no rush at my end and I appreciate that you are taking the time to contribute to this FAC with such helpful suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "and ANC activist Walter Sisulu. Sisulu secured him a job": Could we avoid repeating Sisulu across sentences?
  • "Sisulu secured him a job as an articled clerk at the law firm of Witkin, Sidelsky and Eidelman, a company run by a liberal Jew, Lazar Sidelsky, who was sympathetic to the ANC's cause": A bit of comma overload going on here which make it a little tricky to read. In an ideal world, I think I'd prefer the simpler "The latter [avoiding the repetition?] secured him a job as an articled clerk at a law firm run by a liberal Jew, Lazar Sidelsky, who was sympathetic to the ANC's cause", but I can see why you would want the full name. Perhaps "Sisulu secured him a job as an articled clerk at the law firm of Witkin, Sidelsky and Eidelman—a company run by a liberal Jew, Lazar Sidelsky, who was sympathetic to the ANC's cause" or even "Sisulu secured him a job as an articled clerk at the law firm of Witkin, Sidelsky and Eidelman, a company run by Lazar Sidelsky, a liberal Jew sympathetic to the ANC's cause". Both of these cut the comma numbers.
    • Good idea. I've implemented the latter suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "At the firm, Mandela befriended Gaur Radebe, a Xhosa member of the ANC and Communist Party, as well as Nat Bregman, a Jewish communist who became his first white friend.": I think "as well as" might be replaced by "and" for simplicity. That gives some repetition of "and", but I don't think that's a big problem. (You could always replace the commas with dashes. I love a dash here and there!) Feel free to ignore this one.
    • I like dashes too! I'll stick some in here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Mandela attended communist talks and parties, where he was impressed that Europeans, Africans, Indians, and Coloureds were mixing as equals": I wonder (sorry, I'm doing a lot of wondering in this section) would this be better as "Mandela attended Communist Party talks and gatherings" as "communist talks" sound like something that a 1950s panel would accuse someone of! I also think "mixed" would be preferable to "were mixing" here.
    • That sounds like an improvement. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Although embarrassed by his poverty, he briefly courted a Swazi woman before unsuccessfully courting his landlord's daughter": courted...courting
    • I've replaced the first instance with "dated". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "On his return to Thembuland, the regent died in winter 1942; Mandela and Justice arrived a day late for the funeral.": On first reading, this is a little confusing as the last mention of a regent is the Queen Regent of Basutoland, and at first I thought this was who we were talking about. I think we could make this clearer; I'm possibly being a bit thick, but other readers may make the same mistake.
    • I think that you make a fair point. I've made some changed to the sentence in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Although facing racism from some, he befriended liberal and communist European, Jewish, and Indian students": I think "some" hangs a bit here. I think "some students" would be better, but I'm not too sure how to reword the rest of the sentence, or even just omit "from some" altogether as I'm sure it was more than just students who were racist.
  • "Thenceforth, Mandela rejected Lembede's Africanist beliefs and embraced the idea of a multi-racial front against apartheid": I'm never a fan of "thenceforth" and prefer something simpler like "subsequently"; to me, it reads better.
    • Personally I prefer "thenceforth" over "subsequently". Maybe we can get a third opinion on this one? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "his mistrust of communism broke down and he began reading literature by Marxists like Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong, eventually embracing the Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism": Having two "marxist" and one "Marx" in the sentence is a little repetitive. If it is not stretching the sources (I'm not sure how many other Marxists he was reading), what about " his mistrust of communism broke down and he began reading literature by [among others?] Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong, eventually embracing the Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism".
  • "Although Africanists opposed his candidacy, Mandela was elected regional president in October.": Why? And in this sense, I'm not too sure what Africanists are.
    • In this context, "Africanists" are those African nationalists who believed in a racialized black approach to African nationalism, and were completely opposed to any alliance with whites, Asians, and Coloureds who also opposed apartheid. "Drive the Boer into the sea" kind of stuff. It was introduced in the "Law studies and the ANC Youth League" sub-section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Claims have emerged that he was having affairs with ANC member Lillian Ngoyi and secretary Ruth Mompati": "Claims have emerged" sounds a little tabloidy. Better to say straight out who made the claims and when.
  • Watch out for overuse of "much": We have a few "much time"s and a "much respect". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Image review

  • File:Nelson_Mandela_Signature.svg: since South Africa is a common-law country, commons:COM:SIG suggests that signatures receive copyright protection
    • Fair point. I have removed this image altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Mandela_burn_pass_1960.jpg: if this became PD in South Africa in 2010, then the URAA tag would not apply
    • I've removed this image and replaced it with File:ApartheidSignEnglishAfrikaans.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • File:9_2_018_0235-TuynHuys-The_Cape-s.jpg should include a tag for the status of the building itself. Same with File:Bharat_Ratna.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • There appears to be some mistake regarding File:Bharat_Ratna.jpg, as this image is not actually included in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
      • It's in one of the navboxes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah, gotcha. I'd missed that. I've removed the navbox in question altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Nikkimaria. I'll make my way through these. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I've added a description of what the image is of to the File:9_2_018_0235-TuynHuys-The_Cape-s.jpg image. Beyond that I am a little unclear as to what you mean by a tag? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    • The image currently has a CC tag to reflect the copyright of the photographer - we need to have another licensing tag to reflect the copyright of the architect/designer. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

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

  • Looking good so far. Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 04:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. For better or worse, this is probably the longest article I've copyedited at FAC. It's a fine article. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Love, Inc. (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about ... a short-lived UPN sitcom that revolves around five matchmakers working at a New York City dating agency. The series primarily received media attention for its casting of Shannen Doherty in one of the starring roles, and her later removal at the request of the network prior to filming. It also received attention for its prominent use of a multi-ethnic cast. I believe that the article covers all the criteria for a featured article, as it provides comprehensive information on the topic (I was pleasantly surprised to find this amount of information on this relatively obscure show). Thank you in advance for your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment on reference style The point of having "retrieved on" dates is that if the link goes dead, the reader can go find an archived copy from that date. But since you include the archive links here, there's no need to include "retrieved on" dates; they just bloat up the references which have two other dates too.

(Also, the article has undergone remarkable improvement since July, well done OP!)—indopug (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @Indopug: Thank you for your comments. I have removed all of the accessdates from the archived references to avoid bloating the references. Let me know if there is anything else that needs improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Originally developed with the working title Wingwoman, Love, Inc." - As both titles are in italics and next to each other this initially makes it sound like the show was to be named "Wingwoman, Love, Inc". Perhaps put commas around 'Wingwoman' like so, or find another fix.
  • Good catch, I have revised this sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "It would have marked her first role in a sitcom." I think you can combine this with the previous sentence.
  • Revised and combined. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You can wiki link "idiot savant" and "non sequiturs"
  • Done for both. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "which led to some critics accusing the show's writers of reducing the character to an ethnic stereotype" - I only see one critic commenting on this, not "critics". Same issue at "Critics questioned the network's belief that Love, Inc". If there are more sources out there put them in as inline citations.
  • Replaced the more vague "critics" with the name of the publication. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "frequently cited as the inferior show" - the two sources in that sentence seem to back the show up as being the inferior of the two, i'm just not sure if two sources counts as "frequently". I'd drop that word myself.
  • Removed "frequently". Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This isn't necessary to pass FAC, but i'd strongly recommend archiving all of your URLs so the article has the best chance of retaining its status in the future.
  • All resources are now archived, except for two that I cannot get archived for some reason. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Great work on the article. It's very well written. Freikorp (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Thank you for your review! I have addressed all of your comments and made the appropriate corrections/revisions. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do or if there is any other way that the article can be improved. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Support, well done. Freikorp (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Bcschneider53[edit]

Overall, very well done. Just two minor questions:

  • Is there any reason the description of Clea in the characters section is significantly shorter than the others? Granted, I've never seen the show, so perhaps she's more of a minor character, but I'd suggest adding a sentence or two if possible.
  • Thank you catching this. The show was attempting to go for the ensemble cast and storylines similar to that of Friends, so I think she is intended to be one of the primary characters. I have added two sentences to expand this section. Let me know if this is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Are ratings not available for every episode? In my opinion, if only five of the 22 have viewership figures, perhaps you could do away with that column and instead find a season ratings average; if not, don't worry too much about it.
  • Unfortunately, I cannot find the ratings for every episode. It was a smaller show on a network that would soon close as part of a merger so I doubt that I can find much more information about the ratings. I partially based the article on Making Waves (TV series), which included a partial set of ratings, but I can remove the ratings if you think it is best. I am open to your suggestions. I have included information about the average viewers per episode, the series average, and some other ratings-related information in the second paragraph of the "Broadcast history" section. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, these are two minor quibbles in an otherwise well-written and great article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • @Bcschneider53: Thank you for your review! I have responded to both of your questions. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Support I'm not an expert in how the ratings numbers should be worked into the chart so perhaps you could ask somebody from WikiProject Television for their advice. Otherwise, prose looks good after being tweaked from others' reviews and everything seems to be in order. Well done and good luck to you! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • (edit conflict) "The series was produced by Chase TV, the Littlefield Company, Burg/Koules Television, and Paramount Television, and distributed by UPN in its original run and later by LivingTV and Nelonen in the United Kingdom and Finland respectively" - this sentence seems a bit too long to read comfortably. I would recommend splitting it into two: The series was produced by Chase TV, the Littlefield Company, Burg/Koules Television, and Paramount Television. It was distributed by UPN in its original run and later by LivingTV and Nelonen in the United Kingdom and Finland respectively
  • Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Love, Inc. was originally developed as a vehicle and sitcom debut" - link star vehicle
  • Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "The series was set in New York, but filming took place at Paramount Studios in Hollywood, Los Angeles and California" - I understand this, but I can see how people are going to get confused with this as Hollywood is in Los Angeles, and that in itself is in California! It sounds like something when you would say "Chicago, Illinois" etc. Is the series set in other parts in Los Angeles and California? If so, how about Hollywood, Los Angeles, and other locations in California. Feel free this ignore though if you think it's best
  • Fixed. Thank you for catching this. I agree with your comment, and have added "other locations in California". Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "it was cancelled following UPN's merger" - 'canceled' is American spelling, if you want to stay consistent with that
  • Oops, I don't know how that happened. Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "UPN Entertainment president cited the rationale behind Doherty's departure" - shouldn't this be "UPN Entertainment's president"?
  • Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "The show, as well as a majority of UPN's programs, were officially cancelled" - 'canceled' again
  • Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Cancelled' is spelled with two 'l's twice in the last paragraph of the Broadcast history section, but really feel free to ignore these!
  • Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Metacritic, which uses a weighted average" - Metacritic is an aggregator, so I would rephrase the following sentence to: assigned a score of 28 out of 100 based on aggregate of 17 reviews
  • Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That's all I could find during my read through of this. Amazing work! It is well written, comprehensive and all of the sources check out fine. Once all of the above are clarified then I'll be happy to support. JAGUAR  19:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • @Jaguar:Thank you for your review! I have addressed your comments. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the most important magazine in the history of science fiction. For a few years, from the late 1930s, the editor, John W. Campbell, completely changed the field, and launched the careers of numerous famous sf writers, most notably Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein. This also happens to be the last science fiction pulp magazine I intend to nominate here; all the others are now GAs (and probably too short for FA) or are already FAs. I'll probably bring one or two more articles on later (non-pulp) magazines here, and an article on the history of sf magazine, but with this article the end is in sight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:ASTJAN1930.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:ASF_0034.jpg
  • File:Changes_in_Astounding_SF_and_Analog_SF_title_layour_in_1960.jpg: the "n.a." parameters should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the review; both are now fixed -- the first by uploading a better quality image and changing the source link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments, leaning Support -- recusing from coord duties...

  • Copyedited as I usually do so pls let me know any concerns; outstanding points:
    • "The interior artwork, particularly by Elliot Dold, was also very impressive." -- "very impressive" is a bit opinionated, is it possible to employ a more descriptive term that's faithful to the source, or else attribute the opinion?
    • I think that several quotes should probably be attributed in-line or else paraphrased:
      • "one of the best-loved novels in sf" (Mission of Gravity)
      • "one of the most famous of all sf novels" (Dune)
        I've attributed or tweaked all the above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Schmidt "continued the long-standing tradition of writing provocative editorials, though he rarely discussed science fiction" -- I'm intrigued to know the sort of things he did discuss in an sf mag editorial if not sf... :-)
      Done with a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No dablinks but there are quite a few duplinks you could review with Ucucha's script.
    I can't get this to work. Does it conflict with any other scripts such as pagesize, or the one that colours links green if they are redirects? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    Heh, I don't know about the green-linking redirect one but it seems to work fine with pagesize for me. I wonder if it's anything to do with the skin -- definitely works for me with monobook, not sure of others. Worst case, I could go through the article and make the calls... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    I figured it out; duplinks removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Coverage-wise, I'm reasonably familiar with the history of the magazine and this seemed to hit all the right points without over-detailing.
  • Source-wise, all look reliable, dominated as they are by Mike Ashley's name -- I haven't checked formatting but may be able to get to that in due course.
  • Image-wise I'll of course defer to Nikki's review.

A great read as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Your copyedits look good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Tks, changes looks good, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey Mike, this article inspired me to re-read Aldiss' commentary on the mag in my copy of Trillion-Year Spree, and I wondered if the story about "Deadline" and the visit it provoked from the FBI might be worth a mention here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, good idea; I'll get to that, perhaps tonight or tomorrow. There are so many stories about Campbell and the Golden Age that some have to be cut, but I'd forgotten about that one and I agree it should go in. Have you read Hell's Cartographers, by the way? Six autobiographical essays by Knight, Harrison, Aldiss, Bester, Pohl and Silverberg. Some very good material there, including a "How We Work" essay by each of them that I found fascinating, since at one point I wanted to be a professional sf writer; but what brought it to mind was a wonderful and very funny anecdote by Bester about the only time he met Campbell, in the late 1940s. Definitely worth a look if you don't already have it on your shelves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I just added a paragraph about "Deadline"; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Tks for that, looks great (although I'd usual expect "similarities to" rather than "similarities with" -- is that an Americanism?). Yes, one of the good things about this article is its brevity (considering the longevity of its subject) so I don't think even the most casual observer could be bored, and it does leave room for the odd addition like this... I don't have Hell's Cartographers BTW, will try and read sometime; there's also Clarke's Astounding Days, which I do own but haven't checked lately... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
It looks like "similarities with" is acceptable but much rarer, so I changed it to "to"; and re-reading it I do think that's more natural. It might not be an Americanism in my case, though; my English is now a bastardized mixture of British and American, after twenty-seven years on the left side of the Atlantic. I've read the Clarke; it's a long and fairly entertaining collection of anecdotes, but I don't think I've ever been able to use it to source anything on-wiki. An enjoyable read, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Done to the end of the initial chronology

  • " Campbell took over editorial duties under Tremaine's supervision, and the following year Tremaine was let go, giving Campbell more independence." Is the last part with stating? If your supervisor is let go and not replaced, then it is fairly obvious you have more independence.
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The period beginning with Campbell's editorship is often referred to as the Golden Age of Science Fiction." He was editor into the 1970s, by which time I think we can say the curtain was rung down on the Golden Era.
    Yes, but it's hard to find consensus on when the Golden Age ends. See this, which I put together while working on this article, in order to try to get some consistency. I could make it "decade", which is more or less supportable; or I could add a footnote explaining that the end date for the Golden Age is not universally agreed-on. I think the latter might be better, unless you think it needs to be clearer in the body text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The second sentence of the second paragraph of the lede is something of a run-on
    Fixed by eliminating the reference to Campbell's pseudo-science interests. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "such as" a phrase used five times in the lede, including four times in the second paragraph.
    Yuck. Thanks for catching that. Better now, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    I still see four times in that paragraph (19 for the article).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    I think I must have failed to hit save on that edit. Tried again; I took out a few in the body of the article too, where there were two close to each other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there a better way to sum up the editorial change from Campbell to Bova than what writers became in under the new regime? Possibly dealing with the sort of SF, not your traditional space opera, perhaps.
    I'm not quite sure what to do here. It's not that Campbell published space opera; it was more that Bova introduced elements that would have been forbidden under Campbell -- sex and profanity, for example. Ashley identifies "Hero" and "The Gold at the Starbow's End" as important because they are examples "of how radically society and attitudes were changing in the early 1970s". At the same time, Ashley points out that Bova made efforts to accommodate the long-time readers, partly by keeping the existing names such as Anderson and Dickson. Is this not clear enough in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "who continued to publish many of the same authors who had been contributing for years" that is, under Bova, or under Campbell?
    Under Bova; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "had a space for one more cover." I might cut "a"
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I would pipe pulp magazine somewhere
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "that they start a magazine of period adventure stories" possibly "contemporary" for "period" if I understand what is meant (if not, "historical")
    The source just says "the idea of a new monthly magazine of period-adventure stories", and gives no details. I think this must mean historical, so I've changed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "He left on May 1, 1938, reducing Street & Smith's oversight of Campbell and giving him a freer rein." It feels like you are saying the same thing twice.
    Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • " Harry Harrison had discussed taking over with Campbell before Campbell's death," a bit awkward. Maybe "Harry Harrison, before Campbell's death, had discussed with him the possibility of taking over,"
    I tried a different tack -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "an adventure-oriented magazine, with no interest in education through science. " "with no interest"? Odd phrasing
    Clarified, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "he began "The Analytical Laboratory", which calculated votes from readers" maybe "compiled" for "calculated".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "and Hubert Rogers, whose first cover was for the February 1939 issue, and who quickly became a regular, " the second "and" can possibly be avoided.
    Reworked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In the final paragraph of "Campbell", consecutive sentences begin with "Campbell", probably unnecessarily.
    I moved the sentence about Tremaine's era up to that section and moved the one about Campbell's editorship up to a paragraph about story ideas; I think that flows better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The second sentence of "Golden Age" could benefit from splitting IMO.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "publishing three novels in the next two years: If This Goes On—" sort of short for a novel. Its article says "novella".
    I'd like to leave this as is -- Ashley refers to it as a "short novel", but it would be hard to draw that distinction in the list within lengthening the sentence. When it appeared in the magazine it was listed as a novel. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "instalment" This seems a more common spelling in countries other than the one where Analog originated.
    Yes, my native dialect is now BrAmEng, so I'm prone to this sort of thing. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "several of the regular contributors such as Heinlein, Asimov, and Hubbard, who had joined the armed forces," Neither Heinlein nor Asimov was in the armed forces during WWII (Heinlein of course had been a naval officer earlier), they worked for the military as civilians.
    My mistake; Ashley says "war work", not "armed forces", and I rephrased carelessly. Now says they joined the "war effort". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "in the fantasy work they were writing for Unknown, " I'd pluralize "work".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "of the field.[notes 2] Campbell's growing interest in pseudoscience also damaged his reputation in the field." Possibly avoid the repetition.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Also in 1979 Schmidt began" The footnotes that follow this sentence are out of order. This is also true twice in the "Bibliographic details" section and once in "Anthologies". I'd take a run through making sure I haven't missed any.
    Done. You might be interested in this related survey. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The stable of fiction contributors remained largely unchanged from Bova's day, and included many names, such as Poul Anderson, Gordon R. Dickson, " both of these were mentioned two paragraphs previously. Are first names (and initial) needed?
    No; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "genuinely unrecognized genius" (note 3). I might cut the "ly".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Enjoyable article on a magazine I certainly read much of in the 70s and 80s. I think I subscribed a couple of times at cheap WorldCon rates. Good to see the article done to a high standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Acne vulgaris[edit]

Nominator(s): TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the very common chronic skin condition acne vulgaris. I believe the article should be featured as a significant amount of effort has been poured into this article (by multiple editors) to ensure that its discussion of acne vulgaris is comprehensive, accurate, and accessible to a general readership. This is a very important topic since the condition is nearly ubiquitous (one of the most common skin conditions worldwide). This article aims to provide all readers (general and professional) with an informative summary of the underpinnings of this condition and to address any questions those affected by the condition might have (e.g., safety and efficacy of various treatment modalities). I believe this article to be an example of Wikipedia's highest quality work but am certainly open to constructive feedback to further refine it to reach FA, if applicable. Thank you to those reviewing the article for your consideration. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Seppi333[edit]

Criterion 3[edit]

I'm going to start with an image review (criterion 3).

  1. All of the images except one have an acceptable reported copyright status; however, one image – COMMONS:File:Akne-jugend.jpg – is tagged as public domain but doesn't indicate the original source. This concerns me. I'm inclined to believe that it is PD, but I can't determine this for sure using a google image search or tineye search of the original image to find its original source. It's probably okay to use the current image, but I don't think it would too difficult to find a higher quality image for the infobox which has both an acceptable copyright status and clear attribution to its original source.
  2. Per MOS:IM, all images should include alt text; hence, featured articles need to include WP:ALT text in order to satisfy criterion 2. I've added empty alt parameters to 4 images (1 in the infobox, 3 to existing image syntax). These images need to have appropriate alt text added to them. I added alt parameters with appropriate alt text to the 2 images in the gallery to serve as an example of what to write in the 4 other image alt parameters.
  3. I made minor tweaks to the existing captions (removed periods in captions containing a sentence fragment; fixed grammar in 1 caption) to make them conform to MOS:CAPTION. No further changes to the captions are necessary IMO – the current captions seem fine.

Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Seppi, thanks for getting the FA review started. For my edification, what's the concern about the image being public domain? I'm not well-versed in copyright policy so I'm not sure why that would be a potential issue. With that said, I'll look through Wikimedia to see if I can find a different high-quality image that has a more suitable copyright status so it's not an issue. I saw you added those alt parameters already so thank you for doing that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this [3] would work better since its copyright status is CC by SA 4.0. Yes? Also, I noticed the hair follicle anatomy picture is also labeled as public domain. Is that in need of replacement as well? If so, this looks like it might be an improvement anyway [4]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@TylerDurden8823: Public domain is an acceptable copyright status. The issue is that the image which I've pointed out is not attributed to any source, so it's difficult to verify that it is indeed in the public domain. The picture you proposed as an alternative seems fine to me. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd be content with passing this image review if only issue #2 is addressed, but it'd be an improvement if you could also find a better alternative image as described above in issue #1. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333:, I have filled in the alt text parameters and added the CC by SA pictures. I also noticed the featured article Alzheimer's disease has some pictures without alt text captions (perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed in the future). Please let me know if you see anything else that needs revision or if any additional changes are needed. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed to my satisfaction. I'll do a review of the article's MOS compliance within the next week or so. Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333:, are you still going to review the article's MOS compliance? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I still intend to. I've been unexpectedly busy lately due to my off-wiki responsibilities, so I never really got around to doing it when I originally intended. I will do that review soon though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
No problem, just checking. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Criterion 2[edit]

I intend to take on a review of the article's compliance with the WP:Manual of Style (criterion 2) sometime this next week soonish.

More to come. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Initial comment from Jim[edit]

We don't normally have references in the lead since it's just summarising the presumably fully referenced text in the body. Can you clarify why you have deviated from this practice? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen featured articles with references in the lead that are well-accepted (e.g., Parkinson's disease, rhabdomyolysis, and Alzheimer's disease to name a few) and didn't see that it excludes it from being an FAC here [5]. I don't see mention of that as a criterion in the featured article criteria discussing the lead or citations. I hope that explains but I'm not married to the idea if that's a widely held view that's going to prevent it from progressing to FA). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
For medical pages we do normally have references in the lead and this practice is supported by WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sarawak[edit]

Nominator(s): Cerevisae (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Sarawak, the largest state in Malaysia in terms of land area, one of the largest timber exporter in the world, famous for its natural wonders such as Mulu caves and rainforest biodiversity. Sarawak is located on the island of Borneo. This article has been checked against the Good Article criteria and all the references are uniform. The lead has a concise summary. The article has also been checked against grammatical errors during the good article nomination. Any suggestions to improve this article to FA status is welcomed.Cerevisae (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick comment: A quick skim of the lead shows that the word "state" crops up an awful lot, and we really need to use some different words! Also, quite a few sentences begin with "The", which is best avoided, and "Earliest human settlements in Sarawak date back to 40,000 years ago at the Niah Caves" feels like it should begin with "the" as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Coat_of_arms_of_Sarawak.svg: what is the copyright status of the original work? - Done Cerevisae (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Sarawak_1888-97_Sc13.jpg: what author death date are we using to get that tag? - Author is unknown. According to PD Malaysia, it can be counted from the publication date of the stamp. Cerevisae (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Batu_Lintang_POW_camp,_Sarawak,_Borneo_taken_on_or_after_29_August_1945.jpg: per the tag, when/where was this first published? same with File:The_unconditional_surrender_ceremony_of_the_Japanese_to_the_Autralian_forces_in_Kuching,_Sarawak.jpg - First publication dates of both images not stated at Australian war memorial. But according to PD Australia, both images can be counted from the date they were first taken. Cerevisae (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Sarawak_anti-cession_demonstration.JPG: source link is dead, and which of the given rationales applies? - "For anonymous or pseudonymous works copyright subsists for 50 years after publication unless the author is made known." Cerevisae (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Sarawak_during_the_formation_of_Malaysia_(16_September_1963).jpg: given the date, what is the status of this work in the US? Same with File:Malaysian_Rangers,_Malay-Thai_border_(AWM_MAL-65-0046-01).JPG - Done Cerevisae (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Timeline_of_evolution_of_political_parties_in_Sarawak.svg should include a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

-Done Cerevisae (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

    • I see, thank you. Cerevisae (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment on reference style The point of having "retrieved on" dates is that if the link goes dead, the reader can go find an archived copy from that date. But since you include the archive links here, there's no need to include "retrieved on" dates; they just bloat up the references which have two other dates too.—indopug (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I'm not so sure if we should remove the accessdate parameters entirely. The archiveurl and archivedate parameters are often edited by bots and they use the accessdate as the reference for finding the archived version. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reminding. However, I have removed all the accessdate parameters for references which have the archive links. I do not remove accessdate parameters for those without archive links. If you felt that it is inappropriate, feel free to restore them. Cheers. Cerevisae (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
      • The reason why I insist on having the accessdate parameters is because it helps in case we have to switch to a different archive in the future. I remember when the archive.is was blacklisted, a lot of editors removed the archiveurl and archivedate parameters entirely. Luckily the accessdate was still there, so a bot could then restore the archives from a different service. Considering situations like these, I feel it is useful to keep them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
This seems overly cautious to me. Note that WP:CITEREF states that, even without considering the archive links, the accessdate is only "required if the publication date is unknown". So it's actually doubly redundant in the triple-date cases I'm talking about.—indopug (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Dudley

  • Infobox
  • 'Division' could be linked to Divisions of Malaysia. - Done
  • 'Head of State' would be clearer for non-expert readers than 'Yang Di-Pertua Negeri'. -Done
  • There is no ref for HDI - Used the 2000 data. 2010 data not found.
  • (11th) would generally be taken as 11th in the world, but it links to States and federal territories of Malaysia, so presumably means 11th in Malaysia. This is misleading and better omitted. -Done.
  • The infobox is too long. I would leave out the section on Postal Code, Calling Code and Vehicle Registration. -Done. Shortened the three sections.
  • The note at the end of the infobox also adds to its length. It would be better as a reference at the end. - Shortened the paragraph.
  • "surrounding the independent state of Brunei." Only the land border. This is misleading. - Changed to bordering the independent state of Brunei.
  • "total population of this region is 2,636,000" This is unclear. It would be better to say "of Sarawak". - Done.
  • "Trading relationship with China lasted from 8th to 13th century AD." This is ungrammatical and too general. Chinese ceramics from one dig do not indicate a trading relationship between Sarawak and China. It may indicate that Santubong was trading with China, but it could also be the profits of piracy or the result of indirect acquisition if Santobong acquired the ceramics from a trading partner which in turn obtained them from China. - Changed to "A series of Chinese ceramics dated from 8th to 13th century AD was uncovered at the archeological site of Santubong." Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "It came under the influence of the Bruneian Empire in the 16th century." What does "It" mean here? According to the text below, it was only Kunching which was under the influence of Brunei in the 16the century, and Sarawak as a whole did not come under their control until the 19th. - Done. Changed to coastal regions of Sarawak Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "During World War II, it was occupied by the Japanese for three years before being ceded as a British Crown Colony in 1946." This wrongly implies that the Japanese ceded it to the British. - Done. Changed to "After the war, the Brooke family ceded Sarawak as British Crown Colony in 1946." Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "From 1960 to 1990, this region also experienced the communist insurgency." I would avoid the word "region" as unclear (except when referring to the regions of Sarawak). In this case does it mean Sarawak only or Sarawak and Sabah? - Done. Changed to "Sarawak". Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Gawai Dayak festival is only celebrated in Sarawak. The traditional musical instrument, sapeh, is well known in Sarawak." The article on Gawai Dayak says that it is also celebrated in Indonesia. Perhaps "The Gawai Dayak is an annual festival celebrated on a public holiday, and the sapeh is a traditional musical instrument." - Done Cerevisae (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "A Manis paleojavanica (Asian giant pangolin) bone that had not developed into a fossil, dated to 30,000 BC, was found nearby [29] as well as in the Mesolithic and Neolithic burial sites inside the Niah Caves." I do not think this is important enough to be worth mentioning. Countless bones and fossil must have been found. Also the grammar has been wrong as you are saying that one bone was found in several different caves. - Done Cerevisae (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Why was Pangeran Muda Hashim able to surrender Sarawak to Brooke when he was merely the Sultan's representative? - Pangeran have to honour a treaty signed by him and James Brooke. James Brooke appointment was later accepted by the Sultan of Brunei by the use of force.Cerevisae (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have made some copy edits. Tell me if you prefer me to stick to commenting. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC) - You are welcome to do copyedits on this article. Thanks a lot. Cerevisae (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Further comments.
  • "installed Pangeran Muda Hashim into the Brunei Court" I do not understand this. Installed as what and how did he have the righ to install someone in the Brunei court? - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "and his mining rights" What mining rights? You have not mentioned any. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Both James and Charles Brooke" Which Charles Brooke. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "However, in the Malaysian context, Brooke is viewed as a colonialist." This does not sound quite right. Maybe "However, Brooke is viewed by Malaysians as a colonist." - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The dynasty adopted the policy of paternalism to protect the interests of the indigenous population and their overall welfare." This is tendentious. You should make clear that this is how they saw themselves rather than being an impartial verdict. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Note 49. This states what is said in the main text in the source's own words, which adds unnecessarily to the length of the article, and could be deleted. This comment probably applies to other notes. Also, part of the note relates to the 1950s, and should be a separate footnote. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I would suggest you consider having separate sections for notes and citations. It is not a requirement, but I think it would help readers. - In process... Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "However, the draft constitution contained irregularities," What is meant by "irregularities" here? It does not seem the right word. -Done. Removed the "irregularities". Cerevisae (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I hesitate to say so as the article is already excessively long, but a couple of sentences on the history between 1891 and 1941 would be helpful. -Done. Cerevisae (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Besides, Vyner Brooke's wife, Sylvia Brett, also tried to discredit Anthony Brooke while trying to install her own daughter to the throne." This reads rather oddly, but I am not sure how to amend it. - Done. "Vyner Brooke's wife, Sylvia Brett, tried to defame Anthony Brooke while attempting to install her own daughter to the throne."Cerevisae (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Lemongirl942
The lead could use a bit of trimming. For example

  • Following this, it became one of the founding members of the Federation of Malaysia (established on 16 September 1963) alongside North Borneo (now Sabah), Singapore (expelled in 1965), and the Federation of Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia or West Malaysia). could be changed to "Following this, it became one of the founding members of the Federation of Malaysia, established on 16 September 1963". (The rest of the information could be kept in the body of the article) - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sarawak State Museum is the oldest museum in Borneo. The traditional musical instrument, sapeh, is well known in Sarawak. The Rainforest World Music Festival (RWMF) is one of the premier music events in Malaysia. The Gawai Dayak festival is only celebrated in Sarawak. This could do with a bit of adjustment. For example, considering due weight, the RWMF and the museum is better placed in the body. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It would help to add some information about the major ethnic groups in the lead. That seems to be an important part of Sarawak - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Add more later. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

  • "nicknamed Bumi Kenyalang ("Land of the Hornbills")," seems to be better placed in the etymology section, rather than the lead. I wasn't able to find information about why it is called so. In general, epithets/nicknames are best covered in the etymology section. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

An in-depth piece. I'm not a native speaker, so please forgive me if what I question below is actually fine.

  • and judiciary which -> I'd really like a comma before which - Done Cerevisae (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • from other Malaysian Peninsula states -> this implies Sarawak is a Malaysian Peninsula state - Done Cerevisae (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • and independent state of Brunei -> and the independent? - Done Cerevisae (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Brunei in the northeast -> bit of an odd order: northeast, south, northeast - Done Cerevisae (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • total population -> the total population? - Done Cerevisae (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 2,636,000.[8] -> I don't think a reference is needed in the lead. It's not controversial - Done Cerevisae (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Bakun Dam, one of the largest dams in Southeast Asia, is located on one of its tributaries -> why not say which tributary? "Bakun Dam, one of the largest dams in Southeast Asia, is located on one of its tributaries, the Balui River." - Done Cerevisae (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The state was governed by the Brooke family -> something about the British arriving is missing here, before talking about Brooke - Added Brooke arrival in Sarawak in 1839 Cerevisae (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • the sapeh -> I'd add a bit of context: something like "a lute called sapeh" - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  • uncle to the Sultan of Brunei -> link Sultan of Brunei
  • he gave Sarawak to James Brooke in 1841 -> Brooke needs an intro
  • because hornbill -> because the hornbill?
  • if hornbill -> if a hornbill
  • fifty four -> fifty-four
  • Tom Harrisson needs an intro
  • 16- to 17-year-old adolescent girl -> looks a bit odd with the space and hyphen, isn't it jus hyphens?
  • during Ming dynasty -> during the Ming dynasty
  • have since been discovered -> I'm confused about the dates. Since you mention "since" I expected the second Harrisson site to be after 1958
  • Other archaeological sites in Sarawak include the Kapit, Song, Serian, and Bau districts. -> are these whole districts sites?

Edwininlondon (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Prokhorovka[edit]

Nominator(s): EyeTruth (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the largest tank battles in history, which occurred in July 1943 during the Second World War in the Eastern Front, between Nazi German and Soviet forces. It was the climax of the wider Battle of Kursk, which was a turning point of the strategic balance in the Eastern Front: The Soviet Union permanently gained the strategic control, and the Germans permanently lost the capacity to launch any more major offensives in the Eastern front. EyeTruth (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • is there a reference for this: "Thus the artillery fire which the tankers depended upon to sweep their path of advance and suppress German anti-tank gunners was not adequately present."?
  • No ref for it. Removed. EyeTruth (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • same as above for: "Nonetheless, the battle is still regarded as one of the largest tank battles in military history"?
  • No ref added for now. I know a lot of relatively recent tertiary sources, like documentaries, regard it as such; a compromise around the former epithet that is now increasingly becoming known to be erroneous. EyeTruth (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • same as above for: "...with another 212 tanks and self-propelled guns under repair, and 7,607 casualties."?
  • just a summation of the numbers. EyeTruth (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • For citations 1 to 8 where you have the excerpt, is this really necessary, as none of the other citations use this style? If it is necessary, potentially putting them into the Notes section rather than the Citations section might be a more consistent approach.
  • Those are citations for the results in the infobox. In the past, they have been the subject of endless edits and argument for years, and over time this solution materialized. See archived talkpage discussions for more details. EyeTruth (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • in the Further reading, is it necessary to use Russian language here: "Замулин, Валерий" and "Москва: Xранитель" (I think it might be best just to translate this)?
  • fixed, except for the publisher "Xранитель".
  • "...and other historians corroborate his narrative" (probably best to name these historians in the text here)
  • "...tanks in the Eastern Front, July 1943" --> "..tanks on the Eastern Front, July 1943"
  • there are a few duplicate links per the duplicate link checker: Tiger I, Panzer IV, Operation Kutuzov, assault gun,
  • is there an ISSN or OCLC that could be added for the The Journal of Slavic Military Studies?
  • Fixed. Added DOI. EyeTruth (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "reposture" --> "re-posture"?
  • Fixed. Reworded. EyeTruth (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments -- I'm a bit concerned about the use of Healy:

  • Healy, Mark (2010) [2008]. Zitadelle: The German Offensive Against the Kursk Salient 4–17 July 1943. Stroud, UK: History Press. ISBN 978-0-7524-5716-1. 

I'm not personally familiar with the work, but I had followed this link from the main Battle of Kursk article (Licari, Michael J. A Review Essay: Books on the Battle of Kursk. Archived from the original) and the review was rather negative: "Healy's book is like most others in the Osprey series: it is a bland, somewhat uneven overview of the battle, and contains several important errors." From my experience editing the main article, I recall removing some rather POV statements cited to Healey, such as "burden" & "forced", so I was not surprised by a critical review. History Press seems like a minor publisher too; I'm not confident about their reputation for fact checking and accuracy. With many excellent sources cited in the article (Glantz & House; Clark; Showalter, etc), perhaps Healey is not needed?

Separately, I have some concerns about the POV of George Nipe, especially the article that is linked from bibliography link, which states: "Thus, the battle for Prochorovka ended, not because of German tank losses (Hausser had over 200 operational tanks on July 17) but because Hitler lacked the will to continue the offensive." This seems to echo Manstein's self-justification after war, with the article appropriately named "Battle of Kursk: Germany’s Lost Victory in World War II" (see Lost Victories). I had previously encountered Nipe's Platz der Leibstandarte: A Photo Study of the SS-Panzer-Grenadier-Division "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" used as a source in POV-challenged articles relating to Waffen-SS.

It looks like Nipe wrote a solid operational study (e.g. this review: link). But some of his conclusions are questionable, and are not in line with what I've read in other sources, such as Robert Citino & Showalter.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Healy wrote two books. One back in the 1990s, and the other (the one cited above) more recently. The former draws heavily on the inflated version of the battle from Soviet/German postwar accounts (not archives). The latter replies heavily on German archival material. Nipe's POV may be overreaching at times, but he's been credited by several other historians as a pioneer in piecing together a more accurate picture of the battle using German archives. He certainly has a weaker knowledge of the Soviet perspective and archives (seen him giving very inflated figures for Soviet losses, due to quite sloppy inferences from weak sources). EyeTruth (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The POV statements cited to Healey that you removed are the works of one of the primary contributors to the article, who had a very high regard for the German view and pushed it into the article a little too hard. We clashed over that sometimes. EyeTruth (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  • File:Kursk-1943-Plan-GE.svg: particularly as the legend is non-English, suggest providing more explanation in the caption
  • What kind of information do you think might be useful? I'm thinking of restating relevant names in familiar terms (e.g. "5. GPzA" is the 5th Guards Tank Army, and "Pokrowka" is Prokhorovka); would that be helpful? EyeTruth (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a good start. More broadly, think about what information someone unfamiliar with the subject would need to understand the map - what do the colours and symbols mean, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Similarly, File:Prokhorovka,_Battle_of_Kursk,_night_11_July.png needs more explanation, and suggest scaling it up
  • Do you mean scaling the image in the article, or scaling it in its own image page? If the latter, then I have not done that before, and I may need some cue to the right direction. EyeTruth (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I mean scaling within the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Rotmistrov_portrait_WWII.jpg: you're going to need a much stronger rationale to use a non-free image here, and suggest not using the "unique historic image" tag, and last source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I assumed fair-use claim (which you had suggested that I consider) was sufficient, going by our last discussion over that image. I would like to retain the image because it brings a much needed balance between German and Soviet pictures in the article (an issue that I've seen become a point of contention in other WWII articles), so if there is anything else more acceptable than the fair-use claim that I can try out, please let me know. Alternatively, do you think the only acceptable outcome possible is to remove it? EyeTruth (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I think there is a potential fair-use claim to be made, but the one currently in use just isn't strong enough to explain why we need a non-free image. Basically any claim you make should explain how the use meets each of the non-free content criteria, particularly point 8 - how does having this image enhance reader understanding and/or why would leaving it out be detrimental to the article? You should also use a different tag - {{non-free biog-pic}} might be possible depending on your rationale, or {{non-free fair use}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Frieser 2007

Is due to be published in English in March 2017, or so OUP tells me. It might be worth postponing the review until copies are available in research libraries. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Bee-eater[edit]

Nominators: Sabine's Sunbird talk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a family of colourful, conspicuous birds that feed mainly on venomous flying insects such as bees and wasps. I usually try to say something witty in my nominations, but here the beauty of these birds can do the talking. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh Jim, Jim, Jim. What a missed opportunity. Look people, we hope you'll bee impressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Ha ha, yes, I'm slipping.... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Lead

  • need to mention that Meropidae contains 3 genera and 27 species
  • Done, it originally had the number of species, but I took that out because of the potential split of green bee-eater (accepted by HBW) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • perhaps mention that the plumage of the two sexes is generally quite similar
  • "the number depending on the species." Why not around 5 eggs? (Fry HBW Breeding has "generally about five eggs in a clutch")

Taxonomy

  • I'm uncomfortable with the 2016 year for Fry's HBW alive family article. The text is identical to the 2001 print edition (see differences) - and thus the text doesn't mention studies published in the last 15 years. I suggest just omitting the year - but keeping the access date.
  • I'm surprised that there hasn't been a phylogenetic study on the relationship between the bee-eaters, rollers, hoopoe and kingfishers. (I've looked but can't find one)
  • No, there's plenty of discussion but little substance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The 2007 molecular phylogenetic study by Marks et al should be mentioned in the text, however unsatisfactory - see below

Figure showing the phylogenetic tree

  • Typo - M. orieentalis -> M. orientalis
  • M. australis is M. gularis australis and therefore the two gularis taxa should be combined.
  • This whole tree is unsatisfactory - and it may be better to omit it from the article. It is based on Figure 3 in Marks et al. The difficulty is that at the bottom of the figure Meropogon forsteni is shown as a sister to Merops breweri. Also Merops bulocki and Merops bullockoides are shown as basal to Meropogon forsteri. Marks et al include two other figures that have different arrangements. The authors discuss the difficulty of placing the above species. They lack nuclear sequence data for Meropogon forsteri and Merops leschenaulti as they could only determined the mtDNA sequences (from museum specimens). In Figure 1 they omit these sequences altogether. (I don't understand the statistical methods used in phylogenetic studies).
  • The table was added by Shyamal. I'm not wedded to keeping it, but since it's a GF edit by an experienced editor, I'd like his input. Sabine's Sunbird may also have a view on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not wedded to the tree either but some indication of relatedness is more useful than an alphabetic list of species even if the sampling is slightly incomplete at this point in time - having the tree will ensure that a future editor will update it to more recent studies. The third tree is a maximum parsimony tree with bootstrap measures of confidence - so the only changes I can think of are to include more explicit caveats (although molecular phylogeny is always a hypothesis and the methods do have their consequences) in the caption. After all Wikipedia and science itself are about verifiability and continuing refinement - not about absolute truth. Shyamal (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Description

  • Specify number of primaries (10)(outer often very small), secondaries (13) and rectrices (12) (p.29 in Bee-eaters)(HBW has 12 tail)
  • I wouldn't normally specify in this detail, but added anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour

  • "Helpers" are first mentioned in this section. Perhaps better to insert here the sentence now at the end of the Breeding section where you explain that they are normally the male offspring from a previous year.

Diet and feeding

  • The first paragraph needs a reference
  • Mention that bee-eaters and kingfishers regurgitate pellets of indigestible material (p.207 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW General Habits "2cm long black oblongs")

Breeding

  • Mention that no nesting material is used (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • Specify colour of eggs (already mentioned in lead) - white as is usual for cavity nesters (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • Mention pellets trodden underfoot (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • Mention that parents and nestlings defaecate in nest (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • perhaps mention smell (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • mention that incubation starts soon after the first egg is laid (p.19 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW has "with the first eggs laid")
  • eggs laid at daily intervals. (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • incubation is around 20 days (p.19 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW Breeding)
  • both birds incubate during the day, just the female at night (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • eggs hatch asynchronously (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • if food is short only the older chicks survive (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • nestling period is about 30 days (Fry HBW Breeding)

References

  • Ref 9 - The reference to the HBW alive article on the Asian green bee-eater lists the wrong authors.
  • Wouldn't it be better to rely entirely on HBW alive - rather than having some cites to the print edition and others to the online version (currently identical)?
  • Because Sabine's Sunbird and I edited this largely sequentially, we used different versions. I wondered about this myself. I'll change them all to the on-line version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The cite for the quote "the most complex of any bird species anywhere in the world".[11]:298 look odd as it is the only use of this syntax in the article. The text is in Fry HBW online General Habits.

I'll have another look at the article next week. Aa77zz (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Aa77zz thanks very much for your detailed review and the tweaks you made to the text. I think I've dealt with all the issues except those relating to the phylogeny table. As I said, I don't mind whether it stays or goes, but I'd like input from the editor who added it and my co-nom if they wish to comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Aa77zz, I've now made the changes regarding the cladogram, and Shyamal has responded above. I can't access the Marks paper anyway, but I think their is some merit in having at least an outline of possible relationships. Your call, I guess Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll add more comments when I can:

  • The lead has "All have long down-turned bills and pointed wings,..." The wings of some species are rounded - as is stated in the body of the article. HBW alive has "The wing shape of bee-eaters varies from round-ended to pointed," - Aa77zz (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Good point, I've rewritten that sentence since I don't find the comparison with swallows convincing either, I've seen a dozen species of bee-eaters and never thought they resembled hirundines. Now All have long down-turned bills and medium to long wings, which may be pointed or round. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The section on Breeding has "The eggs do not all hatch at the same time,..". This agrees with the source but the eggs of the Australian rainbow bee-eater can all hatch within a 24h period (Fry et al 1992 p.277) or HBW alive "most eggs hatch on same day") see here. I suggest inserting "For most species" or "generally" etc. Aa77zz (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Changed to "For most species" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Support - All looks good
With improvements to DNA sequencing, publication of phylogenetic trees based on insufficient data will hopefully disappear but there will still be differences of opinion on species/sub-species and the extent of genera. Aa77zz (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for support. I agree with your comment on phylogeny, but we can but hope that future developments will clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Nicely written, reasonably approachable for a non birder. Query I struggle with "in which the wings of both sexes are held out the birds are calling" Is this some ornithological jargon? ϢereSpielChequers 22:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Ϣere, no, it's self-generated gibberish. I'd tried too hard to make it concise, now expanded and hopefully more intelligible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
"Most of the Merops bee-eaters have a line through the eye" gave me a very different mental image than the black bar on this bird's face. Would it be possible to put an image such as this beside that text with a caption ending "with a black line through the eye"? ϢereSpielChequers 22:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Just looking at the existing images, it's clear that even the narrowest aren't really lines, so changed to " black bar through the eye" in text and in caption to your suggested image, always nice to have a Featured Picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 07:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments looking ok at a quick glance - will give more of a look later, but just for the moment noting that given we are talking about the bee-eaters as a group, we really need some material on their higher-order relationships as it is fascinating. It looks like there are three papers discussing this. I'll chase Mayr 2009 and continue to discuss on talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Cas, I'll try to put together something from the new paper Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • At first glance, the images seem a bit crammed, and one photo (white-fronted bee-eater) is used twice. Perhaps some could be pruned? FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Synonyms?
  • I'm not sure what you are after here. For family articles, we don't normally list synonyms of genera or species (see tern, nuthatch), which are detailed in the relevant lower level articles. if I've misunderstood, please clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I mean family level synonyms. For example, Raphidae is tehnically a synonym of Columbidae (not of Raphinae, as one might think), since the former was found to not be a distinct family... But it's not so important. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I've never come across a synonym, and a quick search yesterday failed to turn up anything Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
FunkMonk, thanks for having a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll have more later. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Is the classification text ready to read, or is it still being worked out? FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There have been no further comments on the talk page since I rewrote the second paragraph to include the newer papers, so I'm assuming it's acceptable on content. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "who created the bird subfamily, Meropia, in 1815." What is the status of this name today?
  • The current Meropidae is just that name adjusted to modern rules, ending -idae. Raffinesque's family Cortamphia is clearly a taxonomic nonsense, so the bee-eaters were a family rather than a subfamily Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "although the position of the purple-bearded bee-eater appears anomalous." Why?
  • "from the Pleistocene have been found in Austria, and there are Holocene specimens" Perhaps state how many years ago this was.
  • "sister to all other Coraciiformes." Perhaps state in parenthesis what other grops are included therein.
  • "but suggested new genera" Such as?
  • That was more of a challenge than I anticipated, so ubiquitous has Fry's treatment been for many years. I found one example dealt with in his PhD thesis. I tweaked out "new", I don't think any are still current Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "pairs sitting or roosting together are often so close together" The last togetehr seems redundant/repetitive?
  • "attempt to lay eggs in their neighbour's nests" Easter egg links are discouraged, so I'd spell out and link nest parasitism in parenthesis, or similar.
  • How many individuals are in clans and colonies?
  • it already says 2-3 pairs in a clan, added colony size Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Dust bathing and purple-bearded bee-eater is duplinked.
  • Must have crept in after I ran the tool, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "returned to the perch to be beaten against the perch to be killed and broken up." Repetitive.
rephrased Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "is to ride the back of bustards." Shouldn't backs be plural?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Any theories as to why these birds prefer bees and wasps?
All I can find is that the trait may have arisen because hymenopterans are very numerous and ubiquitous, added a sentence to that effect. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Fine, but seems there's a typo? "may have because of" FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the brain moved faster than the typing! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The hole-nesting lifestyle of bee-eaters means that they tend to carry a higher burden of external parasites than non-hole-nesting bird species." How is this correlated?
  • I assumed that it's because of the more insanitary conditions in a tunnel or hole than an open nest, but the source doesn't actual say that or otherwise explain the assertion, I'll remove the sentence if you think it's incorrect or lacking justification, it's not critical Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Colonies are increasing concentrated into the" Increasingly?
  • Since the culture section mentions ancient depictions, wouldn't it be more interesting to show one of these than a bust?
  • Yes, but I couldn't find any suitable image, let alone one with a free licence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Bee-eaters are fairly catholic" Seems too informal?
  • I don't think "catholic" is an informal term by any definition. It's used here in it's primary meaning, and OED gives no indication of main use of the word being informal, but changed anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The stinger is removed by" Only stated in intro.
  • "by sallies from" Likewise.
  • It says they hunt from perches, so I assume it's "sallies" that's the problem, removed from lead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - all fixes look good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Ok, looking through...

but birds apparently of these families were distinct at least forty million ago, - the apparently is oddly placed - what about "ancestors of these families diverged from those of bee-eaters at least forty million ago"
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
"the most complex of any bird species anywhere in the world". - I think we can rephrase without quotes. "more complex/intricate than any other bird species"?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Bee-eaters are seasonally monogamous, and some species are monogamous over multiple years, although migratory species form new pair bonds each breeding season. - "monogamous" used twice, try to reword
Rewritten, is that better? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Yep.

Ok then, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for review and support! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

Did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose, thanks, now requested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

House of Music[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a 1996 studio album by the R&B band Tony! Toni! Toné!. It was their fourth and last album, a platinum seller, and widespread critical success, deemed by some critics as their best work, an influence on 1990s neo soul, and a masterpiece of '90s R&B. Dan56 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jennica[edit]

  • "Heyday" seems like an odd word to use. Capitalize "Platinum". I have nothing else to comment on. It looks like an article well done and any other further comments from me would just be nitpicking [I don't like tables in discography sections but that's just me] --Jennica talk / contribs 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Jennica:, I capitalized "platinum". Where is the word "heyday" used? I don't see it. Dan56 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dan56: - Second sentence: "During the band's heyday, it was composed of Dwayne Wiggins on lead vocals and guitar"... --Jennica talk / contribs 00:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jennica:, that's the article on the band; this article being nominated is on their fourth album. Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

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

CMLL World Welterweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  21:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This was recently failed as a FAC due to no input, not actual content issues, so I'm hoping that the second time is the charm for this article. 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  21:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Chhinnamasta[edit]

Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz Talk 17:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Chhinnamasta is a Hindu self-decapitated goddess, who holds her severed head in her hand and drinks blood from her wound. While she enjoyed a long peer review, she went unnoticed on her first trip to FAC a month ago, expect a detailed image review by the lone FAC reviewer. She returns to claim her position in the FA pantheon. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I would be a little concerned about some of the prose in this article. For instance, looking at the lede we have statements such as "Chhinnamasta (Sanskrit: छिन्नमस्ता, Chinnamastā, "She whose head is severed"), often spelled Chinnamasta, and also called Chhinnamastika and Prachanda Chandika, is one of the Mahavidyas, ten Tantric goddesses and a ferocious aspect of Devi, the Hindu Divine Mother. Chhinnamasta can be easily identified by her unusual iconography." I'm concerned that it comes across as a little literalist in the way that said beliefs are presented, and is not particularly clear for readers not already familiar with Asian religion. Moreover, wording like "can be easily identified" doesn't (for me) feel particularly encyclopaedic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Why? Obviously only "easily" by someone familiar with the iconography, but there is nothing un-encyclopaedic about it (which isn't to say a rephrase might not be appropriate). Writing about Hindu theology is like advanced maths - there is no real way to make it simple and clear for newcomers. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Midnightblueowl and Johnbod. Sorry for the delay in the replies, as I was out of town. References use two ways of defining Chhinnamasta:
  1. as "one of the Mahavidyas", a "Tantric goddess"
  2. iconography: the "self-decapitated goddess"/ the "headless goddess"
The former is followed here; while the iconography is explained in the same para. Reworded the lede to explain Tantra too. I have removed "Chhinnamasta can be easily identified by her unusual iconography"; however like the elephant-headed god Ganesha, the headless goddess is easily recognizable, once you know her iconography of being headless. The article needs to balance between jargon and over-simplification to be encyclopedic. With the help of the GOCE member User:Corinne, I have tried my best to do the same. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the intricacy of an article like this one (I edit many similarly complex articles myself) but I do think that we can reach a better balance between jargon and accessibility. For instance, we should start the article with "Chhinnamasta (Sanskrit: छिन्नमस्ता, Chinnamastā, "She whose head is severed"), often spelled Chinnamasta, and also called Chhinnamastika and Prachanda Chandika, is a goddess in Hinduism and Buddhism." Straight away, that is a lot clearer and more inviting to those unfamiliar with Hindu theology. We can then go on to say something like "Within Hindu theology, she is regarded as one of the Mahavidyas, ten goddesses from the esoteric tradition of Tantra, and a ferocious aspect of Devi, the Hindu Divine Mother goddess." I certainly don't want to lose the technical jargon, but at the same time it has to be made as accessible as possible. At present I don't think that the article does this. It is too technical, too full of shibboleths. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Midnightblueowl. This article is only about Chhinnamasta, the Hindu Mahavidya. No article existed about the Buddhist goddess, primarily known as Chinnamunda. I have temporarily created a 1-liner stub to avoid confusion. It would be helpful if you list a few more examples of shibboleths so that the article can improved further. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Dick Cresswell[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Been a couple of months since my last nom, let's hope I remember how it goes... Unusually among the subjects of my air force bios, Dick Cresswell was not an ace, nor did he achieve high rank, but he did manage to be in the right place at the right time to achieve several 'firsts' in RAAF history. His main claim to fame was commanding No. 77 Squadron three times, most notably during the Korean War, when he oversaw its conversion from Mustangs to Meteors, and so became the first man to command an RAAF jet squadron in combat. He also seems to have had a reputation as a bit of a cowboy, so perhaps it's no surprise that he once got himself into hot water for practising with his revolver in the vicinity of a fellow officer who was ticking him off... Tks to everyone who participated in the article's recent GA and MilHist A-Class reviews, and to all who comment here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Looks great. Very nice piece of work. Just a few quibbles.

  • Perhaps link Air Member for Personnel? I'm not sure average reader would be familiar with the term. There is a specific article on the Australian post, but it's one sentence and a list of holders.
    • Yes, the Australian AMP page isn't much, but if I had to link anything I think it'd have to be that one -- shall I do that? If I ever get round to writing an article on the Australian Air Board I'd probably merge AMP with it and leave a redirect...
      • If you asked me, I'd add something about Australia/Commonwealth air forces to the article on the RAF AMP, then move the Australian article to "List of Air Members for Personnel (Australia)"; but that's out of scope for this FAC. --HJM
  • The business with his court-martial is very intriguing.
    • Was the informal nature typical of the time? (Obviously there was a war on and the RAAF was in its infancy so perhaps it was).
      • I wasn't aware that the court martial process sounded informal here -- is there any particular wording that suggests that?
        • It sounds like he turned up one day expecting to fly and suddenly found himself in front of a court-martial. --HJM
          • The way Odgers' bio puts it, that's just how it was... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Which is sort of my point! ;) Was that normal? It seems ... if not informal then ... abrupt? --HJM
              • It seems a bit unusual to me too but I really don't know how unusual in terms of air force courts-martial, Odgers doesn't comment on that specifically. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Do we know why the sentence was relatively mild? Or why an officer as senior as the AMP would get involved? Or why the sanction was effectively reversed?
      • Although the court martial is mentioned in several sources, only biographer Odgers goes into detail, and he doesn't comment on the severity or otherwise of the sentence. Lukis got involved because Cresswell went to him to resign. Re. the reversal, Odgers comments "Clearly, the RAAF was softening its attitude toward Dick", but this appears simply observation/opinion.
  • Cresswell questioned the decision through official channels, with the result that he retained the position of wing leader What was that all about? A spitting contest between two officers?
    • I figure Cresswell preferred the position of wing leader to squadron commander, given he'd already been squadron commander, but that's not stated outright. In any case, he asked the Dept of Air for clarification and the dept said he was to stay as wing leader, and Steege kept him as squadron CO, so Cresswell had two jobs for a while -- I felt this could be summarised as we have it in the article.
    • Okay, another question: what's the difference between a wing leader and a wing commander? --HJM
      • Wing commander is a rank, equivalent to lieutenant colonel, and wing leader is a position, like commanding officer or executive officer. It's actually quite difficult to find a definition of the position, even though it's frequently mentioned in sources -- Darwin Spitfires is the only one I know that spells it out, hence my using it here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
        • I know it's a rank, but you have just above No. 81 Wing's new commanderemphasis mine (who is a group captain) giving instructions to a squadron leader, who is to be come the wing's leader. What does the leader do that the commander doesn't? --HJM
          • The terminology the air force uses for positions vs. ranks can be maddening, I grant you... ;-) To clarify first off, Steege wanted Cresswell to be a squadron commander (position) not squadron leader (rank) -- Cresswell had been a wing commander (rank) since Jan 44. As to the difference between the wing leader and the wing's commander, the wing leader has tactical control of the formation in the air, but the wing's commander is in charge of the formation over all (operationally and administratively). The implication is that Steege wanted to have tactical control of the wing in the air as well as overall command, but the source doesn't state that explicitly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That's as far as the top of the Korean War section and I'm out of time; I'll revisit tomorrow hopefully. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Tks very much for stopping by, Harry -- look fwd to further comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll be back to do the second half of the article but it might take me a couple of days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Resuming:

  • What were his duties as Director of Air Staff Policy?
    • Source doesn't elaborate, I'm afraid.
  • Do we know why he wasn't interested in climbing the ranks further?
    • His quote about his resignation in 1957 suggests he expected to be desk-bound if he stayed.
  • the RAAF Antarctic Flight impressed his Beaver it took me a moment to parse the intended meaning of "impressed" here ('pressed into service' vs 'made an impression') and I'm not sure it would be clear to everyone; I'd suggest linking to Wiktionary or rephrasing
    • Heh, fair enough -- tweaked.

And that's it. I struggled to find anything to criticise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Tks again Harry! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm happy with your replies, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, Harry. Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "the first RAAF commander of a jet squadron in war" You say this twice in the lead.
    • Heh, actually I repeat all three of the "firsts' from the lead para in the second para, the purpose being to put them in context having spelt them out initially to establish his notability -- if I did the other two more subtly, perhaps there's a way I can tweak the third similarly?
  • Presumably his mother was related to Geoffrey de Haviland, and I think it is worth spelling out his family connection with aviation.
    • Geoffrey isn't mentioned specifically, just the family/business, which I tried to established using the link.
      • I think the sources you mention justify mentioning that she was a relative of aviation pioneer Geoffrey de Haviland, and it would be helpful in explaining his interest in flying.
        • Again, while I'm sure she must've been some relation of Geoffrey's, I prefer not to state what isn't explicit in the source. The article does mention that Dick's interest in aviation was piqued by his mother's stories. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Wing leader' seems a bit obscure. I could not find it in OED or wiktionary, but it is mentioned in Wikipedia on Wing Commander as being of the same rank. I see it is discussed above. A few words of explanation would be helpful - or maybe create a stub article explaining and link to it?
    • Do you mean in the lead, as it is defined at the relevant point in the main body?
      • I missed that. How about adding your explanation to Wing commander (rank), and then linking to it in the lead?
        • I'm not sure about adding this role info to a rank article, but I think I can put together a new, brief article specifically for wing leader that we could link to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Following up, Harry and Dudley, I've put together a new article that should tell you most of what you wanted to know about wing leaders and weren't afraid to ask, linked it in the article and dropped the inline definition that I think sort of just sat there anyway. Tks for prompting me -- deliberately or not -- to do it, as it was probably overdue... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Great. I assume from what you say that wing leaders were not used in action after WW2 - e.g. in Korea? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
              • AFAIK the RAF had no squadrons in Korea, let alone wings, and though there was talk of forming 77 Sqn RAAF and 2 Sqn SAAF into a Commonwealth Mustang wing, it never happened. The RAF had several combat squadrons in the Far East during the Malayan Emergency and after, and some might have formed wings but it doesn't necessily mean they had wing leaders, unless they contemplated throwing entire wings into combat there, which seems a bit unlikely to me. That they had wing leaders in Britain and Germany in the 1950s suggests that they did indeed contemplate throwing entire wings into the air in Europe if the balloon went up...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The wing flew 1,125 sorties in October and November, dropping over 400,000 pounds" - bombing Japanese ships and/or army in New Guinea?
    • Fair enough, should be able to expand that.
  • " In an unusual move, the RAAF did not raise him to wing commander" Is it known why? Because he had made enemies?
    • No-one elaborates -- the implication, as you might glean from the Stephens quote re. his DFC, is he had some enemies but nothing explicit re. this situation, just that it was a curious decision.
  • "The communist advance" I would prefer Communist with a capital C. Is there a rule on this?
    • Been a while since I've seen it brought up so not sure if there's a guideline, nor do I have a strong preference, so would tend to use what most of the sources do. In this case, checking again, Alan Stephens and Steve Eather use lower case, and Robert O'Neill, George Odgers and Doug Hurst capitalise it, so I guess the "cappers" have it!
  • That's it. A fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much, Dudley. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Won't get back to this for a few hours, but to get started,

  • "In this capacity," I would omit. I'm not sure what it adds, and it isn't very clear what capacity. Commander? He was acting as pilot when he shot down the plane.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was trying to say was that he was commanding the squadron when he achieved the first "first", as well as the subsequent ones, but I guess it's not that important.
Resuming ...
  • "Manly West" as Manly is the only Sydney-area location (that is, Manly) that non-Australians might have heard of on the list (other than Sydney), it might be worth a link. I note the only Manly West article is to a place in Queensland.
  • Heh, that was an annoying one for me... Manly West sounds like a suburb but isn't, it's just a locale in Balgowlah (not Manly, so that link doesn't help).
  • "on his first day of operations three days" I might try to separate the "days" a bit more.
  • Yeah, I didn't like that either, will try and think of something that's clear but not repetitive.
  • "No. 77 Squadron transferred from Iwakuni in Japan to Pohang, South Korea, on 12 October, to support UN troops advancing northwards from the Pusan Perimeter" I might ax the comma after "October".
  • Will do.
  • "Air Vice Marshal Scherger" I might remind the reader with something like "his onetime commander at Wagga Wagga" or similar.
  • Will do.
  • "during the developing crisis" I'm not sure what it adds. Surely we are not discussing the runup to war in June 1950? I'd cut it. I also might eliminate the "had" earlier in the sentence, if the source will allow.
  • No, not June 1950, we're referring to the Communist advance and Allied withdrawal in December, mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • " fitted to the Australian aircraft" if we are discussing the Meteors, this may be confusing as they were British-made. I might simply say, "fitted to them".
  • Agree, will trim.
  • "act as a MiG-15" I might say "simulate a ..."
  • Good idea, will do.
  • "Cresswell later recalled" does "later" add anything?
  • Not much, consider it gone.
  • Do we have a burial site, if he was?
  • None of my sources say, I'm afraid.
  • That's all. Very well done. I look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Tks very much for that, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Actioned per my responses above, happy to discuss further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

Excellent article, and I struggled to find much to comment about. The following two things came to my eye for comment or consideration.

Lead

  • It looks odd linking the Korean War, but not the Second World War: any reason?
    • I tend to feel it's superfluous linking WWII as it's such a well-known and wide-ranging conflict, which I don't think you can say about Korea. I might be more inclined to link WWII if I mentioned it in an article that didn't also discuss/link some of the war's specific theatres, campaigns or battles. In any case I'd be prepared to defer to local consensus.

WWII

  • "He souvenired": is it really used as a verb? (I guess it must be, but it jars a little to my British eyes!
    • I have to admit it's a kind of shorthand I like (as opposed to "He took as a souvenir") but again if consensus is against it I'd reluctantly alter... :-)

The Bounder (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. As long as you've considered the points and are still happy with the, that's all fine with me - neither of them are deal breakers. Excellent article and I thank you for it. – The Bounder (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Viking metal[edit]

Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:46, 31 October 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. This is the second FA nomination for this article. The first one was rejected only due to inactivity. It did get one editor's review, and I addressed the problems that they highlighted.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as the one who helped at PR. If there wasn't really much of anything wrong with it then, there definitely can't be now. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, one problem. The Stylus Magazine reference for Amon Amarth has been dead since June (after my PR).
Fixed. Apparently, apart from the homepage, the entire site for Stylus has been taken down.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
According to a Google search they've been defunct since October 2007. They seem to have just kept archives there until last June. My full support has been restored. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment as author: I had solicited for a review from User:Lewismaster, who unfortunately is unable to give a full review. However, they did say that they found the article somewhat arcane. If any editors notice this, I would welcome criticism and advice.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • support with a few added commentary--malconfort (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
"typical black metal death growls" shrieks are typical to black metal, while death growls is mostly a death metal thing.
No, death growls are plenty present in black metal, it's just that they're combined with shrieks (with shrieks being favored over growls a little bit). dannymusiceditor Speak up! 00:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Malconfort is right. While black metal does use growling and death growls, it's more common in death metal. The source actually says "typical black metal screams and growls," which is more accurate. I've corrected this, thanks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
the section sonic traits must covers the characteristics of viking metal as a whole not only of a few artists. this or you must change the text to a more broaden perspective.
I thought I did? The last two paragraphs I added later, after the two paragraphs were written. I admit that it might be a bit jarring to go from broad examples to specifics. I'll look into how I can rectify this. I might move those paragraphs into the history section, though I don't currently have a section on Týr, and I think I would need to include other examples if I created a section on that band. Mulvany also deals a lot with particular examples of Viking metal song structure, so an alternative possibility is bringing in a few of those, though this would expand the already massive "characteristics" section further (is it my fault that so much has been written on in the way of examples?)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
"the exultation of violence and virility through weapons and battlefields" it's a metal thing basically, not only of a black and/or death metal standpoint. from what i remember, viking metal has close ties to traditional heavy metal...
Where'd you get the close ties idea? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 00:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I checked the source, and I've reworded it as "Viking metal combines the symbology favored by many black and death metal bands..." It is true that heavy metal in general celebrates war and battle, but I also need to make sure that this summarizes what the source says, not my own opinions. I think the sourced statement, which I've more closely followed in my new revision, is a bit more nuanced than what I had before. It implies that war is more common a theme among death and black metal bands, but not exclusive. I think that could be debated, but in this instance I'm just following the source. As an aside, yes, I think Viking metal is closer to traditional metal than its extreme origins would suggest.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorhin, the Swedish black metal band? wasn't aware they are associate with the viking metal style. what about create an article for them?
That is not the job of the nominator... dannymusiceditor Speak up! 00:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice to have an article on that band. Mulvany seems to be the only source that identifies the band as Viking metal, at least that I can find so far, and even his commentary suggests that it primarily is a folk-influenced black metal band.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
link "megaliths"
Done by DannyMusicEditor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
it seems the band týr is like the black sheep of the viking metal article. i have the impression they just don't fit.
They fit in the article, they just aren't full on true viking metal. Ironic that you'd say they're "black sheep" because they're not black at all. Face-smile.svg But seriously they are important. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 00:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at the list of Viking metal bands, there are other oddballs in there (like the rock band Glittertind!). There was also some serious heat on this article and the list over the inclusion of Amon Amarth. That's one reason why I have the quote from Ashby and Schofield on how Viking metal "has diversified (at least in aural terms), and now covers a range of styles that run the gamut between black metal and what one might justifiably term classic rock."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
link "pantheon of Norse gods"
Done by DannyMusicEditor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
link the terms "Conan the Barbarian as it does to history, saga, or Edda"
Done, except saga, which is linked to in a previous section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Malconfort, that was very helpful.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - wonderfully detailed characteristics section with supporting images that pretty much seals the deal. In regards to the comment made about the article appearing as arcane... I would assume weirder articles have been featured. RHedmi (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad to have your support - I think what Lewismaster meant by "arcane" was that they found the content difficult to understand for someone unfamiliar with the topic - a topic can be weird, yet written in an accessible manner.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Well written article with well-articulated sections. The supporting media is also used extensively; the very detailed history section is also impressive on its own. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Alabama Centennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... you never know where an article is going to go once you begin the research and this one to my surprise led to a sidelight on the career of President Harding of which I was not aware. Commemorative coins are indeed a part of history if not a large part. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Source review / Singora[edit]

My article, Seri Rambai, is further down the list. It's got supports from DanK, BrianBoulton and Casliber, but will need a source review. Wanna help?

If yes, I'll do your source review as I did before with that Captain Cook coin. I guess you could email me the gear like last time. Singora (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm traveling and am not in a position to send you all the docs. I'm happy to do your source review anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. You're welcome to get back to me later if/when you need a source review of your own. Singora (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • What is the copyright status of the photo of the coin? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
This has come up before with Bobby131313 images and I believe I asked at a noticeboard at one time and the feeling was that uploading your own images to Wikipedia is indicative of an intent to license them under the Four Freedoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Iridescent[edit]

In case of subsequent variation, this is the version on which I'm commenting. I've conducted no image or source checks and going on faith that every citation says what it says it does.

Lead[edit]
  • The "in 1921 to mark the 100th anniversary of Alabama's admission to the Union in 1819" is jarring, and "the Act of May 10, 1920" doesn't help. I imagine the reaction of every reader to the fact that the act deciding to mark the centenary wasn't passed until a year after the centenary will be "Huh? Why didn't they make arrangements for the centenary before the centenary year had passed?". I appreciate that the causes are touched on in the "inception" section, but there should probably be at least some acknowledgement in the lead that it took place after the event since my first instinct was that a vandal had been goofing with the dates.
  • This is not something about which I know anything, but are the images in the infobox really meant to be that brown? They look to me like either they've been in the bottom of a river, or that they're actually electroplated copper and the coating is wearing off, and presumably neither of these are the case.
Silver coins often exhibit toning, or really tarnish. It is, generally speaking, not considered a good idea to "clean" them, although in the past, this was often done. Still is, by some. It's the images we have.
  • The infobox has the mass and diameter of the coin in metric-only measurement, the thickness of the coin in both metric and imperial measurements, and the silver content in imperial-only measurement.
There was a formatting error I've corrected, and now the diameter shows in inches as well. I felt these were the most useful to the reader. The silver content is in troy ounces only because that's how silver is generally sold in the US. If I added the total weight in Imperial, then there would be the question of whether to use troy or avoirdupois. I chose not to go there (this is true of about forty or so coin articles.
Inception[edit]
  • "the members heard of other states which had gotten or which sought a commemorative coin"—what sort of numbers are we talking about? Was this a really commonplace practice which led to Alabama feeling justly left out, or was it a new fad which they wanted to be in on from the start? I know I can tell from the end navbox how many other commemorative coins there were, but the readers can't be expected to know that. (I'm also not a fan of "gotten", which seems a little inappropriately folksy to me.)
It's all traceable to the 1918 Illinois Centennial. From the sources, it looks like Maine saw the Illinois one, and then Alabama and Pilgrim (i.e. Massachusetts) saw the Maine one. However, Rainey, the Alabama congressman, was a bit vague about it, which I imagine is why Swiatek and Breen didn't say things as a definite fact. There's some discussion in the Alabama/Maine hearings of other anniversaries, but it's not fully accurate (for example, they say there was a coin for the Jamestown anniversary of 1907, but there wasn't.) I like to give as much of a play by play as I can, since this area hasn't been studied in depth, but it's all based on the very limited primary sources and I think it's best kept more or less as is. Gotten changed to "received".
Preparation[edit]
  • "Alabama Governor Thomas Kilby had a three-member commission headed by Owen"—who is Owen? She isn't mentioned prior to this point, and at no point before or after is it explained who she was. (I'm assuming she's a woman owing to the "her committee".)
  • Was this the first US coin designed by a woman? (Skimming through the other coins linked in the navbox it appears that it was, although a couple of other coins don't have their designers named.) If so, this should certainly be mentioned, since it will be one of the most interesting facts about this coin to non-enthusiasts, especially given that it's probably fair to say that 1920s Alabama was not renowned for its social progressiveness.
Yes, it was! Nice catch. I had to do some digging on this. I missed this because a couple of times previously women's designs were considered at some stage but weren't actually used. In fact, according to my source, it's the first coin of any country designed by a woman. I've put that in there.
Production, distribution & collecting[edit]
  • The long first paragraph here is very confusing to me. I think I've parsed it correctly as "They made 6006 of them in October and made the rest of them later; the official record says that the first batch were marked 2X2 and the later ones weren't, but this might not actually be the case", but it's taken me at least three read-throughs to grasp it.
Pretty much. I've divided the paragraph and played with it.
  • "the Pilgrim half lists for between $85 and $650 without 2X2…"—is this an error, as (if I'm understanding it) the Pilgrim half-dollar was an unrelated coin released at the same time.
Oopsie. I had cut and pasted that sentence to get the links and wasn't very careful, obviously.

These are all relatively minor points, and I assume I'll be supporting this unless anything problematic subsequently comes to light. ‑ Iridescent 09:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Iridescent. I think I've dealt with those.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Support (with the usual proviso that I haven't verified sources, but I've no reason to doubt they say what this says). It might be worth a final sentence noting how many other commemorative coins were issued subsequent to this, to put it in some kind of context. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you indeed for that review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Support: Another facinating coin article from Wehwalt.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Just a couple of minor points.

  • "Numismatists Anthony Swiatek and Walter Breen speculated that": you might make this "speculate" to make it more immediately clear to the reader that Swiatek and Breen's speculation was not in 1920; it wasn't until the later part of the sentence that I realized they were writing about this later.
  • Not sure this is needed for FAC, but I'm curious: if Congress did not authorize the centennial commission as the vending organization in the legislation, how did they become authorized?
In practice, the Mint allowed orders from them and (I imagine) would not have allowed any orders from, say, Farran Zerbe or another promoter. These were early days for commemoratives.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Ohio's William A. Ashbrook": suggest "Ohio representative William A. Ashbrook" since I gather this discussion took place in Congress.
  • "James Fraser suggested that his wife, Laura Gardin Fraser, a noted sculptor, create the plaster models, and this occurred": "this occurred" is a bit clunky. How about: "At James Fraser's suggestion, the plaster models were created by his wife, Laura Gardin Fraser, who was a noted sculptor in her own right".
  • You have a link in a note to Cross of Gold speech#Background; I think this should be piped so the reader sees English text rather than the wikitext code for an anchor. Perhaps "see the background to the Cross of Gold speech", and link the whole phrase starting with "background"?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I've done those things, though slightly differently than you suggested in a couple of cases. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. Your fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for the thoughtful review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Jochen Rindt[edit]

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Jochen Rindt, Formula One's only posthumous World Champion, winning the Championship in 1970 by accumulating enough points before being killed in an accident during practice for the 1970 Italian Grand Prix. As a World Champion, his article ranks as high importance in its respective WikiProject.

This is the first article I nominate for FA, so even though I made sure to follow all the regulations, I might have missed this or that, so feel free to point anything out to me. Also, this is the first time I added alt-texts to images, so they might not be completely appropriate. Any critique is welcome! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro: Overall, this looks quite good from a first glance. I don't think we're quite there yet. I think the prose needs a little polish to reach FA standard. From the lead to begin with: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  • "he became the only driver to posthumously win the Formula One World Drivers' Championship, after being killed in practice for the Italian Grand Prix": I think this might be better in terms of emphasis as "he was killed during practice for the Italian Grand Prix and became the only driver to be posthumously awarded the Formula One World Drivers' Championship."
  • "Rindt started motor racing in 1961, switching to single-seaters in 1963, earning success in both Formula Junior and Formula Two.": Maybe better as "Rindt started motor racing in 1961 and switched to single-seaters in 1963. He was successful in both Formula Junior and Formula Two."
  • "After mixed success with the team": Maybe "mixed results" as success can't really be mixed.
  • "It was at Lotus where Rindt found a competitive car, although he was often concerned about the security of the notoriously unreliable Lotus vehicles": A bit too much going on here. Also, the meaning of "security" in this sense does not really work. What about: "The Lotus car was more competitive but suffered from reliability problems"
Hmm, I feel like there should be some mention of the security aspect, since "reliability" could just mean that his engine failed here and there. But we are talking crashing and potentially, and in the end actually, dying. I'll try to come up with something fitting.
  • I think we need at least another sentence in the lead about the accident, for example saying what happened. Otherwise, we just have that he was posthumous World Champion in the first paragraph, and a passing mention of the fatal accident in 1970.
  • "In the years leading up to his fatal accident": A bit vague. What about simply "In the late 1960s"? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Thanks for your helpful comments! I'll tackle the changes tomorrow. Just left one reply above for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Have we made any progress on this? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: Sorry for the delay, I've been terribly busy this past week. I have now made several changes to the lead along the lines of your comments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem. The lead is looking good now. I'll take a look at the rest of the article in the next couple of days. Overall, it looks good. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

More: I've done some copy-editing and shuffling of the information. As ever, feel free to revert my copyediting if I've messed up, or if you don't like it. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  • "The young Rindt has been described by his brother and friends as a "laddish child", often performing tricks for his friends": I'm not sure this adds a lot about him that wouldn't apply to anyone. The phrasing is also a little uncomfortable, but there is no easy way to rephrase, so I wonder if this part is best cut?
I included it to give the entire paragraph, which covers his tendency for reckless behavior, a little more insight. Without this sentence to start out the paragraph, the rest of the information would stand a little isolated.
  • "he broke his femoral neck": Can we link something here? On first reading, I thought it was a weird typo and that he had broken his neck; I suspect several non-medical people may make the same mistake without a link.
Done.
  • "he had collected eight recorded misdoings with the police": Maybe I'm being a little slow, but misdoings does not sound right. Misdemeanours sounds more like it, but maybe its an Austrian expression?
That was my attempt to translate the German word Vergehen. But yes, misdemeanour is better.
  • "he received his first car, a Volkswagen Beetle, through his parents' spice mill company in Mainz": A spice mill and a Beetle don't obviously suggest a link; how did he get the car through the mill? Sponsorship? A gift?
Well, in the source, that's how it was phrased: "He got the car through the mill". I am suspecting that, since he was the technical owner, the mill provided him with a company car, even though he was not really involved in the mill itself. Writing "company car" in the article might be a stretch though, since it is not phrased as clear as that in the source I used.
  • "In the same year, Rindt's idol, the German Wolfgang von Trips, died in an accident": This is the first we hear of von Trips as his idol. I would expect to see this in the part where his interest in motor racing grew; there is a possibility that it is a throwaway comment in that Guardian article. Is it mentioned anywhere else? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't find another source that says it, so I removed that sentences.

@Sarastro1: Thanks for your c/eing and the additional comments. I'll try to work them in as soon as possible. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I added comments above and made some changes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I just realized that it was Eagleash who added the source to the car from the spice mill statement, replacing one of mine from the documentary movie. @Eagleash: Could you look into the Henry book and check if it specifies this statement? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Zwerg Nase The book refers to him inheriting an elderly VW. It doesn't definitely specify that it came via his inheritance from his parents business or elsewhere. I don't clearly recall adding the ref. but my intention would be to verify that he started with the VW. There is a diff here with a ref that you added but I cannot find what happened to that ref afterwards. It does not seem to be in the current version. It's possible that I may have removed it by mistake when adding the Henry reference... my apologies if that's the case. Eagleash (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Eagleash: This is the diff when you added the Henry ref back in January. I have now tweaked the sentence a little bit so that it fits into what you wrote above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Zwerg Nase: Thanks. Oh dear! Looks like I did delete the earlier ref. Sorry about that. I don't know what that (earlier) ref of yours contained, but should it be restored? Your edit added the spice mill info...does your ref bear that out also? Eagleash (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Eagleash: No worries, I have now added the older ref to the sentence before to have that covered. The Henry ref should be enough for the car sentence as it stands now, right? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
My only worry now is that if we remove the reference to the mill, the sentence loses its purpose somewhat, as I don't think it's particularly interesting or notable what his first was. If we restore "inherited", it begs the question of from whom it was inherited. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

More:

  • "Rindt drove his first race at the Flugplatzrennen in 1961, in an Abarth Simca 2000. After missing the official application period, he only entered after prominent intervention from a friend from Graz.": This ambushes the reader a bit. How did he get into the race? Was he with a team, or on his own? Did he just turn up? How did he get the car to drive? The rest of the section suggests it was his, but where did it come from? What do we mean by "prominent intervention"? Why was his friend so influential?I think this bit needs a little work.
Did my best to make this clearer with what the source gave me.
  • "almost all the races he entered": I think it would be good to give a number of races he entered here, rather than just "almost all".
Here, I do not really know any numbers. "Almost all" is the term used in the movie by Giesser. Should I just take out the last half-sentence?
  • How did he actually get into Formula Two? We are a little vague, just saying that he entered with Barry.
Well, once more, that is pretty much all I have there. Barry was a relatively successful driver, having raced F2 before, so he took Rindt along. There is not really more I can say about this unfortunately. Everything there is to say I pointed out in the paragraph above: Barry was wealthy and had cars that he could provide to Rindt.
  • "a graded driver": Can we explain/link what this is? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Done.

@Sarastro1: Again, thanks for your comments! These are gonna be a little tough. Mostly, they are vague because the sources are vague... I'll try to make clearer what I can tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I made some changes and commented above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Changes look fine. I think we would be better removing "almost all the races he entered". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

And even more: Up to the end of the Cooper/Brabham section now. I did more copyediting, but feel free to revert. Looking good, hope to finish in the next day or two. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  • "Sharing the drive of a Ferrari 250LM with American Masten Gregory for the North American Racing Team, Rindt won the event": I appreciate that "sharing the drive" is accurate at Le Mans, but I wonder would the simpler "driving with" work better?
"Sharing a drive" is what is usually used in this context. "Driving with" makes it sounds as if both would be in the car at the same time.
  • I wonder would a more chronological approach work better for Le Mans? It is a little disconcerting to read of his 1965 win and then read about his 1964 debut.
Done.
  • "with the new 3-litre engine formula": To the casual reader, it may not be obvious of the meaning of formula in this sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Done.

@Sarastro1: Once again, thank you for your comments! I hope we can get through the rest of the article quickly :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

More: Sorry for the delay, real life has been rather manic. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I wonder if the 1960-70 section could be split? It is intimidatingly long and I think would stand splitting into 1969 and 1970.
I've split these up now.
  • "straw balls": Can we just say barriers? This sounds a little odd.
Changed this into "straw barriers".
  • "a broken lower wishbone": Is there anything we can link to here?
Linked.
  • "after anti-dive and anti-squat had been removed": Too much for the general reader I think. My preference would be to replace this with "after modifications had been made" but at least we should link to something. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Changed this.

Provisional Support with a copy-editing disclaimer: I've copy-edited this quite heavily, and so I'd like more eyes on this before I switch to full support. However, I think it's pretty much there, although it might stand a little more tightening in places. This is a pretty impressive piece of work, and the nominator deserves commendation for their research and for their patience with my rather slow review. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Thanks for all your work! I have made the last changes you suggested.
Now that it's had a looking over from others, I think I can switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Bcschneider53: I notice that in the Formula One World Championship results table, each individual blank cell is divided if there wasn't a race to fit those cells, while in the Non-championship results table, the blank cells are all merged together. I'd suggest consistency one way or the other; I personally prefer the merged cells (which is what's done in the NASCAR tables) but I know most of the F1 tables keep the cells divided, so I won't make a strong case for either one, but I would suggest one or the other in both tables, not both in one of the tables each. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: You are of course absolutely correct. I have changed the F2 table accordingly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Support So I see you have chosen the divided format, which is fine. The prose looks to be in much better shape and there are citations throughout. I'll happily support the article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96[edit]

  • "Although his grandfather choose" - choosed
  • This should be "chose", and I've fixed it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Use |spell=in on the template for 4 centimetres (1.6 in) to comply with MOS:NUMBERS
Done.
  • "he got a moped and started racing his friends on motocross tracks." - try brought
  • Someone got this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "who finished four minutes ahead of second placed Hill." - second-placed for consistency
  • "he set pole position in the second session - recorded the pole position lap
  • This isn't really an improvement; I've reworded it a bit. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • And it may also be worth looking here where @Pyrope: has pointed a couple of things out and made a fix. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The more powerful flat-12 Ferraris" - Ferrari cars
  • I'd actually say this is worse, and simple "Ferraris" would be fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Rindt's team mate' John Miles" - change to teammate like you have done on the word's two previous mentions

Overall, its a good work and is not far off the FA criteria. I would have to agree with Sasastro1's view that a copy-edit is in order. MWright96 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I fixed a few of these as I think they're actually my mistakes. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Only one thing seemed to be still outstanding, done it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

The article is in excellent shape. I copyedited a little; please revert anything I screwed up. A couple of minor points:

  • The fake brake lights story is entertaining; was that illegal at the time? Would it be now?
Unfortunately, the source did not specify that.
  • What does "costumer franchise" mean?
I added a wikilink here, although the target article is in pretty bad shape unfortunately.
  • "went straight ahead into the straw balls": should this be "straw bales"?
Done.
I guess that was a mistranslation from the German "Strohballen".Tvx1 00:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "drifted through the streets": this is (I assume) the specialized meaning of "drift", which some readers won't know, so I would suggest linking this or adding an explanatory note.
Added a wikilink.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments, I have addressed them as best I could. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. Fixes look good. It would be helpful if you could add a note at the target article saying that the term "costumer franchise" is also used, but that's not necessary for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: "Costumer franchise" is actually just one part of what is described in the target article. Lotus itself was a privateer team, a costumer franchise such as Rob Walker's purchased chassis from other teams instead of building their own, so it is a very specific form. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure you don't mean "customer franchise"? Tvx1 00:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Tvx1: I do of course. Funny how no one noticed this so far :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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)
Tim wrote the first third - birth to the Premiership; Wehwalt wrote the second third - Premiership to the War; and I wrote the last third - the War to death. All building on the pre-existing article. Moving the article from my sandbox into mainspace meant that it wasn't possible to show this in the Revision history statistics. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This is problematic for attribution purposes; perhaps a history merge would be in order? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I suppose, but the utility is limited. Perhaps linking to this discussion on talk would be enough?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Beyond me technically, I'm afraid. But very happy to work on it with someone more competent if the view is that a history merge would be the best approach. The "originals" are readily available in the Sandboxes. My personal preference would be for a merge, if this can be done. KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles (which applies to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, sections called ==The Biography== should be changed to ==Biography==.[?] DrKay (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Done - and thanks for the pick-up. KJP1 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Content-wise it's a step in the right direction but still needs a fair bit of work. Hopefully I should be working on the post-1916 bit - the long sad coda when he hung on for a decade after he ought to have retired - this weekend.
The bits on his premiership are the strongest part of the article, but even there there a few things which need some kind of brief mention - OTOH the Marconi Scandal, the wave of strikes, the CID meeting during Agadir where Asquith (personally, afaik) backed Brigadier (as he then was) Henry Wilson's plan to deploy a BEF to France in the event of war. There's probably a bit more to be said about Ireland. The section on the intrigues of December 1916 needs a going-over as well, not because it's wrong but because it's material of byzantine complexity which must be almost unintelligible to the general reader - more a case of another pair of eyes. It needs a bit more explanation and some of it could be made less confusing (hell, it confuses me) by footnoting controversy over dates where Beaverbrook was almost certainly in error, or perhaps even the stuff about Northcliffe, who was no friend of Lloyd George and the evidence for whose involvement is largely circumstantial.
The pre-premiership sections are good on his early life but less so on the politics, and again there are a lot of things that need a mention and/or fuller treatment - the events of his Home Secretaryship (Featherstone, Welsh Disestablishment) and Asquith's role in the politics of 1895-1905 (the Boer War split, the free trade campaign of 1903, Relugas where it was Asquith who ratted on his co-conspirators).
That's not criticism of anybody. To be honest there is probably a case for hiving off his long and complex premiership into a separate sub-article, perhaps even two with the split at 1914. Happy to continue this on the article talk page. Maybe we can do Lloyd George in some future year.Paulturtle (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I suppose the question is length and emphasis, and people can differ on this. For example, I considered including the Marconi matter, especially since you suggested some months ago that the article took too positive a view of Asquith. But I decided the explanation, including introducing various people, wasn't worth the edification to the reader. It's the same with the other prewar matters you mention. We're happy to add anything useful, but I think the issues are at worst cosmetic. As for L-G, happy to discuss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit more than cosmetic - Marconi was, apart from being one of the all-time great British political scandals, along with the aftermath of Agadir and the wave of strikes one of the reasons why Asquith let the Irish situation drift for a couple of years. On the other hand it's a classic example of something which doesn't need more than a few sentences stating what Asquith did and referring people to the relevant article. At the moment the article is falling between a few stools - it's already pretty much long enough to justify splitting and goes into full detail on a couple of topics (the Budget/House of Lords crisis which both Wehwalt and I have worked on and the fall in December 1916 which I think is KJP1's work) whilst omitting quite a few things and not going into enough detail on a few others, e.g. the formation of the coalition in May 1915 (a truly murky episode, that one), and just how close that government came to falling apart, several times in fact, over conscription and Ireland. On the other hand, I had to "do" Asquith for History A-Level a number of decades ago and I'm perfectly well aware that an article like this needs to be kept accessible to the general reader, through clear writing, dumping as much as possible into related articles and adding summaries where appropriate. I'm typing up the last of my notes on the WW1 period at the moment and should be working on that section of text over the next fortnight.Paulturtle (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you anticipate when you have edited to your satisfaction, that you will support the promotion of the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Composing properly-cited text is hugely time-consuming but at this rate of work, hopefully before the end of the year. I am prioritising this and pushing on as fast as I realistically can (I had, fwiw, planned to work on Aneurin Bevan this autumn, having done a lot of work on Gaitskell and Rab Butler). There may be further tweaks after that, e.g after I've dug out my notes on Cameron Hazelhurst and May 1915, but they needn't get in the way of article reviewing.Paulturtle (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-signature_tag#United_Kingdom UK signatures generally receive copyright protection
  • File:Herbert_Henry_Asquith_Vanity_Fair_1_August_1891-cropped.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:H_H_Asquith_1908.jpg, File:Raymond_Asquith02.jpg, File:Cluysenaar_Asquith.jpg, File:James_Guthrie_-_Herbert_Henry_Asquith_1924.jpg
  • File:Venetia_Stanley.jpg: source link is dead. What was the first known publication of this image?
  • File:Votes_for_Women_lapel_pin_(Nancy).jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I think I've gotten those. I've substituted in for the ones I've deleted others that appear to be copyright proper. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • According to this 1834 source John Asquith was executed for his part in the 1663 Farnley Wood Plot, but I cannot find any more recent reference to him, and he is not mentioned in Andrew Hopper's 2002 article THE FARNLEY WOOD PLOT AND THE MEMORY OF THE CIVIL WARS IN YORKSHIRE at [6]. Is anything more known about John Asquith's role? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
According to Koss, Asquith was sceptical about the tales of his Roundhead ancestry (Asquith/Askwith is a not uncommon Yorkshire name), which were accepted as fact by his official biographers. I don't see any evidence that anybody has trawled two centuries of parish records to check.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've no idea either - and not sure it would belong in an HHA article if we did - it's already a very long article! KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I found the account of his childhood unclear. His mother is said to have been in poor health but a strong character and a formative influence, but she is not mentioned thereafter and the impression is that he was separated from her after his grandfather's death. ODNB gives a bit more detail, stating that he was educated in his early years by his mother (a point worth mentioning), and that she had a heart condition and frequent bronchitis. After her father's death, she moved to St Leonards, presumably for her health, and her sons remained in London while attending a day school. This sounds like the usual pattern of boys living away from their parents during term time. According to ODNB, Asquith's wife was the daughter of St Leonards friends (the article says Manchester), which suggests that he stayed with his mother there in school holidays, and the comment that he was treated as an orphan appears misleading. The statement in the lead that he spent the rest of his childhood at boarding school and lodging with families not his own is incorrect. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Koss makes no mention of Asquith ever seeing his mother again, actually. Maybe the evidence just hasn't survived. Can check Jenkins tomorrow. Correct about her influence on his early education, but being a domineering character and an invalid are not mutually exclusive - it was a not uncommon form of passive-aggression in Victorian ladies (e.g. Florence Nightingale).Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I was not suggesting that being an invalid and domineering are mutually exclusive, but that it is extremely unlikely - not to say implausible - that a woman with that character was separated from her sons from the beginning of their teens onwards. Looking for evidence that they ever saw her again is like looking for evidence that they had breakfast each morning - it is possible that they did not, but it would be too obvious to mention that they did. You are also missing the point I made above that ODNB gives a different picture of his childhood from the article, and directly contradicts it on two points. The article says that Asquith lived at boarding school and lodgings in London, that he was effectively an orphan, and married a family friend from Manchester. ODNB says that he lodged in London while attending school as a day pupil. It does not say that he spent his holidays with his mother, but that was the usual pattern for upper class boys of spending term time away at school and holidays at home. Maybe the writer who suggested that he was effectively orphaned does not know that. As Asquith married a family friend in St Leonards, where his mother had retired for her health, he must have spent considerable time there. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Asquith briefly attended a boarding school in Yorkshire before being farmed out to live with somebody in London, while attending City of London (day) school. Going to boarding school was and is relatively normal for well-to-do families, lodging with other families rather less so, hence the comment by one of his biographers that he was “treated like an orphan”.
Helen Melland was the daughter of a Manchester doctor. Asquith met her while he was staying with his mother one summer (ODNB says he had just turned 18, so would have been mid September just before he went up to Balliol) and she was staying with (presumably mutual) friends in St Leonards. ODNB and his other biographers (Jenkins, Koss) all agree on that.
As far as Asquith’s relations with his mother go, the last letter from him to her in his official biography (Spender & Asquith p29) in 20 May 1868, when he was 15. He spent that holiday with her in 1870, when he met Helen. She died in 1888, aged 60 (Asquith would have been 36 or so) and before she died Asquith assured her that Piggott letter was forged (Spender & Asquith p16). As far as published biographies go, that’s all we have to go on, and writing anything else would be jumping to conclusions. They may have been regularly in touch throughout his childhood and young manhood, or they may have had relatively little contact. He may have loved her deeply, or he may have loathed her and merely gone through the motions on their occasional meetings. We simply do not know, unless somebody has another biography that says different.Paulturtle (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I've had another look at Jenkins, and he certainly writes of the "ending of any effective home background" by 1864, when HHA was 12. I think this is what Levine means. He certainly didn't stay with his mother on a regular basis thereafter, living as a boarder in private homes. As such, I don't think I'd agree the lede is wrong. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "manager of The Times, C. J. Macdonald" ODNB has D. J. Macdonald.
Amended - many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it should actually be J. C. Macdonald, as in John Cameron Macdonald 1822–1889. See for example The History of the Times by Morison or Irish Journalism Before Independence by Rafter. P. S. Burton (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you're right, as illustrated here [7]. Amended with thanks. KJP1 (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I would suggest cutting down the text in the lead on his early life and adding something about his important reforms as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
completely agree.. I'm working my way through the text backwards and will probably refocus the introduction when I get up to the top, if nobody else has done by then. Somebody started adding links to it the last time I was about to, and I didn't want to be edit-warring with them.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "the whiggish element favoured McKenna's appointment" This is the first mention of McKenna.
I think he's now linked properly. KJP1 (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Tell me, Mr Asquith, do you take an interest in the war?" This needs some context - who said it and when and why?
Lady Tree, I think. It was intended as a joke, but like many such jokes made him look bad when repeated by others.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
It was indeed Maud Tree. I've tried to contextualise it.KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • " Asquith was not himself a 'new Liberal'" What was a new Liberal?
More emphasis on social reforms rather than nineteenth century laissez-faire (and no interest in doing much about Irish Home Rule till the events of 1910 forced it on him).Paulturtle (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "With deployment of troops into Ulster imminent and threatening language by Churchill and the Secretary of State for War, John Seely, around sixty army officers, led by Brigadier-General Hubert Gough, announced that they would rather be dismissed from the service than obey." I had to read this sentence several times, but I take that it means threatening language by Churchill and Seely - threatening the unionists?
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they were threatening the Unionists, and Churchill made an inflammatory speech at Bradford, one of the first occasions in which he used his catchphrase "Let us go forward together..." There were conspiracy theories, widely believed at the time and never entirely disproven, that it was intended to provoke a response so that the UVF could be crushed, hence Bonar Law's "hellish insinuation" that Churchill wanted to make "another Poland" out of Ulster.Paulturtle (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Asquith later (in 1913) wrote to Churchill, stating that the Prime Minister had always believed and stated that the price of Home Rule should be a special status for Ulster. In spite of this, the bill as introduced in April 1912 contained no such provision" This wording is a bit confusing. I would state first that the bill did not contain the provision, and then say (I presume) that Asquith made clear to Churchill that he planned to concede the point.
  • You imply but do not spell out that the bill passed a second time in 1913.
Isn't the article long enough already?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The Bill did indeed pass a second time in 1913, with very little fuss actually. The original plan was for no special status for Ulster, but to concede such status if necessary ("Home Rule within Home Rule"). Then the argument shifted to an temporary optout for the Six Counties.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not sure that the article gets relations with Germany before WWI right. It is not a subject I know much about, but the article seems to imply that rearmament was set aside after 1909, which is not my impression. ODNB on Churchill says that he became increasingly alarmed about German intentions from 1910, that in response Asquith appointed him First Lord of the Admiralty, where he set about modernising and building new battleships.
It's not that rearmament was set aside, it obviously wasn't, given that they were building the dreadnoughts. It's just that it wasn't a big political issue, with the Lords crisis. The paragraph already leads off with and links the arms race. I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Asquith's cautious handling of his colleagues saw a "slump in resignations."" What does this mean - that ministers were resigning in protest at the prospect of war but the the number of resignations declined?
I've cut that quote. Asquith's success in getting cabinet members to stay is adequately spelled out in the next paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Dardanelles Campaign and the Shell Crisis" I would link these.
Linked as suggested. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Crawford expresses how little he and his senior Unionist colleagues were involved in the key discussions" "expresses" seems an odd word here.
Agreed, and changed. Really appreciate the time you've taken to review and the detailed comments. Look forward to more. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Pop Warner[edit]

Nominator(s): Rybkovich (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the life and coaching career of legendary American college football coach Pop Warner. He is one of the key innovators of modern football strategy. Rybkovich (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments - seems like a shame that no one has gotten to this sooner.

  • The article seems like it's a bit short on details about Pop Warner himself, rather than his football accomplishments. Is there nothing more in the sources?
? Have not found any significant info re his relationships, major events out side of his coaching. But I do think that there is allot about his personality that comes through the context of football events - pleasant, empathetic, drinks, thinks through when it comes to the game, but takes chances outside of it. Rybkovich (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The opening sentence also seems a bit lacking. Warner was obviously a football player and coach, but his legacy has clearly been far more than that. You can't explain all the nuances, but I think it would be good to at least hint at his impact right up front.Yes check.svg Done
  • For the tournament, Warner and the other team members earned $23; although the expected share was $300 per player, $618 and $8,000 today; it was a financial failure. – so they earned $23 instead of the expected $300? This isn't clear, nor is the dollar conversion (23 -> 618 and 300 -> 8000?). Yes check.svg Done
  • Be careful with the blockquotes. I'd be sure to distinguish who Jenkins or Powers are ("historian" or something similar is enough).
? I introduced the writer - name, the kind of writer, the first time the name is used, later just the last name is used prior to the quote. You thik that works? Rybkovich (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • What did he do in retirement? There's a pretty big gap there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thank you very much. Will get back re the issues ASAP. Question: is there anyway to mirror this discussion on to the Pop Warner talk page? Rybkovich (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Is this what you meant? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Exectamundo :) Rybkovich (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
All of those seem in rybkovich's capacity to fix, but I felt I would chime in due to also doing some work on the article. For details about himself, do you mean in say the early years or personal section? Or neither or both. RE: opening sentence, what add "pioneering" or something? Wouldn't count on myself fixing that one. RE: retirement, woodworking is one. Cake (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey MisterCake, I don't really have specifics in mind, but I'd like to know something/anything more about him as a person. Right now I only know his parents, his wife, two vices, and painting, and there's a pretty large gap in his retired years (did he really do nothing in that time?). If there's no sources for his personal life, so be it, but I'd like to make sure that we've done our due diligence. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Pope relays that apple pie with butter was another vice, but I figured it unnecessary with the childhood nickname. As I recall, he painted and had a woodworking garage in his retirement. Pope also mentioned "songwriting". One might add his cursing pre-Carlisle. Cake (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments – Welcome to FAC, Rybkovich and MisterCake! I'm sorry the article hasn't gotten much attention to this point, as this is a major figure in American football. These are my initial thoughts after reading part of the article and making some copy-edits:

  • While I understand that details of Warner's personal life are likely to be somewhat sparse (coaches in the early 1900s probably didn't get major press attention like a Bill Belichick), I do agree with Ed that we should say more about his impact on football in the first few sentences of the lead. If nothing else, you should move the next-to-last sentence of the lead up, as that would help a great deal. Also, it seems to me that Warner introducing the three-point stance is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, as that marked a major change in playing style.Yes check.svg Done
  • Cornell: Since language like "today" is discouraged because it can become outdated easily, I recommend changing all conversions to "in XXXX dollars" or similar language.Yes check.svg Done
  • In the extensive list of books cited, make sure that all of the books have publishers listed. Something like the Howie Long book, for example, should have a publisher available. You'll receive a source review if the FAC goes well, and you might as well take care of such issues now. Yes check.svg Done
  • Reference 161 is a dead link. Try checking the Internet Archive to see if an archived version is available.Yes check.svg Done
  • References with all caps in the titles and publishers – numbers 146, 148–150, and 158 – should have the all caps taken out.Yes check.svg Done
  • I believe the Manual of Style recommends against having multiple sub-sections with the same heading, which occurs with two Cornells: one in the early years part of the article and one for his coaching career. Try changing the first one, since it makes sense to leave the one in the coaching career section the way it is.Yes check.svg Done Does this work?
  • Cornell: Let me get this straight: Warner coached two teams at the same time for several years? That's fascinating, and I recommend we add some more details on this if available. How did this work, in terms of his time commitments? Did the teams' games always take place at different times of the year, or did he have to choose which game to attend in person? Yes check.svg Done (re Iowa state and Georgia). How does the current division of two stints at Cornell and Carlisle work for everyone? Rybkovich (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Back to Carlisle: Non-experts probably won't know what Pitt is at the end. It might also be confusing because the next section is titled Pittsburgh. I'd recommend stretching it out to Pittsburgh here.Yes check.svg Done
  • Pittsburgh: Since the reader isn't going to hear about the Naval Reserves loss/controversy for another few paragraphs, perhaps that part should be omitted from the first paragraph here to avoid possible confusion.Yes check.svg Done

That's all for now. I'll try to come back and read the rest in the near-future, although I'm usually busy in real life and can't offer any promises. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Stanford: "coached by Knute Rockne. Rockne...". Try not to have a name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another, as that isn't great prose. In this instance, you could try saying, "Like Warner, Rockne...", which would create some space between the identical names.
  • "including 1932 Warner's last season at Stanford." Comma needed after the year.
  • Coaching legacy: Another "Today" here; consider mentioning the year in question in the last sentence.
  • Innovation: From my experience at FAC, many of the regular reviewers sometimes don't care for list-like elements when they could be summarized in writing. I fear that the list of innovations here will attract criticism for that reason. See if you can summarize this useful content in prose.
I would disagree with the an official reviewer if that was raised. The section at hand is a reference section, like a column with wins and losses or something like that. It is for quick info access. Some key info will not be obtained because the reader can skip the paragraph and miss the info without her knowledge. Rybkovich (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Note 1: As the coaching record table currently appears to lack a reference, I'd recommend adding cites to the NCAA and College Football Data Warehouse records mentioned here, as they will provide citations for the table at the same time as verifying the note itself.
  • The all caps in the title of reference 8 should be toned down. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:41, 26 November 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)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited the article; please revert as needed.

  • I was going to suggest linking "Palmares" in the infobox to Glossary_of_cycling#P, but I see the meaning given there doesn't quite correspond. (And it's spelled with an "è" there; should it be here?) Is the glossary missing the definition intended here? If so, it would be nice to add it there and put in a link. Not a requirement for FA, though.
I've changed the template ({{Infobox cycling race report}}) to "Results" instead per a recent discussion at WT:CYC about the use of it. BaldBoris 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "each team's roster are introduced": "roster" is singular, so this needs to be either "is introduced" or make it "the members of..."
  • "It was the first time a Grand Départ outside France had been hosted in the same location twice, with other occasion in 2004": suggest: "Liège, which had also hosted the 2004 Grand Départ, became the first city outside France to host the Grand Départ twice."
  • The alt text for the picture of Voeckler and Kessiakoff makes it clear which is which; I think the caption should too.
  • When Wiggins slows down the peloton so that Evans can rejoin it, I think it's worth pointing out that this was an act of sportsmanship. I found a mention of this in John Deering's "Bradley Wiggins: Tour de Force", but you might have a better source.
I added "As an act of sportsmanship" Wiggin then... In the given source it says "a gesture of fairness"?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I've done all suggestions. Thanks for the copyedit; can't believe all those missing words. I'm not sure about the tense changes in the first paragraph of Classification leadership though. I think it should use past tense (see 2015 Vuelta a España#Classification leadership for example). BaldBoris 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I admit I hesitated over that section, and I realize now that I didn't carry it through properly on the next paragraphs. The problem with the past tense is that it makes it sound as though the general classification is no longer calculated that way; that it was a one-time calculation for that year.
Perhaps the right approach would be to start by describing these classifications in the context of the Tour de France generally, not just of this edition? E.g. something like "The 2012 Tour de France included a team competition, and four main individual classifications, which have been standardized on the tour since 19xx. The general classification is calculated by..." This makes the present tense seem more natural. If you don't think that would work, please go ahead and change it back; I'll think about it some more but I agree the way I left it isn't satisfactory.
I'll try to reread the article tomorrow and see if there's anything else to comment on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Although the current classifications haven't disappeared since their introduction, others have come and gone. So, as it is now, it seems like a guide to classifications of the Tour. I think the only way is to say what the situation was in 2012. Also, the other info is in the past tense, so bit muddled. BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The points above are now fine, except of course the issue with the tenses. Reading through again:

  • The pre-race favourites section links every racing team mentioned, even though they've all been linked in the list just above. I see a few other duplinks; Wiggins is linked in the caption for that section and also in the first sentence; the same is true for general classification. Just yesterday I finally figured out how to correctly use Ucucha's duplinks script; you might try that if you don't already have it installed.
Yes, I use it all the time, great tool. As the intro of it says and my interpretation of WP:REPEATLINK is, a repeated link is fine outside of the prose. I intentionally linked the classifications as the section is pretty much link-free (compared with the pre-race favourites) and of the three paragraphs only only one has another link. So in my opinion they're helping the reader, rather than doing harm. The pre-race favourites section is a bit too blue for my liking, so I suppose unlinking the teams after the list is a fair point? BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I do think those should be unlinked. Your justification for the other links seems OK to me; I wouldn't do it that way myself, but I think that's within editorial discretion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
So unlink all teams after the list? BaldBoris 00:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Nibali had shown his form in the lead-up to the Tour by winning Tirreno–Adriatico stage race": presumably missing "a" or "the"?
  • More about tenses: I see you're using "would not have" for discussing the race in the context of the pre-race situation -- e.g. "Cavendish ... would not have the full support of Team Sky". I can see why, but is this usual? I glanced at a couple of the Giro d'Italia FAs, one of which I remember reviewing at FAC, and it looks like the "would have" language is used when reporting opinion at the time, and simple past is used when directly reporting the state of affairs, rather than attributing an opinion. So I think you could make this "but he did not have". I also noticed that for the next rider discussed, Greipel, you have "who had the full backing of his team".
The "would have" is just my bad. Cavendish was at that moment the top sprinter and he was used to having almost an entire team dedicated the him winning stages via bunch sprints (as is the same with a couple of the top sprinters) at previous Tours. He was unlucky that when he joined Team Sky in 2012 they had a potential Tour winner in Wiggins; Cavendish only lasted one season at Sky. I have changed it to "did not have the full support of Team Sky as he did in the 2011 Tour with the HTC–Highroad team;". BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
That does it -- it was just the tense. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "As the peloton (the main group) passed the Mur de Péguère, the race was sabotaged as a large number of riders had suffered tyre punctures from carpet tacks": might be better to rephrase it to reflect that it the punctures occurred before it was realized the race had been sabotaged. (And why "had suffered" rather than "suffered"?) Perhaps "As the peloton (the main group) passed the Mur de Péguère, a large number of riders suffered tyre punctures; it was later [or soon] discovered that the race had been sabotaged by placing carpet tacks on the course".
  • "Schleck quit the race after traces of xipamide, a banned sulfonamide diuretic drug, were found in the A-sample of his urine, and was later confirmed by the B-sample": I assume he quit before the B-sample was tested, so I'd make this "...f his urine; the presence of xipamide was later confirmed..."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

All done, with replies. BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I changed the refs in the doping section for more reliable ones, changed that Schleck quit to his team withdrew him and also added his ban. Nothing major but worth a look. BaldBoris 22:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the problematic tense changes, but I think more tweaking is needed. For example: "If a crash happened within the final 3 km (1.9 mi) of a stage, not including time trials and summit finishes, the riders involved received the same time as the group they were in when the crash occurred". The second half ought to be subjunctive, because of the "if", but it would have to be something like "If a crash had happened within the final 3 km (1.9 mi) of a stage, not including time trials and summit finishes, the riders involved would have received the same time as the group they were in when the crash occurred". Then does the "time bonuses" sentence refer to this process?
I adjusted the previous sentence using the Vuelta and used your suggestion. The sentence about there being no time bonuses is not to with it and is really just a note, as it changes year to year (time bonuses were included this year). I switched them around to avoid confusion. BaldBoris 00:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The "coefficient" ranking scale: does "coefficient" need to be in quotes? Is it that way in the source? Also, can we say how many points were associated with each stage classification?
I used the quote initially in 2015 Tour de France because as this did. The table in the race regulations has the title "Coefficients for each stage". To me it reads oddly, so I wasn't really sure. Shall I drop the quotes of change it to coefficiency? It may be a like the combativity award, in that it's an awkward translation. BaldBoris 00:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Things are getting a bit fragmented above (my fault), so after looking at your responses above, here's what's left.

  • Yes, I would eliminate those team links after the list.
  • Having read the link you provided I think the quotes around "coefficient" are a form of scare quote -- perhaps the writer thought it was a word many readers wouldn't know. I'd drop the quotes. I see the details of exactly how many points are awarded to each rider are pretty complicated, but this is the article about the race, so I'd go ahead and put those details in -- perhaps in a table directly below, or even attached to, the stage classification table? I must admit I'd assumed the mountain stages would award the most points, so I was surprised.
I've changed the coefficient table for one that shows how many points for the points classification. Yes, it's very complicated, as can be seen on page 37 in the race regulations. The points classification is for sprinters that can't climb mountains, so awards the most in the flat stages. I've added more to the mountains classification, which ideally should have it's own table. BaldBoris 21:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

-- I really think that's everything now. I'll read through one last time after you make those fixes, and I expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I like the new table, but I have a question. Looking at page 13 of the source, there appear to be six coefficients; you only list five. I noticed this because I was going to add a "Stages" column, listing the stages for each coefficient, and I was going to get the data from that table in the source. Then I also noticed that this page says "9 flat stages 4 medium mountain stages - one with a summit finish, 5 mountain stages - two with a summit finish, 2 individual time-trial stages" which I can't match to the table in the source either -- which are the five mountain stages, for example? Perhaps if my French were better I'd be able to figure this out, but I'm hoping you know the answer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, I've not fully understood it myself. The coefficient scale is for deciding degree of difficulty of a stage, which is then used for calculating the the cut-off time and type of each stage. Some coefficients overlap, so medium-mountain stages can have a coefficient of 3 or 4, and mountain stages can have a coefficient of 3, 4 or 5. Regardless, they've chosen the stage types. I've now completely removed coefficient to make things easier for the reader. BaldBoris 21:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You probably already knew this, but I just realized that the PDF from the Tour site has an English translation as the second half of the document. I just used that to fix the second row in the table, which I think you miscopied; you may want to check I got it right. I agree that dropping the word "coefficient" is a good idea. The English source says "High mountain" for the row you've labeled "Mountain stage"; what would you think of making that "High mountain stage"? And there's no hyphen in "Medium mountain" in the source, so we should drop that. And can we add a column showing (for the first four rows) which stages fit which description? Interestingly there appears to be a typo in the English translation -- it says coefficient 3 is both "medium mountain" and "high mountain", but the French version only lists it as "medium mountain". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I have used the same stage type wording that is used for all the modern cycling races articles on Wikipedia, including the 2015 Vuelta a España (which is organised by the same company). I'm not sure why people have medium-mountain used here? I don't really have a problem with it, just don't like inconsistency. The official route page is even different from the regulations; it uses "hilly" and "mountain". In fact they are usually never as they are officially described. The stage type for Wiki just gets decide by lots of users while the race is going on, then sticks. It's all a bit of a mess really. BaldBoris 01:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Race stage#Medium mountain stages may give you an idea as to why there's all the confusion. BaldBoris 01:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. The last edits fixed the points I was querying above. I think this article is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the great comments Mike! All the best. BaldBoris 23:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "twenty-one", "eighteen", 35, 31, 12: consistency is needed. Spell out everything under some cutoff, and write everything as a numeral above the cutoff (subject to the exceptions at WP:NUMERAL).
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 26 November 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)
Due to recent change to Wikipedia's formatting/settings, I no longer find it convenient to edit (or even view) Wikipedia. Sorry. (See here for details.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mirokado[edit]

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)

Comments by Doc James[edit]

Not yet The lead is simply too complicated. This article is not written for a general audience, not even the lead. Additionally we see very large quotes remaining in the reference section. These need to be shortened significantly. Happy to see references remain in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: I don't really have a clue as to what you think is too complicated, so can you make some edits or propose some changes so that I can follow up and address this? I'll work on pruning some of the quotes sometime this coming week. Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is a suggestion for the first sentence of the lead that is drop dead simple:
  • β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid (HMB), also known as β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (hydroxymethylbutyrate, HMB), is a substance naturally produced in humans that is also used as nutritional supplement.
Some of the remaining details in the lead (e.g., mechanism) could also be shortened and simplified. I will work on this once I have a spare moment. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I've made edits to the lead sentence per your suggestion (special:diff/745972720/746194240). Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Boghog: Do you think the following highlighted clause should be deleted?

HMB produces these effects in part by stimulating myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis and inhibiting muscle protein breakdown through various mechanisms, including activation of mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and inhibition of proteasome-mediated proteolysis in skeletal muscles.

It's the most technical statement in the lead. I only added it to give credence to the preceding clause in that sentence. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: I'm going to prune any lengthy reference quotes that make statements that are unrelated to the compound's pharmacology a little later today. Would it be alright with you if I left in the reference quotes that cover some of the more involved pharmacological information until after someone does a review of the pharmacology section? I think it would make it a lot easier on a pharmacology/molecular biology reviewer if those quotes are left in until after they've finished doing their review. I've made a request at WT:PHARM and WT:MCB for someone to take on a review of this section to try to attract a reviewer for this section since that's the only part of the article that hasn't been thoroughly reviewed by someone with a relevant background. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure sounds good. Ping me when you are done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: I've censored and/or deleted parts of several reference quotes: Special:diff/746211222/746327967.
Based upon the text in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Medical which is cited by the current reference #16, what sentences do you think should be pruned from its quote? I can't really decide. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
We want the quote to be enough to guide those looking at it to were in the source the content is supported. We do not want the quotes to be a replacement for the source and that is what might cause us problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
[8] How's that? Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: Are you ok with the current reference quotes that don't include any pharmacology information? I'm going to censor most of the pharmacology-related paragraph-long quotes after that section is reviewed. I intend to censor most of the pharmacology-related statements in the reference quotes that currently contain both medical claims and pharmacology-related statements after the pharmacology section is reviewed. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by John[edit]

I still oppose on prose; there are three instances of "United States and/or internationally", which is very clumsy and does not belong in a FA. There will be other infelicities as well. I will take a proper look later today, but I am not pleased that this sort of thing has not yet been addressed. --John (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In relation to athletic organization bans, the reason that those two sentences were written in that manner is that the phrase "in the United States and internationally" is the absolute most that could be attributed directly to the refs; the United States was the only country which the refs mentioned when discussing national athletic organizations that have not banned HMB use in competitive sports. However, since you feel that the sentences are really poorly worded, I've revised it to a statement that could be potentially be inferred from the refs: As of 2015, HMB has not been banned by the NCAA, WADA, or any other prominent national or international athletic organization. It should be noted that none of the refs state that no national organization outside the US has banned HMB; however, given that no national organization with an HMB ban has been reported in any of the refs and given the blanket statements about the lack of a ban internationally, I figure it's not really a stretch to make this inference.
As for the third clause, "HMB is available in the United States and internationally...", I've deleted it and made it consistent with the wording used in the lead ("HMB is sold worldwide...").
These edits are the changes that I made. If you'd prefer that these sentences be phrased differently, please let me know or feel free to change them yourself. Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@John: I'm working with Doc James to simplify the lead at the moment, so if you've got time to go through the prose this week, it'd probably be best to start on the body first and then go through the lead once you've finished reviewing that part. On a related note, did my edits in this diff address the concerns that you noted above? Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@John: I think the lead has been simplified to Doc James' satisfaction, based upon our dialogue on the article talk page. Feel free to review the lead at your leisure. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Graeme Bartlett[edit]

I am going to go through this with a fine tooth comb looking for misspelling, funny characters, nonstandard use, and referencing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  1. Firstly there are three uses of "∼" instead of "~". The first fails to render on my terminal, showing as a hollow rectangle, So this should be changed to "~".
  2. † is explained in note 8, but perhaps the explanation could be placed directly under the "Abnormal HMB concentrations measured in disease states" table.
    adding the explanation in the bottom cell as you suggest is a good idea. I like that.
  3. There do seem to be a lot of unneeded quotes in the references. Some of this such as ref1 also include footnote numbers. But are they foot notes from this article, or the ereferece? If the latter I think we should remove them as adding to confusion.
    Replacing quoted footnotes with ... is certainly better than having them there. Though I think they can be safely omitted too.
  4. Should "a-KIC" read "α-KIC"?
  5. We should be using full journal titles rather than abbreviations
    I feel strongly about this, as although specialists will know what those journal titles mean, other academics or average readers will not know. Putting the full title will make that clear, and easier to look up in a library catalog. First use of journal names can also be linked to the article about the journal.
  6. Despite the title being "beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid", this is never used in the body of the text at all, instead it switches to using β. This is a bit inconsistent.
  7. Some sources use "β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyric acid" with an extra "-" before the second "β".
  8. calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate is mentioned as abbreviating to "HMB-Ca", but references call this "CaHMB" or "Ca-HMB", so those two could be listed in parenthesis too.
  9. Do people really use units like "μmol/mmol" for ratios?
  10. In the Wilkinson DJ, Hossain T, quote there is non-formatted ml−1 which is weird without superscript. However I think the quoting is not needed.


@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for taking on a review of this nomination! I really appreciate it.
I changed your bulleted list to a numbered list so that I could respond to each item in a more straightforward manner. I hope that this is okay with you. If not, feel free to convert the list back to a bulleted one.
  1. I've replaced all the instances of the former tilde ("∼") with the latter ("~"), per your justification. Diff of changes.
  2. Do you mean that it should be placed in a table cell that acts like a footer, analogous to the bottom table cell in Fluoxetine#Pharmacology where the explanation of the meaning of the tan-colored cells is placed? I could do that pretty easily if that's what you had in mind; just let me know.
    I've moved the content from the note to a table footer cell. This is what the table looks like now: Special:Permalink/747877200#Detection in body fluids. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Please let me know if you'd like me to make any cosmetic changes to this table footer cell or implement it differently; I'm open to revising this in the event that you're not satisfied. Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. As I noted above in Doc James' section, most of the references are going to be pruned down once someone reviews the pharmacology-related article content; the pharmacology content is very technical and involved, so I figure that even someone who is knowledgeable in pharmacology and/or molecular and cell biology will benefit a lot if all of the relevant statements and contextual information from the cited references that supports the pharmacology-related article content are clearly indicated within the quote parameter. Once this content has been reviewed, the lengthy citation quotes that contain pharmacology-related information will be censored – this includes all but 1 citation that currently includes a quote of more than 3 sentences.

    In regard to the citation footnotes within quotations (e.g., the superscripted numbers in the quote of the article's 1st reference), those refer to the citations that are cited by the quoted reference, not the references cited in this article. I could omit those footnotes from the quote; however, in order to keep the quotations correctly formatted and ensure that they conform to MOS:QUOTE and MOS:ELLIPSIS, I'd have to replace almost every quoted footnote with a nonbreaking space followed by an ellipsis (i.e., &nbsp;... - this renders as " ..."). If one of the quotes ends at a footnote, then I wouldn't have to follow this convention; but, whenever a quote continues past the footnote, I'd need to make this replacement since I'd be omitting material from the quoted text (MOS:QUOTE states "Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text). Would you prefer that I replace the footnotes with ellipses?
    Alright, I'll go through and replace footnotes within quotations with ellipses where appropriate sometime tonight or tomorrow and follow up here when I'm done. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I've removed the superscripted references in all reference quotes. Diff of changes. Did you want me to do the same with bracketed (e.g., a quote like "Random statement.[4]") and unbracketed, non-superscripted references (e.g., a quote like "Random statement.4")?
    • As an alternative to removing all of the superscripted (and possibly all other) references cited within the quoted references, would you be alright with me including references within quotes if all of them are hyperlinked to the article which the reference cited? That should remove any confusion for the reader about what source a quoted reference refers to (important to you) and indicate to the reader that a particular statement is supported by evidence (important to me). I prefer this solution; however, if you don't think this is a suitable compromise, I'm still willing to remove all other quoted references. Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  4. In the article text, all abbreviated terms that refer to alpha-ketoisocaproate should be written as "α-KIC" instead of "a-KIC" for consistency and compliance with MOS:ABBR. In the citation quotes and elsewhere, this need not be the case since the use of "α-KIC" vs "a-KIC" is merely a matter of the author's personal preference.
    I've replaced "a-KIC" with "[α-KIC]" in the quotes since this is an appropriate substitution and conforms to MOS:BRACKET. Diff of changes. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Is this solution okay with you, or would you prefer a different approach? Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  5. I don't mind converting the journal titles to the full title format, although the current references are all consistent with Pubmed's abbreviated journal title format at the moment. The only reason that I chose to use the abbreviated format is that it's currently pubmed's standardized format for journal titles (e.g., this pubmed abstract lists "Pharmacol Res." instead of "Pharmacological research" as the journal title and this pubmed abstract lists "J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr" instead of "Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition" as the journal title). If you feel strongly about using the full title instead of the abbreviated format, I am willing to change this though. Just let me know if so.
    Okay, I'll convert the journal titles from the abbreviated format to the full format tomorrow. I'll follow up here when I'm done. Addressed by Boghog. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC); Updated 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  6. The main reason why I'm inclined to use the expanded term "beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid" in the title is that most keyboards containing the English alphabet don't include a key for β and I imagine that most people don't know how to produce that character using keyboard shortcuts. Consequently, most readers on the English Wikipedia would probably find it difficult to write out and search for an article titled "β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid". Since the lowercase Greek beta is a very common symbol, I imagine that almost everyone who arrives at the article knows what it means; consequently, I don't think that "β" ≝ "lowercase beta" needs to be stated in the article either. Nonetheless, if you feel strongly about changing the title or article text so that they're consistent, I'm open to changing the article to address this issue though.
  7. I'm aware of this. Most sources that mention HMB discuss the conjugate base and some of those include a hyphen (this is written as "β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate"); some sources also omit the hyphen when referring to the acid and/or base. There isn't a "correct" format for hyphenating the term and the use of a hyphen there really only depends upon the author's personal preference.
  8. HMB-Ca, CaHMB, and Ca-HMB aren't really that notable as alternative names of "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate"; all three are just unofficial/nonstandardized abbreviations which various authors used as shorter synonyms to refer to the compound in their publications. The only reason any of those is included in our article is that "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate" is an excessively long term and, like the authors who used those abbreviations, I needed a shorter way to refer to that compound, especially in the drugbox. I'm not opposed to using CaHMB or Ca-HMB in the article, but I'd prefer to only list 1 of the 3 terms because they're just abbreviations. Since "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate" has other more notable alternate names besides those abbreviations, I think that listing only the abbreviations without mentioning any of the other alt names would be problematic.
  9. "μmol/mmol creatinine" is a standardized unit for urinary concentrations in the Human Metabolome Database; this entry in that database cited those units and the rest of the associated row entries in that table. Based upon a quick search of that term in quotes on google scholar [9] (970 results) and google search [10] (5600 results), "μmol/mmol creatinine" appears to be a fairly common unit of measurement in other publications for referring to the concentration of a substance in urine as well.
  10. Thanks for catching this. I've superscripted the −1 in both places where it was used in the quote: diff of changes. As mentioned above, I intend to censor that quote once the pharmacology section is reviewed by an editor from WP:PHARM or WP:MCB.
Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


I have indented some of my responses above, as well as introducing a couple of other things below. I have struck off my points that are addressed satisfactorily. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

11. The history section fails to say who discovered or first made the acid. From references I can see it was made in 1958, but the article does not tell us.

12. If any of the authors of references are notable then author-link can be used to give them a blue link. (I have not check that yet to see if there are any) (I will check references carefully for fullness and correctness later) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. Yes check.svg Done Full journal names are now used throughout. Boghog (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. Thanks for suggestion for expanding the history section. I cannot find any secondary sources that specifically state who first discovered or made this substance, but the earliest HMB synthetic citation in Reaxys which is based on the Beilstein database is to a paper in 1877 by Alexander Zaytsev. I have added that citation to the article as well as later citations to what appears the first isolation from a natural source in 1941 and the first isolation as a human metabolite in 1968 (also from Reaxys searches). (When it comes to early organic chemistry, if it is not listed in Beilstein, it probably never happened.) I hope this is sufficient.
  2. I have added author-links to Alexander Zaytsev and Leopold Ružička in two citations. Boghog (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Boghog. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
My bad for not following up sooner; I've been busier than expected off-wiki during the past few days. I should have some time tomorrow to make the changes that I indicated above though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Sorry for my long-delayed action on my proposed changes. My responses above from today on issues #2–4 are further indented and bulleted. I've removed the superscripted quoted references that you pointed out from the article; I'm willing to remove all non-superscripted quoted references as well if you'd prefer this. I also proposed an alternative solution which I think should be mutually satisfying.
With respect to your concerns in #6–8, can you give me some guidance as to what you'd like me to change in the article? I'm not really sure what the particular issue or desired solution is in those cases. Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: I'd be happy to address these and any other issues you find with the article; I still need a little more feedback to act on the remaining issues though. If any of my responses/revisions weren't to your liking, please let me know and I'll attempt to resolve the issue. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
For β versus beta, it probably just needs a note in the lead. 99% of readers will know it, but the few will be informed. For HMB-Ca, CaHMB, and Ca-HMB, listing the two most distinct ones in parenthesis should do (HMB-Ca, CaHMB). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I also did check references, but found no information missing, so I suppose that deserves a "well done". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: How's this? Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Good solution, 6 and 7 considered sorted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by CFCF[edit]

Comments before looking into sources:

  1. Infobox includes US & UN status, is there any EU, AU, JP or other status that could go here as well?
  2. From lede: "Supplemental HMB is also used by athletes to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size, muscle strength, and lean body mass, reduce exercise-induced skeletal muscle damage, and speed recovery from high-intensity exercise."
    How well does it work? What type of study examined this, how strong is the evidence?
  3. Same as above, but for the body, I want more information on the quality of the studies and whether the effect is great or barely significant.
    1. Did they compare to placebo, BCAA or Leucine?
  4. Who funded these studies? HMB-supplementation is controversial, and it is known that a number of studies are funded by the manufacturers.
  5. Are there meta-analyses? If no, why not? Did anyone suggest there is need for further analysis to say whether the effect is significant.
  6. From lede: "Small amounts of HMB are present in certain foods, such as alfalfa, asparagus, avocados, cauliflower, grapefruit, catfish, and milk." — but it also says " substance that is naturally produced in humans and used as nutritional supplement." Does that mean it's supplemented to alfalfa, asparagus etc. or is it naturally produced outside of humans as well?
  7. From lede:"As of 2015, HMB has not been banned by the [...]", this would sound better as "is allowed".
  8. The NCAA college students study, was it American?
  9. From lede: "Since only a small fraction of l-leucine is metabolized into HMB, pharmacologically active concentrations of the compound in blood and muscle can only be achieved by supplementing HMB directly. A healthy adult produces approximately 0.3 grams per day, while supplemental HMB is usually taken in doses of 3–6 grams per day." — Seems to imply there is a correlation between supplemented dose and blood concentrations — but not at what level. Supplemental doses could be at 3-6 grams with 0% absorbed and do nothing.

More comments later. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. I haven't come across any references that make a statement about HMB's regulatory status in those countries.
  2. There's 5 medical claims in that sentence; the effects on size and strength aren't covered in any more detail in the article. Lean mass changes in athletes aren't covered in the article, but the effect size from a meta-analysis on changes in lean mass in elderly subjects is covered in a note in the medical section. The inhibitory effects on exercise-induced muscle damage, as measured by changes in muscle damage biomarkers, is mentioned in a note in the sentence in the body; the capacity for it to speed recovery from high intensity exercise is essentially just a consequence of its inhibitory effect on muscle damage; it tends to decrease soreness when used at an appropriate time prior to high-intensity exercise.
    I'm waiting for this systematic review to be published before adding more detail about the HMB treatment effect sizes for muscle strength, muscle size, and lean mass in athletes - effect sizes for some of these vary by the training status and presumably also vary by the age of the individual.
    All of this information comes from reviews of blinded RCTs.
  3. Re-above. I intend to update the body and lead when that systematic review is published.
  4. Metabolic Technologies, which holds HMB patents and licenses the right to manufacture it, has funded only around 10 HMB studies, based upon [11]. Around 60 clinical trials have been conducted with HMB in humans. "HMB-supplementation is controversial" - I haven't come across a reliable source that makes an assertion like this; I don't know what you're basing that statement on.
  5. There are meta-analyses. There are two current meta-analyses which examine its clinical effects in sarcopenia/muscle wasting. All the other meta-analyses, some of which examined the effect sizes in athletes, are outside WP:MEDDATE. IIRC the most recent of those is 7 years old. None of the sources that are cited in the article, which includes almost every MEDRS-quality review on the subject, assert that any of those 5 effects is equivocal. Certain sources, such as [12], mentioned other performance-enhancing effects (e.g., aerobic performance) that were found in a small number of clinical trials, but which do require more research to verify. I didn't mention those effects in the article.
  6. It's naturally produced in plants and animals.
  7. I agree that it would improve the language; however, the NCAA and WADA don't white-list or endorse substances, so it technically wouldn't be accurate.
  8. IIRC, yes.
  9. I haven't come across a source that explicitly mentions the absolute bioavailability for oral administration. One can easily find the relevant information on blood concentrations in the detection in body fluids section though; based upon the data there, oral administration of 3 grams of HMB-FA increases the plasma concentration of HMB by ~100-fold above basal levels at Tmax.
Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@CFCF: is there anything in particular that you'd like me to add to or change in the article? For the most part, I'm not really sure what you'd like to see revised in the article (excluding the coverage of effect sizes - I'm still waiting on that systematic review to be published). FWIW, the sentence on the NCAA study (you mentioned this in #8) was revised to indicate that the sampled population was American student athletes; I'm not sure if that was an issue for you though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:49, 14 November 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)
  • Then should it be reuploaded as Fair Use? Kges1901 (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, assuming no free image can be found. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The only source I can think of for a free image we can prove was published before 1943 are probably Soviet newspapers like Pravda, Isvestiya, and Krasnaya Zvezda. Kges1901 (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments, leaning oppose for now -- recusing from my coord duties to review...

  • I have to admit the article seems a bit thin to me for a general's career, even one who died relatively young. For example it seems he did very little between the dates of 1923 and 1932.
  • The lack of detail also makes for awkward prose in places, e.g. "He graduated from the Transcaucasian Political School." -- this sentence just sits there, do we really have no idea when this took place?
  • I'm also confused about all he did in 1937: "...serving as a battalion commander in Dmitry Pavlov's tank brigade from October 1936 to June 1937. [...] Returning to the Soviet Union, he held appointments as a battalion commander and then as a tank brigade commander. In 1937, he became commander of a tank division. In June of that year, he became commander of the 5th Mechanized Corps." This seems to be telling me that in the one year (1937) he commanded two different battalions, a tank brigade, a tank division, and a mechanised corps -- is that really possible?
  • I stopped there as far as the main body went. On a more prosaic matter, I share Rupert's concerns with the decorative icons in the infobox: regardless of what might be done in other articles, the Hero of the Soviet Union and Order of Lenin decorations should just be spelt out and linked, like the Order of the Red Star -- apart from anything else, using icons for some awards and words for another is inconsistent.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I found his graduation date and removed the icons in the infobox. As for what he did in 1937, the sources differ.
    • Parrish: command of tank battalion in Spain, division, 5th Mechanized Corps
    • Vozhakin: command of tank battalion in Spain, battalion (after return to Soviet Union), brigade, division
    • Drig: command of tank battalion in Spain, battalion (after return to Soviet Union), brigade, 5th Mechanized Corps
  • Tank/Motorized divisions did not exist in the Red Army until 1940 (per Drig), so if he commanded a division it would be from another branch.Kges1901 (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I must say, I felt as Ian Rose does when I flicked through it on 15 October. Tony (talk) 12:32, 12 November 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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Abraham.jpg 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)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

A couple of minor points:

  • "The term aptronym is thought to have been coined in the early 20th century by the American newspaper columnist Franklin P. Adams. Linguist Frank Nuessel coined aptonym in 1992." I don't think you can have both these sentences without comment, even if the comment is only to point out that the sources contradict each other.
Thanks Mike for taking the time to comment. Would something like this work better for you: "Linguist Frank Nuessel coined aptonym, without an 'r', in 1992"? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Oops. Didn't realize they were the same spelling! Yes, that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I love Car Talk and can see why you include it (personal favourite: costume designer Natalie Drest), but since there's no secondary source citing it I'm afraid I think it should go. Otherwise what's to stop some other editor from adding every humorous show that ever makes a similar pun?
I think I did come across a secondary source. Let me see if I can find it again.Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I can only find blogs that mention nominative determinism and Car Talk at the same time. I, regretfully, have removed all Car Talk reference, including the photo. I shall continue my search for a reputable source in the hope to be able to restore it. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You removed the Car Talk note but the source is still in the source list; I assume that can go. I think that's everything from me. I see Dudley raised an interesting point below; I'll wait till that's addressed but expect to support assuming that gets sorted out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Oops. Fixed now. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. I made a few final copyedits; please revert if you disagree with any of the changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • This is an interesting article, and I have only so far looked at the lead and background section, but I have some doubts about it.
  • The first comment I checked is not in the source cited. "In England it was not until after the Norman conquest that surnames were added. Surnames became useful when one name no longer uniquely identified a person, for example if there were too many Williams or Robins in one area.". This explanation looks wrong as people are often difficult to identify in Anglo-Saxon England because so many have the same name, so names did not uniquely identify one person even before the introduction of surnames. I therefore checked the source cited, Weekley, 1914, p. 2. There is nothing there to support the text.
Thanks Dudley for commenting. Good spot for the reference mismatch. All the sources were there, but I have added a reference now for each sentence. The Weekley p.2 source is for the four types of surname. The Weekley p.68 is for no surnames before Norman conquest. The Fowler p.11 for surnames as a way to disambiguate people. As for your view that the explanation is wrong, sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow you. Before the Norman conquest, people had one name only. In urban areas this probably did not uniquely identify people, thus leading to the need for surnames. I've removed the example with "too many Williams and Robins" as maybe you interpret them as surnames.
I was querying the relevance of "Surnames became useful when one name no longer uniquely identified a person" as an explanation of the introduction of surnames after the Norman Conquest. One name did not uniquely identify a person before the Conquest, and this causes problems when historians want to identify witnesses to charters, but in texts such as Asser's Life of King Alfred, people are distinguished by means such as giving their title and where they are from. I do not have access to Fowler, but I should be surprised if he said that there was ever a time when a single name was enough to uniquely identify someone. Surnames do not uniquely identify people (e.g. sons often had the same forename as their fathers), but they do identify which family an individual belongs to, and it would be interesting to know whether that is why they gradually increased in popularity. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I see. I can make this more clear and try to find more sources. I don't think any source is saying that surnames solved all identification problems, just that they reduced them, so I should make that more clear. Here is what Fowler says on page 11: "The need to disambiguate reference supposedly led to the development of fuller names with a particularizing addition: among many Edmunds, Edmund Ironside would stand out, and among Swein, Swein Forkbeard. With the higher population densities of towns and eventually cities it took more than a single name or patronymic to specify individuals." I will try to find more sources that talk about how and why surnames gradually increased in popularity. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Fowler is an authority on Anglo-Saxon history, and he qualified his view with the word "supposedly". He does not seem to be aware that Anglo-Saxon charters were commonly witnessed by several rural thegns with the same name. It may be, as you say, that surnames made it easier to distinguish people (although in that case it is puzzling that sons often had the same forename as their fathers), or it may be that they were adopted to show which family people belonged to, or it may be just that the Normans were importing a Norman or French custom. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Since the article doesn't need it, I've simply removed the statement about surnames disambiguating reference. It now just states that surnames were introduced after the Norman conquest. I hope that resolves the issue.Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Much of the background section discusses people being named after their occupation, a very different case from people adopting an occupation which reflects their name, but this is not spelled out in the discussion. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this section is just the lead up to how names come about in the first place. The next section deals with the main topic of the article, people gravitating. I think that generally the Background section is meant to set the scene. Would you like an opening sentence of the Background section spelling this out? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that would be helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Something like this perhaps? "Before people could gravitate towards areas of work that matched their name, many people were given names that matched their area of work. The way people are named has changed over time." Edwininlondon (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Further comments.
  • "theory of synchronicity (a meaningful but acausal falling together of events):" This does not make sense until you look at synchronicity and see that it is connected with Jung's belief in the paranormal. Maybe it would be better to use the definition in the synchronicity article, "no causal relationship yet seem to be meaningfully related".
I'm not sure it is possible to explain fully in one sentence what synchronicity is, but here's my best effort : "(events without causal relationship that yet seem to be meaningfully related)"? Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "an affection for objects and concepts that are chronically associated with the self, such as their name" I don't think "chronically" is the right word. The dictionary connects it with disease or expressions of disapproval.
Pelham et al use chronically in their definition, but I've removed the adverb altogether. "concepts that are associated with the self" still works. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Mallenbaum, Carly (3 November 2014). This is listed as a source but not used.
Ah, I just removed all Car Talk content as per request from reviewer Mike. Forgot to remove this. Done
  • A first rate article, but I would like to see better evidence that surnames were introduced to disambiguate people. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the controversial statement altogether. If I ever find a better source than Fowler and a clear explanation about why surnames came about, I shall include it as a footnote. The article as a whole is not dependent on it. Thank you for calling it first-rate. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments from Cas Liber taking a look now....
Not fond of isolated sentences - could the last sentence of the lead slot onto one of the previous paras? As para 1 is about definition my thinking is it could go there ok.
There are alot of "surnames" in para 1 of the Background section - if any can be trimmed without losing meaning I think it'd be a Good Thing...

Other than that, can't see anything else to complain about...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 5 December 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)
  • Something is amiss about the tone of this article. Post a message at WP:CBBALL or WP:BBALL. I think it is being reviewed by non-basketball folks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    TonyTheTiger - I will get to your other comments later, but could you please elaborate on the issue with the tone of this article? TempleM (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    TonyTheTiger - I have addressed all of your comments other than the one concerning tone. I will see what I (and other editors) can do about that once you elaborate. TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have never seen an enumeration of interested schools, but not a list of scholarship offers. Typically, the RS list the leading schools who have offered.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • You need to swap in {{cbb link}} for every team so that if the team-season article is created a bot will swap it in.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, "first career triumph" should be "first career start".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I would also change "one of five" to "the fifth".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Use team season articles where appropriate such as 2006–07 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team or 2007–08 Villanova Wildcats men's basketball team.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Change "Valley Vipers" to "Vipers".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove WP:NPOV terms like measly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • TonyTheTiger I have addressed all of our concerns. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done, or if I missed something while addressing your concerns. TempleM (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have never heard the phrase "assuming fairness". No need to pipe that link. Just say poor sportsmanship.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "which found new ownership" --> "under new ownership"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • link captain.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Nix " The Hurricanes were unable to rally from a 15-point deficit to start the fourth quarter."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • TonyTheTiger - Everything you brought up has been fixed. Anything else? TempleM (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • TonyTheTiger - Just pinging in case you didn't see my previous reply. Is there anything else wrong with the article? Otherwise, please "Support" or "Oppose" the nomination. Thank you. TempleM (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • At this point, I Oppose because the article has too many phrases that don't use lingo that I am familiar with ("enter the Vipers' roster", "cut off from the roster", and ""he reunited with the Erie BayHawks"). I don't really want to spend the time going through each paragraph pointing out odd phrasing. I think there remain some unnecessary details as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Just a comment here. I've got no skin in this game, but the above comment puzzles me. What you've said is that is uses phrases that you haven't encountered before. I'm assuming that you mean that you feel that the prose is inconsistent with other basketball articles? Because the simplest interpretation of your criticism (the first) does not seem like a legitimate or actionable issue. I'm sure everyone including the eventual reviewer would appreciate a little more clarity. Thanks. Scribolt (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
      • The article uses lingo that is puzzling to anyone who follows the sport of basketball. I have been reading sports pages in the United States for about 45 years. I have tried to offer corrections to a few phrases above, but I don't feel I should have to revise every other sentence. The authors need to get a WP:PR from someone who knows basketball lingo or encyclopedic tone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
        • TonyTheTiger I agree with some of what you are saying. There are many places where the wording seems strange for a reader who is interested in basketball. However, I think that isn't a fair basis to "oppose" this candidate on. I have also spent a lot of time working with basketball player biographies, and some (but not all) of the phrases you pointed out seem fine to me. What I am saying is that on Wikipedia, people's writing styles tend to vary. I respect your opinion and the help you provided so far, but not following a certain method should not warrant a flat-out "oppose." I will definitely go through the article again and find any weird phrases, but I strongly encourage you to reconsider your "oppose" or leave more comments until you are comfortable with doing so. TempleM (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
        • TonyTheTiger Scribolt Editorofthewiki Nairspecht: Is anyone willing to comment on this, because it's been a while since I left my last reply? TempleM (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, for what it's worth I agree with you, but I'm the first to admit I am not an expert on FA criteria. Is it readable? Yes. Is it clear? Yes. Is it comprehensive? Well, others here have asked the obvious questions and tracked down additional details. I'm not sure whether you can have 'encyclopedic tone' and use 'basketball lingo' from the sports pages simultaneously. I don't know what the next steps are in absence of more input from Tony. Scribolt (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
          • I would advise a WP:PR with someone who knows the proper encyclopedic tone for sports content. There are many WP:FA articles that use common basketball lingo and encyclopedic tone. This article is does not do both.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

Comments – Ian Rose asked me to have a look at this article, since there were varying opinions here, and this is what I found:

  • "soon after which he joined the BayHawks." To me, this would read cleaner as "and joined the BayHawks soon after."
  • Remove "the" from "led the NCAA Division I"?
  • Early life: The spaced em dashes should be made unspaced (or be converted to en dashes) per the MoS.
  • Freshman: "by adding one point and two assists in 14 minutes against Bowling Green." In this instance, I see Tony's point about odd-sounding language. How about "by scoring one point and recording (maybe find a better word?) two assists"? On the positive side, I'm not having too much trouble reading the rest of the basketball material.
  • How could December 6 have been his first game if he played on November 20?
  • Remove second "the" from "the third-best in the Conference USA"? Also consider doing the same in the next section, and removing the duplicate wikilink.
  • Junior: Bradley is another repeated link that should be removed. It might be worth checking the rest of the article for any more of these duplicate links.
    • I still see the link here. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Senior: "and frequently appeared on the Blue Demons' starting lineup." "on" → "in".
  • The first four words of "as a point guard he scored a season-best 12 points..." are throwing the structure of the sentence off for me. I don't see why this needs mentioning, since we already know that he plays at point guard.
  • "the team were unable to beat the Wildcats". "were" → "was"?
  • Another "the" in "led the NCAA Division I" could use chopping.
  • Statistics: The note says the stats are from RealGM, but the citation is to ESPN.
  • 2008–2009 season: "Head coach Clay Moser described Clinkscales arrival as a boon to the team". His name should have an apostrophe at the end here.
    • Just noting that I'd remove the s after the apostrophe, since you have a couple similar instances earlier in the article that don't have the extra s. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • 2013–2014 season: More spaced em dashes need fixing.
  • 2014–2015 season: You have a double cite to ref 73 after one of the quotes.
  • 2015–2016 season: I found "the Rainmen revived itself" to be confusing. How about changing it to a simpler "the Rainmen reformed under new ownership as the Halifax Hurricanes."?
  • I was also confused how his team went from only having two wins to reaching the playoffs and winning the league title. It might be worthwhile to include a summary sentence on the team's regular season performance, to bridge the gap in narrative.
  • The photo caption here needs updating, as it still indicates that Clinkscales won't play any longer for the Hurricanes.
  • 2016–2017 season: Remove the hyphen after "newly".
  • Wikipedia article aren't supposed to have identical section headings, but I see two headings titled Statistics. You could name one College statistics and the other Professional statistics, which seems like the easiest fix.
  • Personal life: Add "was" before "managed".
  • "In the victory against Team No Excuses in 2015". "the" → "a".
  • Can we expand upon the single-sentence paragraph here, or merge it elsewhere? It's the only stubby element of the article, and it stands out.
  • The all caps in the title of ref 88 should be taken out.
  • My last concern is the usage of the New York Post as a substantial source. While I find their sports coverage entertaining to read, it does tend toward the tabloid side of things, and I've seen its usage discouraged in BLPs before. Much of the content is provides here is quotes, which I'm not too worried about. However, I think the Post isn't a great source for "He rarely studied, often skipped classes, and made friends with the wrong people" in particular. I won't oppose over it, but would like to see the source reviewer sign off on the Post's use to make me feel better before I consider supporting. And consider finding another source to support that one claim, which I wouldn't really trust the Post for. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Giants2008 - I will definitely look at these issues very soon. Also, what do you mean by having the "source reviewer sign off on the Post's use"? TempleM (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
      • It means I want the source reviewer to say the Post is an acceptable source for what it is being used for here. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Giants2008 - I have addressed all of the concerns you listed. I have deleted the sentence you were somewhat worried about (with the NY Post). Please take a look at the article again and let me know if anything else needs to be edited. TempleM (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
          • I left a couple of responses above. It looks like, with the removal of that sentence, that the Post isn't being using for anything too controversial; still, I'd like to see whether a source reviewer has any objections before supporting. Otherwise, I'd have no issue with this being considered a support for purposes of moving the FAC along. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Giants2008 I've fixed those minor issues you pointed out. Could you by any chance message a source reviewer you know to look at this article? TempleM (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
              • I added your article to the review request box on FAC talk. That should entice somebody to have a peek at it. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
                • Provisional support – My entire batch of comments has now been taken care of. If the source review checks out, the FAC coordinators can go ahead and consider this a full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Cliff Clinkscales.png: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify the subject in the infobox is fine. Why are there no EXIF data? Not used anywhere else on the web.
  • File:Jamaica Av 168 Pl PM jeh.jpg: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify a place of life of the subject. Complete EXIF this time that is also coherent with other uploads from the uploader, used in lower resolution elsewhere on the web.
  • File:East FL SR 40 in Downtown Ocala.jpg: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify a place of life of the subject. Complete EXIF, only upload by the uploader. It's been used elsewhere on the web after the upload on Commons.
  • File:On the Lincoln Park Campus of DePaul University in Chicago.JPG: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify a place of life of the subject. Complete EXIF, also coherent with other uploads. Artwork in the background is de minimis, not used at full resolution elsewhere on the web.
  • File:RyanCenter.jpg: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify a place of work(?) of the subject and an event described in the adjacent section. Complete EXIF coherent with other uploads. Has been used by other websites as well, so seems to me.
  • File:Cliff Clinkscales layup.jpg: Free image on Commons, using it to identify an event described in the adjacent section. Complete EXIF, from Flickr, underwent a Flickr review on Commons. Not used elsewhere on the web at full resolution.
  • File:Scotiabank Centre - EXTERIOR - 091914 - Paul Darrow (3).JPG: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify a place of work of the subject. Complete EXIF, sole remnant upload by uploader; another upload was deleted for lacking evidence of permission. Not used at full resolution elsewhere on the web.

Images may benefit from ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Jo-Jo Eumerus - Would you say that these images are good to go? TempleM (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, the question on the first image is more a curiosity one - lack of EXIF data can indicate an image cribbed off another website (and thus a copyright violation), but it isn't necessarily so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 26 November 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 [13]). 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 archive.org 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)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

A few points, but generally this looks to be FA quality.

  • I wouldn't oppose over this, but you might consider moving the "Role in investigations" section down below the "History" section.
    When I first added it, I thought about doing that. I put it above after thinking how someone who knows nothing about the topic may want to read it. After the intro reading about what forensic chemistry actually does in investigations seemed like the logical choice. If they want to continue, then the history section and the rest of it. I can certainly change it around if you think that would be received better. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
    No, that's fine; I can see your point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "there is a specific blood alcohol content cutoff where penalties begin or increase": shouldn't this be "there are specific blood alcohol content cutoffs where penalties begin or increase"?
    Fixed. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "A bottle of strychnine extract was easily obtainable in apothecaries": as far as I can see you don't make this point in the article text, so I think you should cite it in the caption. I'd also suggest making this "was once easily obtainable".
    So, I've been thinking about this and the source would be the image itself and the catalog page [14]. Is that what you were looking for? The fact that it came from an apothecary is on the bottle. "Manufacturing Chemists" is an alternative term for them. I changed it to say was "once" easily obtainable. As for the source, did you just want me to use the link above? --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not going to let this hold up my support, but I think ideally we'd use an explicit written source. Google Books has Wildlife, Land, and People: A Century of Change in Prairie Canada by Donald G. Wetherell, which includes the phrase "Good-quality strychnine could now be had cheaply everywhere", which I think does it. That particular book is one of those weird Google Books transcriptions that has no page numbers, so it would be annoying to cite, but you could use that if nothing else can be found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The wide range of instrumentation for forensic chemical analysis also started during this time period": suggest "began to be developed" instead of "started".
    Sounds good. Changed. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "GC-MS is also capable of quantifying substances which can be used by forensic chemists to determine the effect the substance would have on an individual": I initially misread this as saying that GC-MS is used to quantify some substances, and those substances are used by forensic chemsists to ...", so I'd suggest rephrasing. Perhaps "GC-MS is also capable of quantifying the substances it detects; forensic chemists can use this information to determine the effect the substance would have on an individual".
    Done. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There are some uncited sentences in the "Standards" section, at the end of each of the first two paragraphs.
    Fixed. I reworded it a little so please let me know what you think. It sounded right in my head but who knows what it sounds like to others. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not knowledgeable about this area, so I can't really tell if this is comprehensive or not, though it seems thorough. However, I was wondering if a short section about reference material or professional publications might be in order? Are there standard references that could be listed, or professional journals that are regarded as central to the field? This is only a suggestion -- don't feel obliged to follow it if there's nothing that fits this description.
    They do have reference standards for comparison purposes and calibration. The phrase "NIST traceable" is common in all US forensics. I'm not sure what other countries use though. I would have to research some things to see. As for the publications, it looks like a forensic chemistry journal was just launched in March by Elsevier [15]. Whether or not that is going to be the go to journal for this field is to be seen. Currently most research in forensics is shared at conferences and published in a wide range of different journals and magazines. The Journal of Forensic Sciences being a big one (but not specific to this field). So central to "this" field? Not at this time that I am aware of (at least not until Forensic Chemistry gets a little bit more time to circulate). Central to forensics in general? Sure. But I am not sure that is what you are asking for. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
    It sounds like we're fine with what you have; I was just checking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Responses made. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. I think the referencing on the image caption for the strychnine bottle could be improved a little, but since, as Majora points out, the availability is reasonably evident from the label visible in the image I'm not concerned about it for FA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the support Mike Christie. In the interest of being complete I added a ref to the book you mentioned. The URL I put in is a direct link to the passage in question. The citation is just going to have to live without the page numbers at this point as it is hard to determine what it would be without actually counting. --Majora (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Coord notes -- hi, unless I missed them we still need the following checks:

  • Image licensing.
  • Source formatting/reliability.
  • Spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing as it's Majora's first FAC.

All these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the above reviewers would like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry Ian Rose. Wasn't aware I had to actually request those things. Thanks for the heads up. All done. --Majora (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, you'll get used to it....! Image and source reviews are required for every nomination, spotchecks for new nominators and for older hands who haven't had one for a while. Sometimes people just do them off their own bat much earlier in the review process, but when it looks like a nomination has decent support for promotion, and they've not been done, the coordinators invite you to request them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Punuk.Alaska.skulls.jpg: Free image on Commons. Seems at least moderately germane to the topic as deaths are often investigated as potential crimes. The license checks out.
    This one is just part of the {{forensic science}} template. It is easily changeable per article but I couldn't think (or find) anything that would be really specific for this field (unlike say forensic firearm examination that has a photo of a bullet). --Majora (talk)
  • File:Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356.jpg: Free image on Commons on an event discussed in the section. Source link is broken.
    Is the source link necessary? I can change it to an FBI story on the matter but I can't seem to recover the original source. It isn't in the archives and apparently the DoD requires an access card now to search through the images at the current link. Just to note that this image has already appeared on the main page. So its provenance already checked out. --Majora (talk)
  • File:Bottle of extract of nux vomica, London, England, 1794-1930 Wellcome L0058630.jpg: Free image on Commons, license checks out on the source page. It's a bit unclear what the image adds to the section, though.
    I agree that this one is more tangentially related than the other ones. It is more of an example of "early history" than anything else. The fact that you could easily buy such poisons in shops in the past and there were no accurate way to determine if someone died of poison made it a much more common form of murder. --Majora (talk)
    I think this one is worth keeping; it illustrates the easy availability of poisons in the past. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • File:GCMS open.jpg: Free image on Commons. Marked as "own work", defective EXIF, present elsewhere on the web but always postdating the upload. It shows a machine discussed in the section.
  • File:ATR FTIR of Hexane.png: Free image on Commons. Marked as "own work", it seems like a machine-made image though; what was it created with? It shows the output of a process described in the section.
    I honestly can't remember what software I used to make that or the one below. I did them back in college and it was whatever was installed on the computers that ran the instruments at the time. There is nothing copyrightable there anyways. I self'd it instead of PD-simple because I took the photo of it but I can change it to PD-simple if you think that is more appropriate. I also updated the author parameter to my current username (it was my previous one before my rename). --Majora (talk)
  • File:HPLC readout for APAP, ASA, and caffeine mixture.png: Free image on Commons, same considerations and question as above.

In-article images have all ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Responses made. --Majora (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
On the source link question, Webarchive-searching the link indicates that it once led to a search function. That should be brought back, if searching for "F-3203-SPT-95-000023-XX-0198" yields the image. I am wary of diagrams like these being marked as PD-simple, a court could quite reasonably consider it involving creative choices. I am not sure if it's cut and dried whether the creators of the software in question would own co-copyrights to its output. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm still trying to recover the source link but the archived search isn't bringing up anything. I'll keep trying other avenues. As for the diagrams, I understand that the software itself can be copyrighted provided there are enough elements there to make it pass the threshold of originality (although if I recall correctly the software on these instruments were basically a blank screen and some minor buttons). However, the readouts can't be "original" because of their nature. Take the FTIR image. All FTIR images of hexane will always produce the same result. They have to. Else it would make searching for them in a database moot. There are no original elements in the readouts because there can't be. If the readouts were copyrighted it would also present issues in court as the other side would not be able to effectively retest/rebut the evidence (which is a current problem with some expert systems being used in DNA analysis). --Majora (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Update: I found a book link that shows the bombing photograph, the photographer, and his DoD affiliations. I have added it the file page. --Majora (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thoughts? --Majora (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I have a small concern that these diagrams may have a "selection and arrangement" copyright belonging to whoever wrote the software used to create them. Best to ask commons:COM:VPC on this, probably. One of the less endearing aspects of copyright screening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Asked and answered. The graphs are fine. --Majora (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems like the images are OK, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Passing thoughts from Bencherlite[edit]

I'm a lawyer based in the UK rather than a chemist, so that's my starting point, and I'm looking solely at the section about testimony.

  • "The standardized procedures for testimony by forensic chemists are provided by the various agencies that employ the scientists as well as SWGDRUG." No, in England and Wales for instance the procedures for testimony (giving evidence in court) are provided by rules of court, not by the agencies employing the expert / the party instructing the expert. This sentence is not universal.
  • "In some jurisdictions, experts can also be called by the judge to act as a "court's witness" thereby making the expert appear more impartial to the jury." Two problems: (a) checking the reference, "some jurisdictions" turns out to be supported only by a reference to the US Federal Rules of Evidence; (b) even under the US Federal Rules of Evidence, the relevant rule would appear to be Rule 706 ("Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses") not Rule 614.

Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 21:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Bencherlite, as a former expert witness, I raised this issue myself earlier, but failed to pick up that the response wasn't entirely satisfactory. FWIW, the relevant guidance in England and Wales is Part 35 of the CPR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@Bencherlite: I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make with SWGDRUG (and perhaps the sentence needs to be reworded). SWGDRUG is essentially an ethics board. Standardized reporting/testimony standards are what SWGDRUG publishes and what all forensic chemists are expected to follow. Yes, the court sets the courtroom procedures and, in the end, decides who can be an expert witness. But the standards of how the person testifies, and what they can and can't testify to, is published by SWGDRUG. For example, if during cross the witness is asked a question about something they haven't been proficiency tested and certified in (it happens) the procedure for that is to not even attempt to answer it but explain that you can only answer questions directly related to the areas you are proficient in (even if you are confident that you know the answer). That rule is an ethics things and comes from SWGDRUG, not from the courts as the courts aren't asking the questions (generally). Again, I think the sentence just has to be reworded to be clearer, which I will do when I have some time to think after the holiday.

I fixed the reference. Thank you for catching that. It is appreciated. As for the "some" jurisdictions, how many citations would you like? The UK one would be Rule 35.7 of the Civil Procedural Rules [16]. I can look up and cite as many jurisdictions as necessary but I didn't want to overkill the citations so I just listed one. --Majora (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You've misunderstood CPR 35.7 - the court isn't instructing or calling an expert itself, it is telling the parties that they are to choose an expert between themselves to be jointly instructed by the parties, rather than have one expert per side. This is generally done in lower-value cases where the costs of having two experts would not be proportionate to the value of the claim, or for less important issues in large cases. The parties give the instructions to the expert, not the court. As for referencing "some jurisdictions", you need a reference that this happens in "some jurisdictions", not just one. As for the ethics point about not answering questions outside your area of expertise, with respect, that rule did not originate from SWGDRUG and is not exclusive to forensic chemists or to SWGDRUG. Never having heard of SWGDRUG before this nomination (although I don't practise in this particular field) I'd be interested in seeing something that says that forensic chemists in the UK (to take a particular example) are expected to follow its reporting and testimony standards. It seems to be a very US-orientated body, not something to which a UK forensic chemist would defer when reporting and giving evidence. BencherliteTalk 09:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I think we are working off of different definitions of "court's witness". Joint instruction by both sides and an obligation to the court, as oppose to the "dueling experts" that is otherwise common, is the definition I am working with. I understand that the UK's CPR says that experts are always obligated to the court first and that is true in the US as well. But that isn't really how it happens. Experts with alternative opinions happen all the time. That is the whole point of being declared an expert. You can give your opinions in regards to evidence. I can certainly change the sentence to whatever you want it to say to be more clear on this but I think we need to agree to a definition first.

SWGDRUG is an international organization with representatives from multiple different countries as well as the UN. When the UK had a forensic science services department they were represented by Dr. Sylvia Burns (who is still part of the organization as part of a private lab since FSS dissolved). At least as long as Brexit is on hold the UK is also represented by Dr. Michael Bovens of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. SWGDRUG is mentioned many times in the publications put out by the ENFSI including in the use of reference samples/spectra in the proper identification of unknown substances [17]. The standardization of these things primarily has to do with accreditation. Any lab is free to do whatever they want. That is true globally. But only if they follow a specific set of guidelines would they be accredited, which is what matters. Again, I am open to suggestions as to the improvement of that section but saying that SWGDRUG is a US-orientated body is simply not true. --Majora (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Is is the "called by the judge" part? As I read more of the CPR that seems like the most offending part. Perhaps, In some jurisdictions, experts can act as a "court's witness" whose duty is to the court as opposed to the prosecution or defense. These experts can be questioned or cross-examined by both sides thereby making the expert appear more impartial to the jury. --Majora (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and made this change since there hasn't been any comments in a few days regarding it. If there is still issues let me know. --Majora (talk) 00:36, 29 November 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:

Resolved
  • "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

Resolved
  • "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.
Resolved
  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)

Coord notes

  • I didn't see an image licensing review above, not a source review for formatting and reliability -- you can request those at the top of WT:FAC.
  • Housekeeping: we had a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing in the previous nom and there appeared to be no major concerns so I don't think we need repeat that here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

Hi Kareldorado, sorry for being so late with my comments. Although the article looks better than at FAC1, I'm still not convinced it meets FA. My comments, starting with the lead:

Resolved
  • I've argued this before and have not seen any reason to change my mind: the lead image is not a good image to convey the concept visually. A football team article should show 11 players, not a badge for its association. The badge should be reserved for the association's article. I see that Peru national football team, of FA status, has the same problem. Not a reason to keep repeating the error, I'd say. The image you have down in the Kit section makes a great lead image, as this is the most successful team as well.
This discussion is obsolete, and always ends in the association badge being regarded as acceptable. See Marshal's comments below. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • A comment on the badge. Edwin, it seems that some clarification is needed so that your concern over the badge can finally be put to rest. First, placing the badge in the Infobox is a standard practice for association football team articles (see FC Barcelona) and sports teams in general (see Los Angeles Lakers). Second, it is important to keep in mind that the "national" football teams do not actually belong to the nation; these teams belong to the associations (or federations) that organize them. So, in the case of the Peru national football team, the team does not belong to the country of Peru, but rather to the Peruvian Football Federation. I hope that this clears up the matter. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
If it is widely accepted, then I won't make a further issue out of it. I will always think it is a poor way to illustrate a team, but forever hold my breath. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I am glad you are critical on this one, Edwin, but there is no easy solution. The problem is that national teams usually lack a perfectly appropriate illustration for the team as a whole, contrary to club teams. A team picture just deals with one moment in time. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • the paragraphs in the lead lack focus: the results are mentioned in all 3 paragraphs. They should be combined, all in the first: gold medal at Olympics, 2nd place 1980, 3rd in 1972, 4th in 1986. And that they topped the FIFA ranking between Nov 2015 and March 2016.
I found the lead pleasant to read, but have to admit Manchester City's lead (also FA) looks more straightforward than the current of Belgium's NFT or, for instance, that of the Peru national football team (no offense, Marshal). I have tried to rewrite it, please tell me how you like this:

The Belgian national football team has officially represented Belgium in association football since their maiden match in 1904. The Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA) is its supervising body; at the global level Belgium's team is governed by FIFA, at the continental level by UEFA. Most of their home games are played at the King Baudouin Stadium in Brussels.

Periods of regular Belgian representation at highest international level, from 1920 to 1938, and 1970 to 2002, have alternated with mostly unsuccessful qualification rounds. From the quadrennial major football competitions, Belgium's national team has participated at the end stages of twelve FIFA World Cups, five UEFA European Football Championships, and three Olympic football tournaments. The most notorious results were their Olympic gold medal in 1920, ending as European vice-champions in 1980 and their fourth position at the 1986 World Cup. Other notable performances were topping the FIFA World Rankings (from November 2015 to March 2016), and the wins against four reigning world champions: West Germany, Brazil, Argentina and France. As of 2016, Belgium competes in the 2018 World Cup qualifiers.

The 1960s and early 1970s were the period of Paul Van Himst, the most-praised Belgian footballer of the 20th century. After his national player career, Belgium experienced two golden ages with many gifted players. Belgium has long-standing football rivalries with its Dutch and French counterparts, having played both teams nearly every year from 1905 to 1967. The squad has been known as the Red Devils since 1906; its fan club is named "1895".

Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

  • the first paragraph has info that I think belongs elsewhere: "The squad is under the global jurisdiction of FIFA and is governed in Europe by UEFA—both of which were co-founded by the Belgian team's supervising body, the Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA)". This would be appropriate in the RBFA's first paragraph, but not the team's. I'd move it down. Same for the stadium they play in. Okay in lead, but not in first paragraph.
I agree about that I over-emphasised the RBFA, but disagree about the stadium. Their stadium is their "playground", ever since 1930. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Belgium's national team have .." --> The opening sentence uses the singular for team ("has officially represented") but here you use plural.
I agree why you disagree. I'd opt for singular to be consequent. See my newer version above. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "supporters' group" --> fan club?
Check! See my newer version above. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The current coach should be mentioned in the lead, methinks
Ok, but would it fit better in paragraph 1 or 3? Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Something about world Cup 2018 qualification should be in the lead as well
Ok, but would it fit better in paragraph 2 or 3? Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Resolved

The rest of the article: the structure doesn't work for me. Rivalries is closely connected to the history, but are far apart. Management before home stadium is questionable. The Actions section (odd header) is misplaced and too long compared to other sections, given its relative weight.

Changing the structure always has it advantages and disadvantages. Somehow, every section is related to the History section, but they cannot all come directly after it. At this moment, Management does not stand before Home stadium. Do you suggest that Management would come first? Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The statement that the current Actions section is misplaced is unfortunate to me. However, you are right that we should grab every opportunity to downsize it. As alternative titles I suggest "Social actions", or, maybe even better "Side activities". Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • You can easily cut "In 2008, hope surged when Belgium's U-23 won fourth place at the Olympics in Beijing; several of these Olympians later appeared on the senior team." It's not really tightly connected to supporters."
Not really, but it gives the background of why popularity rose again. However, you are right that the section is to be trimmed further, and the interested reader will have read higher in the article that a promising generation came up. Good remark, I will omit it. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • ref spot check: ref#90 has slightly different years than you have + no reference to Umbro: "Sinds in 1974 kledingsponsors het truitje van de landenteams mochten sieren, speelden de Rode Duivels met Adidas (1974-80), Admiral (1980-1982), Adidas (1982-90), ­Diadora (1990-98), Nike (1998-2010) en Burrda (2010-14)."
Good remark. I cannot be more specific than saying they played with Umbro in 1970, so it should be more vague. Part of the rationale of the slightly different years is already given in a footnote, I should still add a proof that they didn't play with Admiral in 1980. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll do more later. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments – I read through the article and must say that I am very impressed by it. Having made several copy-edits, I have only a few comments to make.

Resolved
  • This may just be me, but I prefer the current lead to the one proposed here. Some of the language in the lead here doesn't strike me as FA-level prose; for example, a "notorious" period of play sounds like those Belgium teams had a lot of unlikeable players, not that they were successful. Also, I wouldn't say a whole period belonged to one player, as this lead implies. Even Messi has a whole team of talented players with him.
  • While reading the article body, I encountered a couple of wikilinks that repeated as I went along. You only need one wikilink per subject in the body (tables excepted). I removed a couple for you, but it may be worth checking to see if there are any more.
I reduced them already considerably. I thought that for now it would be practical that some are repeated if certain concepts come back again, say, twenty times. However, if you strongly oppose against the rehearsal of wikilinks in the prose I am willing to remove the doubles. Kareldorado (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • All caps in the titles of references 8, 33, 35, 82, 83, 85, 97, 124, and 126 should be toned down per the Manual of Style. The source reviewer will mention this anyway, so you may as well take care of it now.
  • Refs 166 and 177 are tagged as dead links.
They are tagged as dead links, but strangely enough they both still link to the desired information. When is it tagged as 'dead'? Kareldorado (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
After checking both references, I can confirm that you were absolutely right. They do still work properly. It looks like a bot added the tag in early September. From my experience, the bot has usually been correct when tagging dead links, but this shows that it's worthwhile to click on the references just in case. I took the liberty of removing the tags for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

If these issues are resolved, I'm inclined to support FA status for the article, as it was a great read throughout. Well, not the part about the 2014 World Cup round of 16 game, but then we shouldn't have kept it tied that long anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive remarks. I agree the prosaic level of the current lead is higher than the proposed one, however, Edwin did bring up some relevant concerns. I'll start with slight modifications. This weekend, I will try to implement your proposed changes. As a small consolation about the particular sentence, I make you remember that the first ever US–Belgium encounter ended in a dry 3–0 win. :) Kareldorado (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Support – I'll accept the explanation provided for the repeated wikilinks, in the interest of expediting the FAC. While I'd still prefer to see some of them cut, the article is strong enough overall that I won't prevent one nit-picky issue from further delaying my support. I hope to see more of your work at FAC in the future, if the level of this article is any indication. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, Giants. You did make a constructive remark with regard to overlinking. I'll run through the links soon, allow double links for very important concepts, and try to avoid multiple linking and double links for less important concepts. Kareldorado (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

Resolved

Unfortunately there are some problems with image usage in this article, I fixed several of them, these 3 points should be OK now:

  • PD-old-70 shouldn't be used, when the author is unknown and may have lived 70 years ago. Templates for anon/unknown authors can be used instead for countries, where such laws for unknown authors exist. I have changed several images to anon-tags (see today's Commons:Special:Contributions/GermanJoe).
  • Images from online sources should include an active direct link to the source image, or to the content page where the source image is embedded.
  • File:Belgium supporters' club 1895.gif is currently at FFD, but should be OK (either fair-use on en-Wiki or free on Commons).

However, a few images cannot be used in their current form or need further checking:

These 4 images should be replaced or removed, if the mentioned problems cannot be resolved otherwise (all other not listed images are checked and OK). They could always be re-inserted, if these issues can be fixed later. The management portraits would be nice to have, but none of the affected images seems really essential to understand the article. GermanJoe (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi GermanJoe, a genuine "thank you" for thoroughly checking the appropriateness of the images! We are a big step further now. Of course it is a bit a pity that not all of the images could stay, however, dura lex sed lex, and these images are not vital to the article. Some can be replaced by other images. I will see what I can suggest as alternatives. Kareldorado (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

GermanJoe, as you might have noticed I wiped out the four problematic images and inserted three 'new' ones: the illustration at subsect Side Activities, the alternative picture of Martínez, and the Euro 1980 final line-ups at subsect UEFA European Championship. Do you see any image issues remaining, or do you consider all images to be OK now? Kareldorado (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Kareldorado, all new images are usable and correctly licensed. Thanks for these fixes, I have updated the status above - all OK. GermanJoe (talk) 13:16, 4 December 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 archive.org (or archive.is if archive.org doesn't work, sometimes it backs up things that archive.org 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 archive.org 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)
Mark Miller, I was able to address this with a source from the SF Gate in which it states that her father denied her mother's claims of this. I believe that addresses your concern of balance, but if you have additional concerns, do say so. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I still feel strongly that the Breitbart source is not reliable enough for inclusion and that it's use is over referencing the point.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Mark Miller, I removed the Breitbart and Ebner source for the LSD accusation, but left the other two. However, I left the Breitbart & Ebner citations for other, less contentious portions of the biography.--Drown Soda (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Not supporting as long as that unreliable source is used in the article. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a tabloid.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, you say?! I guess I've been doing this wrong all along then! You didn't exactly distinguish whether or not you took issue with the source as a whole or just as it pertained to the one accusation made by her mother, so maybe make yourself more clear. –Drown Soda (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • "which established her as a viable mainstream actress": suggest cutting "viable", which is redundant with "established".
  • "Between 2014 and 2015, she debuted two solo singles": suggest "released"; "debuted" is a bit of an industry term.
  • I wouldn't oppose for this, but I don't think you need to mention Fairbanks; it's a relationship by marriage two generations earlier that she was never aware of. This is a fairly long article, and it wouldn't hurt to cut a minor detail like this.
  • "According to sources, Love's mother, who was studying to be a psychologist, had her in therapy by the age of two": I don't think "According to sources" is good enough here. If it's considered definitely true by a reliable source, and not contradicted anywhere, just cut the phrase; if it's dubious in some way, give a little more explanation, at a minimum via a footnote.
  • "Love's mother then sent her back to the United States": can we give the year?
  • "She supported herself by working illegally as a stripper, adopting the last name "Love" to conceal her identity, which she came to use thereafter": needs to be rephrased; she didn't come to use her identity thereafter.
  • "The group recorded material with Love as a vocalist, but was subsequently kicked out of the band": presumably "but she was"?
  • "so Bjelland would transpose Love's musical ideas on guitar for her": shouldn't this be "transcribe...for guitar"? "Transpose" usually refers to just changing key, doesn't it?
  • "and consequently adopted a more polished public image": I'm not sure what "adopted" means here; I'm guessing the intended meaning is that her image was seen by others as becoming more polished, but "adopted" implies this was a deliberate choice on her part, which seems implausible.
  • "she also had endeavors in fashion": a little clumsy; suggest just cutting this. Perhaps finish the paragraph with "...consequently acquired a more polished public image, including modeling work for Versace, and appearances in Vogue Italia".
  • "but was forced by the label to re-record the entire album in the summer of 2003": can we say why?
  • "started recording what was going to be her second solo album": suggest "what would become her second solo album".
  • You don't need to identify Corgan as a member of Smashing Pumpkins the second time he's mentioned.
  • Details of her rehab in 2006 aren't given in the music section; I understand why one might separate the two narratives, but it reads oddly, particularly since the music section comes first. We get "during her time in rehab in 2005" with no details till much later in the article.
  • I'm not sure if "2012–present: Career expansion" is the best section title, per WP:DATED; perhaps "2016" instead of "present" would be wiser.
  • "Love's contribution to the album was critically acclaimed": this seems a bit strong, given that you only cite two reviews, one of which you subsequently quote. I'd just cut this.
  • "She also often played a guitar made by Mercury, an obscure company that manufactured custom guitars, which she purchased in 1992": I take it she didn't purchase the company, so this needs rewording.
  • I haven't looked at source reliability, but I did notice that this source appears to be a blog. What makes it a reliable source for Wikipedia?
  • "Love's Kinderwhore style of dress was inspire Chrissy Amphlett of the Divinyls": looks like this is missing a word, or a letter?
  • "She has admittedly struggled with substance abuse problems throughout her life": I think you mean "admitted to struggling"; as written the admission is in Wikipedia's voice.
  • "She became addicted to heroin in the early 1990s, and her addiction was placed in the media spotlight in 1992 when Vanity Fair published an article by journalist Lynn Hirschberg which stated that Love was addicted to heroin during her pregnancy; this resulted in the custody of Love and Cobain's newborn daughter, Frances, being temporarily withdrawn in a Los Angeles County court and placed with Love's sister." A couple of things here. First, this is a long sentence; it would probably benefit from being split after "pregnancy". Second, the second half needs rewording -- it was the child, not the custody, that was placed with Love's sister.
    Looks like you didn't fix this one, so I went ahead and did it myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The ordeal resulted in custody of daughter Frances Bean being withdrawn from Love": this is awkward phrasing. How about "...of a controlled substance, and subsequently lost custody of her daughter."? I don't think you need to repeat Frances's name.
  • Was she ever charged in connection with microphone stand incident?
  • "Love had a significant impact on female-fronted alternative acts and performers, particularly the Riot grrrl movement, with Hole's first album, Pretty on the Inside": a bit of an awkward construction. I can't tell for sure, but it looks like you're singling out Pretty on the Inside as having particularly influenced the Riot grrrl movement. If so, how about "Love had a significant impact on female-fronted alternative acts and performers; in particular, Hole's first album, Pretty on the Inside, influenced the Riot grrrl movement.
  • "Time deemed Hole's Live Through This to be supplemented by "primal guitar riffs and high-IQ lyrics": I'm not keen on "deemed", and saying that it was "supplemented by" the riffs and lyrics seems odd, but more to the point, what's this sentence doing in the cultural impact section?
  • Suggest explaining what "kinderwhore" is on first occurrence; no need to link it the second time.
  • The sentence in the "Cultural impact" section about "kinderwhore" make it appear that the name "kinderwhore" was specifically applied to her image, but the article on kinderwhore is less definite. Did the name exist before she adopted the style?

I haven't reviewed the sources or images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Drown Soda, are you there? Given this review has been open a long time, I will have to archive if the above points can't be addressed promptly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I looked these over and addressed most all of them, I believe. Some of the comments were about things that I hadn't written or inserted into the article (such as the repeat kinderwhore details, or the Time quote about Live Through This in the "Cultural impact" section), but I did remove the misplaced and repeated material. I did make edits for sentence flow and addressed the concerns that Mike Christie listed here. Apologies for having taken awhile to get back to this. Let me know if there is more, Ian Rose. Thank you! —Drown Soda (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. I made a few more copyedits; please review and make sure I didn't mess anything up. I have not reviewed the sources for reliability or done any spot checks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I just looked over it again and didn't see anything that stood out as incorrect or anything of that nature; looks good to me. I can run the page through Checklinks to check for dead URLs and try to weed those out. —Drown Soda (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

This is looking good but I have a few points that may be worthy of consideration:

  • There are a lot of links here, but they aren't archived. I know that that isn't a necessity at FAC but I think that it is something worth seriously considering lest those articles succumb to linkrot, at which the article will have to be stripped of any FA status that it has gained. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    • If it would be preferable, I can begin to go through these and attempt to provide archives to avoid that for the future.Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of instances where an entire book is cited but the particular page number is not. This definitely needs sorting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I contend this; the reason that is is that some of the book citations are lifted from digital copies of the books (such as Google books or the like), some of which do not (for some odd reason) include page numbers. For those instances, I've linked the book in the bibliography section to the specific page it's on in Google books, though I'm unsure if that is sufficient.--Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Could you maybe access these books from a local library? Google Books can be a useful place to start research but I am cautious about relying on the select pages it provides for Wikipedia referencing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Midnightblueowl, I just went through the article and was able to address this without going to check out the physical books by replacing the citations with others; in some situations, the unpaginated citations were additional and not the sole source (there were two sources doubled together), so in those cases, I removed the book citation as it was just supplementary. I think I got them all— I scanned through and didn't see any instances of unpaginated book citations left. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "and as a disc jockey. During this time, she enrolled at Portland State University, studying English and philosophy.[36][37][38][39] " - is the information about her being a disk jockey found in those latter citations? If so, perhaps the appropriate citations could be duplicated after the words "disk jockey" to make this clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • " particularly influential to young female instrumentalists" - maybe better as "a particular influence on"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • When mentioning Time Square it would be best to have a link to it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that we could do something with the images. For instance, in the "1981–87: Early projects; music and film" section we have both the image and the prose box scrunched at the right hand side. I would strongly recommend aligning the quote box to the left. That would make the whole thing look a lot neater. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you know how to reorient an image so that it faces left rather than right? (I don't, but there must be Wikipedia editors who do). If so I would recommend reorienting some of the images so that the figure of Ms Love faces into the text rather than away from it. This is particularly the case with File:Courtney Love SXSW Stubb's Spin Party 2010.jpg and File:Courtney Love 1995 by Andrzej Liguz.jpg. Its a small thing but I would make a significant difference to the general aesthetics of the page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I've thought about this as well, but the problem with that (at least for many of the images) is that Love is playing/holding a guitar in them, and flipping the image would make it appear as though she is left-handed (or at least plays guitar left-handed), which isn't the case.--Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • When discussing Love's relationship with Cobain, I'd have imagined that there are a lot of good book-length studies of Cobain's life which discuss Love. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Cobain, was found dead of a self-inflicted shotgun wound " - I'd reword this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ""I strap on that motherfucking guitar and you cannot fuck with me. That's my feeling," she said." Do we have a citation for this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised that you haven't made much heavier use of Poppy Brite's biography. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I have tried to integrate it throughout but have mostly found it especially useful for her earlier life; it doesn't apply as much to more recent events as it was written in 1997. It does provide substantial information about her early life and some of her life as a musician (to a point).--Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This article does not cite any academic sources. Have you had a look in Google Scholar? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    • My mistake, I can see that a few academic sources have been cited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • A lot of good work has gone on here. I would lean toward soft oppose at present but I'd certainly be happy to change my opinion if the above changes are made. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl, I've addressed some of these issues and provided some explanations/concerns on others that I'm unsure how to approach—thank you for your feedback. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Drown Soda. I've crossed out my initial opposition, although would ideally like to see the web citations archived. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Midnightblueowl, I started archiving sources but for some reason archive.org suddenly seemed to quit working (I couldn't get it to process any URLs—it would just take me to a blank white page. I will try and finish over the weekend. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Drive by comment[edit]

The current ref #289 reads "Miller 2004, p. 195" causing a cite ref error - I suspect it should be Millard? Current ref #290 is missing page numbers - these look to be 195 & 196? "Cope, Julian (2000). Head-On/Repossessed" is listed in the bibliography but doesn't seem to be used as a ref? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

    • Thank you Sagaciousphil, it indeed was supposed to be Millard . --Drown Soda (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
      • In this edit, {{Sfn|Love|2006|p=116}} (currently ref #85) was added but the year listed in the Bibliography is given as 2007? The ISBN link on Google seems to be a 2006 edition? Re the quote attributed to Millard (currently ref #290): as indicated above, the quote seems to start on page 195 but also flows on to page 196, at least on the pages I'm being shown using the Google link? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Note to Co-ordinators: These really are simply very minor drive-by comments; I haven't looked at any refs/sources in any depth.
        • Sagaciousphil: You're definitely correct about the year discrepancy on that citation—I'm not sure how there ended up a 2006 and 2007 in the SFNs, but I corrected them so they all uniformly are 2006, which is when that book was published. I also expanded the Millard citation #290 to include both pages (195–96). --Drown Soda (talk) 02:02, 19 November 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.
Done.
  • 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.)
Noted.
  • 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)
  • Support Hi! Apologies for going AWOL, real-life work caught up with me. Looking over changes made in response to my review, I believe this article now meets the featured standard for comprehensiveness or other criteria my review addressed. I'm satisfied looking at the subsequent reviews that any other issues I could think of have been or are being addressed now. This article is worthy of being featured. Great work. —BLZ · talk 18:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! DAP 💅 15:21, 4 November 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.
Done
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)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments here as I go through the article.

  • "He developed a fascination with fiction writing while attending graduate school at the University of Arkansas": I don't see this in the given source; am I missing it?
This is mentioned in Pizzolatto's Daily Beast interview, although he does not specify which university he attended for his graduate studies. That was actually revealed in the article from The Times-Picayune.
Do you mean the two answers after "How did you learn?" and "You mean writing fiction"? I don't think those support the sentence; or do you mean something else in the interview? And I know it's a minor point, but if you keep the sentence I do think you should cite the Times-Picayune article for the school; others may change the article in the future and it's best to have all the citations where they're needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Correct, specifically where he says "those shows were actually filling my hunger for fiction as an audience more than the contemporary fiction that I was reading" in response. I looked upon another examine and I somewhat agree that what's said in the article isn't supported by the source as I initially. If need be, i can just remove it altogether.
I would, if I were you. I think the quote is about him consuming fiction on screen; the sentence in the article is about producing written fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Removed.
  • "Pizzolatto narrowed his search for a suitable director to Alejandro González Iñárritu and Cary Joji Fukunaga, the latter of whom he knew from Anonymous Content": suggest "Pizzolatto narrowed his search for a suitable director to Cary Joji Fukunaga, whom he knew from Anonymous Content, and Alejandro González Iñárritu".
Done.
  • "Fukunaga carried out research with": suggest "Fukunaga spent time with" as simpler; I was going to suggest "worked with" but you have "work" later in the sentence.
Done.
  • 'a "moody and atmospheric" backdrop for corresponding scenes': perhaps 'a "moody and atmospheric" backdrop for the corresponding interior scenes", assuming that's what is meant.
Correct. Also done.
  • "The duo went with a tripod design": the duo? Sounds like Walsh is the one sculpting the nests; who else is being referred to here? From the rest of the paragraph it appears to be DiGerlando; if so, I'd be explicit: "DiGerlando and Walsh chose a tripod design..."
Walsh did sculpt them, but he and DiGerlando worked closely together during the whole process, hence "the duo". Also done.
  • "As such, Walsh built devil's nests": suggest "To reflect this, Walsh built devil's nests".
Done.
  • "southern Louisiana's remote landscape, which juxtaposes many of the characters' traits and personal, inner struggles": I don't follow this. Do you mean they wanted the title sequence to juxtapose these things? The landscape, by itself, does not.
Nope. This is how it was described by Clair in the interview. I did make the change to "setting", if that helps, since that is much broader in scope than "landscape".
Sorry, I'm still not getting this. I tried to follow the link to read/watch the interview, but all I found was the title sequence itself. Is there an associated interview on that website that I didn't spot? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The associated interview is there below the video in the summary tab. Make sure you've clicked on that (although it should appear automatically) instead of the "credits" tab, otherwise, as the name suggests, only the credits will appear. This particular sentence is supported in the second paragraph where Clair says, "When we were initially briefed, Nic Pizzolatto, the showrunner, and Cary Fukunaga, the director, spoke a lot about how the landscape and setting of the show revealed the characters and reflected their internal struggles."
Found it; not sure how I missed that. OK, I see the source, but I don't think you can say "juxtapose" based on that; the source talks about the relationship between the landscape and the characters, not about the juxtaposition of the them. Also, you say "remote", but the source talks about the petrochemical infrastructure and pollution, which don't have connotations of remoteness at all. (As it happens I used to work in the petrochemical industry, and I've driven from New Orleans through southern Louisiana down to the coast to get a helicopter to the rig; the landscape is an odd mix of industrial and backwoods, and I can see why they wanted to use the landscape in the title sequence.) And one more thing: you say Pizzolatto and Fukunaga wanted the title sequence team to emphasize the setting; I don't think you can really draw that from the source, which just says it came up in conversation a lot. That may be why the title team focused on it, but it's not clear they were told to do so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I revised it a bit for clarification.
  • "the production team initially photographed the local scenery, which were woven together": "were" is the wrong number, but I think you meant to say something like "the resulting images were woven together".
Done.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: awesome! Appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback, many thanks! Let me know what you think.

More comments:

  • Why is the Swarmatron worth mentioning?
The show's score doesn't make much use of synthesizers apart of that particular piece.
  • "women are depicted as "things-to-be-saved and erotic obstacles" for said men": suggest cutting "for said men".
Revised.
  • Erin K. Stapleton needs to be introduced when quoted.
Revised.
  • "True Detective also explores Christianity...": suggesting cutting "also".
Revised.
  • "Critics have offered many readings of the influence of weird and horror fiction on True Detective's narrative, specifically Robert W. Chambers' short story collection The King in Yellow (1895) and Thomas Ligotti, as well as nihilism and pessimism": I don't think this sentence quite works as you have it. Chambers' collection isn't a reading, nor is Ligotti, nor are nihilism and pessimism; they're relevant to various readings, of course.
Revised.
That's an improvement. How about: "Critics have offered many readings of the influence of weird and horror fiction on True Detective's narrative, often examining the influence of Robert W. Chambers' short story collection The King in Yellow (1895), and the work of Thomas Ligotti." I've cut "nihilism and pessimism" here because it doesn't really fit into a sentence about the influence of weird and horror fiction -- if it's an important point I think it could be added elsewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Done.
  • "Allusions to The King in Yellow can be observed through the show's dark underbelly": I think this is a little metaphorical, given that most readers won't have read Chambers or heard anything about it.
That's understandable, but however obscure it may be, I think it's important even for a brief mention, especially since it was picked up by many of the critics who assessed the show.
Well, I agree it's important; what I meant to say was that it wasn't easy to understand the sentence. The source is behind a paywall, unfortunately, so I can't see how it's phrased there. The problem is that "dark underbelly" is quite vague -- does this mean specific horrible things that happen? A general malaise or sense of evil pervading the scenes? A nihilistic or despairing worldview that it supports? There's no way for a reader who doesn't already know the show to know what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal article was referring to the show's philosophy. I made a few changes for more clarity if that helps.
  • "the show's evolving philosophy, which increasingly examines a portrait where culture, religion, and society are direct by-products of biological weakness": what does "examines a portrait where" mean?
Revised.
  • "Another principal topic of discussion among critics is True Detective's auteurist sensibility" suggest "has been" rather than "is", since the rest of the section has the critical discussion in past tense.
Revised.
  • "a dynamic that provides the show a unique place": I don't think "dynamic" is the right word; the fact that two people controlled all the episodes is a fact, rather than an event.
Revised.
  • Looking at the source cited for Colin Robertson's comment, I can see why you include it in the "Auteur theory" paragraph, but I think you could make the connection a little clearer for the reader.
Admittedly, I'm not sure how to go about that since I more or less think the connection between the two shows is clear enough presently.
After reading through again I think you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

-- I think that's it for tonight; I'll try to complete the review tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

More comments:

  • The second paragraph of the reviews section isn't as coherent as the other three paragraphs. The first paragraph is about the overall positive reception; the third is about the performances, and the four gives some opposing views. The second paragraph seems to be just an assemblage of high-profile quotes.
I set it up that way so as to give the section a starting point. Perhaps I can merge the first and second paragraphs?
  • "Some reviews were not as enthusiastic as the consensus about the season": I don't think it's a consensus if there are dissenting voices; I'd rephrase this.
Done.

That's it for a first pass. I'd like to go through the reviews section again and see if there's more copyediting that might be helpful; I'll try to get to that tomorrow or the next day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Apologies for the not-so-swift response, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 21:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I've struck everything except for the comment about the reviews. I have a minor point and a more general concern about the reviews section. The minor point is the use of Metacritic's terminology "universal acclaim"; I think this is best avoided, since although most of the reviews were very positive, the series certainly didn't receive universal acclaim, and using Metacritic's terminology seems less useful than just giving the score; the term is even somewhat misleading.
This is just more or less basic convention for media articles. I also tried to avoid the issue early on by including Metacritic's critics list for that year, which I think supports the notion given that, according to said article, True Detective was second only to Fargo on the critics lists that year. If these aren't valid enough reasons, however, then I will gladly remove the use of Metacritic's terminology.
More seriously, though, the whole review section doesn't read like an encyclopedic summary of the reviews; it reads like a list of quotes, with some thematic organization. I think the section would be better with quotes used sparingly to illustrate the points made. I may be being unfair here, because I haven't gone through and read every one of the 41 reviews Metacritic links to (and no doubt there are more). If you think I'm being unfair (or just want some examples), say so, and I'll do some reading and see if I can produce a few sentences that give you a better idea of what I'm talking about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you're being unfair per se, but I do strongly disagree with your latter concern. I think most of what is in there adds to the general flow of that section and better reflects the reviews and how very positive they tended to be. In any event, some examples would be great and hopefully from thereon, we can come to a compromise, and if it ends up improving the article even more, then all the more better.

OK. I should say up front that I am not going to oppose this FAC, because this point about the reviews is my only concern, and I am not sure that my opinion on how review sections should be written is something other FAC reviewers would agree with. I don't want to derail a candidacy on something that may be an issue for me but not others. Having said that, I'll make the case below, and you can see what you think.

It's difficult to assemble a coherent narrative for a section on reviews or reception when there are only a handful of reviews to draw from, but that's not the case here. When there is so much review text to go through, I think the article text should be written as declarative statements about the body of reviews, with quotes only to illustrate the points made. That's not the case here. Look at the structure of the second paragraph: it's

Critic A declared "B". C identified the acting, dialogue, and sleek production as its most satisfying attributes. D agreed and said "E". In his review F said the season successfully marries Fukunaga's G with Pizzolatto's script, producing H. J felt the first half of the season forms "K", and by the fourth episode, L called True Detective "M".

I've left in the declarative text that is not quoted; I hope you agree that reading this it's clear that the paragraph functions mostly as a showcase for quotes, only providing direct information in a couple of places. Here's a rewrite of that paragraph in a form that I think is more desirable for a Wikipedia article. I'm making up the details here, which are probably totally wrong, because I haven't read the reviews -- but someone who has read the reviews should be able to write a version of this.

Reviews of the series praised the acting and dialogue. Harrelson's performance was particularly remarked on, with A declaring "B", and C commenting that "D". McConaughey's acting in the final episode also drew many positive comments, such as "E"; with some reviewers commenting that outstanding performances could be found throughout the ensemble cast. Several reviewers pointed out that the anthology format, which made it easier to attract top actors, might become more popular as a result of True Detective's success, though some felt this was just a temporary fashion.

In addition to being (no doubt) wrong, I'm not claiming this paragraph is particularly well-written. But it reads quite differently from the paragraphs in the existing review section.

To put it another way, imagine that you've recently read all of these reviews and pondered them, and that you then meet me in a pub, or at a bus-stop, or wherever, and I ask you "What did reviewers say about season 1 of True Detective?" What would you say? You wouldn't reel off quotes. You'd tell me what they liked, what most of them said, what themes ran through the reviews, and you might well recall a few choice quotes to illustrate your point. That's how I think this section should read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 5 November 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)

Comments

  • 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)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Not much to complain about here, but I have a couple of minor quibbles.

  • "For the purpose, he obtained 450 kilograms (990 lb) of uranium dioxide in paper bags obtained from": "obtained" twice.
    Deleted second "obtained" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "notably proximity to materials such as heavy water": is "proximity" the right word here? I would have thought access, not proximity, would have been key.
    Changed "proximity" to "access" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Auger assumed the position instead": I assume this refers to the position offered Kowarski, but it's been several sentences so a more explicit reference would be helpful.
    Changed to "Auger became head of the experimental physics division instead" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "He also tried to recruit Harry Thode": who is "He"? The referent appears to be Laurence and Mackenzie, in which case it should be "They".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "It established the Combined Policy Committee to control the Manhattan Project, on which Canada was represented by Howe": suggest "It established the Combined Policy Committee, on which Canada was represented by Howe, to control the Manhattan Project", assuming that's the intended meaning.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The appointment of Cockcroft as head of the AERE baffled me till I realized that it was a UK organization; most of the alphabet soup in the article refers to Canadian organizations. Can you make it clearer within the sentence that Cockcroft was being pulled from Canada? After the "Cockcroft did not depart" sentence I realized I must be missing something, and clicked through to the AERE article.
    Changed to: "the British government suddenly announced that Cockcroft had been appointed the head of the new Atomic Energy Research Establishment in Britain" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. Looks in good shape to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- I think we still need image and source reviews if you could chase pls, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 12 November 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]

Nergaal Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:53, 29 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]

CaliforniaDreamsFan Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:54, 29 October 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 Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose (by continuing your review), please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Carbrera Can you end this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think the photo of Britney Spears is necessarily beneficial to the article; you can barely see her face
Yes check.svg Done Replaced with another one. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ""Dance" and "Little Lies" were compared to French disc jockey David Guetta and Spears' Britney Jean (2013) album, respectively." → Who made this comparison?
Yes check.svg Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look like Unlocked was released as a DVD, but rather a CD with a bonus DVD, so the "CD Releases" table should just list the format with something like "Deluxe + DVD" or "Deluxe with DVD" (not a separate table)
Yes check.svg Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Reference #5 should have a link for the iTunes Store in the parameter
Yes check.svg Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The lengths in the "Track listing" don't add up to 57:30
Yes check.svg Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe some policy wants "2013-14" to be "2013-2014" now
Yes check.svg Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Could you abbreviate "Rhythm and blues" to "R&B"?
Yes check.svg Done
  • Shouldn't there be a track listing for "We Wanna"? There should be a dropdown for each available track listing of the album
X mark.svg Not done See below Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You state "six singles" in the lead prose but only include five in the infobox
Only five songs were released as singles as promoting the album. However, a "sixth one", "We Wanna", was released for the next studio album, but still appears on few versions of Unlocked.
  • Shouldn't the German track listing be included in "Track listing" as well? Carbrera (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: All done! Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: It initially did feature other tracklistings as well, but the former FA nomination suggested that only the main tracklist should be added. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Carbrera I've done all your comments. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Carbrera: Sorry for bothering you, but I've pinged you like three times and I didn't respond. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Carbrera
@Cartoon network freak: The only thing I'm confused about is why there wouldn't be a dropdown for other editions of the album. Almost every album on Wikipedia with multiple editions displays the other versions for the reader; why shouldn't this one? Carbrera (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Carbrera: I fixed it now. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008[edit]

Giants2008 Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Hi. Has there been a mistake? The PR seems active and, strangely, put under the section Everyday Life. --Efe (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jennica[edit]

Support --Jennica / talk 23:30, 27 November 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.

References

  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)
  • Support - a very nicely put together article, great work! The only thing I spot is a harv error in one of the footnotes. I also wonder about the usefulness of the EMPTA molecular model - it doesn't really seem to illustrate anything pertinent. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Parsecboy: Sure thing - I've removed the model. Please forgive me for being dense, but could you please point me to the footnote issue so I can fix it? Thanks, GABgab 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
      • It was this - you need a script to see the harv errors (see here) - sometimes I forget that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Aha! Thanks for the script, it should prove helpful in the future. GABgab 21:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Coord notes

  • Unless I missed it, we need the usual source review for formatting and reliability that we ask for in every FAC.
  • Also, as this will be your first FA if promoted, GAB, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

Both the above can be requested at the top of WT:FAC unless one or two of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Really impressive article. I'm not sure how this works but here are a few suggestions:
Lead
  1. The lead should not have any references. Since the lead only summarizes information in the article, there is no need to have references there because they should be in the article.
  2. The lead is a bit too long IMO. Maybe trim it down a little
  3. In the lead, I recommend changing "The U.S. suspected that the Sudanese Al-Shifa plant was linked to" to "The U.S. suspected the Sudanese Al-Shifa plant was linked to"
General comment
  1. there seems to be a lot of that's throughout. Recommend reviewing them and see if it sounds better with or without them
  2. There seem to be a lot of things in quotes for emphasis. I'm not sure these are all needed such as "was largely "human."" which appears a couple sections above the Al-Shifa plant attack section.

I hope these little things help. Sorry I didn't have the time or experience in this process to do a better review. Great job so far though. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the comments - I've done what copyediting I could. GABgab 14:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Source review HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Footnotes are consistently formatted.
  • All sources seem reliable.
  • Suggest linking publication names, especially those that might not be commonly known (I had to look up U.S. News & World Report, for example); the references are there to help the reader track the information down, after all.
  • Speaking of U.S. News & World Report, shouldn't the title be italicised?
  • If you're not going to link publications (I really think you should, but it's not compulsory), you need to be consistent and unlink footnotes 72, 74, and 76
  • ISBN for Reeve is incorrect (appears to be a copy/paste error)
  • Check the ISBN for Temple-Raston (doesn't work on Google Books but I found the book by the title)
  • Are you sure The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States should be italicised? Is that the work or the publisher?
  • No other issues found. Will return later to do spotchecks.

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)
  • I have now had a chance to read through the article again. I don't find any conspicuous reasons to oppose its promotion, for which reason I support. However, I must say that this is the kind of article where I am not 100% comfortable promoting without having an expert review the content for any misrepresentations of the academic literature. I also do think that the article could still be improved by adding details about the scholarship, how have different historians described and evaluated the case and what is its relevance today. This second level of description of the literature would help me feel sure that the article is accurately representing the literature. This does not mean that I dont trust Tonystewarts' editing of course, but simply means that I think this type of article requires a level of expertise from the reviewer that I simply dont have (I havent for example had time to read any of the used literature here and therefore my support rests on good faith).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Maunus: I want to get back to this as this FAC has aged quite a bit. I have responded to some critiques by another user at the bottom of this review, and appreciate your support. FWIW, I did email Leonard Dinnerstein during the GA review who did a dissertation on the case in the 1960s and corrected some things with his advice. I also made sure that the literature and different perspectives were covered adequately, such as when I added the reference to websites supporting Frank's guilt. If you think there's anything else I should do at this point, feel free to let me know.
  • @Nikkimaria: Also want to bring you in since this is currently the oldest active FAC. If you have any comments on what you mentioned above in August or anything else about the article, please let me know. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I peer-reviewed this in Nov/Dec 2014, since which time it has doubled its length to stand at a whopping 116kb of Wikitext and 11,500 words. WP articles at featured level are required to be comprehensive, but that does not mean exhaustive. I don't like to criticise the efforts of the article's authors who have obviously laboured mightily, but extravagant length does affect both readability and reviewability. With careful reading I'm so far only down to the Jim Conley section, so have much more to cover. Here are my comments to date, to which I would add a recommendation to the authors consider whether greater use of a "summary" approach in some of the sections could reduce the length considerably.

  • It might be worth skimming through the GA review, which was when we rewrote and added significant amounts of text. The reviewer, SilkTork, also expressed some concerns about the length, although he also requested additional detail in several areas. We did some trimming then and made an effort not to add details that were trivial. Of course, there could still be material that would be better off removed, so if you have any specific recommendations once you finish the article I'm all ears. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Lead
  • A five-paragraph lead is contrary to the MoS recommendation of a maximum four. Overall I think the lead is a little overdetailed; it should be a very concise summary of the subject with the details confined to the text. The first paragraph is fine, but I think the remained should be condensed into three shorter paragraphs. In particular, the final paragraph could be reduced to a single sentence, since these various adaptations are all given in the text.
  • I went ahead and implemented your recommendation regarding the final paragraph. Reading the rest of it, and knowing the case, it seems compressed to me already, and taking more out would leave out important details. But I'm open to any other recommendations if you think it's still too long. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "His legal case" → "His trial"?
  • In the fourth paragraph you don't date the march of the 1,200, so "two months later" is indefinable.
  • I rewrote this a little based on what was in the body. 1,200 specifically isn't mentioned in the body, nor in a couple sources I looked at, so I went ahead and took this out. I added the date of the kidnapping and lynching, as this is important and wasn't mentioned in the lead before. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Social and economic conditions
  • "had been going through" → "was undergoing"
  • I'll call your suggestion and raise you an "underwent" (unless you insist otherwise). Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "a failing rural situation" is somewhat inelegant. I'd reword the whole sentence as follows: "To serve a growing urban economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the increasingly impoverished countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in "squalid slums". The terem "squalid slums" is not worth quotation marks; use a slight paraphrase, e.g. filthy, sordid, wretched.
  • I reworded this sentence and took out the quotes in favor of a different phrasing. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Despite their success, they recognized themselves as a 'people apart', which left them 'with a pervasive sense of anxiety' ". Again there are quotes wrapped around fairly mundane phrases, without attribution, and again it would be better to paraphrase. As a rule, direct quotes should be used sparingly, when particularly arresting phrasing is used, and should be attributed unless the source is obvious from the context.
  • "One of their responses..." – "strategies" rather than "responses"
  • "enhance the image of Jews in the dominant society" – another unattributed and paraphrasable quote.
  • I rephrased the first part of the sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The Marx quote beginning "In isolated instances..." is followed by two footnotes but is not itself cited.
  • This is referenced in the same page as the first footnote, so I went ahead and added a named reference to clarify. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Leo Frank
  • "Frank's northern culture and Jewish faith added to the sense that he was different" – do you mean added to his sense, or a general sense?
  • A general sense, although I'm not quite sure how to modify the sentence to clarify that. Feel free to take a stab at it, or reply below with suggested text. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Mary Phagan
  • Can you give more details of the nature of Mary's work at the pencil factory?
  • I mentioned that she operated a machine used to insert erasers into pencils. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Discovery
  • "Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open across where the vulva would be." I would end this sentence at "torn open"; the remaining detail is overspecific and unnecessary.
Police investigation
  • "Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands..." – whose description of Frank's behavior is this?
  • "...and asking questions before the police could answer" – I'm not sure what you mean here. Surely, questions always precede amswers?
  • This quote from the Oney book should clarify the previous two comments:

...he paced restlessly across the parlor, wringing his hands and firing questions so fast that he apparently didn't leave Black time to answer: "Has anything happened at the factory? ... Did the night watchman report anything to you? ... I dreamt I heard the phone ring around four o'clock."

Evidently, Black's reply to this barrage was a curt "Mr. Frank, you had better put your clothes on, and let us go to the factory." Subsequently, the detective would remember it this way: His voice was hoarse and trembling and nervous and excited. He looked to me like he was pale ... He seemed to be nervous in handling his collar. He could not get his tie tied, and talked very rapid. Boots Rogers would echo these impressions:

Mr. Frank seemed to be extremely nervous. His questions were jumpy ... His voice was a refined voice ... kind of lady-like ... He was rubbing his hands ... He seemed to be excited.
  • Frank tells the police that he did not recognise the name Mary Phagan, but later says Phagan was in his office between 12:05 and 12:10 p.m on Saturday? Is this not contradictory?
  • This is addressed in the "despite" quote below. The reason it says "despite" is that if Frank knew that someone else knew Phagan, that would mean that he also knew Phagan. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Despite claiming he did not know Phagan the day before, Frank told Scott that Gantt knew Phagan well..." This is not a "despite" sentence. I think the required sense is something like: "Having claimed the day before that he personally did not know Phagan, Frank now told Scott that Gantt knew Phagan well..."
  • "Jim Conley, the janitor at the factory, was arrested on May 1 and would remain in custody until the trial." This sentence seems premature, given that the next section is entirely devoted to Conley.
  • I removed this sentence, as this fact is indeed in the next section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll resume when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I do apologise for the delay in resuming this review, but for the last few days I have been distracted on various fronts. I'll try to get to it today, and post later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Resuming at last! Will post soon. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A few more sections:

James "Jim" Conley'
  • Can you clarify why Conley was kept in custody long after the police had decided that his shirt was not bloodstained? Why were they holding him?
  • The Oney text just mentions that he made "a statement the detectives didn't even bother to take until fifteen days after his arrest". Apparently he didn't post bail due to his financial circumstances, but the text doesn't specify and thus we don't mention it in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "At trial, Conley changed his story..." At what trial? Frank's or his own?
    • It was Frank's trial – Conley did not have a separate trial. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "He said Frank withheld the money until he had burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace." Needs rephrasing, e.g. "He said Frank decided to withhold the money until Conley had burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace."
Media coverage
  • "As many as" is unnecessary editorial emphasis.
  • Done, and wrote out "Forty" to start the sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "prepared ten militia companies": a better word than "prepared" might be "organized"
  • " Albert Lindemann ... opined that "ordinary people" may have had difficulty in evaluating the often unreliable information and "suspend[ing] judgment over a long period of time" while the case developed". Sentence not grammatatical as written. Maybe add "were" after the "and"
  • I moved the word 'in' to be before the second -ing word rather than the first. This should help some. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Trial
  • Second para: I'd reorganise this, so that the present second and third sentence are placed at the end of the paragraph. The prose would flow more naturally.
  • "bloodstains" is one word
  • "The defense theory..." – delete the word "theory"
  • "The defense brought many witnesses to support Frank's alibi, which suggested he did not have enough time to commit the crime". This sentence needs strengthening; an alibi that merely "suggests" something is not much of an alibi. I suugest: "The defense brought many witnesses to support Frank's account of his movements, which indicated he did not have enough time to commit the crime".
  • "The prosecution's analysis of stomach contents placed the time of death at 30 to 45 minutes after the last meal. Of this analysis, the defense's expert witness contested both the methodology and the conclusions". I'd say "her last meal", and delete the words "Of this analysis". Can you explain the grounds on which the defense contested this analysis?
  • Changed to 'her', and the defense is mentioned in the next sentence regarding the inflammation, as well as later in the paragraph where Arnold, one of Frank's attorneys with prior medical experience, rebuts some prosecution arguments. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow progress but here is more:

Trial
  • You should link Dorsey at first mention, in the previous section.
Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Frank's alleged sexual behavior
  • What is the significance of mentioning "Monteen Stover"? How does he/she fit into the narrative? (I see this is answered later, but you need greater clarity at this point)
  • I removed the mention of her from this section and reworded some of this section slightly. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "cross-examined unsuccessfully" – what does this mean? If it means that they could not break his story you should say so.
  • I removed "unsuccessfully" and specifically stated that the defense failed to break Conley's story. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Judge Roan recognized..." – that's the wrong verb. "Said", "remarked", "ruled", there are many better alternatives.
  • I changed this to 'noted' and changed "would allow" to "allowed". Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Timeframe
  • "vivid parts" – "vivid" is wrong. "Crucial" is the word.
  • "whose father worked for the Montags" – who/what are "the Montags"?
  • I removed the name Montags, but clarified that they were a family who owned a stake of the pencil factory that Frank managed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Frank's attorneys located witnesses to dispute the alleged early departure from lunch". What is the nature of this allegation, and who made it?
  • This is addressed in the rest of the paragraph. It mentions some witnesses who saw Frank walking outside at a later time. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "the locked up factory" needs a hyphen. When was the factory locked, and who locked it?
  • I added the hyphen, and the page cited just mentions what the article does about it being locked up, although a previous page noted that they locked up at 6 PM. This was during the incident where a fired employee came back at that time to retrieve items he had left in the factory. We could specify this here, although I don't believe it's necessary. We could even leave out the locked-up part in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Conviction and sentencing
  • This seems very sudden: no closing arguments, speeches, summaries? No mention of how long it took the jury to reach a verdict?
  • I added some content from a previous version of the article. I agree that it was a quite abrupt transition before. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Appeals
  • "Frank's absence from the court when the verdict was announced..." Shouldn't this have been mentioned in your trial account section? It seems important to know why Frank was not in court to hear the verdict.
  • I mentioned this in the new content under Conviction and sentencing. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There's some pretty dense legal stuff in this section. I found this particularly daunting: " Louis Marshall, President of the American Jewish Committee and constitutional lawyer, urged them to raise the point, and the decision was made that it should be made clear that if the extraordinary motion was rejected they intended to appeal through the federal court system and there would be an impression of injustice in the trial." Is there a less wordy way of getting this point across, if indeed it is necessary?
  • Earlier in the article, I added a footnote explaining what an "extraordinary motion" is, and the prior sentence puts this one in better context. The paradox about making it less dense is that it would become more wordy, so I think the current text is a good balance. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "the significance of the Carter letters was disputed" → "the significance of Conley's letters to Annie Carter was disputed"
  • "the testimony as it related to" → "the testimony relating to"
  • "should have been raised earlier in the process" – delete last three words, as implied
Commutation hearing
  • "including one written by Judge Roan shortly before he died..." When did Roan die? This should have been mentioned earlier.
  • He died on March 23, 1915. The article doesn't mention this, and upon looking back at each mention of "Roan" in the article there's nowhere that it would make sense to mention it. The specific day seems too trivial for an encyclopedia article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Smith analyzed the notes and produced a 100-page analysis" → "Smith produced a 100-page analysis of the notes"
  • You have: "The commutation ... was unpopular with most Atlantans" but later: "The public was outraged. A mob threatened to attack the governor at his home..." which sounds like a lot more than "unpopular".
  • I went ahead and took out this phrase since the next subsection specifically deals with the public reaction. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The rest to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking again, after a break: Although the FAC has been open for five weeks, I seem to be the only reviewer active here, albeit with long pauses. But I would really like to see some other input, which will be essential if the article is to earn promotion. Maybe Maunus, who showed an early interest, could be pinged? Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: I finally got around to all of your points above. If you have any comments for the rest of the article or anything else, please let me know when you get a chance. As you suggested, I'll also ping Maunus and Nikkimaria below.
  • @Maunus: You made a comment a while back about some of the references being too long. I'm considering moving refs 237, 238, and 240 to the notes section, although I apparently won't be able to use bullet points if I do. I could make it one paragraph and add references after each sentence, although this might be too convoluted relative to the current bulleted references. If you have an opinion one way or the other, we can consider that.
  • @Nikkimaria: You commented on the licensing of Leo Frank's signature in the infobox, as while he died prior to 1923 in the U.S., the publication status was initially ambivalent. As I mentioned at the top of this page, I added a link to this document which is an application for executive clemency. This wasn't "published" in the sense of a book, but is a legal document in the public record that I believe should suffice for public domain criteria. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

I'm afraid we can't keep this open much longer without some more commentary; we'd generally have archived it before now but I wanted to at least give Maunus the chance to wrap up his review, and see if one or two more might stop by in the meantime. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Following up... Firstly, tks Maunus and Sarastro for adding comments.
  • Secondly, we'll need a source review for formatting and reliability before long.
  • Lastly, as this is Tony's first FAC we'll also want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through. These checks can be conducted by people who've commented already or you can post requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Update -- I'd been prepared to leave this open an extended period because I felt we were working towards consensus, and pressing on seemed the better alternative to archiving and starting a third time down the track, since Tony seemed to be trying to meet Sarastro1 somewhere in the middle (but I would prefer to see feedback from Sarastro). Brian was I think was broadly supportive, but then he's suddenly had to retire from WP, so we'll need another reviewer even if Sarastro is prepared to support promotion (Mike Christie, if you're still willing, pls stand by for the call if it becomes necessary!). Also we still need a source review and spotcheck per my comment above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I added a request for image/source review and spotcheck, and can provide further verification of sources beyond the linked page numbers as needed. Depending on WP policy, I can also send PDFs of books to reviewers privately if this is not copyvio. That way, it would be easy to search through them and spotcheck as needed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

I've read to the end of the Background section, and I'm seeing a few minor issues but nothing that is particularly worrying. My only larger issue would be a few terrifyingly long sentences in places. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • The whole article is dauntingly long. I'm not sure yet what could be cut, but I suspect some parts could probably be shortened.
  • The lead is also a little long; WP:LEAD recommends no more than four paragraphs, so I wonder if we could merge the five paragraphs here into four?
  • "Two notes, made to look as if she had written them, were found beside her body": This is a little vague; it looks at first sight like someone forged her handwriting, which is the meaning I think most people would take, but this is not what the main body says. I think some rewording might be needed.
  • "Based on the mention of a "night witch"": Presumably this was in the letters, but the meaning is not quite clear.
  • "The case attracted national press,": Should this be "national press attention"?
  • "with many deeming the conviction a travesty": Based on the next sentence, I wonder would this be better as "many outside Georgia"? Then, maybe the next sentence could be "This criticism fueled local antisemitism and hatred toward Frank".
  • The social and economic conditions section is a bit heavy. I wonder if some sentences could be split, simplified or shortened.
  • "To serve a growing economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in primitive housing,[1] due to a struggling agricultural economy.": There's a bit too much going on in this sentence. Maybe "many people left the countryside" is a little more concise. But I'm not sure to what part of the sentence "due to a struggling agricultural economy" refers: as written, it is a little ambiguous.
  • "Employment conditions in the city included child labor, a 66-hour work week, low wages, and unregulated and unsafe work sites": These aren't really employment conditions; maybe "Employment issues in the city"? Or "challenges"?
  • "One of their strategies was to select rabbis and leaders who would put forth a positive image for their people to eliminate frictions that would threaten the existing stability.": This sentence has a lot going on in it. Is there any way to simplify it, or split it?
  • "An example of the type of tension that Rabbi Marx feared": We haven't really identified any tensions, and certainly none of his fears.
  • If we were looking to cut parts, do we really need anything on Marx in this section?
  • I can't help wondering why this section is called "Background". The article is named Leo Frank, and this is not really background about him. Even more off-putting, there is a section in Leo Frank's article called "Leo Frank". Maybe move the first section (The Social/Economic one) to the start of the murder section and rename it "Background", and rename the Leo Frank section something along the lines of "Early life"?
  • Are we repeating the antisemitism background in both the "social" section and the "Leo Frank" section? Sarastro1 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A few more:

  • "into an established Georgia family": Not too clear what we mean here by "established".
  • "Shortly after her birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved the family back to their hometown of Marietta, Georgia.[28] During or after 1907, she moved the family to East Point, Georgia, in southwest Atlanta, where she opened a boarding house.": Not too sure what hometown means here: is it her hometown, or where the family lived before. Also, we have close repetition of "moved the family". I think it may also be neater to open the first sentence with "Shortly after Mary's birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved..."
  • "That spring, Phagan took a job with the National Pencil Company, where she earned ten cents an hour operating a knurling machine that inserted rubber erasers into the metal tips of pencils, and worked 55 hours per week.": Again, if we were looking to cut some of this back, do we need to know how much she earned? Or precisely what her job was?
  • The "Discovery" section begins with three consecutive sentences starting "On..."
  • "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, went to the factory basement to use the toilet.[33] After leaving the toilet, Lee discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the basement near an incinerator and called the police": Again, looking to cut the length, do we need to know he used the toilet? Why not "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the factory basement near an incinerator and called the police."
  • "Her dress was up around her waist and a strip from her petticoat had been torn off and wrapped around her neck. Her face was blackened and scratched. Her head was bruised and battered. A 7-foot (2.1 m) strip of 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm) wrapping cord was tied into a loop around her neck, buried 1⁄4 in (6.4 mm) deep. Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open. Her skin was covered with ashes and dirt from the floor, initially making it appear to responding officers that she and her assailant had struggled in the basement.": I have a slight problem here with the repetition of "Her" and the use of short sentences which makes this seem slightly sensationalist and tabloid. By all means, list the injuries and facts, but why not make it a little more neutral? To me, as written, this seems more like a dramatised account. (For example, compare the style here to the style of the Social and Economic section) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "When the police arrived after 7 a.m. without telling the specifics of what happened at the factory, Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands and asking questions before the police could answer.": Again, if we are looking to reduce the word count, we could lose everything after "nervous" without any huge detriment to the article. If we really need to know his "symptoms", we could add these in a note without distracting from the main tale.
  • "gave a written deposition to the police that provided a brief timeline of his activities on Saturday": Also, could we trim this back to "gave a brief written timeline"?
  • "and that he had a confrontation with ex-employee James Gantt at 6 p.m. as Frank was leaving and Lee arriving": It's not quite clear who was the "he" having a confrontation, Frank or Lee.
  • "Frank also mentioned an unidentified Negro in the factory, although Scott did not place much emphasis on this point.": This sentence is apparently unreferenced.
  • For consistency, I've fixed a few instances where we are quoting a "current" writer but use the past tense. I think the literary present applies here, but I think consistency is the most important thing.
  • It's not quite clear in the Police Investigation section when, why or for how long the Pinkertons were involved. Who asked them to get involved? As written, it could be read that Frank got them involved, but it is not clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think we actually state the cause of death in the main body of the article. Also, was an autopsy carried out?
  • Still thinking about the length, I think some of the Conley section could be cut back and given as more of a summary. Although it is well-written and fairly concise, it is a large chunk of a large article. For example, rather than detailing all his different accounts separately, could we not combine them into one and summarise them? I'm sure the first two paragraphs could be combined and shortened. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: I'm down to the end of the Conley section now. I've made a lot of suggestions already, so I think I will pause and give the authors a chance to respond, although I'm not sure how active the nominator is at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your review so far. I'll get to these shortly. My hope is that this review isn't archived simply due to it being idle, as I'd like to see it pass and will make improvements as necessary.
  • One other preliminary remark I'd like to make is that the length of the article is largely due to added content from the GA review, which was intended to make the article more complete by adding content from previous versions. Brian also made a comment about length, so perhaps it could be whittled down some without reverting to the pre-GA version of the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: It's nearly two weeks since I made these comments. As far as I can tell, nothing has yet been done about them. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that! I've been very busy but it is the weekend now, so I should get to this by end of day tomorrow. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's the first part:

  • The whole article is dauntingly long. I'm not sure yet what could be cut, but I suspect some parts could probably be shortened.
  • As I mentioned previously, we added a good amount of content during the GA review as the reviewer noticed that some important aspects of the case were missing. However, we left out some more minor points that would have required several paragraphs to explain. There may be a few places where things could be cut, but in general the article should be near the length it is now. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The lead is also a little long; WP:LEAD recommends no more than four paragraphs, so I wonder if we could merge the five paragraphs here into four?
  • Update: This edit from Midnightblueowl merged two paragraphs together to make the lead four paragraphs. If you think that it should be done another way, feel free to comment. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The GA review made several mentions of the lead needing to adequately summarize the article, especially for a longer one like this, but didn't mention paragraph count, which is not a hard requirement. The first two paragraphs of the lead are short, so I think at least by word count it's not terribly long and covers the article well. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Two notes, made to look as if she had written them, were found beside her body": This is a little vague; it looks at first sight like someone forged her handwriting, which is the meaning I think most people would take, but this is not what the main body says. I think some rewording might be needed.
  • "Based on the mention of a "night witch"": Presumably this was in the letters, but the meaning is not quite clear.
  • In the lead, the mention of this has "night watchman" following this phrase to make it apparent that Lee was implicated based on the similarity. This is explained in the body under Discovery. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "The case attracted national press,": Should this be "national press attention"?
  • I seem to recall that it was written this way before "attention" was removed by another reviewer here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "with many deeming the conviction a travesty": Based on the next sentence, I wonder would this be better as "many outside Georgia"? Then, maybe the next sentence could be "This criticism fueled local antisemitism and hatred toward Frank".
  • I feel like that might be ambiguous in the sense that it wouldn't be clear if the press attention was completely national or just in a few states besides Georgia. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The social and economic conditions section is a bit heavy. I wonder if some sentences could be split, simplified or shortened.
  • I re-read this section just now and recall another comment I made in this review where I said there has to be a balance between density and article length, and I think the text achieves this. I don't think anything is too hard to understand and it's presented in a reasonably brief text. If you have specific suggestions, feel free to mention them. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "To serve a growing economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in primitive housing,[1] due to a struggling agricultural economy.": There's a bit too much going on in this sentence. Maybe "many people left the countryside" is a little more concise. But I'm not sure to what part of the sentence "due to a struggling agricultural economy" refers: as written, it is a little ambiguous.
  • I made the change you suggested to be more concise. I also removed the second phrase since we already mention how commerce and manufacturing were growing, and this implies that agriculture was struggling. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Employment conditions in the city included child labor, a 66-hour work week, low wages, and unregulated and unsafe work sites": These aren't really employment conditions; maybe "Employment issues in the city"? Or "challenges"?
  • Using the dictionary definition, I think this satisfies "the circumstances affecting the way in which people live or work, especially with regard to their safety or well-being". Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "One of their strategies was to select rabbis and leaders who would put forth a positive image for their people to eliminate frictions that would threaten the existing stability.": This sentence has a lot going on in it. Is there any way to simplify it, or split it?
  • I reworded the second part of this sentence to be simpler and clearer. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "An example of the type of tension that Rabbi Marx feared": We haven't really identified any tensions, and certainly none of his fears.
  • This refers to the view that Jews were employing Gentile child laborers, such as Frank hiring Phagan and other girls. This is in the rest of the paragraph, so it would be redundant to write it out in that sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • If we were looking to cut parts, do we really need anything on Marx in this section?
  • I think mentioning him illustrates Jewish relations of the period well without going into excessive detail. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't help wondering why this section is called "Background". The article is named Leo Frank, and this is not really background about him. Even more off-putting, there is a section in Leo Frank's article called "Leo Frank". Maybe move the first section (The Social/Economic one) to the start of the murder section and rename it "Background", and rename the Leo Frank section something along the lines of "Early life"?
  • This was addressed in the GA review. We actually didn't have the social/economic section for a long time, but the GA reviewer felt this put the article in an appropriate context to answer why Frank was noteworthy. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Are we repeating the antisemitism background in both the "social" section and the "Leo Frank" section?
  • I don't think so. The only mention of it in the Frank section is the last sentence, which addresses Frank specifically. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick reply: Hmm, so to summarise the replies here, "Thanks, but no thanks". I'm not sure there is much point, in that case, in continuing the review. Incidentally, "The case attracted national press" has been in this article since before the FAC began. Also, the lead should be self-contained and should not need reference to the main body to make something clear to the reader. Finally, I appreciate that there were a few issues at the GA review, and things were done for that review. However, this is not a GA review. As it stands, this article is undoubtedly a GA but in my view it is still some way short of FA standard. Given how long this review has been open, that is a concern, and the replies here do not reassure me, particularly as my comments were made over two weeks ago. Rather than worry about the GA review, perhaps addressing the concerns of FA reviewers would be a way forward. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I should first state that my responses to you were similar to Brian Boulton's in that I went point-by-point and either noted a change or gave my opinion as to why the current version was better. I did make several changes due to your suggestions, which are appreciated. I'll get to part 2 shortly.
I'm happy to address any responses you have to my comments, but I don't want you to feel like I'm blowing you off; just that I'm giving my take as to why I think the current version is preferable. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Part 2:

  • "into an established Georgia family": Not too clear what we mean here by "established".
  • My assumption is that this means they had been tenant farmers for several generations and established themselves into the profession. This could be changed to "into a Georgia family". Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Shortly after her birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved the family back to their hometown of Marietta, Georgia.[28] During or after 1907, she moved the family to East Point, Georgia, in southwest Atlanta, where she opened a boarding house.": Not too sure what hometown means here: is it her hometown, or where the family lived before. Also, we have close repetition of "moved the family". I think it may also be neater to open the first sentence with "Shortly after Mary's birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved..."
  • "Their hometown" is plural and thus means family. I adjusted some of the wording here to avoid repetition and improve clarity. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "That spring, Phagan took a job with the National Pencil Company, where she earned ten cents an hour operating a knurling machine that inserted rubber erasers into the metal tips of pencils, and worked 55 hours per week.": Again, if we were looking to cut some of this back, do we need to know how much she earned? Or precisely what her job was?
  • The pay is important because it sharply contrasts with that of Frank, who earned $180/month plus a portion of the profits. The exact job description isn't mandatory, but is brief and a reader would probably wonder about it if it hadn't been mentioned. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The "Discovery" section begins with three consecutive sentences starting "On..."
  • "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, went to the factory basement to use the toilet.[33] After leaving the toilet, Lee discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the basement near an incinerator and called the police": Again, looking to cut the length, do we need to know he used the toilet? Why not "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the factory basement near an incinerator and called the police."
  • I'm not sure the toilet part is crucial, but I don't think the idea of going around and snipping little bits is very helpful, and one might wonder why he went down there in the first place. Like several other points here, however, it could go either way and perhaps this could be implemented should someone else come by and second your motion. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Her dress was up around her waist and a strip from her petticoat had been torn off and wrapped around her neck. Her face was blackened and scratched. Her head was bruised and battered. A 7-foot (2.1 m) strip of 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm) wrapping cord was tied into a loop around her neck, buried 1⁄4 in (6.4 mm) deep. Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open. Her skin was covered with ashes and dirt from the floor, initially making it appear to responding officers that she and her assailant had struggled in the basement.": I have a slight problem here with the repetition of "Her" and the use of short sentences which makes this seem slightly sensationalist and tabloid. By all means, list the injuries and facts, but why not make it a little more neutral? To me, as written, this seems more like a dramatised account. (For example, compare the style here to the style of the Social and Economic section) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, and combined the second and third sentences. It might be improved further, but this should be a good start. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "When the police arrived after 7 a.m. without telling the specifics of what happened at the factory, Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands and asking questions before the police could answer.": Again, if we are looking to reduce the word count, we could lose everything after "nervous" without any huge detriment to the article. If we really need to know his "symptoms", we could add these in a note without distracting from the main tale.
  • This could be changed to "...nervous while he was being interrogated", which is shorter but might not sound as good. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "gave a written deposition to the police that provided a brief timeline of his activities on Saturday": Also, could we trim this back to "gave a brief written timeline"?
  • This could be changed to "gave a brief timeline of his activities on Saturday to police", but like the last one and several others, I don't think it sounds as good nor does it shorten the article or even the section by any significant amount. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "and that he had a confrontation with ex-employee James Gantt at 6 p.m. as Frank was leaving and Lee arriving": It's not quite clear who was the "he" having a confrontation, Frank or Lee.
  • "Frank also mentioned an unidentified Negro in the factory, although Scott did not place much emphasis on this point.": This sentence is apparently unreferenced.
  • This is ibidum from the previous sentence, but I added a second Oney 63 ref for clarity. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • For consistency, I've fixed a few instances where we are quoting a "current" writer but use the past tense. I think the literary present applies here, but I think consistency is the most important thing.
  • It's not quite clear in the Police Investigation section when, why or for how long the Pinkertons were involved. Who asked them to get involved? As written, it could be read that Frank got them involved, but it is not clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This is correct, so I mentioned that Frank hired them. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think we actually state the cause of death in the main body of the article. Also, was an autopsy carried out?
  • I mentioned the strangling explicitly in the body, since "strangled" only appeared in the lead until now. Regarding the autopsy, a longtime editor of this article in the GA review mentioned that it had been removed because it "would confuse rather than enlighten a reader". It is, however, discussed in the last paragraph of the Trial section before the "Frank's alleged sexual behavior" subsection. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Still thinking about the length, I think some of the Conley section could be cut back and given as more of a summary. Although it is well-written and fairly concise, it is a large chunk of a large article. For example, rather than detailing all his different accounts separately, could we not combine them into one and summarise them? I'm sure the first two paragraphs could be combined and shortened.
  • It's not a bad idea, but I think it's important to show how Conley's account changed on multiple occasions. This is one of those points that would be good to have a third opinion from someone knowledgeable in the case as we seem to be stuck in a bit of an impasse currently with much of this review, although I do value your feedback and think you have contributed many good ideas. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)

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

ToeJam & Earl[edit]

Notified: Bridies, WikiProject Video games

This article no longer meets 1a, 1b, 2b and 2c of the FA criteria. I can see that it has unfortunately slumped over the past few years as a lot of it is also out of date. I'll list some of the more glaring issues in broad strokes: the lead does not summarise the article, the reception section has overquoting issues and is not comprehensive enough, there is an inconsistent use of "Genesis" and "Mega Drive", and the majority of the prose is choppy. Also, some references are unformatted and unreliable. The article deteriorated since 2009 and seems shy from meeting the GA criteria in its current state. I'll alert the original author, Bridies, but he's sadly retired. JAGUAR  12:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The Reception section in particular needs work—should be cohesive prose rather than one-off summaries of reviewers. czar 00:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War[edit]

Notified: Andonic, WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this featured article for review because its referencing issues it has. A majority of the sources here are from a fansite (Rise and Fall Heaven). The entire "Gameplay" section meanwhile needs a rewrite to meet standards as well. GamerPro64 04:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair nomination. I note it is nine days since you made a note on the talk page with zero response. I can see that Andonic has recently edited so maybe they will help out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, cheers for the heads up on my talk page. Unfortunately I won't be able to pitch in with the revamp if it occurs, and not sure anyone has interest in this game enough to put in the effort, lol. · Andonic contact 16:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Reception has overquoting issues too—needs more paraphrasing I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 13:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Covent Garden[edit]

Notified: SilkTork, WikiProject London

Review section[edit]

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

  • Comment. Since FAR generally requires more warning than this on the article's talk page, I'm guessing this will be rejected at FAR ... but if anyone here has time, it would be great if you could offer opinions before June 30, regardless of what happens to the FAR. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I brought it directly here because the article has had barely any regular editors and is due to be featured so soon. If this incredibly bureaucratic process rejects it because of that, well... the less said about that, the better.  — Scott talk 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
      • You are also welcome (and recommended) to have a go at tightening the prose yourself ("Before nomination, ... Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
      • And btw, this hasn't actually been transcluded to WP:FAR, so it's just us chatting at the moment. And note that SilkTork said on his talk page that he'll be looking for problems over the next few days. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Oops. Done.  — Scott talk 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think a question we should answer sooner than later is whether it's salvageable in time for TFA or if that slot should be rescheduled. --Laser brain (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't worked on this article for years, so all my notes are gone. I did have it watchlisted to keep it tidy, but took it off my watchlist some time ago. I think I last made an edit about a year ago. I am in the same position, therefore, as anyone else looking at the article, and would need to do the same things. Because of personal circumstances I rarely have the time or energy to spend long periods on Wikipedia, so my time here is random and uncertain. Sometimes I can spend a few days on an article, but rarely at a high level. It will mostly be obvious tidying up. I will take a look at Scott's concerns, though I would urge him in the meantime to get stuck in and do the copy-editing of that sentence he finds over-complex, and to sort the lead into a more acceptable number of paragraphs. Also, Scott, it would help those who are to work on the article if you could more clearly list the areas you feel need attention. You mention the number of paragraphs in the lead, one sentence that is over-long, and that you disagree with the arrangement and value of certain pieces of information, but in general your comment comes over as "I don't like this", rather more than helpful and constructive criticism. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong on almost every point. I would suggest not involving yourself in this any further, out of kindness to our readers.  — Scott talk 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more constructive, Scott? I have seen some minor areas of concern which I am addressing, but other than that you dislike the lead having X number of paragraphs, and one sentence was too complex to parse easily, you haven't given us much to work on. At this point I'm not seeing a valid reason for this "review", and from the timing, the carelessness, the mistakes, and the language, this simply seems disruptive. I am willing to work on the article to address concerns, and I have already done some tidying up, but I am not seeing the cause for concern. At this point the article is substantially as it was when it was accepted as featured, and is up to date with relevant changes to the area, and with current Wikipedia policies and procedures. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
"Disruptive"? That's Wikipedia Discussion Bingo! I'm out of here. Would say good luck, but luck has got absolutely nothing to do with where you're headed.  — Scott talk 20:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
OK. I've just had a quick look, and it does have areas of concern. Some sourced material has been removed, and some trivia and grammar mistakes inserted ("Covent Garden is a area in London..." is currently the opening sentence). It looks like the article has been fiddled out with since I last looked at it. I'll see what I can do. It may be best to roll it back to the last secure edit, and then look at what positive edits have been done since that date, and reinsert them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SilkTork asked me to comment. I would say roll it back to the version that passed FAC, or the most recent version that SilkTork is happy with, and see whether Scott still has the same concerns. SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Judging by Scott's comments I think that Scott sees Silktork's writing as part of the problem. I don't think we can have two parallel versions. My vote would be for looking at the current version as it is already being worked on. Fresh eyes are good, so will look later. Will be in transit for a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't see a problem with the writing. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Nor I. The version as it stands is pretty much the version that was passed, and several people were involved in copyediting at the time. There has been minor updating is all. Over the past few months, as I had taken it off my watchlist, some errors had been introduced, which I have now corrected. I have looked at the transport section and refined the information regarding the underground station, which now reads better, and I hope satisfies Scott. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Scope and Stability The main problem with the article is its scope, which is huge – hundreds of years of history and hundreds of notable buildings and businesses. This is an issue for FA status because featured articles are supposed to be complete. As an example, note that the article has a section about "Pubs and bars" but has nothing much about eating establishments such as restaurants. This district contains numerous notable restaurants including London's oldest restaurant, Rules, several incarnations of the Beefsteak Club and modern institutions such as The Ivy. I have written several articles about such places myself, including Food for Thought, Gaby's Deli, Hawksmoor and Old Slaughter's Coffee House.
It might be feasible to expand the article to include missing aspects such as this but we will then have the problem that FAs are supposed to be stable. The page currently has a banner tag saying that it "is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" and this indicates that it is not currently stable. I'm not especially bothered about such formalities myself and so will give the page some attention over the coming days, as it approaches the main page.
Andrew D. (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Some good points. I will take down the updating tag, as I don't think there is that much work to be done to justify the banner. And I will also look into those eating establishments you mention. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
To add to this, the article has 26 kb of readable prose as of this revision, so there is scope to add material, if we take 50 kb prose as a limit to article size. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think User:SilkTork has this well in hand. I wouldn't worry too much about what Scott thinks, especially as he seems to have walked away. Despite being an admin, he is a combative and prickly editor. When I remonstrated with him once for abusing his admin powers (threatening to block editors who disagreed with him) he simply removed my comment from his talk page. I suppose this is a COI, but I've tried to be objective when reading the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In para 2 of the lead, it opens with Though mainly fields until the 16th century, - which is confusing as it seems to contradict what comes next and is out of chronological order - I'd either remove it or move it along to appropriate time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You kn