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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

  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.



Lion-class battlecruiser[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Lion-class battlecruisers were two of the more powerful battlecruisers deployed by the British during World War I. They spent most of the war deployed in home waters and were very active as they were the first responders to any sorties by their German counterparts. Lion was badly damaged during the Battles of Dogger Bank in 1915 and Jutland in 1916 while her sister Princess Royal was only lightly damaged at worst. Both ships were scrapped after the war as obsolete. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous language, uses of AmEng, and jargon terms that need to be linked or explained better. This recently passed a MilHist A-class review, which included an image review, and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Rodrigues parrot[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the last article about an extinct species of parrot from the Mascarene islands yet to be nominated here, so I thought it was time to put it up. Very little is known about the bird, but most of what has ever been written about it is summarised here. The article also covers two supposedly congeneric, but dubious, species. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Passion (Utada Hikaru song)[edit]

Nominator(s): CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 08:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Japanese theme song "Passion" (English version titled "Sanctuary") by Japanese singer Utada Hikaru. A long-time fan of hers, I value these two songs amongst my favourite recordings of all time. I decided to re-furbish the article to get to a Featured Article standard. I have put it through one good article and one good article reassessment nomination, and both have come out good. I have severely improved the article since, noting a lot of errors regarding reference templates, spelling, grammar and punctuation and other small touch-ups. As mentioned, I have severly improved this article and hopefully will get the chance to see it achieve a Featured Article star! All constructive criticism is welcome, and PLEASE ping me if you need any direct conversations/comments. Much appreciated, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 08:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Mary Kom (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an inspiring film based on the legendary eponymous boxer, who was largely unknown in her own country despite achieving plethora of accolades. Additionally, the film features a remarkable performance by Priyanka Chopra. I am looking forward to lots of constructive comments.Krish | Talk 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

William J. Donovan[edit]

Nominator(s): Meatsgains (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about William J. Donovan, an American soldier, lawyer, intelligence officer, diplomat and the only veteran to receive all four of the United States' highest awards: The Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Distinguished Service Medal, and the National Security Medal. Donovan is known for heading the Office of Strategic Services (the precursor to the CIA) during World War II, helping in the formation of the CIA, serving as Coordinator of Information, and as Ambassador of Thailand. This well decorated war veteran has a statue in the CIA headquarters, was portrayed in the 1940s film The Fighting, and is a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. During World War I, Major Donovan suffered a shrapnel wound in one leg and was almost blinded by gas. Throughout his expansive career, he also served as: co-founder of Goodyear & O'Brien (a law firm in Buffalo), U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York, assistant to Attorney General Harlan Stone, director of the Department of Justice's antitrust division, candidate for Governor of New York, colonel in the U.S. Army, chairman of the American Committee on United Europe, chairman of the People to People Foundation, and co-founder of American Friends of Vietnam.

I've spent the past two weeks expanding and improving the page to its current state, to what I think is a well-researched and informative page for an individual with an incredible history. Happy to make any suggested changes and as always, I appreciate all feedback! Meatsgains (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Friedrich III[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Another one of my German battleship articles, this one accidentally helped make later German battleships more resistant to underwater damage. The article passed a MILHIST A-class review a couple of months ago. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (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) 18:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • Link cylindrical boilers, keel, rivet, squadron (the generic term), armored frigate, launched, Kaiser, commissioned, Netherlands, flagship, coastal defense ships, ironclad, drydock, Kaiser Wilhelm II (the ship), rammed, grounding on first use
  • Watch the rounding in your conversions: 45 cm doesn't equal 18 inches
  • Link the guns, redlinks are acceptable
  • received 150 mm (5.9 in) of armor Redundant conversion
  • along with the aviso Hela comma after Hela
  • Service as a flagship is probably worth adding to the lede
  • for excellent gunnery Perhaps "excellence in gunnery"?
  • a United States squadron Awkward, howzabout "an American" squadron?
  • Probably worth mentioning that she was disarmed and that her guns were, IIRC, used as railroad guns on the Western Front.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2017 (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) 00:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Restart: Old nomination I think we need a another look at the old nomination had got a little bogged down; new eyes and a fresh start might be the best way forward. We haven't used restarts at FAC for a long time, but they were formerly used relatively frequently and are very effective in cases like this one. For those who are new to them, this is effectively a fresh start and the nomination has been moved back to the top of the list. Any questions on the process can be raised here, on my talk page, or at WT:FAC, but I think this is the best route forward. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is new to me, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with this approach for this long-running review -- I was still a bit leery of promotion but I don't think much would've been gained from a standard archive and two-week wait either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Support with minor quibbles: perhaps we don't need quite so much background as that is covered in other articles which can be linked from this one? And we don't need the other Lutheran hymns here, do we? They don't really seem relevant. I did a little cleanup of overlinks, too: e.g. Lutheran etc. Great candidate otherwise! Listening via Spotify helps... — Iadmctalk  23:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Just to add, my tools (WPC, in this case) found an incorrectly formatted hidden comment: now corrected. No other issues — Iadmctalk  00:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Habits (Stay High)[edit]

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about "Habits (Stay High)", a song by Swedish singer and songwriter Tove Lo. It was a commercial success in 2014, thanks to the original track and a remix version by record production duo Hippie Sabotage. This article covers the information about both versions of the song. It is currently a GA, but I think it meets the criteria for a FA, since it features important aspects about the song and I consider is properly referenced. Paparazzzi (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Naruto Uzumaki[edit]

Nominator(s): MCMLXXXIX 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a fictional character whom is a eponymous protagonist of the series Naruto. The article is a GA article with mid-importance in the Anime and Manga WikiProject. A peer review was opened regarding this article, and issues with the article has been discussed and fixed. It has also been copy-edited recently. I have done things on my part for this article like expand it, fix dead links, and archive all of the links listed in the references section. I have a feeling that this article may be ready for FA. Thanks, MCMLXXXIX 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Doing the Source review:

  • All references are linked, pass reliability and have archives in case of deletion. As a result, I think the article passes the source review. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Tintor2: Does this mean you support this nomination? The nomination viewer script doesn't count the word pass as a support. MCMLXXXIX 17:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@1989: You see, as far as I know, the FACs are divided in three parts: the general prose review, the source review and the image review. Since I used to work on this article some time ago, I my prose review would biased so I decided to do the source review. Also, another suggestion I could give you to have more feedback is going to other reviews like List of Blood-C episodes where the nominator also needs feedback too. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • In the lead, the phrase "added a harsh past" sounds a little odd to me. I understand what you mean, but I would refine/revise it to make it clear you are referencing the character's past.
  • In the first line of the lead's third paragraph, you have variations of the word "popular" in the same sentence. I would change this for variety.
  • I don't think you need to say "Naruto's character". You can just say "Naruto" or you could adjust to "Naruto's character development".
  • I could not find any problems with the "Appearances" section. It reads very smoothly to me, with only minor instances standing out to me (such as the "who, as a newborn," reads a little awkward to me). I just want to post a reminder that I am not familiar with this character or the manga/anime at all so I cannot comment on the accuracy, but it looks really good to me.
@1989: Overall, you have done a wonderful job on the article. My comment focus on some awkward areas in the lead that could be corrected (I always find the lead to be difficult, probably because it is the last part of an article that I work on). It is really cool to read through an article about a manga/anime character, and it actually inspires me to trying working on a similar article. Once my minor comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with this article. Everything looks in shape to me. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Aoba47: Thanks! If you'd like, could you also do an image review? MCMLXXXIX 16:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course; I am currently at work, but I will do an image review later tonight if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There was only one thing that stood out to me, a simple punctuation/grammar mistake that I've just gone and fixed. Everything else about this article seems sound. I'll give this my Support to this article's promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • No audio files used, images only.
  • Good use of captions that illustrate the image in a clear and concise manner for the reader. All images in the body of the article are appropriate for the sections. It does seem a little odd to me to include the sketch of Naruto in the "Appearances" section as I would imagine that it would be more appropriate in a background/development one instead, but given its connection to the film, it is fine as it currently stands.
  • Both images for the voice actors (Junko Takeuchi and Flanagan) and the image of [File:Paris Manga 13 - Hiroshi Matsuyama - 001.jpg Hiroshi Matsuyama] were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • The other three images mostly have appropriate tags. Could you please be more specific about the source for this one? Is the source really titled (Naruto artbook 3)? Also include the year of its publication?
  • @1989: Once my minor question is addressed, then this will pass my image review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Everything looks good then, and this passes the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Phantasmagoria (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hunter Kahn, GamerPro64 16:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn did the vast majority of creating the article to the way it is now. I've asked him if I could nominate it on his behalf which he allowed. (conversations 1, 2). Made by one of the most important women video game designers Roberta Williams, this horror game was a far cry from the type of games Sierra On-Line made back in the day, such as Space Quest and Police Quest. Still the history behind the creation of this game, along with the controversy and banning from Australia once it was released, a fascinating look at gaming back in 1995. GamerPro64 16:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Indrian[edit]

A lot of good things happening in this article, but a few areas where I feel it can be tightened up a bit.

  • "who had five wives who all died mysteriously" - We can come up with a better verb than "had."
    • Changed the part to "whose five wives all died mysteriously." Does that work better? GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Hoping to find an inspiration for her next novel, Adrienne begins having nightmares immediately upon moving into her new home" - As written, this sentence is describing how Adrienne deliberately induced nightmares to find inspiration for her next book.
    • Changed "begins" to "starts". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "culminating in a controversial scene in which he rapes Adrienne" - I don't think culminating works here, as the culmination of his bad behavior is really when he starts killing everybody.
    • Changed "culminating" to "resulting". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Meanwhile, Harriet, fearing for her safety, decides to leave with Cyrus as Don becomes more abusive and erratic" - Meanwhile is not the proper transition here, as it denotes something happening at the same time as the events of the previous paragraph when it is actually something that happens later.
    • Removed "Meanwhile". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Williams had previously created suspenseful murder and crimes stories in her earlier mystery games, Mystery House and the Laura Bow series" - the use of "suspenseful" feels like unnecessary puffery to me.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "She felt the horror genre had not yet been properly explored in computer games yet, and that most attempts were just "a lot of hack and slash (where) the whole point seems to be to kill everyone and blow them away" - This is the first instance of what will become a recurring theme in this review: this is Williams talking to a house organ specifically to promote her game. As such, this may merely be sales puffery. I would take it out.
    • Just take out the sentence or should I take out everything involving the house organ? GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @GamerPro64:I think it's okay to use InterAction for basic facts like plot points, gameplay features, development time, release dates, etc. Where I would be wary of using it is when it analyzes how Phantasmagoria compares to other games or proclaims how distinctive or wonderful any of its features are, as this material may take liberties since the primary purpose of the magazine is to entice people to buy the game. Indrian (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Gotcha. Removed the sentence. GamerPro64 16:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Williams found it stressful working on two major games at once and said she had "some difficulty keeping both games in my head", but felt each received her undivided attention during the most crucial times in their respective developments." - Well she would feel that way, right? Is she going to say she neglected her games? This biased opinion does not really add any understanding to the creative process of the game.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "She said having a female lead in Phantasmagoria was not a ploy to attract female gamers, but rather felt like the correct choice for the game." - If she just chose a female protagonist because she wanted a female protagonist then there is really nothing to see here. This sentence does not really add to the article.
    • You got a point. Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Morsell said appreciated that her character was intelligent and not a typical horror film heroine, saying: "She doesn't do incredibly stupid things. You don't see her screaming in her underwear. The character isn't about decoration. She's a very real person." - This is just an actor promoting a project. I would not consider that source a reliable read of her feelings on the project.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Homb compared acting in Phantasmagoria to working in an entirely new medium, and called it "one of the best experiences I've ever had in the entire entertainment business"." - Same as above but even moreso. Lots of actors talk about how great their experiences were when promoting a project, which was the entire point of the source in question.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Unlike Homb, Miano primarily played antagonists throughout his career; he estimated "90 percent of the time, I play the bad guy." - This quote does not really add to our understanding of the subject.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As a general note, I have examined several FA-quality film articles, and virtually none of them list extensive CVs for cast members. This info seems excessive here, especially for the actors that have their own articles on Wikipedia.
  • "with the average scene taking about an hour to shoot, while others were significantly longer or shorter" and "The average filming day began at 6 a.m. with setting up the studio, with actors coming in at 7 a.m. or 7:30 a.m. for make-up calls. An hour-long pre-production meeting would detail what would be shot that day to ensure all necessary backgrounds and props were ready. Shooting would begin around 8 a.m. and conclude at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m." - So in other words, it followed a similar filming schedule to any other special-effects driven movie. This does not seem noteworthy and encompasses a level of minutiae not found in other FA-quality articles.
    • Removed those sentences. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Williams had no experience working with actors and feared it would be difficult due to "huge Hollywood egos", but she instead found the actors to be professional and hardworking" - Again, this may well be true, but it is drawn from a promotional book. These always go out of their way to emphasize camaraderie and harmony and are not really reliable for facts like these.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "They normally had two grips on set, but needed six for this scene, and Wolfe used friends who were visiting from out of town to help throw the props from ladders, boxes and scaffolding" - This feels like an unnecessary level of detail.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "At one point in the film, Carno lies in the hospital bed after having just survived a fire, his face wrapped in bandages with blood leaking through. During filming, Miano spontaneously sat up and started singing Al Jolson songs, making the crew laugh hysterically." - That's a cute story, but again seems out of step with maintaining a summary style.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Doberman Pinscher simply barked behind a fence during his scene, and was trained to bark on command using different hand signals. The scene with the rats simply involved them running along a wall in a basement, which they were trained with to do using food." - These are standard practices not unique to this game, so it again seems like an unnecessary detail.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "He said the game reminded him of working on one of his earliest movies, the slasher film The Slumber Party Massacre (1982)." - Another extraneous detail taken from a promotional source.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 20:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Morsell had to have her face covered in plaster when the model of her head was created, and she experienced some anxieties during the process, saying it felt "like being buried alive".[87] Robert Miano had similar feelings of anxiety when a model of his body was created, which was used in the game for a scene when Carno is set on fire. Miano had to sit on a chair for hours as the crew put plaster all of his body and face, during which he had to breathe through straws in his nostrils." - More extraneous anecdotes of a common type for actors having plaster molds made of themselves.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 20:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "and one of the first horror games from any company written specifically for adults" - So says Sierra's house organ as it tries to promote the game. It is not a reliable source for this type of information.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Phantasmagoria was the first game to get an "M" rating for "mature" audiences" - No it wasn't. When Night Trap was released on the 32x in 1994 it boasted an M rating. Same with the DOS version of Mortal Kombat II in 1994. I think there were a few others as well. This is why house organs can be of limited utility as sources.
    • Removed. Really common knowledge for people who know about video game history. Also had to rework the part of the paragraph so let me know how it looks. GamerPro64 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "InterAction, a magazine published by Sierra On-Line, wrote: "Never before has a new product jumped to number one on the charts so quickly." - I highly doubt that, and I would certainly never trust a company organ to tell me the truth about that.
    • Actually found the issue online. Page 25. The quote isn't the same as what InterAction wrote, though. But would the InterAction work as a source here? GamerPro64 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @GamerPro64:It still feels a little promotional in nature, but I assume InterAction has a decent handle on how the game did relative to Sierra's own releases. I would be okay with the magazine being used as a source for the claim that Phantasmagoria jumped to number one faster than any other Sierra game, but clearly the bit about fastest in computer game history is marketing hype rather than fact. Indrian (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
        • @Indrian:I changed the sentence to "InterAction, a magazine published by Sierra On-Line, wrote that no other Sierra game topped game charts as quickly as Phantasmagoria did." Does that work? GamerPro64 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Despite coming out in August" - Games achieve most of their sales in the first couple of months after release, so there is nothing surprising about a game coming out in August selling better than a bunch of games that came out in January or some other earlier month.
    • Removed from sentence. GamerPro64 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The violent content drew a great deal of attention, with Lee S. Isgur of Jefferies & Co., a global investment bank that followed the computer game industry, wrote, "It's probably one of the bloodiest games ever."" - This is a statement from an analyst and is not part of a critical review of the game. It may fit in the article somewhere, but it does not belong here.
    • I agree with you with it not being relevant in the "Reviews" section but I wouldn't know where else to put it. Would the "Release" or "Legacy" section work? GamerPro64 21:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "While happy with the game, she said she did not expect to make another horror game again, saying, "It's not really my area"." - Yeah and after finishing Time Zone in 1982 she said she would never make another adventure game again. This statement really has little probative value.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 18:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And that's it. I really do feel the article is mostly in fine shape; it just needs a little bit of trimming here and there to retain summary style and needs to take a little more care in the use of promotional sources. Indrian (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk), R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the seven metals of antiquity. I've been working with R8R Gtrs to get it up to this level on and off since about last year, and the talk page reviews make me confident that it finally meets the criteria. (Naturally, I consulted R8R for the final confirmation of the go-ahead; this is my first FA nomination, after all!) Of course, I support as nominator. Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

notes by Hawkeye7[edit]

Groan. Let's start with getting it fully referenced, which should have happened back at GA. Find citations for:

  • Fourth paragraph of "Bulk"
  • First paragraph of "Isotopes"
  • First paragraph of "Chemistry"
  • Second, third and fourth paragraphs of "In space"
  • First paragraph of "Confusion with tin and antimony"
  • First, sixth and seventh paragraphs of "Elemental form"
  • First paragraph of "Exposure sources"
After seeing this lengthy list, I initially thought, "oh my, do we actually have such a poorly referenced article that we have so many citationless paragraphs?" Turns out most of these (exceptions being the "In space" and "Elemental form" paragraphs) are actually referenced. If there are particular claims in these paragraphs that you want to be referenced, please add them so that I could understand what I need to get references for (or feel free to use the {{cn}} tags).
Also, I'd want to note that the first paragraph in "Elemental form" contains no new information that has not been referenced elsewhere in the article.
I will, of course, add citations for the rest of problematic paragraphs and any specified problems if they follow.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Added the source I used when writing In space. Only Elemental form left.--R8R (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Missing references
  • Add Thornton, Radu & Brush (2001) to the Bibliography
Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Link rot
  • FN 24, 34, 41 and 209 are dead
Archived links for citations 24, 34, and 209. 41 does not qualify for a dead link (it is a hyperlink to Bibliography).--R8R (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Incomplete references
  • FN 1, 64, 205 access date?
Done.--R8R (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 5, 15, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 39, 49, 52, 58, 59, 6-, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 74, 77, 87, 96, 104, 109, 120, 122, 124, 132, 133, 134, 153, 168, 169, 173, 189, 193, 194, 195, 196, 201, 206, 208, 209, 211, 213, 214 ISSN?
This is another requirement I've never heard of. In neither {{cite book}} nor {{cite journal}} have I found these among the ones most commonly used.--R8R (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 13, 22, 53, 73 page number?
Done for no. 13. I removed the claim supported by no. 53. Citation 73 contains a monograph number, which is an acceptable option instead of page numbers. Resolution pending for no. 22.--R8R (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Found a replacement for no. 22.--R8R (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 19, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 57, 65, 71, 73, 78, 81, 92, 95, 100, 101, 107, 112, 115, 116, 117, 121, 125, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 191, 192, 197, 198, 199 location?
During my previous FACs, this never was a requirement. I had to have them all in or all out. As I faced this choice again prior to this FAC, I decided to have them all out as they add little meaningful information to the citation, if at all.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 64, 164 publisher?
Citation 64 is a reference to a web page and {{cite web}} advises against having a publisher in this case. Done for citation 164.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 155 Fix the date format
Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 211 Journal?
Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 211 Date?
Done.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Suggest moving to the Bibliography
  • FN 2, 6, 8, 13, 16, 19, 22, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 57, 65, 71, 73, 78, 81, 92, 95, 100, 101, 112, 115, 116, 117, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 191, 192, 197, 198, 199
I'd rather not as I don't see the point. I think it's generally better to get your citation in one click rather than two.--R8R (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

notes by Nergaal[edit]

  • its density of 11.34 g/cm3 => too many sig figs, and/or put it in parenthesis
How come two is too many, especially when we have a reliable source to cover the claim in the body?--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I generally don't like long numbers in intro
I don't see this number as long in any way. It's four digits long.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • of all practically stable elements => this is very unencyclopedic
This one is difficult to react on. What do I do to enhance encyclopedicness?--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
"practically stable" is very weak
I actually think it's fine. Nonetheless, what do you suggest?--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
not radioactive? Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • the heaviest truly stable nuclide or something like that should be in intro
I deliberately removed that from the lead section as this is a fact of undue importance. In any practical sense, bismuth is the champion. Even if we go into theory, then it must be noted that lead is not truly stable in the sense of how it is expected to be radioactive as well. "Heaviest element that has not been observed to decay" is not just as catchy a claim.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lead is a post-transition metal => isn't it an "other metal" ? /s
No, it is coded in the periodic table as a post-transition metal. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • lead shows a tendency => use exhibits
Sure.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • intro should mention that lead is one of the most common heavy metals in the human body, although it has no role (it's due to environmental presence)
I specified that in the body of the article. As for lead, I find it difficult to fit in one paragraph the claims of a) lead being one of the most common heavy metals in the human body despite no role; and b) lead being highly toxic given that no organization like WHO signals massive lead poisoning of the humanity. I've got enough space in the body, but I'll rather sacrifice claim a) here for a short self-contained description. By the way, I don't see some particular importance of the claim anyway.
All in all, cool (and I speficied that in the appropriate section) but doesn't fit in the lead.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • intro should mention that it is one of the few elements known since ancient times
We have an even stronger claim: "Lead [...] was known to prehistoric people in Western Asia."--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
yes, but it is one of only ~8 elements known since antiquity
I considered your idea one more time. It doesn't sound right: "Lead was known to prehistoric people. It was one of the eight elements that were known in the antiquity." (Note that antiquity comes after prehistory.) Don't see the point in specifying this given lead is present in an earlier era, an even more unique thing than being a metal of antiquity.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • should be a bit more clear that relativistic effects favor +2
We have that covered in the more relevant section of Lead#Inorganic compounds.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
the section says +4 isn't common but I think it should explicitly say prefers +2 instead of +4 cause of relativistic effects
Again, we got that covered in Inorganic compounds, which is the most relevant place to talk about oxidation states in inorganic compounds anyway: "Lead shows two main oxidation states: +4 and +2. The tetravalent state is common for group 14. The divalent state is rare for carbon and silicon, minor for germanium, important (but not prevailing) for tin, and is the more important for lead: even the strongest oxidizing agents, oxygen, and fluorine, initially oxidize lead only to lead(II).[38] This is caused by relativistic effects, specifically the inert pair effect..."--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
See my additionNergaal (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • allotrope para is confusing: half of it is about what lead is not; trim that and pls add explicitly what other allotropes are known
took 3 mins:
Oh, I stand corrected, thank you. I missed that one. Leave it with me for a bit. Sandbh (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Note added to end of atomic properties section. Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Something is wrong with that paragraph. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Should be better now. Sandbh (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I tweaked it a bit more. See if it is fine. Nergaal (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • somewhere in the intro talk about lead banning/phase-out laws (and later on mention that study correlating drop in violent crimes 20yrs after lead gasoline was banned)
The purported link between crime and lead is mentioned in the Biological section. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • are any allotropes metalloids?
No, since lead has no allotropes. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
As per previous mention of allotropes. Sandbh (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Unknown, as above. Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • melting point of lead is low compared to most metals => are there applications for lead baths due to this low mp? how dangerous are lead vapors (in industrial settings) considering this low mp?
I found that the answer is most probably no: "Where lead containing solders are used, the risk from lead is usually very low. This may seem strange given the high percentage of the metal in the solder. However, soldering is usually carried out at a temperature of around 380 C and significant lead fume is only evolved at temperatures above 450 C. So exposure by inhalation is normally insignificant. This is recognised in the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) supporting the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002 (CLAW). Table 2 in the ACoP (reproduced below) lists processes which are not liable to result in significant exposure to lead. This list includes “Low-temperature melting of lead (below 500°C)” during soldering." And a few others.--R8R (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • really nice that you put all numbers in perspective to other elements
Thank you!--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • nowhere in the entire article is explained why is lead used as an x-ray shield => this is a particular use of lead that no other element really has;
  • nd is a magic number => add in nuclear physics
Don't understand this one. What do you want to be done (and is it related to this article?)--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
magic number is a general term. here it is in the context of nuclear physics
I still don't understand. If you mean correcting the wikilink from magic number to magic number (nuclear physics), as I just read it, then it already points at the right article, Magic number (physics).--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I edited this bit and added a note about lead-208 being doubly magic. Should be OK now. Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
the stuff in parenthesis is what I was looking for. Nergaal (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • only primordial isotope => wikilink primordial
Sure.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • very slightly radioactive => i think radioactive it a bit much here; say decays extremely slowly
Done.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • d for any of them:[24] accordingly => why ":" ?
Agree; I put a semicolon.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ranium series, actinium series, and thorium series => wikilink
There is nothing to wikilink these to. All three search queries redirect to decay chain, which has been linked by this point.
I though those series had separate articles, nvm then
  • famous uses for lead–lead and uranium–lead dating?
We have a cool picture of a meteorite that mentions one example of such a use. Overall, I think that this is a relatively minor question for an overview article like thism and it's already long enough.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I meant say something in text that is used in dating meteorites and old geologic formations. I guess image caption covers it
  • the 4th decay chain should be presented a bit more clear: i.e. it stops at Bi
Don't see why: it's not about lead. Again, space is limited.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
fair point. could you though clarify that the 3 Pb isotopes are end points of the chains?
I think we got that covered: "lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 are the final decay products of uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232, respectively".--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think fundamentally, it should be pointed out more explicitly somewhere that any heavier elements than Pb/Bi that existed when the solar system formed have decayed into Pb/Bi, except for the relatively small amounts of U and Th. it's a bit unclear right now to non-experts.
We do the talk at the more relevant section, Origin and occurrence (specifically, the In space part).--R8R (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • this section should talk about double magic numbers and which isotopes of Pb are
"atomic number is ... a physical magic number.". The first time I (a half-layman) encounter this 'magic number' thing. (Today I have added 'physical'). I stumble, because as an explanation of whatever, it is not enough. In science, one cannot say: "Why so?" "By magic number!" "Oh great, that's clear then". I'd expect italics for this new concept (but cannot find the MOS for this); a wl is not enough. Then, the word magic does not return, nor is it explained in any length. -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • maybe mention in the chemistry section if anybody argued that Pb is a metalloid
There is only one relatively recent reference that I'm aware of that refers to Pb as a metalloid and, IIRC, one plumbing journal article from the 30's that refer to lead as a metalloid. I tend to feel that these references are too few and too obscure to merit a mention in this article. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • what typical test do freshman college courses use to identify lead samples? I can't remember exactly, but there is a standard benchtop test
  • —plumbites— wikilinks strangely use ()
Fixed this one.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I might be wrong, but wasn't one of Pb salts a "prototypic" packing unit cell (maybe PbS)?
Even if so, what does it change? It's just a name.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
other ox states[edit]
  • say somewhere that [Pb9]4- is one of the common zintl anions of Pb and maybe give a picture of it
I don't follow: we already have a picture? As for "say something," I'd rather not. This whole Zintl topic is quite minor to write much text about it. I'd rather focus on lead(II) and lead(IV).
I didn't see the picture; the caption is way too long. I actually think the Zintl para might be too long. But [Pb9]4- is the most common one, more so than [Pb5]-. And is [Pb]4- considered Zintl? I thought you need E-E bonds for it.
Shorthened the caption. As for which one is more common: doesn't matter much. It's already in the picture so it seems reasonable to me to highlight something else in the text. Both are pretty minor anyway.
The source from Universitaet Freiburg indeed says Ba2Pb is Zintl.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • switch 3rd para with 2nd para
Done.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!--R8R (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how that link got there but I meant to say Galena has really cool looking images. There is nothing cool about boring white powder. Nergaal (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The article has a few cool images indeed, but these are mostly the mineral rather than the compound. We could take the space-filling unit cell model but we already have a few similar pics (though ask for it again and I won't insist).--R8R (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • the table seems a bit random, why were the present entries chosen?
The idea is that all elements are even-numbered; we have mercury as the closest even-numbered element, Th and U, and a few elements of comparable occurrence with a Z of 40--60 to illustrate that lead is indeed quite common for its atomic number.
still seems incredibly random. maybe merge it with the image below it since that one needs a better caption anyways
I adjusted the set of featured elements. Looks better to me now.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • is the relative abundance in the crust much different from that in the Solar System? Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I prepared some time ago an introductory sentence for this but apparently didn't add the figure itself. Added it now.--R8R (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Image caption should say Pb is rightmost-red spot (image is unreadable without zoom) Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The image is supposed to be read. This is a scheme, they are meant to be read. Besides, I don't understand what you mean. Lead is the middle row (pretty clear from the image itself).--R8R (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • should discuss meaning of plumbum / plumber also
  • maybe mention other languages too
I don't want any other languages in this section. Etymology of the English word lead is the top priority in the English Wikipedia. As for other notable names and words---as in your plumbing example---this is better suited for History, and we actually cover it there.--R8R (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • sugar of lead => use "" for this term and give the chemical compound name in text
Done. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • decline of Rome theories => list what effects of lead poisoning satisfy this theory; why do some researchers argue against?
As for what caused this theory: we've mentioned by this point that "writers of the time, such as the Cato the Elder, Columella, and Pliny the Elder, recommended lead (or lead-coated) vessels for the preparation of sweeteners and preservatives added to wine and food." Also see note l. As for why against: expanded a bit.--R8R (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll add more later. Nergaal (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • How come no discussion on alchemy and association with Saturn?
We got that covered, too: "Lead poisoning—a condition in which one becomes dark and cynical—was called "saturnine" after the ghoulish father of the gods, Saturn, and, by association, lead was considered the father of all metals.[115]"--R8R (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC) and Alchemical_symbol#Seven_planetary_metals Nergaal (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lead is mentioned in the Old Testament
  • why did the pope declare it forbidden? did they base it on toxicological reasons?
Yes. Lead often caused colics. Do you want that in the text?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • were lead cannonball ever used?
I googled it and the answer is yes, though apparently, lead's softness is a disadvantage. Unlike bullets, these weren't used as long.--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • what lead compounds were used for whitening faces?
  • "Outside Europe and Asia" can be merged with previous section
These subtitles were not my invention in first place. I liked the story not being torn apart by headers. Nonetheless, if we do use them, I'd want to keep this one. The reason for that would be the content of this paragraph (lead mining in the Americas, Africa, and Australia) differs from the previous one (lead usage in (mostly) medieval and Renaissance Europe).--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Lead production in the United States dominated by 1900" you mean US became the major producer?
changed to "The United States became world's largest producer by 1900." Hopefully, it's good now.--R8R (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Into the modern era" is a bit too artistic
True. Is it bad though? If so, can you suggest an alternative?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "ountries in Europe and the United States started efforts to reduce the amount of lead that people came into contact with" when was the first significant program?
Depends on what you define as significant. In my view, that is the White Lead convention, which prompted many European countries to ban lead paints for some applications (Ctrl+F "1930" in the text). You may also think of the following fragment as of the answer: "In the UK, Sir Thomas Morrison Legge became the ®rst Medical Inspector of Factories in 1898. A centralized system of factory inspection had been created under the Factories and Workshop Act of 1878, and Legge did pioneering work to implement the Act". I stand by paints, and we mentioned them.--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "adding of tetraethyllead to gasoline" => because it did what?
Served as an antiknock agent. Added.--R8R (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "From 1960 to 1990, lead output in ..." and after is a bit TMI; trim this production part since it is present in the next section
I disagree. First of all, 1990 was over 25 years ago; it is history. Second, it's natural to focus a bit more what is common to the contemporary people. Third, there is actually no overlap that I see. Production does not deal with the 1980s; it deals with the 2010s (i.e., the present as opposed to comparably recent past).--R8R (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the first time the text talks about increase of "31%". Up until now it's been only X had largest, Y produced over half, etc. Keep the gist and move extra % to a subarticle. Nergaal (talk)
  • has coal burning in plants been a source of worry for lead poisoning? I would be very surprised it it isn't part of the "clean coal" idea
  • nowhere here nor later in text is explained why lead-based paint has been popular? was it white lead compounds that don't lose whiteness? was it cheap prices?
The heavy metal additive also decreases the amount of time that the paint takes to dry, makes the paint more durable, and causes the paint to be more moisture resistant. This made lead-based paint ideal for use in homes, on metal exposed to the elements, and even children’s toys.
I'll integrate this into the text.--R8R (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I googled more and it turns out the main advantage was its opacity. Added.--R8R (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Production and consumption of lead is increasing worldwide (due to its use in lead-acid batteries)" this is so vague
It is meant to be vague. This is the first sentence in the section. We proceed to specifics later.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The top lead producing countries were " when?
Here's some context:
In 2013, 4.74 million metric tons came from primary production and 5.74 million tons from secondary production. The top mining countries for lead in that year were China, Australia, Russia, India, Bolivia, Sweden, North Korea, South Africa, Poland, and Ireland. The top lead producing countries were China, United States, India, South Korea, Germany, Mexico, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, and Australia.[143]
Is it really unclear?--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Missed that. But you don't need to give out top10 mining if you have a table. Why not give a production table too and trim the text to only major producers. Nergaal (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought about this. Yet there are two considerations:
  • We don't have data for miners and producers from the same year. The lists mention data from the same year, 2013, to keep the data listed side-by-side, because listing them side by side implies the reader can compare the two sets, and the comparison is only correct when the data is from the same time range.
  • The most up-to-date data for mining is from 2015. For production, it's only 2013. Removing the 2013 mining data suggests we run into the problem I described above or lose the option of comparing the two sets. Removing the 2015 mining data means we don't list the newest data we have.
Also, two tables side by side don't look nice. Bringing them into one table could be better, but the sets of countries don't match.
That's why it's the way it currently is.--R8R (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "the global per capita stock of lead in use " annual?
  • "a very low percentage of lead," is lead mined as a primary or a secondary ore?
In galena, lead is the primary metal. In basically any other mineral lead is obtained from -- secondary.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "which has a lead content fraction of 30–80%" by what? mass? as in almost pure PbS?

Yes. 80% was referred to as an exceptional case though.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • isn't sulfuric acid a major (more important) desired product of the production chain?
  • the text almost implies that Pb is produced more of as a by-product of sulfuric acid and Au/Ag production chain. am I wrong? how much of the bottomline $ do these other products represent
  • "silica fluoride" should be linked
  • are uranium tank shells a direct replacement of Pb shells or W ones? in other words, does the army use/used Pb outside small bullets?
  • lead glass is about PbO, so it shouldn't be in the elemental form section
  • there should be a bit more info about lead statues. check this out. Degas used lead armatures for some of his bronze statues [1]
  • are certain instruments traditionally made of lead

  • "The main target for lead toxicity in humans is the central nervous system." then "The primary cause of lead's toxicity is its predilection for interfering with the proper functioning of enzymes."
  • what is "Chinese brass"
  • "Restriction of lead usage" should have more dates on first ban examples; also, when were lead pipes banned since even in colonial US they seem to be in use
  • are there any plans for lead cleanup? where is lead waste being dumped?

Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • there is no mention of actual amounts in the human body (average, highest recorded?) Nergaal (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


Oppose on prose. Sample clunky sentence: "One of them is lead-210; although it has a half-life of 22.3 years,[26] a period too short to allow any primordial lead-210 to exist, some small non-primordial quantities of it occur in nature, because lead-210 is found in the uranium series: thus, even though it constantly decays away, it is constantly regenerated by decay of its parent, polonium-214, which, while also constantly decaying, is also supplied by decay of its parent, and so on, all the way up to original uranium-238, which has been present for billions of years on Earth." This is not the standard required. We also don't need to use the respell template on such a common word. Further comments will follow but my initial impression is that this is a long way off where it needs to be to pass. --John (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I've broken this sentence into two, and it indeed looks better this way. As for respell: I think it does not hurt in an infobox. I can, however, relate to the point that we don't need a transcription in the text if you raise that.
Eagerly waiting for your further comments. Hopefully your initial impression will change, after either you read the article in whole or we solve the problems you raise.--R8R (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
About using respell: Lead (disambiguation) told me there is a major and significant difference between this lead and (to) lead. I'd prefer to keep it respelled. -DePiep (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan Shepard[edit]

Nominator(s): JustinTime55 and Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Alan Shepard, the first American in space, and one of twelve men to walk on the moon. The article recently completed an A class review that included an image review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee[edit]

An interesting read. Here are my first-pass comments:

  • The 4th paragraph starts with "This was surgically corrected", which refers to his dizziness and nausea at the end the previous paragraph; shouldn't this topic be in one paragraph and not spread over two? These two paragraphs could be merged. MOS:LEAD says "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs ..." – the lead currently has 5.
    A good idea. I have merged the paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Early life and education
  • When did he attend school? No years are given.
    Not certain about his school years. I know he skipped the sixth and eight grades. He waa at Pinkerton from 1936 to 1940; added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No reason is given for him skipping grades 6 and 8 at school (the source is offline, so I can't check it). Presumably it was because of his above average performance, but perhaps that should be stated.
    It says that he impressed his teachers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Should the second occurrence of "Louise Brewer" at end of the section not be "Brewer", or "Louise" as she is referred to later?
    Sure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Navy service
  • I take it events in the opening sentences took place in 1944. No year is given.
    August 1944. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "... calling Louise at 17:00" – is that each day?
    Yes, Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Project Gemini
  • "Shepard was designated Chief of the Astronaut Office" – when did this happen?
    In November 1963. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Apollo program
  • No mention is made of Apollo 13's fate? Considering that Shepard nearly commanded it, perhaps a brief mention should be made.
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, that helps. Just one point: I take it "joje" means "joke". It seems to be a very obscure word to me, it's not defined in and a Wikipedia search for articles using this word yielded only one – Alan Shepard. I'd suggest that it be changed. —Bruce1eetalk 08:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    Typo. j and k are adjacent on the keyboard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    LOL, and there I was trying to look up to this "obscure" word! Actually, according to the Urban Dictionary, it is a word! [2]Bruce1eetalk 07:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    It is, and it fooled the automated spell checker that I rely on to correct my awful typing as I write. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
In media
  • The format of the first entry is different to the rest. How about this: "1965 British science-fiction TV series Thunderbirds – character of Alan Tracy is named after him"
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    All that's changed is the source, not the formatting. —Bruce1eetalk 08:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    Oh. I thought you meant the reference format. Changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • These entries also need sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done some minor edits here, but feel free to revert. That's all for now – I'll have a more detailed look later. —Bruce1eetalk 14:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. Just one more thing:

  • Ref.# 115 (H.R.4517) has a dead link. —Bruce1eetalk 07:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    That would be right. Restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    Support the prose and MOS. Thanks for all your work on the article, it's looking good. —Bruce1eetalk 09:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Alan-shepard.jpg: source link is dead, and could we have a better description than "none"?
    I can fix the description. The image is part of a series that includes this image. I have located several; there should be at least a dozen. But I cannot find it on NASA's site. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    We could switch to this image Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Mr-3-patch-small.gif and File:Apollo_14-insignia.png: the tag indicates that insignia use is restricted - how does that impact our use?
    The image is in the public domain. Assuming that they qualify as NASA logos, there are some restrictions on use. It doesn't impact us. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Alan_Shepard_statue.jpg: bit confused here - the FUR states that the sculptor has given permission to use the image for any purpose, and record of same has been filed with if that's the case, why is this still non-free? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    Too complicated for me. Maybe @Bubba73: can explain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I've done it, but the file is still only on my computer. It looks a lot better than the low-contrast one, but the low-contrast one may be more historic. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Chase (U.S. game show)[edit]

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the American version of The Chase, a primetime game show on Game Show Network (GSN) from 2013–15. The series is arguably one of GSN's most successful shows of all time and is an adaption of the popular British version of the show. I have tried to model this article after that of another GSN game show, The American Bible Challenge, which recently passed FAC itself. All feedback is welcome and appreciated. Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Heathenry (new religious movement)[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a new religious movement, the practitioners of which seek to recreate the ancient 'pagan' pre-Christian religions of Germanic Europe using sources like recorded Norse mythology. The article was awarded GA status in December 2015 and has seen wider copy editing and scrutiny since then; I think that the time is right for an FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment The lead contains none of the information as to number of followers (pretty tiny) and geographic spread (mostly the Nordic countries) which occur naturally to those, like myself, who had never heard the term. This eventually appears right at the bottom of a very long article. On a skim, it seems good quality, but I don't know if I can face actually reading it to review. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, Johnbod. I have added a brief half-sentence to the lede mentioning the demographic size of the Heathen community. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I find it a bit odd that several different groups with distinct origins are simply merged into this article, and on top of that, associated with white supremacism, even before individual movements are named? That seems to associate them all with racism by default. It would be less awkward if movements like asatru had more in-depth articles about them each, but they are mere redirects. Yet we have articles about movements within the wider movements, such as Asatru Folk Assembly and Ásatrúarfélagið. This makes little sense to me. Seems the decision was taken here[3], but the arguments don't seem compelling to me, especially since many tiny splinter groups have separate articles. Also, the current title of the article seems confusing, compared to for example Germanic neopaganism. I had no idea what it referred to when I saw it listed, yet I'm familiar with Scandinavian asatru. Also seems most of the sources refer it as paganism, not heathenry. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "several different groups with distinct origins are simply merged into this article" - the same could be said for our articles on Christianity or Buddhism. Many religions contain a great diversity of belief and practice within their ranks; to properly understand Christianity, one has to appreciate that it encompasses both the Ku Klux Klan and liberation theology, and both the Eastern Orthodox Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this, Heathenry is no different, and it is important that the article reflects that. Forgive me if I misunderstand or exaggerate, but I feel that carving up this article into separate articles out of a belief that different Heathen groups are too dissimilar would be akin to deleting our article on Christianity through the argument that Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Mormonism are far too distinct to be regarded as part of one single movement.
  • You mention the term "Asatru" as if it were a denomination of Heathenry, but the situation is more complex than that; some who call themselves "Asatruer" are universal Heathens, others are folkish Heathens. Similarly, most "Odinists" are folkish Heathens, but some are universalist Heathens. As a number of academics make clear (and this article mentions), there is no clear cut demarcation between "Asatru" and "Odinism". I'm certainly willing to concede that there may well be space for articles on Universalist Heathenry and Folkish Heathenry, but I don't think that that leads on to the idea that the Heathenry article itself should be disbanded.
  • The term "Heathenry" is not perfect, but as has been argued at the talk page over the past few years (resulting in a group vote that led to the article gaining its current name), it really is the best option available. As you can see, the article has an entire section on "Terminology" to better reflect the complicated terminological issues at play here. Moreover, with respect, I do not believe that the statement "most of the sources refer it as paganism, not heathenry" is true. The majority of academic sources on Heathenry refer to it as Heathenry, even if they regard it as a form of contemporary Paganism (this is all explained within the article). Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I think there's a misunderstanding here, I'm not contesting that all these groups should be dealt with in the same article, it's the fact that they simply redirect here that seems odd. To go by your own example, we don't merge sub-groups of Christianity into the Christianity article either. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies for the misunderstanding, FunkMonk. I think it only right and proper that specific Heathen organisations (Asatru Folk Assembly, Ásatrúarfélagið, Odinic Rite, Heathen Front etc) have their own articles. At the same time I think that it would be difficult to have specific articles on "Asatru" or "Odinism", for example, because these are such contested terms. They do not comfortably designate specific denominations of Heathenry; they aren't as precise as "Roman Catholic" or "Anglican" are. For that reason, I think that the only reasonable option is to leave them as redirects to this article. As stated above however, there is perhaps room for the creation of specific pages on "Universalist Heathenry" and "Folkish Heathenry". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "New" is a relative term. The "new" in the title should be removed22mikpau (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The term "new religious movement" is well established within the academic study of religion and we have academic sources cited within the article which specify that Heathenry is categorised as such by scholars. The term is a necessary component within the article title because it serves to distinguish Heathenry (the religious movement stemming from the late nineteenth century) from heathenry as the term is used generally to refer to pre-Christian belief systems or irreligious behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I get it, I just mean it might be better to use a term like "modern"22mikpau (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yellow-faced honeyeater[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is has seen a couple of editors improve it. I feel it is within striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley[edit]

As always, some quick ones to start with:

  • In the first sentence, perhaps add a comma after " the honeyeater family" to make it more clear that Meliphagidae is the only honeyeater family.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Range map? Perhaps ask for one on the birds talk page.
I need to get to the library tomorrow to get the best map for this got map now just need not to be tired and added... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps link all of socially monogamous in one link?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Honeyeaters’ preferred woodland habitat is vulnerable to the effects of land clearing, grazing and weeds," the apostrophe needs to be straight.
I don't follow.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Instead of "’", it needs to be "'", per MOS:STRAIGHT. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, something new I am still learning...done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:ACRO, IUCN in the lead should be expanded, with the acronym in parenthesis after so you can use just the acronym in the body.
unabbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps move the sentence "The specific name chrysops is from the Greek words meaning "gold" and "face" in reference to the stripe of yellow feathers," in the taxonomy section to the end of the paragraph, and rephrase it a bit so it flows better.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Add to the sentence "It was classified in the genus Lichenostomus for many years until 2011," what genus it was moved to.
I moved the sentence further on so it can run into the discussion of what happened next Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Three subspecies have been described (Matthews, 1912) but are not universally recognised," a comma is needed after the parenthesis.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the third paragraph of the taxonomy section, you need to put spaces between the genus and species abbreviated name.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You should probably specify what you are talking about in the sentence "Surgeon-General to the First Fleet John White caught one in May 1788, calling it a yellow-faced flycatcher in his Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales, which was published in 1790." This is because you talked about the subspecies in the previous paragraph, so that might cause some confusion.
called it "the species" as calling it the "yellow-faced honeyeater" might sound repetitive given the next clause. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ear coverts should be without a hyphen and linked (I recently created a redirect to ear coverts for my article).
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That is all for today, more will come soon. Good luck! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

More comments now, hopefully I can get this done with the next review:

  • Silvereye is overlinked.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Link and/or explain counter-singing.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Spotted Gum should be capitalized, you also need to be consistent in putting the binomial after the common name.
my personal feelings aside, the standard is to use lower case. binomial now placed after Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "It usually avoids woodland, unless it is near forest or has an understory of sclerophyll plants," I am not sure about the woodland thing, possibly say "It usually avoids low-density forests, unless it is near a higher density forest or the forest has an understory of sclerophyll plants." If you don't want to do that, then at least I'm pretty sure you would add the indefinite article "a" before "forest."
I don't follow on the "a" being necessary as am talking about a habitat type rather than a particular forest as such. I realise our woodland article doesn't have Australian definitions in it, which might help (i.e. woodland is not considered forest). Added definition at here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that the second comma in the sentence "The yellow-faced honeyeater ranges across a broad arc from near Cooktown in Far North Queensland, south west between a line from Charters Towers to Albury and the coast, and then west to the Fleurieu Peninsula and Mount Lofty Ranges in South Australia," is an Oxford comma and thus should be removed for consistency.
I thought I had a few Oxford commas in this already so would rather go all in than all out.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In that case, why don't you add an Oxford comma in the sentence "Honeyeaters’ preferred woodland habitat is vulnerable to the effects of land clearing, grazing and weeds," (MOS:STRAIGHT error still needs fixing)? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that you would switch back to present tense (for the verb "to increase") in the sentence "During the winter months of June and July, numbers are generally decreased in Victoria and increased in Queensland, following northward migration."
They are present tense as they are passive verbs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The usage of seasons with months after them seems fine, but it would be great if a more experienced editor could check this out (maybe we should have an RfC or something so this isn't a problem in future reviews and such).
ok, will see what others say Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly reword the last part of the sentence "Experiments where the vertical component of the magnetic field was reversed indicate that the magnetic compass of the yellow-faced honeyeater is based on the inclination of the field lines and not on polarity, distinguishing between the direction of the equator and the poles, rather than north and south," to "meaning they distinguish between the direction of the equator and poles, rather than north and south," just to clear up any confusion.
done this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Good job! These articles are being cranked out really quickly! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

several honeyeater articles were buffed to GA status by an editor now retired for some years. I figured it was worth updating/reviewing them and pushing a few of them over the FA-line.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Final comments:

  • Make it more clear what "when not migrating" applies to in the sentence "The yellow-faced honeyeater is usually seen singly, in pairs, or in small family groups, when not migrating." If it applies to everything, then remove the comma after "groups."
It does apply to all so done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oxford comma needed in some sentences in the feeding section.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Same as above in breeding.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Poerhaps merge the sentences "The yellow-faced honeyeater breeds in monogamous pairs in a breeding season that extends from July to March. Migrating birds begin nesting later than sedentary birds," so it flows better.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • More Oxford commas are needed.
got some more ...bloody hell there are a few... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And that is all, good luck! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

2nd reading:

  • In the sentence "Honeyeaters’ preferred woodland habitat is vulnerable to the effects of land clearing, grazing, and weeds," the curly apostrophe needs to be a straight apostrophe per MOS:STRAIGHT.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Casliber: Eh, I'll just do it myself (or you can copy and paste: '). RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence " A 2017 genetic study using both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA found the ancestor of the yellow-faced honeyeater diverged from the common ancestor of the other two Caligavis species around 7 million years ago," I'm pretty sure you would say "seven" instead of "7."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be all. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 18:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Nice job on the article! All of my nitpicks were addressed. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine's Sunbird[edit]

Support Nice. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • In distribution we have The yellow-faced honeyeater is widespread across eastern and south eastern Australia, in open sclerophyll forests from coastal dunes to high-altitude subalpine areas, and often in riparian woodlands. and then It occurs in high-altitude, tall, open forests of alpine ash and woodlands dominated by snow gum and then at the end is It usually avoids woodland, .
the key word there is "unless" after the comma after woodland... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
So in each situation where it's mentioned occuring in different kinds of forest, it's always qualified by that statement? It may be worth moving to the front then, perhaps, or perhaps Where it is found in woodland, it is usually woodland near forest or with an understory of sclerophyll plants. Not sure, it just comes over a little odd. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
sounds better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • the last sentence of migration may read better as However, the yellow-faced honeyeater has been found to have a broad range of characteristics; an annual cycle of migratory restlessness; seasonally appropriate orientation based on magnetic, solar and polarised light cues; and a migration program based on the magnetic inclination compass, which are consistent with the adaptations of Northern Hemisphere migrants.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll look at it some more tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

  • "It was classified in the genus Lichenostomus for many years until 2011.[5]" This is a bit misleading and is not supported by the source. The use of Lichenostomus was a short lived fashion. Gould (1848) and Mathews (1911/1912) use Ptilotis. Peters 1967 uses Meliphaga. More recent usage is conveniently recorded by Avibase. Clements 3rd (1981) has Meliphaga, Clements 4th (1991) has Lichenostomus, Clements (2015) has Caligavis. Howard and Moore 2nd (1991) has Meliphaga, H&M 3rd (2003) has Lichenostomus, H&M 4th (2014) has Caligavis. (a new edition, a new genus). - Aa77zz (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
aah recentism, I forget this. Anyway, changed it a bit to reflect literature/source(s) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


  • Taxbox: Synonyms are when the specific epithet differs - thus Sylvia chrysops and Lichenostomus chrysops are not considered as synonyms.
Wow. wasn't aware of that. I suspect the example in the first para or the lead of Synonym (taxonomy) needs removing then... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Gosh - that makes me have serious doubts! In our article on author citations there is an example using Anser albifrons (Scopoli, 1769) that states "the two different genus-species combinations are not regarded as synonyms." I'll try to find a RS. -Aa77zz (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The ICZN glossary has: "synonym, n. Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon." which probably means I'm wrong. struck. -Aa77zz (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a long discussion on this subject on the Synonym (taxonomy) talk page here. -Aa77zz (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


  • "studies using the mitochondrial ND2 and nuclear β-fibrinogen-7 genes identified " Perhaps not necessary to specify the actual markers used in the study. (Very few of the readers will know or care what the ND2 gene is.)
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "were sufficiently different to be a separate genus as Bolemoreus." -> were sufficiently different to be placed in a separate genus Bolemoreus.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • " but are not universally recognised." Not recognised by whom? IOC7.1, Clements-2016, H&M4 and HBWonline all list 3 ssp.
Higgins is dubious but that is spelt out further on, so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Latham called it the black-cheeked honeyeater." but his Supplementum Indicis... cited above has "Black-cheeked Warbler" - see here.
corrected Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


  • What colour are the breast and belly?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What colour are the legs?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


  • "The nest is a fragile, transparent structure, cup-shaped," To me the word "transparent" suggests a material that one see through. One would not describe a chicken wire fence as transparent even though one can see through the holes.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "(Among the species that parasitize the nests..." why is this sentence in brackets?
no idea/before my time. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


  • Ref 24 Munro 1999 - broken link. I can't find a replacement.'s working for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops - I meant Ref 26 "Munro, Ursula (1999). "Adaptations to..." -Aa77zz (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Sigh...can't find an alt link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

All good. Supported above. -Aa77zz (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Afterthought: the short paragraph at the beginning of the Behaviour section should end with a cite. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Getting to it. See below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Vanamonde[edit]

First off, a quick note that Cas and I are both Wikicup participants: I do not believe this will affect my review, but if somebody does, they should say so. Second, this is probably a silly question, but I feel compelled to ask it: there's something on the FAC page about one nomination at a time: but I see Corvus (constellation) listed there as well...

Well, I saw that too. The rule states "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." This exception does not seem to apply in this instance as both nominations are sole nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
A fair question. I asked at User_talk:Sarastro1#Bird_production_line... as Corvus has been waiting for a source review (which can take some time) but otherwise looks near promotion. Editors here have done this from time to time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see you obtained permission to have two nominations open at once. From the point of view of the WikiCup, perhaps you could refrain from doing so in the future, if you intend to submit the articles for WikiCup points, so as not to disadvantage other competitors. (I speak as someone who has been frustrated by this rule in previous WikiCups) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the history, you'll note that almost all the article improvement took place last year. Hence the Corvus article is ineligible for this years' wikicup anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "yellow-faced honeyeater as closely related" perhaps clearer as "most closely related..." as I'm guessing the study used all known species of honeyeater?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Surgeon-General to the First Fleet John White caught one in May 1788" I'd suggest linking or explaining "first fleet", and also substituting "a specimen" for "one"
done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if it would be useful to provide a phylogeny here, with a footnote saying that this was based on such and such a study.
I've mentioned the useful stuff in the text, so I think would be a bit redundant, and the article has quite a few image boxes as is anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay.
  • Is the statement "not universally recognised" covered by the source at the end of the paragraph?
removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Juveniles are very similar to the adult" would flow better as both singular or plural.
aligned. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you break up the sentence about comparisons? The three semi-colons make it unwieldy.
You mean this? Agree and done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Since the article mentions a sexual dimorphism w.r.t. size, might it be useful to mention numbers for that?
the difference is very small, like 0.8 g in weight....actually I could add that I guess. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this is just my inner pedant, but I find the phrase "One of the first birds heard in the morning," to be rather colloquial: I'm also wondering if there's a little more detail available here.
missed that one. ok changed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "counter singing" should be linked or explained.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Distribution and habitat
  • As with folks above, I would find a range map quite helpful. This is especially true because the prose description of the range is tricky to understand even for somebody who has visited Australia.
yeah..ok. Need to get the best one. Might take a day or two added now.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm finding the habitat section a little difficult to follow at the moment, because it reads more like a list of vegetation in which the bird is found than anything else. I am wondering if it can be structured differently, sort of a more explicit "habitat - sub-types of habitat - most common vegetation type - other types". Does that make any sense?
yes - the idea is that the specific habitats are listed commonness to rareness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Near Hastings Point in New South Wales over 100,000 passed through in a single day." I'd suggest phrasing this as "Over 100,000 birds were recorded passing Hastings point in NSW over the course of a day in MM YYYY".
good idea/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if an image of Earth's magnetic field lines can be found for the migration section: the fact of migrating along field lines is a fascinating one, but most folks don't know the first thing about magnetism.
did you have a particular picture in mind as I am not sure which would be helpful... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Eh, I looked through the images, couldn't find one that would be worth never mind.
  • I am very confused by the last sentence of the section. How is it a rebuttal to the previous sentence? Would it not be more logical to collect the information about orientation based on solar light and polarization with the information about magnetic field lines further up?
many Australian species are nomadic, following food and water rather than any set migration as such (unlike many northern hemisphere species). However this one has some migratory characteristics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see; that's interesting! In that case, might I suggest rephrasing the following "consistent with the adaptations of Northern Hemisphere migrants" to "more often associated with Northern Hemisphere migrants." This avoids the (slight) implication that those characteristics are evolutionary adaptations to the northern hemisphere, which this bird shares (which I do not think you are trying to say?) Vanamonde (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good/changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "While it is generally active, in the early morning" This phrase is a little confusing: I'd suggest starting "While it is generally active throughout the day, in the early morning ..." Although I'm not sure whether this is what is meant here. Also, the sentence has no reference.
changed to "an active bird" - will chase a ref. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it not be more accurate to say "adapted to a mixed diet"? Adaptation is to current circumstances, not future possibilities.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence of 545 observations needs more context, I think. Of how many individuals? In what habitat? Also grammar seems uncertain, but we can fix that after.
read material and made more general Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The main paragraph about food habits is a little messily structured. I would suggest starting with all the information about broad food categories, and then moving to specific types of insects and nectar.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, the information about mixed flocks is perhaps more logically placed with the information about the bird being seen in pairs/small groups in the previous sub-section.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "gleaning" should be linked or explained.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "good fat reserves." perhaps "healthy fat reserves" or even just "fat reserves"?
went with "healthy" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Wow, this was quickly attacked by reviewers, so here's an image review. All files are properly licensed and sourced, but I'm wondering if a range map could be added? Also, the link to Commons seems to be a redirect. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Hi Cas, you must be reeling from all the comments above. I've actually seen this species, so I'll be gentle with you. Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

meh, that'll teach me to fix up an old GA and buff for FAC...I thought I'd fixed everything... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • hundreds of thousands of them migrate— don't need "of them"
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • are generally decreased in Victoria — "lower" rather than decreased?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Banded birds —is banded OK for OZ, sounds US to me?
HANZAB uses "banding". - Aa77zz (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
One of those places were Australia and NZ follow the US and not UK. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
strewth, yes! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I can sort of see why you spell out international units at first occurrence, not sure why they are not abbreviated thereafter
neither can I. changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
No further questions, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from HalfGig[edit]

  • the commons link at the bottom goes to a redirect that is one of the old genus names for this species. It should go directly to the current name, not a redirect.
moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • is there a reason FN 6 is in the middle of a sentence, not immediately after a punctuation mark, instead of at the end like the other FNs?
no. moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • writing is superb and already been addressed by several other reviewers
thx ++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Copyvio check Earwig's tool shows no issues; most sources are offline or require some sort of access
  • Source check Sources are of highest quality and have consistent formatting. I did notice all but one book is in sfn and that one is in cite web but probably because it is in ebook form, which is fine.
HalfGig talk 11:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article. HalfGig talk 14:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... I think the title speaks for itself. It's a coin, issued for the 300th anniversary of the Pilgrims' landing. It did start a trend of ripping off coin collectors by being issued in multiple years, so that's not exactly in its favor. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim[edit]

Usual impeccable stuff, although I'll never get used to "harbor", Just a couple of thoughts

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged for the support and the review. I've made those changes, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from HalfGig[edit]

@Jimfbleak: I'll never get used to "harbour", "colour", etc. HAHA

I just reviewed User:Casliber's Yellow-faced honeyeater FAC and this looks like the same high quality.
  • Copyvio check Earwig's tool shows no issues; in fact the score is 0.0% !!! mostly offline sources
  • Source check impeccable quality and consistently formatted. My only question is in the two Congressional Record refs is "page" spelled out and in the rest it's "p." Why is that?
It's as generated by the template. I could, I suppose, do it manually but I imagine the templates are there to be used.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I find no issues with the writing
  • Image check
1) The two photos in the infobox could use better formatting/info
Not sure what you are looking for. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Could add the "Information" template so they have full info like date, author, source, etc? HalfGig talk 19:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
2) On the Landing-Bacon photo, the link goes to a photo of modern boston
This?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes but go to that file, click on the source\photographer link, and the photo that comes up is in no way the source for that painting. HalfGig talk 19:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I've cut that image and re-arranged them. The one illustrated on the Plymouth museum site has somewhat different colors and I think we can make do without this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
3) Bradford and Springfield photos....I can't recall the law on statue photos, I posted a question here: [4]; the answer was pre-1923 is fine.
4) no issues with other photos
HalfGig talk 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support now. Very nice article. HalfGig talk 20:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Fantasy Book[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Fantasy Book was a semi-professional science fiction magazine that appeared at the end of the 1940s, published by William Crawford, a fan who went into publishing but never had much money to invest in the business. He occasionally managed to print some surprisingly good material, though. There aren't many sources, but I've included what I was able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Well, it's short, but the sources are what they are. Interesting if only for Cordwainer Smith, though I really prefer Norstrilia. Only comments:

  • Is there anything on how the subscriptions worked, given the irregular publication schedule?
    Nothing I've been able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would link Dianetics, scientology.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    Done. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

Small, but (almost) perfectly formed. A couple of nitpicks you may want to address

The figure "8" in the first line should be spelt out as "eight" per mos for numbers less than 10
You repeatedly use "sf" but it's never linked or glossed, eg "science fiction (sf)" on first occurrence.
Seems slightly odd to link Cordwainer Smith as a redirect from his birth name rather than directly from his pen name

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a gloss of "sf" in the first sentence of the body; did you miss that? Should I put it somewhere else? I fixed the other two points. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

image review

The source says "Its cover, by 'Milo', illustrates..." which tells me that the credit in the magazine is just "Milo" and no more information is available. Per the ISFDB there are no other covers attributed to Milo. If I had to guess I'd say it was a friend of Crawford's who wasn't a professional artist. I could make the caption " 'Milo', about whom no more information is given", if that's more helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest "Milo" (with the quotes) for the caption and further explanation on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the review, you altruist you. When are you going to get yourself another gold star? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

North Ronaldsay sheep[edit]

Nominator(s): TheMagikCow (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

About a rather unusual breed of sheep, noted for their seaweed diet. They are found on a remote Orkney island. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll do a full review soon, but at first glance, the article seems a bit empty, I saw this photo of sheep among seals[5], which seems quite unique, perhaps it could be added? It also seems to be the only photo that shows lambs. This photo showing heads close up might be nice, though the fence is in the way.[6] FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added the first image in - I am not too familiar with using Flikr images and the uploading process. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I can upload it, if you want to use it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "These primitive sheep are" I think it would be better if the first sentence of the article body spells out the name of the subject.
I am slightly unsure to what you mean here. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The first section of the article outside the into, "Physical", should start with something like "North Ronaldsay sheep are physically very small", so that you name the subject of the article first time it is mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "and their head is dished." What does this mean?
  • Why is the wool section so far from the physical description section? Would seem the two are closely related.
yes - changed that. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Scientific analysis" The title seems a bit too generic. Analysis of what? Seems to be of its diet?
The section is a subsection of the diet section. Is this not therefore implied? TheMagikCow (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, a bit hard to see sub-headers of sub-headers (no dividing line)... FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Prehistory" seems too specific a title, if it is not certain that their origin is actually prehistoric, something like "origin" would be more neutral. "The 9th and 15th centuries" certainly aren't prehistoric.
done TheMagikCow (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this review - all the hard work is much appreciated! I will get onto the improvements. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

More to come as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

INS Vikrant (R11)[edit]

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the first aircraft carrier of the Indian Navy. Built by the United Kingdom, the ship was commissioned in 1961, and served until 1997. She played a decisive role in India's naval victory over Pakistan in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. The article has already passed an A-class review from Military history project. For reference, you can view the review on the talk page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Support I gave this article very close scrutiny during its recent Milhist A-Class review, which followed a GAN review by one of Milhist's naval specialists. I supported it at Milhist ACR after further improvements were made. I believe it now meets the FA criteria. It is great to see Indian naval subjects being given such attention. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

White-rumped swallow[edit]

Nominator(s): RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is another one about a swallow from the Tachycineta genus. It is found in central South America. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine Sunbird[edit]

  • The second paragraph of the intro is book-ended by references to the supraloral stripe - why not combine the two sentences? The stripe is a weird way to start the paragraph and you could say It has a white supraloral streak above its eye, which can be used to differentiate it from the similar Chilean swallow.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Does the species have a lower altitudinal limit? If not, perhaps mention it ranges from sea-level to 1000 m.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Nest prospecting is a behaviour recorded in both breeding and non-breeding individuals. Does this mean that birds prospect for nests while actually nesting? If so it could be made a touch clearer.
I added a sentence after the one mentioned to clarify. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • transition from pinkish-white to pure white. Does this mean they vary in colour or they change colour after laying?
Clarified, they change color after laying. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made few edits for language and will have another look soon. Looks good overall. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: FYI, I'm done. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • According to the HBW the species was sometimes placed in the genus Iridoprocne, worth mentioning?
I added a mention of that. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think, raving read the article, that the section on nest-prospecting isn't quite right. I'll try and re-jig it later.
Ok! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this close... Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: Is everything good with the article now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I've been struggling with the nest- searching behaviour paragraph. I'm not convinced that the article conveys accurately the journal article's conclusions, but the journal article itself is a little unsure (in my opinion) about what it is trying to say. Its saturday here so I'll have another go at reading the journal article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • "This swallow was first formally described" You should give the full name of the subject at the first mention in the article body. Preferably also in the start of every new section.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The species name is derived from Ancient Greek. Tachycineta is from takhukinetos, "moving quickly", and the specific leucorrhoa" You translate both the genus and species name, so the first part should be changed.
Changed to "binomial name." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "a subspecies of the Chilean swallow" Link everything again first time it is mentioned outside the intro.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "It has since been moved to the genus Tachycineta." By who?
Cannot find, may need more experienced editor to do so. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • When did it split? Any cladogram?
I don't really know, a more experienced editor is needed here. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
(Update) I will not include a cladogram, see Jimfbleak's comments. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Never seen a cladogram create problems myself (unless there is serious disagreement in the literature), shouldn't hurt, but yeah, it isn't necessarily required. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "This swallow is monotypic." I'd say species instead of swallow, otherwise it's too vague. Maybe even specify that it does not have subspecies, most readers probably don't know what monotypic means.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The culture sections seems fairly pointless, I'd cut it.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You could invert the alignment of the images under breeding and diet; depicted subjects should face the text, and then you won't get the subject header clutter you now have with the lowest image.
Good now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The article seems fairly short, is there no more info to squeeze out of the sources, and have you checked Google Scholar?
Not too much more, I only found one more source. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "These flocks frequently consist of both the white-rumped swallow and other species of swallows." Like which?
Not specified RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "supraloral", " lores", "ear-coverts" Could be explained and linked.
Linked all three, explained lores and supraloral. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "These features fade with age." Which features? Both the black and white?
Not specified, but it seems to refer to the tips. I also made it more accurate, "fade" to "erode." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "and was once considered a subspecies of it" Already mentioned in a more appropriate section than description.
Removed RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No predators are mentioned in the "Predators and parasites" section.
Removed RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Status" is too vague, could be renamed Conservation status.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is quite a bit of info in the intro that is not mentioned in the article body, which it all should be. There are also statements that are phrased very differently form how they are phrased in the body. Please double check all statements and make the article body consistent.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is not a word about its behaviour in the intro, which is supposed to summarise the entire article.
Added RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "extra-pair young" Which means what?
Added RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "About 58 percent of the broods hatched" Why past tense suddenly?
Fixed RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • to FunkMonk's point about the culture section, I agree it could and probably should be removed. If it is kept it needs to be moderately expanded, just to elaborate about how it wan't just a throwaway reference but the central plot diver of the episode. That said, I'd still lean towards taking it out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Cut RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The changes look good. Will you ask someone for help about the taxonomy issues? FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Yeah, I asked Jimfbleak. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - everything addressed, looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

The genus was created by Jean Cabanis ref is Cabanis 1850 Museum Heineanum 1 p.48 (in German) link which also fixes the date. personally I wouldn't give a cladogram, it's not required and usually attracts criticism. More comments to follow as and when Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • or a streak above its lores— I'm not convinced by the indefinite article
Removed RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Its underparts, underwing-coverts, and rump are white, as the name suggests— lose the last bit. Although I see what you mean, the name doesn't suggest that the underparts and underwing-coverts are white
Better? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • starts in October and ends in December in Brazil and February in neighboring Argentina—Does that mean that the breeding season is two months longer in Argentina, or is the start later than October there?
Specified RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It has black wings, with white tips on its inner secondaries, tertials, and greater wing-coverts. These features erode with age. As written, "features" applies either to the wings or the named feather tracts, neither of which is what you probably mean
It wasn't exactly specified, so I think it should be left like it is. Do you object? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The song this swallow uses... alarm note it uses— repeat of "uses", seems a strange word choice anyway
Removed on instance RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is known to inhabit… It is also known to occur… It is additionally known—three uses of a word that isn't necessary anyway. "known to inhabit"="inhabits". I see that there are other pointless "knowns" further on too
Removed some instances RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • First two paras of "Breeding" seem to have more repetition of terms than is strictly necessary
Removed a few instances of repeat terms. Good now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with most of the responses, but surely in the sentence It has black wings, with white tips on its inner secondaries, tertials, and greater wing-coverts. These features erode with age. it can only be the white tips that erode, not entire feathers? If that's so, it should be made clearer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: I will fix it then. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.[edit]

Nominator(s): —Bruce1eetalk 07:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This is this article's second FAC; the first received a couple of reviews (thanks Imzadi1979 and Nikkimaria), but all the issues raised by them were addressed.

This article is about George Steiner's controversial 1981 literary and philosophical novella in which Adolf Hitler (A.H.) is found alive in the Amazon jungle thirty years after the end of World War II. It is currently a GA and has recently been peer reviewed. I believe it meets the FA criteria, but I'm open to any comments/suggestions. —Bruce1eetalk 07:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg[edit]

Nominator(s): Edelseider (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the former residence of the prince-bishops of Strasbourg and current seat of three museums. It is the most famous and most ornate 18th-century palace of Strasbourg and one of the main tourist attractions of the city. It also is a place with a most colourful history. I expanded the article quite a bit since it was made a GA and I think it has now reached the right dimensions and covers every aspect in enough detail without being overloaded with details. I have of course provided as many different valuable sources as possible. Edelseider (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Since France does not have freedom of panorama, photos of 3D works will need explicit tags for the work itself as well as the photo
  • File:Strasbourg,_Palais_Rohan,_tapisserie_dans_la_bibliothèque_(4).JPG: what is the copyright status of this tapestry?
  • File:Strasbourg,_Palais_Rohan,_nature_morte_n°1_de_la_salle_du_Synode.JPG: what is the copyright status of this painting? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The tapestry is from the first half of the 17th-century (author died more than 300 years ago) and the painting is by Jean-Baptiste Oudry (died 1755), so these works are in the public domain under every aspect. --Edelseider (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I addressed that by adding the appropriate tag, though, and I hope there will be some more reviewing done soon. Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: FoP only applies to objects not inside buildings. Since the two images you have listed are clearly inside a building, FoP rules does not apply anyhow no matter if there is FoP in France or not. You comment is not irrelevant but has nothing to do with FoP. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 18:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amada44: Actually, FoP in some countries applies to works inside buildings so long as those are "premises open to the public" - this is true in the UK, for example. That being said, the two works I specifically mentioned above are separate points from that dealing with FoP or lack thereof, and are 2D works. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: -and are 2D works- that is correct so there was no point in mentioning it? Amada44  talk to me 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Er, what? The 3D works needed tags; those two 2D works also needed tags. That's the point of the list above. The point of this conversation originally was to clarify a misunderstanding, but now we can move on. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
They have been tagged. Can we move on? What about reviewing the text? --Edelseider (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that the 3D works have been tagged yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: But they have been, e. g. What sort of tag are you expecting? --Edelseider (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
First, that needs to happen for all 3D works, including architectural. Second, some of the works have been restored - was the restoration work sufficient to garner a new copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand you. The architectural elements are integral parts of the building and the building is from 1742, it could hardly be more public domain. Did you even read the article? I'm going to tag every single file but allow me to say that I find that insistence on marking centuries-old objects with tags and more tags and even more tags a bit fussy. Are you going to review the text as well, yes or no? --Edelseider (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely. This is just an image review, as the header says. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
He could follow up with a text review, though (ideally). --Edelseider (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Coord note: Edelseider, last things first -- Nikki is female. She is also one of our most experienced image and source reviewers, and I suggest you adopt a more collegial approach to dealing with her comments or those of any other reviewer. Nikki is a volunteer like the rest of us and under no obligation to review more of the article than she chooses to. Her image reviews alone are vital to the FAC process, because if a nomination does not satisfy WP image licensing standards then it won't be promoted to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: - I am trying to be collegial, which is not always easy, as you will admit. So I am - quite collegially - asked about the public domain status of a building that is in the public domain and about the copyright status of works whose authors are dead for centuries. I thought it wouldn't take long to deal collegially with these simple questions but I was proven wrong. I collegially suggest that @Nikkimaria: removes all the pictures from the article that she still has doubts about. That would settle the matter at long last. Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: As for "Nikki is a volunteer like the rest of us", you couldn't have said it more rightly. Thus I am a volunteer like the rest of you to provide Wikipedia with quality content, which should be judged on its qualities and on its content.--Edelseider (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Eve Russell[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, this article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions, who was featured prominently throughout its entire run on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. Introduced as the seemingly perfect wife and mother, Eve's storylines revolve around her past alcohol and drug abuse while working as a nightclub singer and her past relationship and child with businessman Julian Crane.

Tracey Ross, who played Eve for the series' entire run, has discussed the casting process and her interpretation and influences when acting out the role. Ross' casting was part of NBC's attempt to include a racially diverse ensemble on daytime television. Ross' performance was praised by fans and critics, with the character's relationship with Julian receiving positive attention. The character's storylines were negatively received by the cast, specifically the scenes in which Vincent Clarkson gives birth to his father's child and Eve incorrectly attaches Julian's penis during a botched surgery.

Despite these mixed reactions, Ross received eight nominations for the NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actress in a Daytime Drama Series, winning at the 38th NAACP Image Awards. This is my third nomination of a Passions-related article through the FAC process; the other two were Chad Harris-Crane and the Russell family (Passions). I look forward to receiving everyone's feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by User:PanagiotisZois[edit]

Hopefuly I'll be able to offer additional and more helpful comments in the future (sorry)... Shouldn't the information regarding her appearence in Providence be included under the "Appearances" section? Besides that the article is very well written and broad in its coverage of the character, dare I say even moreso than Chad's article. I'd definately support its promotion to featured article. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your support and comments. I completely agree with you and I have moved the "Other appearances and merchandise" subsection to the "Appearances" section. This is actually the article that I am the most proud of so I greatly appreciate the kind words. Hope to work with you further in the future! Aoba47 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Not my usual area, so I can't comment on sourcing or comprehensiveness, just nit-picking over what appears to be a very solid article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • "Harmony" presumably a town? Real or fictional? In either case, do we know where in the US it's supposed to be?
  • Good point. I have added the phrase "the fictional Northeastern town" in the lead, but let me know if you feel that it requires further clarification in the body of the article as well. I have WikiLinked Northeastern to make that part absolutely clear for a more global audience. We do not know the exact state in which the town is supposed to be located (though it could be somewhat guessed by the two death penalty cases that were prominently featured on the show, but an exact state is never provided outside of somewhere in the New England). Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "better understand" twice in one sentence
  • Oops, fixed this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "born on Christmas" reads oddly to me, as a Brit I'd expect "Christmas Day", but if it's standard US, fine
  • I am actually not sure. I have never used the word in this context before (I never knew anyone born on that day lol) so I have changed it for Christmas Day instead. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "and an erection might kill him" is this based on fact or is it an alternative fact?
  • This is actually a fact fact lol. It was one of the soap opera's final storylines and was referenced as one of the worst ideas by one of its cast members (and I have to agree with her on that one lol). Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate your feedback, especially on something outside of your usual area of interest. Let me know if there is anything else that needs attention and I look forward to hopefully working with you more in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with your responses, and happy to support above, an interesting read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • (easy) image review. Only image has appropriate FU tag Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by User:Tintor2[edit]

The article looks in a really good shape to become FA but there some things that bugged while reading it:

  • Can "Ross initially saw the character as easy to play ("everyone's best friend, and the town doctor, and a great mother")" simply be changed to "Ross initially saw the character as easy to play stating it she is "everyone's best friend, and the town doctor, and a great mother"). Otherwise the quotes feel pointless if they are hidden. There is another example in the cast response section.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Remember each citation needs wikilinks if they are possible. (Reference 18 for example "TVGuideOnline Interview with Tracey Ross". TV Guide Online. CBS Interactive. October 2003.")
  • I think that I have everything covered now. Let me know if there are any others that require WikiLinks. I am fairly certain that the only ones left are those without a Wikipedia article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll give my support if these issues are solved Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for your help! I believe that I have covered both of your comments, but let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems better. I'll give my support. Good work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Courtney Love[edit]

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about singer, musician, and actress Courtney Love. I have worked on this article vociferously over a course of years, and for whatever reason have been unable to get it promoted in spite of numerous approvals during prior nominations. It covers the subject adequately, has been thoroughly cited, and re-worked for fluidity of prose. —Drown Soda (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: I've reviewed it several times already, and it still looks to be in good condition. It's a bit long, but I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments from Midnightblueowl
    • "Love has practiced several religions, including Catholicism, Episcopalianism and New Age religions," - this does not read terribly well. I'd scrap the latter use of "religions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Support this article. I've made a few minor tweaks of my own too, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Support, as before. I went through the article again, and copyedited a little, but there was nothing significant wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Do we have up-to-date image and source reviews anywhere? If not, they can be requested at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Project Y[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the best known part of the Manhattan Project: the Los Alamos Laboratory and the effort to design the first atomic bombs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the site maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    I have increased the size of the main map, and have added a new map of the Tech Area. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • No significant duplicate links due to the article's length.
  • plutonium had unexpected properties but were comma after properties
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • University of California in Berkeley, in July 1942 Already know the year
    YesY Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Link boiler
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lieutenant Colonel John M. Harman arrived on 19 January 1943; he was promoted to colonel on 15 February, and moved to Los Alamos on 19 April.[75] Los Alamos officially became a military establishment on 1 April 1943, with Harman as its first commander. The chronology here appears to be messed up. Where did he arrive on 19 Jan? And tell the reader why he's important in the first sentence.
    YesY We can have the chronological order or the first sentence.
  • the ratio of ν for uranium-235 What's "v"?
    YesY Neutrons per fission. There originally was a a formula in the article that I thought the reader might have fun deriving, but I took it out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It was decided to use a type of radio altimeter known as the 718, but when the manufacturer, RCA, was contacted, it was learned that a new tail warning radar, AN/APS-13, known as Archie, was entering production. This was found to be suitable for use with Thin Man. Combine these two sentences and explain why a tail-warning radar was suitable for use as a radio altimeter.
    YesY Combined the sentences. Added a bit more about the radar. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • a small casting plant was established Tell the reader what it cast.
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Two new groups were created at Los Alamos to develop the implosion weapon, X (for explosives) Division headed by Kistiakowsky and G (for gadget) Division under Robert Bacher.[143][144] Although Teller was head of the T-1 (Implosion and Super) Group, Bethe considered that Teller was spending too much time on the Super, which had been given a low priority by Bethe and Oppenheimer. In June 1944, Oppenheimer created a dedicated Super Group under Teller, who was made directly responsible to Oppenheimer, and Peierls became head of the T-1 (Implosion) Group.[145][146] In September 1943, Teller's group became the F-1 (Super and General Theory) Group, part of the Enrico Fermi's new F (Fermi) Division. the chronology here is confusing, or there are some typos for years. But either way...
    YesY Typo. It was in September 1944. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Henceforth the gun-type had to work with enriched uranium only, and this allowed the Thin Man design to be greatly simplified. A high-velocity gun was no longer required, and a simpler weapon could be substituted, one short enough to fit into a B-29 bomb bay. Do you mean Little Boy here?
    YesY Yes. Heh, forgot to mention that. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • allow the powder bags clarify, do you mean the bags of propellant for the gun mechanism?
    YesY Yes. Added that. It must have seemed an obvious approach to a navy ordnance man like Parsons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Fat Man assembly, known as F13 don't you mean a pre-assembly?
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Phew!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

William Pūnohu White[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about William Pūnohu White, one of the leading Native Hawaiian political leader during the time of the overthrow of Hawaii which has generally been written as a conflict between the queen and American businessmen, neglecting the contributions of Native Hawaiian leaders (other than the queen) in the struggle. His colorful and controversial life is a great illustration of the different forms of resistance during the period between 1893 and 1898 against American imperialism in Hawaii and also the negative repercussions of misaligning against the Euro-American power holders in the islands at the time. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Doing... — Maile (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Copyvio/close paraphrasing checks
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector. The return of 83.2% "violation suspected" is primarily due to two large block quotes in the article, appropriately cited as to their source. Other items flagged are common phrases and proper nouns (names, titles, etc.). i.e. "the opening of the legislature", "annexation to the United States", "the Queen and". Returns that show a lesser percentage, are flagging the same issues. Nothing to be concerned about.
  • Individual spot checks on citations with Duplication Detector show nothing of concern.
  • Checklinks tool gives false positives on some links as "Heuristics resolved as likely dead" and "Error code indicates dead status", but checking each one shows the links are alive and working fine.
  • Bibliography section
  • Helena G. Allen book, wikilink publisher Arthur H. Clark Company, and the first instance any other publishers that have a Wikipedia article.
  • Sources
  • Citation 56 - "William, White (January 9, 1894) correspondence is a primary source, used only in conjunction with a secondary source, so it is allowable in the place and purpose for which it is used.
  • Sources used are in accordance with MOS.
  • Formatting
  • Consistent throughout
  • No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources
  • Citations are appropriately placed in every paragraph
  • Table citations in their own column

KAVEBEAR everything looks pretty good on your sourcing, nice and detailed, appropriately formatted. The only thing I have suggested above is under Bibliography; you ought to wiki link the first occurrence of each publisher, if Wikipedia has an article on them. — Maile (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Maile66 Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. Source review is completed, and everything looks good. — Maile (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sino-Roman relations[edit]

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 11:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the largely indirect relations between the Roman Empire (and its medieval incarnation, the Eastern Roman Empire) and the Han dynasty of China, followed by relations with subsequent Chinese dynasties. It contains information about ancient authors from both the Roman and Han Chinese realms and in some cases their attempts to understand the geography, history, culture, society, and governments of the respective empires on opposite ends of the Eurasian continent. The major focus, however, is on the poorly understood diplomatic missions that occurred between these two empires, as well as the trade activity that occurred between them via the Indian Ocean. In my humble opinion, the article is very well-sourced, easy to read, and well within the strictures of Wikipedia:Article size. From what I can tell it also possesses all the necessary FA requirements, being a well-organized, stable article with plenty of images to illustrate the topic. At the end of last year it also passed its Wikipedia:Good articles review, months after I had nominated it and honed each section according to the suggestions of the reviewers. I hope that you enjoy the read! Cheers. Pericles of AthensTalk 11:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Anything with a {{PD-old}} tag also needs a US PD tag
  • File:LocationOfTashkurgan.jpg: what's the source of the underlying data?
  • File:Illustration_of_Byzantine_embassy_to_Tang_Taizong_643_CE.jpg needs a better tag
  • Photos of 3D works should also include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. Even though I've written FA articles in the past, I've never really been good at this license tagging thing and I almost always wind up needing help with it. To the best of my abilities I've included US PD tags (specifically "PD-1923") for each of the PD-Old images used in the article. I've removed the image file "LocationOfTashkurgan.jpg" because I do not feel like hunting down the originator of the map, let alone having him or her hunt for the source that they used. If it's a non-sourced image, then it can go in the waste bin as far as I'm concerned. I never really noticed anything about the tag or source for that image, because it was a preexisting image before I began editing the article. As for "Illustration_of_Byzantine_embassy_to_Tang_Taizong_643_CE.jpg" I have since added a "PD-1923" tag as well, since it was published in 1920. As for photos of 3D works, you're going to have to be more specific here, since including "a tag for original work" flew right over my head. How do I go about doing that? I don't understand you. You might as well be speaking Swahili. Lol. Anyways, thanks for the image review. This is always something that slips my mind when I submit an FA, since I tend to have all my other ducks lined in a row and ready to go. Pericles of AthensTalk 18:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
If you take a picture of a three-dimensional artwork, there are two copyrights that need to be considered: your copyright as the photographer, and the artist's copyright on their artwork. In this case, the artworks are all almost certainly out of copyright, but we should include a tag that indicates why - whether {{PD-old}} or whatever else - in addition to the tag indicating the photographer's copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh! Okay. I'll see to it that PD-old tags are added to those images, then! Thanks for clarifying. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments: Recusing as coordinator for this one. I'm reading this (slowly), and it looks good so far. I made two minor tweaks, and my only real question so far (to the end of the Geography section) is whether we need all three maps in the lead. The first certainly, the third probably, but I'm not quite sure of the need for the second. Also, we have two Renaissance reconstructions of Roman maps. I'd like to know a little more about where these came from; how were they created? More importantly, I think the captions need referencing as the maps are not mentioned in the text (unless I missed it, or it comes later). Sarastro1 (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

More: I've read down to the end of "Other Roman Embassies" now. Generally, looking very good, but a few little quibbles to add to the ones above. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • "Recent excavations at the burial site of China's first Emperor Qin Shi Huang": Can we date this? "Recent" is a little vague, and will date.
  • It's a little disconcerting to see the long quote by Florus cited to Yule. I think we need to say something along the lines of "Quoted in Yule..." in the ref. We need to say where we found the quote, if not in the original source. This is also the case for the later quotes in the "Envoy Gan Ying" section.
  • Given that Yule was writing over a hundred years ago, has there been no follow-up work since?
  • It's a bit jarring to read of Gan Ying without any explanation of who he is until the next section. Could we at least say "since Chinese records insist that Gan Ying was the first Chinese to reach as far west as Tiaozhi in [year]"? We also end up linking him twice in quick succession: here and in the next section.
  • Why are the two long quotations in the "Envoy Gan Ying" section in italics? I'm pretty sure this is against MOS.
  • "While Syrian jugglers were renowned in Western Classical literature,[65] Chinese sources from the 2nd century BC to 2nd century AD mention them as well.": I might be missing something here, but I'm really not sure why we are saying "while" here. Where is the comparison?
  • "which Yule deftly notes was the same criticism directed at papal missionary John of Montecorvino when he arrived in China in the late 13th century": Hmm, "deftly"? We can't really pass comment on the accuracy, effectiveness, brilliance, or otherwise of our sources as this would certainly be POV.
  • "as well as a Chinese officer, Liu Xian of Huiji (in Zhejiang), who unfortunately died en route": Similarly, I'm not sure we should be saying that this is "unfortunate".
  • I also noticed around here the rather odd footnote "Yule (1915), p. 53; please see footnotes #4–5." While undoubtedly polite, it comes across as a little unprofessional!
  • I note again that we are very dependent on Yule here. Is there really nothing more modern in this field? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: greetings! Thanks for taking the time to review the article. To the best of my abilities I've attempted to tackle each and every bullet point you have raised here. You may cycle through the latest edits to see the various changes that I've recently made to the article. I've also provided a British Library citation for that Renaissance map, and removed the second map of the lead section as you've suggested. As for a seemingly heavy reliance on Henry Yule (1915), I will admit that 26 out of 161 citations is a bit skewed, but by no means nearing a majority of the citations or even a quarter of them. This is a very arcane topic; there aren't many present-day academics who tackle it in full or as extensively as Yule did. Despite the lack of attention this topic receives in academia as a whole, I've nevertheless managed to cite Thorley (1971), Yü (1986), Pulleyblank (1999), Young (2001), Lewis (2007), de Crespigny (2007), Bang (2009), Hill (2009), Scheidel (2009), Christopoulos (2012), and Ball (2016), all of whom have given it considerable attention. Unfortunately I was unable to directly consult Leslie Gardiner (1996), but the article doesn't suffer too much from the lack of her groundbreaking scholarship on the matter. Quite frankly I don't think it is the fault of the article that the topic itself isn't given a greater amount of attention it probably deserves. That's my 2 cents at any rate. Pericles of AthensTalk 02:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most infamous, and probably the most well-studied, episodes in U.S. foreign relations, and as such is of great importance. I recognize that this is a highly complex, and highly contentious, topic, and have therefore delved into the source material extensively; I believe I have done it justice, within the confines of 61kb of prose. To those who may be struck by some of the statements in the article, and may have concerns about political neutrality, I can do no better than to invite you to dig into the source material, and also to assure you that the article is actually substantially milder than many of the sources. Have at it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Simon Burchell[edit]

Comment I reviewed this for GA a year and a half ago. It is a fine article and I hope to find the time to review it here. My one initial concern for an article about Guatemala is that no Guatemalan sources have been used. That being said, well done on getting it this far... All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Simon, good to see you. That is an entirely valid concern (though I note that I have relied a fair bit on Gleijeses, whose work is chiefly based on interviews in Guatemala). My handicap here is my lack of Spanish, and an unwillingness to rely entirely on google translate; but if you were willing/able to check some of my work, I'd be quite willing to check for Spanish sources and add them where appropriate. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, I can do that - to start I ran Guatemala golpe 1954 (golpe = "coup") through Google Scholar.
Lots more of Spanish-language sources on the Google Scholar search. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a quick note to say that I've added the Casteneda source (which is Mexican, I believe?), and used it in several places: but I've treated it with a little circumspection with respect to very specific details, because there are places where this source makes claims contradicting virtually every other on the subject: such as, for instance, the idea that Jose Angel Sanchez briefly held power, which nobody else mentions. Working on the others now. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've just checked my copy of Los Presidentes de Guatemala by Hector Gaitán, and his only mention is as a member of the military council after the coup. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Yes his membership of Diaz' junta is well-known, but the leadership claim is unique to this source. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Simon Burchell: I've added four Spanish sources, two of which are from Figueroa Ibarra, who, as I understand it, is the best known Guatemalan historian in this particular niche. Would you mind having a glance at my additions, at your leisure? I'll look for more sources, but these seem to be some of the best/most relevant. And it's worth noting that even they rely heavily on Immerman, Schlesinger/Kinzer, and Gleijeses, the three truly heavyweight English sources on the subject. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've spot-checked over half the uses of Castañeda, and don't see any problems so far. More later... However, in this and some of the other refs (Gilderhus for example), these refs would be better broken down with specific page nos. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Simon: Just fyi, I've added specific page numbers to all of the journal sources. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Authoritarian governments

  • UFC to cap the salary of its workers at only 50 cents a day - does this refer to US cents, or Guatemalan centavos? Whichever it is, it needs to be made clear. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid the source does not make it explicit, they just say fifty cents. The rest of the section repeatedly refers to dollars, which is really the only indication that they are referring to USD, apart from the fact that they were published in the US. Do you think this is sufficient basis to say USD? Other sources I've looked for do the same thing... Vanamonde (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the source would be unlikely to change currency, so best to clarify to US cents. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Guatemalan Revolution and Presidency of Arévalo

  • The word junta is wikilinked, but goes to a disambiguation page, could you pipe the link to the most appropriate article. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are instances of "landowner" and "land-owner" - and I came across similar a similar inconsistency elsewhere that I corrected, so check all your hyphenated words against non-hyphenated forms, and be consistent. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up several of the detail-heavy images
  • I've scaled up Eisenhower, and the memorandum. Which else were you referring to? Is the scaling sufficient?
  • Suggest also the Guatemala map, and I'm not seeing any change to the memorandum? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Done. I'd changed the memo from upright to normal thumb. I've now changed it, too, to 300px; but I'm actually uncertain about that. It's damned ugly, and you still can't read it, so I'm wondering if 220 is best for that image after all.
  • done
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • done, I believe
  • File:Manuel_Estrada_Cabrera_01.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • Even the Library of Congress, where it is from, does not seem to know: the negative that it was created from is from between 1909 and 1920. The website of the LoC says "No known restrictions on publication." If this does not resolve the issue, how is [7] as an alternative?
  • That alternative would work, although you'd need to add in the author's date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've removed this: though I'm curious as to why the pre-1923 rule does not apply to either of these. The author's date of death was a no-go, he seems obscure. How is this, for which we actually know the author, and know that he died in 1928?
  • PD-1923 requires that the image be published, not just created, before 1923 - if we don't know publication that doesn't work. Alternative is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah I see. I've added the alternative.
  • File:Ubico_Castaneda,_Jorge.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US?
  • Honestly, I don't know, and it does not help that the original link is broken, and it was PD in France.
  • Okay, I've dug into this further. Here is the situation: it was published in a newspaper [8] in France, on 8 January 1938. Its author is unknown. In France, this document would have entered the public domain on 8 January 2008, after which the image was scanned and uploaded to Wikipedia. This much I'm sure of. Now it seems that in most cases the US does not apply the rule of shorter term, and we're not yet 95 years from the date of publication: so I'm not sure how to proceed from here.
  • Unless you can find another reason why it would be PD in the US, it would seem this cannot be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah that's unfortunate. I've removed it, and will look for alternatives.
  • Rather infuriatingly, none of the images on commons have the information to meet the criteria you have described here (except for one, which shows a young Ubico on a bicycle) and so I guess we will just have to do without.
  • File:Guatearbenz0870.JPG: what is the copyright status of the mural?
  • Investigating, but perhaps Soman could help here.
  • I wasn't aware of this before, but it seems to me that the copyright status of the mural itself is irrelevant, because Guatemala allows the reproduction of public artwork: [9]. In any case, it is a mural in a public area, created collectively by the activist group HIJOS. The group specializes in graffiti type images. It was painted in Spring 2004, and erased a year later [10]. This suggests, but doesn't state explicitly, that no copyright ever existed. What does this mean for its use?
  • Done, thanks
  • File:1920UnitedFruitCompanyEntrance.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sculptural work?
  • Investigating.
  • Did a little bit of digging: the building was built in 1920 [11] and was designed by a General Allison Owen, who died in 1951. I cannot find any source which specifically discusses the design of the sculpture. Where does that leave us?
  • If this part was build pre-1923, then {{PD-1923}} should apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well nobody is saying "oh and the facade was definitely built at the same time as the building" but there are plenty of references that refer to its construction in 1920 and the facade in the same breath; so I think we're okay. I've added that tag.
  • File:Coat_of_arms_of_Guatemala.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is merely a fragment of the flag: surely it has the same copyright status? Or is it more complicated than that? Anyhow, it is currently used in at least one FA, but it is far from critical to the article, and could be removed.
  • What is the copyright status of the flag, for that matter? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh lordy. I'd always sort of assumed using a flag was fine with respect to representing the country it was off...I'll investigate, although I'm wondering if Simon knows something, having brought multiple Guatemala articles to FA.
  • Some countries explicitly state that national symbols like flags are not protected by copyright, others don't - I'm not sure which is the case in Guatemala. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This seems a strangely complicated question to answer. The closest I've come to finding something is [12], on the Spanish Wikipedia: but even that does not answer this question completely. I'm pinging Simon again since I forgot to sign the previous post, and also because I suspect that without a knowledge of Spanish, I am going to get exactly nowhere with this search. Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, wasn't that easy to track down but I think this covers it, "LEY DE DERECHO DE AUTOR Y DERECHOS CONEXOS DE GUATEMALA DECRETO NÚMERO 33-98 EL CONGRESO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA" (Law of Rights of the Author and Associated Rights) from the website of the Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes (Ministry of Culture and Sports) - specifically Article 13, subsection g (page 39 of the linked PDF):
ARTICULO 13. Exclusiones. No son objeto de protección por derecho de autor, entre otras:
g) Las reproducciones o imitaciones, sin autorización, de escudos, banderas o emblemas de cualquier país, Estado, municipio o división político administrativa equivalente, ni las denominaciones, reglas, símbolos, siglas o emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente, así como la designación verbal de los mismos;
Basically, and without fully translating the legalese (though I can do that if required) - flags are exempt from copyright, so you're good to use it. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, Simon! That would have taken me hours to find, I think, if I'd found it at all....Nikkimaria, I believe that's everything. Vanamonde (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. I know very little about image licensing, so I would ask your indulgence in helping me work through these.
  • @Nikkimaria: I don't have definite answers, but I've found more information with respect to each of those images. Could you take a look? Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Indopug[edit]

Comment on the first three sections Looking at the sources, the research seems impeccable, well done. However I find quite a bit of repetition of information, which usually points to the article improperly organised, and in need of a re-structuring. For example, take Decree 900:

  • Presidency of Árbenz and land reform: "The official title of the agrarian reform bill was Decree 900 ... Approximately 500,000 individuals, or one-sixth of the population, had received land by this point"
  • Operation PBFORTUNE: "The worries of the U.S. increased after the election of Jacobo Árbenz in 1951 and his enactment of Decree 900, the agrarian reform law, in 1952.[52][54] The new law benefited approximately half a million people"
  • United Fruit Company: "The company's labor troubles were compounded in 1952 when Jacobo Árbenz passed Decree 900, the agrarian reform law."
  • Cold war motivations: "The enactment of the agrarian reform law in 1952 provoked Truman to authorize Operation PBFORTUNE"

Note that Decree 900 is not even the subject of the article, just one of its (i.e. the coup's) many causes! And the same holds true for other stuff as well—the Guatemalan Party of Labour, PBFORTUNE's failure, UFC's lobbying etc.

My recommendation is to re-read the first three sections and re-arrange the information chronologically. The stuff about PBFORTUNE, UFC and Cold War paranoia (in Operation PBFORTUNE and Genesis of the coup) are so interrelated that maybe you're better off dealing with them together in a single section called Prelude that deals with what the Americans (govt + its cronies + UFC) were up to in 1951–1953. Obviously para 1 of UFC, which begins in 1899, wouldn't fit here; that would instead dovetail better with Authoritarian governments. Doing so will also prevent the article from taking way too long (6800 words) to get to the actual coup itself (the Operation PBSUCCESS section).—indopug (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Indopug I've implemented your suggestion of reorganizing, which I think is a good one. I'd quibble with your notion that the actual coup is limited to the Operation PBSUCCESS section, but that's maybe a discussion for elsewhere. The merger allowed me to prune about 1500b of text, give or take. The minor problem this creates is that of section titles, as Cold war stuff is now spread over two subsections; but take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

Great to see the article brought this far, Vanamonde. I have a few comments:

  • I'm a little confused by the use of citations in the lede. Some sentences have them; others do not. Personally I think that the best option is to be rid of them entirely in the lede, particularly as all of the material is appropriately cited in the article body. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a response to a tendency for people to read just the lead, and go "hey I don't like that and it's not cited, let me remove it." Some sentences are specific enough to allow me to cite a source in the lede: others are too much of a summary, and so I don't. If you think it will be clearer without, I can remove them. Vanamonde (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I second MBO. There's no need of the refs here.—indopug (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Alright, then. done. Vanamonde (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "sought evidence of Soviet influence" - I would link to the Soviet Union here. Given that the Soviet state collapsed a quarter of a decade ago, many (younger and future) readers may have little familiarity with it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't because I wanted to avoid a duplicate link: if you think it's worth it, I'll add one.
  • Actually, I misread your comment, and didn't realize you were referring to the lede. This has been done, by Simon. Vanamonde (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm. The term is used by the sources quite frequently, but I can see your concern. I've always understood "junta" to mean a council: how about "authoritarian ruler" or "authoritarian military ruler"? Also, I'm wondering how to avoid repetition in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede. Vanamonde (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph of the lede contains two sentences that consecutively end in "Arbenz". It's not a major problem, but is a little repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Replaced one use. Vanamonde (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "though the operation was quickly aborted it was a precursor to PBSUCCESS." - how about "although the operation was quickly aborted, it was a precursor to PBSUCCESS."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SnowFire[edit]

Nice work. Support. I have some comments, but these are mostly optional or are "my two cents" type deals, especially if they conflict with others recommendations.

Many thanks, Snowfire. I've responded below. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
A few responses in-line, but as per above, don't feel obligated to make any changes for 'em, the article is solid as is. SnowFire (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Monroe Doctrine: This section reads rather, hmm, how to put this... very cynical. A nicer interpretation would be something like "the Monroe Doctrine was about protecting Latin America from European imperialism" (which I'm not saying should be the slant instead, but merely pointing out that this can go multiple ways). Also, I'm a little skeptical of taking random quotes from earlier eras out; I've found myself accidentally doing the same thing myself to make it clear who I think the heroes or villains are in a drama. Like, Cleveland was not particularly an imperialist from my recollection + a quick check of his WP article, and he clearly didn't mean that the US actually ruled or had sovereignty in Latin America. (Mentioning a quote like that, for, say, Teddy Roosevelt, who definitely WAS an imperalist, would be fine.) I'd tone the section down a little.
  • I can understand the concern here, to some extent. The Monroe doctrine main article says "opposing:" isn't that the same as warning? I don't think we can say "protecting Latin America" in Wikipedia's voice. The quotations are all those selected by Gilderhus, you're completely correct in saying that we should not pick and choose them. Even so, if there are quotations you would wish to omit or paraphrase, let me know; and I can provide quotes from the source if needed. In passing, I will point out that Gilderhus himself is somewhat harsher on the doctrine than our article is.
  • Fair enough. I'd just prefer that any quotes on an "expansive" reading of the Monroe Doctrine come from people who Definitely Were on the "American imperalism is rad" side of things, since it's entirely possible to say one thing and do another. Did Gilderhus quote anyone other than Cleveland? (Or was Cleveland more of an imperialist than I think?)
  • Truman: Did Truman actually authorize the coup? My readings on the topic were mostly related to the Iran incident where Truman resolutely ignored the British and wanted to present that US as the true ally of nationalist movements around the world. The caption (for a slightly misleading image, since that's apparently Korea) indicates he authorized it, but the text says "relied on purely diplomatic and economic means." Was this the CIA running around on their own? (Wouldn't surprise me.) Could this be clarified?
  • Well the sources all do seem to say that Truman authorized it; he used diplomatic methods initially, got steadily more concerned/paranoid (depending on your POV) and authorized PBFORTUNE in 1950. The point about the image is a fair one, and I've mentioned the date in the caption.
  • Historiography: Thank you, thank you for acknowledging that there are historians who think it was about the UFC and ones who think it was about anti-communism. I've run into zealots before who are 100% sure that "their" school is correct and the other is irrelevant propaganda, so acknowledging that both exist is great, especially when both are probably right.
  • Yes this does tend to polarize folks, does it not? What I find interesting is that multiple sources decidedly sympathetic to the GR say that it was the fracas over communism that really drove the coup; but also that the concerns over communism were misplaced/exaggerated/paranoid...which is a different sort of dialectic than usually plays out with this matter.
  • To wildly guess... I think that certain Marxist historians really, really want "proof" that their hypothesis that corporations secretly run everything in capitalism, and that they're also psychotic and evil, is true. It's too tempting to use Iran & Guatemala for this, despite the fact that it requires them to pretend that the Red Scare wasn't going on, a strange position for a socialist. Flip side, from the "conservative" perspective, the Red Scare is already a well-known and lost battle, so sweep as much stuff under it as possible.
  • Arms shipments: The line about the naval blockade violating international law is probably fine, but just curious, what kind of law was it? Weapons shipments are traditionally a big exception or, at the least, an argued-over point... something very similar happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis, after all. Also, the US had to *inform* the Guatemalan military of the arms shipment? Were the military really that clueless, or was it more "exacerbate tensions and insist the military not take the creation of a rival force lying down?"
  • With respect to illegality, I'm afraid the source is not very helpful. Here is the quote (yeah the article uses a different edition, I know):

    On 24 May, the Navy provided a more daunting indicator of US resolve in operation HARDROCK BAKER, the sea blockade of Guatemala. Submarines and warships patrolled the sea approaches to Guatemala, stopping all ships and searching for arms. The task force was instructed to damage vessels if necessary to make them stop. Ships transiting the Panama Canal en route to Guatemala were detained and searched. The blockade's blatant illegality made it a powerful weapon of intimidation. The United States stopped and boarded French and British freighters in defiance of international law. France and Britain muted their protests in hopes that the United States would show similar restraint with regard to their colonial troubles in the Middle East. The message to Guatemala was clear: If the United States would violate freedom of the seas, it would not be stopped by so feeble an instrument as the nonintervention clause of the Rio Pact.[Cullather, 1999, page 82]

  • As to the rest of it, honestly it's possible. The Guatemalan military/intelligence was quite a shambles during this period.
  • Interesting. It's something I'd personally find questionable to emphasize too much (I can think of plenty of situations where not selling armaments to a government would be *stopping* human rights abuses, so standing up for the international right to weapons purchases is a bit shaky...), but up to you.
  • Aerial bombing: Wait, the CIA *admitted they did that* and paid a million dollars compensation for damages?! Weird. (Not a request to change anything, I'm just surprised.)
  • Right?
  • Political legacy: This is kinda vague, but... the article says that the CIA thought Guatamala was a success, and it helped lead into the Bay of Pigs? The impression I always got was that even at the time, Guatamala was considered a disaster gone terribly wrong done by clueless cowboys. And that was within the CIA, not just internationally.
  • My understanding is that the CIA felt it was a success because they removed the government they wanted to remove, and replaced it with one they liked better...the messiness enters the picture when you take a step back and see what it actually did.
  • "93% of these violations were committed by the U.S.-backed military" - I see this is super-cited, which is great, but can the phrasing be a little clearer here about 93% of what kind of event specifically? Or maybe a wikilink? Counting atrocities is really tricky. (Especially since you have stuff like 10 arbitrary executions of one person at a time, and a single slaughter of 500 people... is that 11 atrocities or 510?) SnowFire (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, a fair point; again, I'm not certain. "93 percent of wartime human rights violations" is what McAllister says....Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

North Eastern Railway War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, another war memorial. This is the fourth article in the series to reach FAC and an unusual intersection of topics: architecture, military history, and railways! My last nomination was a memorial for a Lincolnshire town, commemorating some 200 casualties; this one commemorates over 2,000, all of them employees of one railway company. Fittingly, it is a large and imposing monument, even for a city as historic as York—you would struggle to walk from the station to the city centre without noticing it.

As ever, I'm very much obliged for any feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


Nice article.

  • All caps should be translated to either sentence case or title case. (MOS:ALLCAPS)
    • I'm aware of that bit of the MoS, but no style guide can cover every possibility and I think sentence case or title case would look out of place here, and all caps is appropriate for two short dedications. Some memorials have entire essays inscribed on them, in which case "normalising" the case would make sense but here I do't think it does.
  • Dislike "fallen". Prefer "dead" per WP:EUPH.

More to come. --John (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John, I'll look forward to it.

Comments from Davidvaughanwells[edit]


Was there really a coal depot on the site originally. I always thought the early coal sidings were outside the city walls.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the OS 1:1056 scale plan of 1856 shows what appears to be a coal yard inside the city wall - it was in two parts. The western part, between the wall (and parallel to it) and York old railway station, was a group of sidings; the central ones continued through what is now the War Memorial, and across the road, continuing along what is now Station Road, where the eastern part comprised about a dozen staithes and six coal drops, parallel to Tanner's Moat. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks#Redrose64 --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
You learn something new every day! Thanks Redrose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Looks pretty good. I would have preferred international units before US/UK, but your choice is clearly acceptable for UK topic. Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Grade II* could do with a gloss somewhere, perhaps its formal definition "particularly important buildings of more than special interest".
    • Done.
  • Raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby even though it's capped in the linked article, "Raid" looks odd to me, prefer "raid"
    • I have no strong feelings on this either way so done, though if that turns out to be its proper name I'll probably revert.
  • Conversely, "zeppelin" should be capped
    • Done (by OotR).
  • "abutting against"; "against" is redundant
    • Done.
  • idea in a cable sound American to me, why not telegram?
    • Confession: I'm far too young to have any idea about such things! I went with cable because that's the term Skelton uses (he's a Brit) but if other reviewers feel that telegram is more appropriate, I'm happy to change it.
I forgot I'd reviewed this, I'm happy with the responses, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Images are correctly licensed and appropriate
Thank you very much for the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Optimist on the run[edit]

I've known this monument since childhood, as my father, and later myself, worked in the railway offices behind it. Good to see an article about it, and thanks to HJ Mitchell for his hard work. I've got a few suggestions for minor improvements:-

  • Lede: coincidentally at end of the first paragraph seems a bit editorial.
    • I think it's fine; it is a coincidence that the city memorial was built on NER land (this wasn't a factor in the decision). And I didn't use Skelton's phrase, "a curious twist of fate"! ;)
  • Background: one of the largest employers in the north of England needs a citation.
    • I'm pretty sure this is just an extrapolation from Langham, but either way there weren't (and aren't) many firms employing tens of thousands of people.
  • Background: The second paragraph also needs more citations, in particularly the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world, The NER's memorial is also the second of two memorials Lutyens designed for railway companies, the first was the Midland Railway War Memorial and The design resembles that of Lutyens' Southend-on-Sea War Memorial which aren't in the Historic England page.
    • Thiepval is mentioned in the listing but its size isn't; leave the with me, it'll be an easy fix (seriously, the thing is massive).
  • Inception: Perhaps a map could be added to show the relative locations of the NER and city memorials (including the originally proposed site), the city walls and the old and new stations.
    • I don't have the skills to make something like this, and I worry abut how useful it would be given that these things are just a few metres apart, but I wouldn't rule out including it if someone was to make one.
  • Design: The close-up of the remembrance stone isn't really that close. I'll be in York next weekend, and if possible I'll see if I can get some more photos of it.
    • Yes please! The photos in the article are the only photos we have of it. I live at the opposite end of the country so wouldn't be able to get there any time soon.
  • See also - perhaps the railway memorials could be linked in a navbox instead of see also.
    • I think the connection is a bit tangential for a navbox and navboxes are clutter, but I suppose someone could create one if they wanted.
  • General - agree with above comments about "Zeppelin" and "fallen" - I've fixed these.
    • Thank you.

Optimist on the run (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the article interesting, especially given your personal knowledge of the memorial; I enjoyed writing it. Thanks for your comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. I'm not convinced that "embroiled in controversy" is an encyclopaedic term, but I'll leave that to your discretion. In terms of cable v telegram (above), I was under the impression that cables were between the US and Britain (from the Transatlantic Cable), while telegrams were elsewhere, particularly within Britain. I may be wrong on that, but I don't think "cable" is a US variant per se. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Operation Pamphlet[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Operation Pamphlet was a World War II convoy operation conducted in early 1943 to transport an Australian Army division home from the Middle East. While many such operations were conducted during the war, this one was particularly dramatic. It was preceded by a high-level diplomatic argument, with the Australian Government and US Army General Douglas MacArthur seeking to have the division returned, while Winston Churchill and FDR tried to persuade them otherwise. Once grudging agreement was given to return the unit, an extraordinary convoy made up of four huge ocean liners was assembled. These ships were escorted across the Indian Ocean by much of the British fleet in the region, and then through Australian Waters by much of the Allied forces there. Happily, no fighting occurred, and after enduring difficult conditions on board the ships the men of the 9th Division made it home without loss. Despite the strict secrecy which surrounded the operation, it ended with crowds gathering to watch the ships arrive in Sydney Harbour on 27 February 1943.

I've been working on this article for a while. It passed a GA review in November 2014, and an A-class review in May 2015. I've since expanded and copy edited it (with User:Anotherclown contributing the excellent map), and am hopeful that it now meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up both maps and including a colour legend in the caption for the first. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nikki, I've just made that change Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Support -- recusing from coord duties, I reviewed/copyedited/supported at MilHist ACR...

  • I've tweaked prose and formatting a bit but generally see no probs with the improvements since ACR -- pls let me know any concerns with my changes.
  • The only thing I'd question is that in the lead it says "After its return to Australia, the 9th Division was retrained for jungle warfare" but in the main body it says the division began its jungle war training before leaving the Middle East (and continued on the voyage and after returning to Australia). Perhaps if we just said "The 9th Division was retrained for jungle warfare" in the lead it'll do the trick...
    • That's a good point. The retraining is fairly marginal to the subject of the article, so I've removed it from the lead. I've tweaked the final para of the article to also avoid this wording problem. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Structure and level of detail seem fine.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read.

Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review -- all sources appear reliable, external links check out, and couldn't spot any formatting issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- I really appreciated reading this history, thanks Nick

  • 'West Australian port of Fremantle' and 'West Australian coast'. These 2 should be either Western or west?
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 'South-West Pacific' v. 'South West Pacific'. Hyphen?
  • wlink? James Gordon Partridge Bisset
    • What a splendid name! Linked. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review Jenny Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

Just missed you before your break, but these can all wait. Excellent article, and a highly polished one too, so the few comments that follow are nit-picky in the extreme.

  • Is Operation Stepsister worthy of a red link? (Given the standard of this article, I presume you may turn it blue at some point in the future, but I have to ask);
    • Yes, very much so: the convoy is extensively covered in reliable sources, and the heated debate between the British and Australian Governments over its destination (the British wanted to send it to Burma, the Australians wanted to bring the troops home and eventually prevailed) remains a major incident in Australian-British relations. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Other factors influencing the Government's decision" you were talking about two governments in the previous sentence, which could lead to confusion;
  • In rather formal structure it should be "specify of what it should comprise", but I know AusEng is less stuffy than BritEng, so I'll leave it to your discretion.
  • Surely the "Queen of Bermuda left for the United Kingdom"?
  • We could shorten the two references in this section to the UK, rather than the full name.

All rather minor points is a very readable piece. I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your review. I'll follow up on the other points once I'm less jet lagged than I am at the moment ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Resident Evil 5[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the best selling video game in the Resident Evil series. Article is GA, has received a peer review and a copy-edit from the guild of copy-editors. Freikorp (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba47
  • The first sentence in the lead's second paragraph is quite long and it may be beneficial to separate it into two parts. The first part could focus on the addition of co-operative gameplay and the second could focus on the departure from survival horror game mechanics in favor of those of an action game.
  • Done.
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You have a stray ending parenthesis in the second paragraph of the "Development" section that should be deleted.
  • Removed.
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it be beneficial to provide the name of the original theme song in the final paragraph of the same section?
  • The source, unfortunately, doesn't mention the name of the song.
  • No worries as this is not a major point of concern. This was more of a clarification question as it is not absolutely necessary for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The first three paragraphs of the "Critical reception" subsection seems to lack focus and it would be beneficial to organize these paragraphs around shared ideas/concepts from each review. The third and fourth paragraph appear to be fine as they focus on negative reviews and the reception of the DLC (though the inclusion of the nomination as Best Action Game at the end of a paragraph primarily dealing with DLC seems a little odd and it may be better to relocate that to an earlier paragraph in the same subsection.
  • I've reorganised it, take a look and let me know if it needs further work.
  • Looks great. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: These are the only comments that I could find on my first read-through. Great work with the article. I will support this nomination once my comments have been addressed. Good luck with this and I hope this receives more traffic in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for your comments; I've replied to all concerns. Let me know if you spot anything else or think anything needs more work. Freikorp (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Great job with this article. I support this nomination and good luck with getting it promoted in the future. I hope this receives more traffic in the future. Aoba47 (talk)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • Definitely footnote the Japanese name per WP:JPN
  • "The seventh major installment in the Resident Evil series, the game was announced in 2005, the same year its predecessor Resident Evil 4 was released." - I think this sentence read a bit awkwardly. How about The game is the seventh major installment in the Resident Evil series, and was first announced in 2005—the same year its predecessor Resident Evil 4 was released.
  • All three paragraphs of the lead start with "Resident Evil 5". I'd recommend mixing it up slightly
  • "When the game was released the minigame multiplayer mode was offline only, but a release-day patch gave the game online multiplayer modes" - to me this sounds contradictory. When the game was released, minigames were offline only, but on the release day they were patched to give them online capability? Do you mean that the game's minigames are offline when the game isn't updated? Maybe reword it to something like that, if that's the case
  • "Mercenaries unlocks when the game's story mode has been completed" - Mercenaries is unlocked when the game's story mode has been completed
  • I couldn't spot any issues with the plot section—it seems to be an appropriate length too
  • "Actors Reuben Langdon, Karen Dyer and Ken Lally portrayed Chris Redfield, Sheva Alomar and Albert Wesker" - needs a ", respectively." on the end.
  • "Resident Evil 5 was introduced by Capcom on July 20, 2005" - announced?
  • "on the Xbox Live Marketplace and the PlayStation Store" - de-link PlayStation Store here as it's already linked
  • "It was the fastest-selling game of the franchise in the United Kingdom, and the biggest Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 game release in the region" - the United Kingdom is a country and not a region. I think "region" means North America, Europe, PAL regions etc
  • I think the third and fourth paragraphs of the critical response section could be paraphrased so it doesn't have to rely on quotes. This is an aspect reviewers will mostly nitpick to death in FACs

That's all I could find during my initial read through, but other than that I thought this article was pretty solid, and all of the sources I've checked were verifiable and reliable. I'll come back to this once all of the above are clarified! JAGUAR  18:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jaguar. Thanks for your comments. I've addressed everything, and have paraphrased three direct quotes in the 'Critical response' section. Let me know if you think I should paraphrase more, or if you find any other issues. Freikorp (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take another look through the article now. Another thing I would recommend is reworking the reception section somewhat so that it avoids the "A said B" problem (User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections is an excellent essay which deals with this). To accomplish this, I would put a short summary sentence at the beginning of each paragraph in the reception section, for example the first paragraph could have something like Reviewers praised the game's visuals and level of content and the third paragraph could have The game's control scheme was viewed negatively by critics which a bunch of citations at the end of it. I notice that the paragraphs are organised by topic, so writing summary sentences shouldn't be a problem. JAGUAR  10:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jaguar. I've added summary sentences. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them. I've read through the article again and am happy that all of my points have been dealt with, so I'm glad to lend my support here. Well done! JAGUAR  13:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from PanagiotisZois[edit]

  • In the lead section's first paragraph, should you include that Chris is also looking for his missing partner Jill Valentine?
I've now mentioned Jill in the lead.
  • In the second paragraph you could maybe include that it expands upon the gameplay of RE4, having even more melee moves.
Did you notice that mentioned in any of the sources or do you just remember this from playing the game? Everything in this section needs to be sourced and I don't recall any of the sources mentioning that, but I'll have a more in depth look later.
  • in "Gameplay" you have ) after the word space.
Removed. Thanks for pointing that out.
  • Add that on the first playthrough in single mode, players can only use Chris but once the game is completed the can choose Sheva instead.
That is already mentioned in the fourth sentence in the third paragraph. :)
  • Maybe add that the Mercenaries minigame, while originally from RE3 is based more on RE4 in regards to gameplay style.
This is true, but I've looked through all the mercenaries sources and none of them compare this version to versions in previous RE games.

Due to time constraints I've only looked at the lead and "Gameplay" sections. Will look into the rest as well. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments PanagiotisZois. I'm looking forward to the rest of your review. No rush though; whenever you're ready. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 675 (Michigan)[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  20:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about another Interstate Highway in Michigan. In the wake of the promotion of my last nomination, this article, should it also be promoted, would elevate the Interstate Highways in Michigan topic from GT to FT status. Overall, this is a compact little article and should be easy to review. It would also fall numerically into a cluster of the highest numbered highways in Michigan, all of which are FAs already (I-496, Capitol Loop [CL I-496], M-553, I-696). The article had a recent ACR that included image and source reviews. Since that promotion a month ago, the traffic counts have been updated, and a photo has been added (licensed CC-BY-SA 2.0 on Flickr and transferred as part of a larger set of photos at commons:Category:Interstate 675 (Michigan). Imzadi 1979  20:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support per my review at the ACR. --Rschen7754 20:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and believe it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 23:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments - I was waiting for the day you might nominate this highway because of my love/hate relationship with it. I lived in the tri-cities area for many years and remember the Zilwaukee Bridge debacle and numerous other times when I-75 traffic was routed through 675 for extended periods of time. I think you've covered the highway about as well as can be expected, but overall I think there is some room for refinement as follows:
  • You haven't adequately explained why 275 was proposed but 675 was chosen.
  • I think we have an opportunity to explain why there is relatively little traffic north of the Tittabawassee interchange. There is a narrative missing here about 675 being the primary commuting route for people living in places like Birch Run, Bridgeport, Frankenmuth, and Buena Vista going into Saginaw for work or to visit the mall area. However, people don't generally come to Saginaw from places like Midland and Bay City where they would use that segment of 675.
  • In the History section, I think you could write quite a bit more about the period of time when the new Zilwaukee Bridge was being constructed. The text is confusing there. Was traffic being routed through 675 during that period, and if so, was it the whole time or during certain periods?
  • We jump from 1988 to 2008 but I know there were other significant periods when all I-75 traffic was being routed through 675, for weeks or months at a time. You might need to do some more research and find out when and why. Everyone in the area would be disgruntled and there would be articles about it in the Saginaw News and other local papers.
Overall nicely done. --Laser brain (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Laser brain: thank you! Now, let me pick your brain (pun not quite intended) here for a moment. I clarified a little about the numbering based on the source. As for the rest, if you can point me to any sources, I'll be glad to expand the article. As for the period when the current Zilwaukee was built, as I recall, sources don't really say if I-75 traffic was diverted up I-675 for any significant periods of time. I can run through the newspaper archives again to see if anything pops up once I'm back on my primary computer. A trip to Saginaw for research wouldn't be in the cards though. Imzadi 1979  15:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll do some checking around. My anecdotal memory doesn't necessarily translate into real sources, in which case we've taken it as far as we can. --Laser brain (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: Have you seen these:
Might be a place to mine for information on sources on the bridge construction and how it might have affected 675. --Laser brain (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Laser brain: I've seen both. The former is originally an MDOT report that's been republished, and I already cite the section that has some information regarding I-675. The other is a self-published webpage that also has the same 20-year jump from the completion of the Zilwaukee in 1988 to the 2008 work. I mined it for information, and then found other sources we can cite to verify that information. Imzadi 1979  21:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Henry Conwell[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Henry Conwell, the second Catholic bishop of Philadelphia. He began his episcopate at an advanced age and spent much of his tenure fighting with lay trustees of one of his parishes. He was recalled to Rome, stripped of most of his powers, and lived out his days as bishop in name only. I hope his story proves an interesting read. Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Support just a few things

  • You might want to make it clear he was born in Ulster and thus not in present-day Ireland (Irish Free State)
  • "He was appointed parish priest of Dungannon in 1792 or 1793 and Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Armagh in 1794.[1][5] After the death of Archbishop Richard O'Reilly in 1818, Conwell served as acting Archbishop". Hm. Long time, no see? (no action required)
  • I'd make clearer how few Catholics there were in the US at the time, especially outside Maryland.
  • "Hogan quickly ingratiated himself with the board of trustees, siding with them in their dispute with the other clergy" Was the board made up of clergy? Some clarification so we know the situation we're dealing with.
  • "that neither Conwell nor anyone had the right to dictate the location of his residence." maybe "that neither Conwell nor anyone else had the right to say where he should live."
  • "In the meantime, Conwell recalled a Dominican friar, William Vincent Harold, whom his predecessor had dismissed." I'd make it clearer this was as interim priest at St. Mary's, or whatever the proper term is.
Very interesting and well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I've clarified these where I could. There is very little information on his early life, so not much I can add there. I can't find anything that says exactly what Harold did when he returned except assist Conwell. I'll look some more to see where he said mass, if anywhere, but Hogan was still at St. Mary's at this point, despite his excommunication, so it almost certainly wasn't there. There were three more downtown churches, so it could have been any of them. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Dank, for the edits and for the support. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oran fatwa[edit]

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a 16th century fatwa during the period of persecution on Muslims in Castile (now Spain), relaxing the requirements of Muslim religious practice there given the climate of persecution. It passed GA, and I've put it up for Peer Review, which suggested me to directly nominate for FA. HaEr48 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Sistinehall.jpg needs information on the original work pictured, as Italy does not have freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria:. Thanks. That concept is new to me, I read up a little bit, and it looks like being a building from 1588, the Sistine Hall should be OK to photograph. I updated the file's description on Commons, please take a look and I hope my understanding is correct. HaEr48 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, we just need a copyright tag for the artwork as well, indicating why it is in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes check.svg Done

Comments from Midnightblueowl I passed this as a GA so it's great to see it at FAC. Just a few points:

  • There is probably no need for citations in the lede given that it simply duplicates prose in the main part of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Isn't it ok to err on the side of adding citation? It will help readers locating the source of those materials HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm not a big fan of citations in the lede; I find them a little messy, but it's not a big deal and they are certainly not a barrier to FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd really recommend that you add the locations of the publishers of the different sources that have been cited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is citation 24 alone in being formatted differently to the others? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work, HaEr48. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • At first glance, some of the header titles seem too generic/vague. "Significance" or some such would say much more about the relevant section than "Analysis". "Context" also seems inferior to for example "Background".
    • Did a series of changes reorganizing the header and renaming the title. Is this better now? More suggestions welcome. HaEr48 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You could give the year in the caption of te first painting.
    • Added (it was from 1873) HaEr48 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Any pictures of a copy? Would be PD, since it is 2D.
    • I agree it would be awesome, but unfortunately I haven't seen any picture of the actual copy in my sources. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Previous opinions" Could be renamed "Previous Islamic opinions" for clarity.
    • Done HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "As the Christian conquest of Iberia " Why not Christian reconquest?
    • I use the term "reconquista", but it appears that the idea of it as a "reconquest" is somewhat problematic (see Reconquista#Concept_and_duration for example). I tried to stay away from that by just using "conquest". HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps state when the reconquest began?
    • There doesn't seem to be any clear-cut date where Reconquista is supposed to start (for example, the lead of Wikipedia's article on Reconquista mention 711, 718, and 722, all without any citation). But what matters for the population trajectory is that it seemed to accelerate beginning from the 12th century, reworded the paragraph to highlight that. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Morisco, fatwa, and other terms that are only explained in the intro should also be explained at first mention in the article body.
  • I see citations in the intro were already discussed, but at least make sure no citations are only found there.
  • "Thus, the author is often referred to as "the Mufti of Oran" and the document to be called "the Oran fatwa"" Something seems odd here.
    • replaced "to be" with "is". HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "and instructed them make up" A "to" missing?
  • " to replace the ritual ablution" You give the Arabic word in parenthesis for other terms, why not here (wudu)?
    • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "as long as the Muslims did not intend to make use of them" What is meant bu this? What other use do these things have than to be consumed?
    • The wording "make use of" is from Harvey p.61, but I checked Rosa-Rodríguez uses "take advantage" which sounds better, so replaced it. Does it make sense now? HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The other three were translations in Spanish" To Spanish?
  • Any relation to taqiya? Seems very similar, if so, could be stated.
    • It does sound similar to me, but the sources I read it don't link them together, so I worry mentioning it here may be WP:OR. I found this [13] which mentioned Taqiyya, but it is in Spanish (which I don't read) and the Spanish abstract says that the term taqiyya "is not found in the writings of the Morisco", so probably that's another dead end? I guess taqiyya is more of an important concept for Shias, but the Spanish Muslims were Sunni, so.. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ulama and nisbat could be explained. Perhaps even sharia; many have heard the word, but may not know its meaning. Same with hadith.
  • It seems like an omission that no modern analyses (or any, for that matter) by Muslim writers are mentioned, I'm sure Harvey and Stewart can't be the only scholars who have discussed the issue? I think it would be needed for comprehensiveness.
  • "such as worshipping as Catholics" This is the only time Catholics are mentioned. Elsewhere you just say Christians.
    • Good catch, done. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The fatwa has been described as the "key theological document" to understand the practice of Spanish Muslims " Only mentioned in the intro, which should have no unique info. It should be stated in the article body as well, with in-text attribution, since it is a direct quote.

Thanks FunkMonk for your thoughtful feedback. Give me some more time to address your other points. HaEr48 (talk)

Hrithik Roshan[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Hrithik Roshan, known for his acting and dancing ability, and good looks. I have been working on this for a month now in hopes of having another FA about a Bollywood actor (at the moment there is only one FA about an actor at Portal:Bollywood and two about male personalities). I have shamelessly copied a little bit from other articles linked to it, hoping that is not a problem. Otherwise it is a very well-researched article.

PS, a big thanks to BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ for all the help during expansion. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash[edit]

I'll do a readthrough of the article today, and post comments tomorrow. But after I ran the article through Checklinks, I must say the URLs must be archived to prevent link rotting. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I have archived one source and might do others sometime in the future but I don't have that much time now.
Early life and background
  • "Punjabi people" redirects to "Punjabis"; please fix.
  • "During an interview he revealed that he was traumatised because of stammering, a speech disorder that surfaced when he was around six-years-old, which he still has today" - interview with who? And I think we should not violate WP:REALTIME.
  • "Roshan's maternal grandfather, the filmmaker J. Om Prakash, first brought him on-screen at the age of six in the film Aasha (1980)" - Om Prakash was already introduced in the first para of this section, so why introduce him again?
  • "Roshan turned down a master's degree" - you mean refused? "turn down" sounds idiomatic.

More to come soon... Kailash29792 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Look forward to it.
Film career
  • "Roshan was originally scheduled to make his screen debut in Shekhar Kapur's Tara Rum Pum Pum opposite Preity Zinta, but the film was cancelled" - I'm not demanding this, but is there a reason why? Besides, he already appeared onscreen in Aasha (1980). Perhaps you mean "screen debut" as lead actor.
"Kapur had signed Hrithik for Ta Ra Rum Pum opposite Preity Zinta. The film was supposed to mark Roshan Jr's debut. Unfortunately for Hrithik, Kapur got busy with Elizabeth and Ta Ra Rum Pum never took off". YesY now done.
  • In this same para, two Rediff reviewers are anonymously mentioned. Can you please mention their names?
Sorry, YesY done now.
  • "Yaadein was reviled by critics" - but there is only one review mentioned: that of The Hindu. Perhaps an additional review could be added to support the statement.
  • "He enjoyed little success in 2002" - do not begin paras with pronouns.
  • "as did Arjun Sablok's romantic film Na Tum Jaano Na Hum (2002)" - I'd prefer simply "romance" over "romantic film". We could reduce usage of the word "film".
  • "A 2010 article on the website Bollywood Hungama claimed that Roshan's starring role in Koi... Mil Gaya revived his career." - Remove "the website", since BH has already been introduced in "Debut, success and setback". And mention the year of Koi... Mil Gaya.
  • " opined that "Hrithik is back where he belongs. At the top." " - who of Rediff?
  • "Described as "India's first sci-fi flick"," - actually, no. Kaadu (1952) holds that honour. Courtesy, The Hindu.
  • "Roshan denied reports suggesting that his character was inspired by Tom Hanks' portrayal of Forrest Gump in the titular film" - I'm not demanding this removal, but are you sure it doesn't violate WP:RUMOUR?
Well, it was not merely a rumor. Comparisons were made by critics even after the film's release, this for instance.
Very well. Looking back, even I feel the pre-Jadoo Rohit Mehra was very much like Forrest Gump. If any critic has noted striking similarities between the two characters (like how Benedict Cumberbatch compared Doctor Strange to Sherlock Holmes), feel free to add. If not, never mind. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Used the same source I referred you to.

Just wait for more. I'll put a sign at the end of every group of comments like this. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

All done. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "He co-starred with Naseeruddin Shah and Priyanka Chopra in his father's superhero production Krrish, the first Indian film in this genre. A follow-up to his family's production Koi... Mil Gaya, it saw him play tripple roles—the title superhero, his alter ego Krishna Mehra, and his father Rohit." - But there have been prior superhero films, as noted here. And Hrithik played only two roles (Rohit and Krishna, the latter who gains the "Krrish" moniker.) Since Koi Mil Gaya and Rohit have already been introduced, you don't have to introduce them again. But do mention Hrithik returning as Rohit.
Ugh, if it is not the first Indian superhero film, I don't understand why does the media report it to be one. Anyway, rectified.
  • "Mughal emperor Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar (played by Roshan) and the Rajput princess Jodha Bai (played by Rai)" - You could wikilink Mughal, and "Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar" redirects to "Akbar" (perhaps you could pipe the full name). Also, please fix the link to Jodha Bai. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Personal life
  • I think this image can have a reworded caption, like Roshan and Sussanne Khan (pictured in 2012) were married for fourteen years.
In the media
  • Could any statements regarding nepotism be added here? I say this because that's what Bollywood is notorious for. And I'm sure Roshan didn't find success entirely on his own terms.
Added a sentence on favoritism although something about it feels off (perhaps because the way it is phrased).
Final comments

Very impressive work so far. Once my remaining comments have been resolved, I'll support this FAC. And do archive all URLs to avoid link rotting. As for source reviewing, I'm too lazy to do that. But I may make minor c/e at times, so I hope you don't mind. I'm sure there are more experienced users for doing source reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I will archive them when I can and don't worry about the source review (that, thanks to Wehwalt, has already been done). Feel free to rephrase any sentence. Thank you for the review. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I have resolved your concerns. Please have a look and consider capping/striking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
This is my final comment: the lead requires no citations, but quoted material must be attributed per WP:LEADCITE: "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." I see "one-trick pony" in the lead section with no attributed source. But otherwise this FAC has my Support. So congratulations! Kailash29792 (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Kailash. I wouldn't like to mention India Today in the lead so simply removed the claim.

Source review by Wehwalt[edit]

Also recommend archiving sources. In addition:

Source review All sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited, with the following caveats:

  • Titles do not appear to be consistently capitalised (the various cites to rediff are an example, as are the ones to Bollywood Hungama). I understand you are reproducing them, but MOS:TITLE?
Do you mean I should capitalize every word in the title (except for prepositions, conjunctions etc)? I usually write the title exactly how it is written in the source, including the capitalization. But I did correct a Rediff source from "NeT" to "Net".
  • I think that accessdates should be more recent than 2009. Since you have read the sources, this should not be difficult.
  • There is a discrepancy between the title given for ref 77 and that stated in the source.
  • Reference 165 and also 168 contain six different sources. Can this not be split up? Verifiability should not be an obstacle course.
They are not used elsewhere. It looks weird with the mounds and mounds of citations and is practical to group them. Verfiability, I believe, should be no problem here, as the titles reveal the year e.g. "Roshan in Most Desirable Men 2009".
  • New York Daily News may be where we have the article, but it is not the name of the publication.
  • I may do a second run through, there are a LOT of sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the source review. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp[edit]

Hi, FrB.TG. I'm quite busy and can't promise I'll get through a full review, but let's see how far I get. For now, comments about the lead:

  • "Roshan is one of the highest-paid actors in India and has won six Filmfare Awards among others." Here "among others" might be okay, but it doesn't seem as clear as would be ideal. I see from a Google search that "Filmfare Awards" can be referred to as "Filmfares". How about "Roshan is one of the highest-paid actors in India and has won many awards, including six Filmfares."
  • The last paragraph of the lead seems jumbled to me. Have you considered grouping the mentions of stage and television performances together, and then the endorsements and clothing line together? Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Moisejp, both your points have been addressed. Return for a review only when/if you can. Regards, – FrB.TG (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Early life and background:

  • "He said that things improved for him gradually, after he started practising speech therapies on a daily basis.[6] He was treated at age 14.[7]" I didn't look at the sources, but is it possible to combine these sentences? It sounds like the speech therapies occurred when he was 14. If so, there may be a smoother way to say so. A side note: I would normally use "therapy" as an uncountable noun, unless there is need to really stress the plurality of multiple types of therapy—but I haven't looked at the source, so please keep it as is if you feel it is appropriate.
  • I'm confused by your latest edit. I thought the therapies were the treatment, but it now says the treatment was subsequent, so presumably a separate process? Or is "was treated" meant to mean "found himself cured (after having received the therapies)"? Moisejp (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually speech therapies and treatment are taken from two different sources. The first talks about his speech therapies while the latter says that he was treated at 11 without explicitly stating how so I'm not sure if it is right that we just assume therapies treated his stammering. — FrB.TG (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Prakash first brought Roshan on-screen at the age of six in the film Aasha (1980); Prakash filmed him dance in a song enacted by Jeetendra, for which he paid Roshan ₹100 (US$1.50).[8][9] He followed with uncredited appearances in various family film projects, including his father's production Aap Ke Deewane (1980)." The main subject of the first sentence is Prakash, so the switch to Roshan for "He followed" may not be as clear as would be ideal. Moisejp (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "He was diagnosed with scoliosis that would not allow him to dance or perform stunts. He locked himself in his room and remained disconsolate for months.[13][14] Roshan considers this phase "the turning point of my life".[13]" It could be good to clarify, was this all when he was 12—if not, when was it? Also, "turning point" suggests he overcame his depression, but there is no explicit explanation about how he did so.
Well, the source does not quite go into details about this, but still I have used another quote from him which might make it less awkward.
  • "To learn filmmaking from the ground up, he started off sweeping floors, then gradually progressed to more demanding responsibilities like story development, camera work, direction, and editing." I'm sure it's true he started by sweeping floors—and maybe even that someone can soak up a bit of knowledge by just being on set (sweeping floors) with open eyes—but nonetheless it feels a little bit out of place between "to learn filmmaking from the ground up" and "more demanding responsibilities like story development, camera work, direction, and editing." Some people might not consider sweeping floors to have anything to do with learning the filmmaking trade, plus surely the gulf in amount of responsibility between sweeping floors and doing story development seems huge—to the point it almost seems comical to have them in the same sentence. I wonder whether there is a better way to indicate that he humbly started from the bottom (sweeping floors), but still transition more coherently into how he made the leap into real filmmaking duties. I guess one reason he was able to make this leap was that it was known he was from a filmmaking family, so he had some clout? If so, it could be good to clarify this, but also clarify why he was required to start by sweeping floors—if your sources get into these details. Moisejp (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
What was stated in the article was not even in the source. Another source I found insists that he swept floor and made tea while he assisted his father, not before. Now why he did those jobs, the source doesn't explain that.
All done, I guess. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you might be busy in real life and not be able to resume your review, but I have resolved your concerns. Please have a look and consider capping/striking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, FrB.TG! Sorry for the delay. I will look at your changes very soon. Thank you for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Okay, all my comments above have been addressed. One more thing about the "Early life and background" section, I was wondering whether the block quote about his stammering is really necessary, and whether it really adds much to our understanding of him. It tells us that he found the experience very unpleasant, but not how it may have affected his long-term outlook in life, for example. You may have already made enough of a point with the earlier bits about "traumatised" and "For oral tests at school, I used to bunk school, I used to fall sick, I used to break my hand, I used to get a sprain." But if you disagree, that's okay too. I still hope to work my way through the rest of the article, but we'll see if I manage. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that he compared it to hell and described what he went through really says a lot about his suffering, but I don't feel strongly about it, so I can remove it if it's not add much. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Reading through now. Prose looks ok at first look...

.He locked himself in his room and remained disconsolate for months. Believing that "[t]here was no pain. The doctors were wrong", Roshan considers this phase "the turning point of my life". - this sorta minute he's sad and the next it's been a turning point. Is there something missing here about how he got over being disconsolate?
Roshan appeared in the "art-oriented" film because he wanted "to experiment with all kinds of characters". - get rid of quotes - first bit is just an art-house film (?), second bit, "try different roles"(?)
Thank you, I hope both your comments have been addressed to your satisfaction. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but it still doesn't tell me how he snapped out of it..
All the source says is that about a year later he went to a beach wondering about his future and deciding to take a chance against the doctors. He ran faster as he became more confident. Is it something worth adding?
Yes - the way it is at the moment it doesn't flow or make sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Elaborated. I hope at this point it makes sense while also not reading trivial.
Tamarind links to a tree...presumably should link somewhere else...?
Supposed to link nowhere as the article for the brand does not exist.
If it is a notable brand, redlink it (or better still, make a stub) - if not, leave unlinked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not think that is notable enough.
Roshan prefers to avoid getting "stuck with just one kind of screen persona", and takes on roles to "create another version of him". - in other words, he prefers not to be typecast by taking on diverse roles...(simpler)
Roshan is among Bollywood's highest-paid actors and most high-profile Indian celebrities - I'd take out the high-profile mention and leave it to the facts in the following sentences to demonstrate this. This section does come over as somewhat effusive.
I have tried not to be unduly demonstrative here, but what can we do if he is so popular and wins so many media honors. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree - I am a bit torn as I am unfamiliar with the actor - safest is to let the facts speak for themselves. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yup! – FrB.TG (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I have resolved your concerns. Please have a look and consider capping/striking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Cautious support in comprehensiveness and prose, though not a topic I am familiar with. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • The image in the infobox requires an ALT description. Make sure that every image you use in the article has one of these.
  • You use the quote "one-trick pony" in the lead. You would either have to put the reference for this quote or paraphrase it to avoid the link.
Per my response above to Kailash i.e. removed.
Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it really true that he is the highest-paid film star on television? The source you cite appears to back it up, but it seems like a rather large claim (especially since you repeat it in the lead) to argue that he is the highest-paid film star in ALL television history. I know that Jennifer Lopez was paid $17.5 million for a single season of American Idol, which seems higher to me. Also Charlie Sheen (who has appeared in numerous films) was paid $1.8 million per episode for Two and A Half Men so I am not sure if your claim is entirely accurate. I would either recommend doing further research on this to better support it or removing it altogether.
Actually that was meant to be Indian television. Sorry about that.
No worries, thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You say that he was born with an extra thumb; I am assuming that this was removed shortly after birth, but could you please clarify this for me? Also, the way you tie this with him feeling isolated for not feeling attractive can lead to the impression that this extra thumb was a cause of this and I am not sure if that is true.
The last time it was known to me; he still showed it in a 2003 film so no he did not have it removed, but I guess the sentence makes it sound that way.
Oh, I just assumed that it would be removed. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The following sentence does not seem entirely encyclopedic in tone: (A year passed, he went to a beach, wondering about his future). I understand what you mean, but it seems a little odd when compared to the rest of the article. I would cut this sentence completely, and start the next sentence with "After a year, he started jogging..." to keep the tone as encyclopedic as possible.
  • Is the following sentence, (Roshan found separation to be "worse than death"), really necessary? It does not anything to a person's understanding of the actor. I am pretty sure that a majority of people who go through divorce experience similar feelings so it is not unique to him. I would remove this.
  • Do you have any follow-up information about the case with Kangana Ranaut? (I am referencing the second paragraph of the "Personal life" section.) I would assume either some sort of progress or resolution came of this.
The case was closed by the cyber crime cell of the Mumbai Police because of lack of any leads. Should that be mentioned?
I would include this information if you have sources to back it up to be comprehensive. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you have any information on why he changed his mind to be a part of the film industry again? (I am referencing the first sentence of the third paragraph of the same section).
No. I hate how some of the stories in the article are incomplete because of lack of information in the sources.
No worries, it is fine as it currently stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What is an "item number"?
Item number is common in Indian cinema especially Bollywood. It is a musical performance during a film without having anything to do with the plot. Our encyclopedia has a great article about it.
Thank you for the clarification. Could you possible provide a Wikilink for the article on its first use? Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It is wiki-linked in the second line of the second paragraph of second sub-section of second section, its first instance. ;)
Thank you for pointing this out; I must have read over it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @FrB.TG: Overall, great job with the article. These are my notes from my first read-through of it. After you address my comments, I will read through it again and add more notes to my review. Let me know if you have any questions/comments about my review so far. I apologize if I miss anything obvious as I have never heard of this actor before or seen any of his work. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I figured that you might not be aware of this actor. It is always good to invite reviewers not familiar with the subject they are reviewing. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: I agree; it is always better to get an outsider's perspective on a topic. Ping me when you are done with my comments please. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Two remaining queries, one replied, other done. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @FrB.TG: Support: Great work with the article and thank you for your prompt responses to my comments. I can definitely support this and good luck with getting this promoted in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • No audio files used, images only.
  • All images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • Good use of captions that illustrate the image in a clear and concise manner for the reader. All images in the body of the article are appropriate for the sections.
  • Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with the rest of the comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Andha Naal[edit]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC), Vensatry (talk)

This article is about a milestone in Tamil cinema, the industry's first film without song or dance sequences, that won a National Film Award, even if it didn't succeed commercially in its original release due to its experimental nature. I have reworked the article over the course of months to ensure it is FA-worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

  • The film's name, "Andha Naal", is overused; substitute "the film" and "it" where possible.

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for those edits Dank. I'm travelling till Sunday, and I hope Vensatry will address any issue with this FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: Thanks for the copyedits. I've edited out a few instances, but couldn't do much in the "Themes and influences" and "Legacy" sections as they compare several films with this one. Vensatry (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support with a minor tweak: Where you say "Sivanandam and Naidu decide to interrogate Pattabi...", it would probably be better as "Sivanandam and Naidu interrogate Pattabi..." This brings the focus on to the action, rather than on the decision to take action. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 10:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a 2007 song recorded by Barbadian singer Rihanna, part of her third studio album, Good Girl Gone Bad. Being one of her signature songs, "Don't Stop the Music"'s article on Wikipedia (IMO) is well written, comprehensive (maximum of the available sources online are used) and tidied up. This is the article's 3rd FAC, the previous one was closed because of inactivity, so I hope this one will bring more attention to editors. Thanks :) — Tom(T2ME) 10:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Carbrera
  • You could use "hlist" rather than "flat list" to condense down some of the infobox parameters
  • The lead is often the hardest section of an article to write, so I have a few issues I feel need to be addressed:
  • Just a suggestion – Add "Both" before "Rihanna and Jackson were sued by..."
  • "The song was critically acclaimed" → This isn't very neutral
  • "it sold more than 3.7 million copies..." → "it has sold more than 3.7 million copies..." (the song is still available for purchase; this period never ended)
  • The first instance of "critics" could be linked to "Music journalism"
  • "The song received generally positive reviews from music critics" → Same; I don't know how neutral this is
  • The "Weekly charts" section for Rihanna's version should read "Chart (2007-2009) per the new WP:MoS for this specific template
This is what I noticed from a quick glance. I will try to go deeper in my next comments, but otherwise it looks great so far! Carbrera (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments Carbrera. Appreciate them. I believe I have fixed all the upper presented issues. To make it more neutral, for the critical part of the song, I wrote Critically, many music journalists praised the sampling of the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook. A similar sentence replaced the positive reviews part in the 'Critical reception' section. I hope it reads better and more neutral now. And I can't wait for your other comments ;) ! — Tom(T2ME) 10:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

  • "Dibango's attorneys brought the case before a court in Paris, demanding €500,000 in damages and for Sony BMG, EMI and Warner Music to be "barred from receiving 'mama-say mama-sa'-related income until the matter is resolved".[4]" Is there any information on how those legal proceedings ended up? Your source says "French judges will announce on 17 February [2009] whether they will hear the case." Moisejp (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This source in Radio France Internationale says that the judge on Feb. 17 ruled against Dibango but it sounds like the latter was expected to appeal the decision. [[14]] Here is another source in La Presse about the same ruling: [[15]] I did a quick Google search and couldn't find news about any later developments, but quit after 5 search pages—but if you want you could see what you could find. In any case, you should probably add mention of the judge's decision. If you happen to need help with the details in the French articles, just let me know. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hey Moisejp! Thanks for the comment. I remember when I was writing the article (3 or 4 yrs ago) I didn't have any luck finding sources about what happened after the lawsuit, same as now. I am really bad with French, so maybe if you have time you can translate what you found in this sources and add it to the article (if it's not too much trouble)? — Tom(T2ME) 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll try to do so in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm working on it now. By the way, it looks like you have at least two raw URL references that need fixing: #77 and #111. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Tomica, as you saw, I've added info about the February 17 court ruling. This is my best translation of the French sources, although I'm not a legal expert and can't guarantee there might not be more precise legal terms to use. One other side note, I would like to recommend that you archive all of your sources (as I did for the two I added). I'll admit that I only recently became converted to this practice, but I'm now a strong believer in its benefits. Of course it's up to you, but it's just generally a good idea. Good luck with the article, and take care. :-) Moisejp (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Both of the subtitles from the first two images in the body of the article repeat the line about the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook. It seems a little unnecessarily repetitive to me, but this may just be a stylistic preference.
  • I do not think you need to repeat the full title of the song ("Don't Stop the Music") in such close proximity in the first paragraph of the "Development and release" section. I think it would stronger to just say "It was recorded at..." instead.
  • Do you have any information about the lyrical interpretation of the single? I was just wondering after comparing this article to "S&M" and I noticed the absence of that information in this article. The parts about the composition are very good though.
  • @Tomica: Great job with the article. These are the only points that I have noticed. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Aoba47 Thank you for your comments Aoba. I think I resolved the first two issues :) Check to see if it's better now. While for the third one, "DSTM" was released in 2007 while "S&M" in 2011, so a lot of online sources are dead from back then and that's all that I found for the 'Composition' section. I know that it can be more complex, however, I think I used maximum of the available online sources. Again, thanks for the comments and praise! — Tom(T2ME) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with the article! The response about the "Composition" section makes sense to me. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Steller's sea cow[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Steller's sea cow, a large sirenian that went extinct in modern times. I believe this article's up to FA criteria   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Will read through this soon, but at first glance, I see somewhat serious problems, but since you usually work fast and effectively, I think they can be worked out. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • First, it is a bit messy to combine all info about physical features, biology, and ecology, into one large section, it would be better to keep them in separate section, as in virtually all other articles, to keep focus. Now the section jumps wildly between unrelated subjects.
split   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You are combining a section that should be abut distribution facts with unconfirmed "sightings" long after the confirmed extinction date. Info about such "sightings" (and anything else not based on facts) should be moved to the extinction section, as they have nothing to do with the confirmed historical range of the animal.
done, but I kept the part about Turner in the range section, and anything talking about its range up into the 1800s.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The article seems quite short, but I guess not much is known about this animal. Have you looked through Google scholar and similar for further sources?
I'll get to expanding later.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The notable fact that it had no finger bones is not mentioned, which also makes me uncertain about the comprehensiveness of the rest of the text. Perhaps there should be more purely descriptive info about the skeleton, all we have left of the animal.
Found this but it's really technical, and I can't understand a word of it. Think you can help?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you can ignore the detailed description section of that article (unless you find something that is udnerstandable) and jump straight so summarising interesting bits of the conclusion and discussion sections of that article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
added a paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It appears the only known drawing from life was made by a Friedrich H. Plenisner[16], yet this article credits Steller himself. The drawing shown in this article also appears to be of uncertain origin. If your sources discuss the circumstances of these illustrations, it is very important info to add.
You mean add it to the caption or to the article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
To the article, but the caption would of course have to be modified accordingly. There are two issues that need to be handled: there were drawings made originally by Plenisner, which seem to be lost, and the drawing that is now in the infobox may be one of those. No other drawings of actual specimens seem to exist, and none were drawn by Steller himself. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The caption does say "thought to be". Also, his full name is Friedrich Plenisner, right?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems so. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
added section on illustrations   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Any reason why the media appearances are not listed chronologically?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The old illustrations should have dates in their captions to show their historical context.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think a clear close up of the skull, such as this[17], should be shown.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The taxonomy section could describe the circumstances around the discovery in more detail, and explain the meaning of the scientific names. There also seem to be many unexplained synonyms. On what basis were they named?
The circumstances? They got shipwrecked. this link has a lot of info but I'm not sure exactly what is relevant. Should I talk about their first sea cow hunt?
Seems like a relevant addition. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
added to the Extinction and sightings section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Anything on the meaning of the scientific names? FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't find anyone who says what "Hydrodamalis" means but "gigas" is Latin for "giant"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why does the intro begin with "the"? Glancing at the sources, few if any say "the Steller's sea cow", but you use it throughout the article. We should follow the majority of the sources.
Some people use it, some people don't. Since it starts with the name of a person, it could go either way, and I think it's alright. Do you still want me to continue?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, we should always do what the majority of sources do, so it comes down to that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the article body should mention the full name, not just "the sea cow".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The first sentence reads "The Steller's sea cow grew to at least 8 to 9 m (26 to 30 ft) in length as an adult" I think that this wording doesn't work grammatically and is awkward prose. Something can't grow to 'at least' a range of sizes. 'at least 9 m' or 'sea cow grew 8 to 9 m in length' could work, or some other wording, but the current wording is not good I think. InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
changed to "...grew to be 8 to 9 m..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Seems there has been a lot of good expansion of the article during the last few days, so I'll continue reviewing soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Terms like rostrum, papillae, and canthi could be explained. "Epoch" could be added after terms like Holocene.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "They had a large genioglossus, the muscle responsible for sticking out the tongue." Why not group this info with the rest of the text about the tongue further down?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
added a sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure a gallery of largely repetitive or unrelated images is needed, per WP:Galleries. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed the ones that aren't talked about in the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "The group also attacked the boat " How does a sea cow attack?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "exhibited childcare." Parental care would be a less anthropomorphic way to say it.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is quite a bit of behavioural info in the description section. I'd recommend renaming the ecology section "Ecology and behaviour" or some such, and moving the info there, as in most other animal articles.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that the tail fluke was bilobed, which could be mentioned.
I said "forked" which is a synonym   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it in the article, though? FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
oops, added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Dusisiren" Genus names do not need definite articles.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • " In 1811, naturalist Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger placed Steller's sea cow under the genus Rytina, which many writers at the time adopted. However, the animal had already been classified long before this. Zoologist Eberhard August Wilhelm von Zimmermann had described its specific name as gigas in 1780, but placed it in the genus Manati. Biologist Anders Jahan Retzius placed it under the genus Hydrodamalis, 17 years before Illiger had described the sea cow as Rytina. He, however, described its specific name as stelleri, as Steller was the first person to describe it.[4] The name Hydrodamalis gigas was first used in 1895 by Theodore Sherman Palmer.[1]" What's the point of summarising this history in the wrong order? You should describe it in chronological order, otherwise it will be needlessly confusing to readers.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "This may be due to unidentifiable remains" Wording seems strange. Due to the remains being unidentifiable?
changed to, "wrongly-identified remains"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "many large bones during this time period, from which complete skeletons were erected." I assume you mean these bones belonged to different individuals, but were used to make complete skeletons? Could be stated more clearly then.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be better to order the illustrations in the gallery after the order they are discussed in the text.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Their range at the time of their discovery" I think you need to name the subject in the beginning of a new section, "their" is too vague.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I found an online version of Stejneger's book about Steller's voyage[18], perhaps there is something useful that could be added. In any case, it contains a now public domain reconstruction of Steller dissecting a sea cow, which I have added, as I think is relevant enough (mentioned here[19]). FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would right align the photo of the sea otter, since it is recommended that subjects face the text, and then it would not clash with the section header under it.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Having read the range section again, I still think the late survival claim by Turner is way too unreliable to have in a section that should reflect scientific consensus, not speculation. There must be a reason why the IUCN accepts an earlier extinction date, and we should reflect the consensus view here. All speculation on survival past 1768 should be placed under sightings. Furthermore, it is already mentioned earlier in the section that the sea cow existed around the Near Islands, so the Turner sentence doesn't add anything at all about the range, and therefore doesn't belong in that section, regardless of how reliable it is.
moved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would further suggest that you don't muddle up the info on the accepted extinction events with that about later sightings, and instead give later sightings their own header ("possible" or "claimed" sightings, to make it clear). See for example the similar section[20] in woolly mammoth. It is very important that we don't mix accepted views with fringe views haphazardly.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The first fossils discovered outside the Commander Islands were interglacial Pleistocene deposits in Amchitka" Deposits are not fossils, so you need to add "were found in".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As stated below, you need sources that specifically say the sea cows mentioned by Kipling and Verne are Steller's sea cows, otherwise it is OR. The way different sources are put together to support a claim not stated in either one them (as with the Verne manatee) is WP:Original synthesis.
removed Verne's, but Kipling specifically says "Sea Cow" and it takes places in the Bering Sea   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
added ref for Jungle Books that specifically says "Steller's sea cow"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You should give years of publication for all the pop culture entries, for some reason you only give it for two.
I'm not citing the book, I'm citing the review/summary (where it actually explicitly analyses it)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I mean in-text dates for when the books mentioned were published, not the sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not a sourcing expert, but this doesn't look right at all for a book citation: "Species Evanescens (Russian Edition). ASIN 9079625027."
it's not a book, it's the amazon summary that somewhat analyses the book   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I don't see a compelling reason why the pop culture section is even needed. Apart form the documentary, none of the entries are even about the sea cow, but only briefly mentions them. But I won't push for removal unless others do.
  • Again, there are still text under description which is not about physical description, but behaviour and ecology, such as "The forelimbs, according to Steller, were used as a sort of holdfast to anchor itself down to prevent being swept away by the strong nearshore waves around their habitat." and "Their large size was probably an adaptation to reduce their surface-area-to-volume ratio and conserve heat. Based on the larger average size of Pleistocene specimens from the Aleutian Islands, it has been hypothesized that the growth of Commander Island sea cows was stunted due to the marginalized environment with a less favorable habitat than the warmer Aleutian Islands."
moved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "make great material" Sounds like a commercial, not like a neutral account. You could sya the bones are "well suited" or some such.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Any reason why the text udner "Commercial value" isn't chronological? You start by mentioning uses today, then jump back to the 1700s, and then forwards to the 1800s. It is especially puzzling, since the last paragraph about skeletons in museums seems very fitting right before the text about use of the bones today.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The external links section could be pruned, some of the sites there are already used as sources in the article body, and other sites have no information not found in the article.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would put "Portrayals in media" last, it makes more chronological sense.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "When the crew of the Great Northern Expedition were stranded on Bering Island, they hunted Steller's sea cow with relative ease; because of their large size, the challenge was hauling the animal back to shore. Their success inspired maritime fur traders on their North Pacific expeditions to stop by the Commander Islands and restock their food supply by hunting sea cows" Isn't this pretty much the same information as in the preceding sentences? If so, should be merged.
The success of Bering's crew in sea cow hunting attracted hungry fur traders who were hunting sea otters in the North Pacific   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "sea urchins would have increased and reduced availability of kelp" How? I assume they eat the kelp?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you should state specifically in the article that 1768 is the widely accepted extinction date.
It says "By 1768... Steller's sea cow was extinct"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was also hunted for its valuable subcutaneous fat, which was not only used for food (usually as a butter substitute), but also for oil lamps because it did not give off any smoke or odor and could be kept for a long time in warm weather without spoiling." This info is repeated again in the commercial value section.
removed the purposes of the fat   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "and probably belong to an arctic cetacean" Singular would imply it was bones of a single species of whale, plural would be better.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why isn't the book under further reading used as a source?
it is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
In that case, the further reading section is redundant. It is for publications not used as citations. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Are there any remains left from the sea cows killed in historical times? Brought home by people who had actually killed them? Or have they all just been found as bones?
found as bones as far as I know   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "that was found exclusively around the Commander Islands" The article suggests they were found more widely.
added "at the time of their discovery"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • I think there could be a bit more general physical description and behaviour info in the intro.
is it good now or should I keep going?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I made some changes myself, but when the points above are fixed, I'll be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Seems there are two points left, then I can support. Better make them quick, before this is archived by a coordinator. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
done. Sorry it took so long, the flu's been going around   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem for me personally (if this was a GAN, we could go on indefinitely), but FAC articles get archived if they have no supports after some time. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - this looks comprehensive to me now, and the structure makes more sense. I'd remove the further reading section if the book listed is also used as a source, but that's about it. Good to see this animal get some attention! FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Looks like a decent article, good job on getting it thus far. However, I think there are a good many prose issues, which force me to oppose until they are resolved. Vanamonde (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • "the Commander Islands, which is situated" shouldn't it be "are"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "which is the sole surviving member of the Dugongidae of which Steller's sea cow was also a part of." missing commas, and also some redundancy
added a comma after "Dugongidae"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 'had a much thicker epidermis than other sirenians in response" Seems like odd wording; how about "than other sirenians, which they evolved in response"
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Like other sirenians, they probably cared for their young." Other sirenians don't "probably" care for their young: the ones we know of definitely do.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Georg Wilhelm Steller had discovered Steller's sea cow along with the Commander Islands in 1741 on Vitus Bering's Great Northern Expedition where they were shipwrecked, and much of what is known about the sea cow in life comes from Steller's account on the island documented in his posthumous publication "The Beasts of the Sea"." This is a massive run-on sentence, and also seems ungrammatical: an expedition is a singular, not a plural.
pretty sure it's not a run-on, "they" refers to the crew of the expedition, and it's grammatically correct   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Even if correct, strictly speaking, it does not flow well, and is difficult to understand. Please break it up. Also, plural would only be correct if you introduced "members of the expedition" at some point.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "though there were sightings proceeding 1768." What does "proceeding 1768" mean? I think "preceding" is what you intend: in which case, it is redundant with the earlier fragment
"proceeding" basically means "continuing past/through/etc." and "after," and it was intentional   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, perhaps correct, but I would prefer a more widely used phrasing.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "They feature a role in various media" clearer as "are feutured in various media"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Their large size was probably to reduce" odd phrasing: I'd suggest "...size was an adaptation to reduce..."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The lede mentions the epidermis as an adaptation to cold, this section as an adaptation to abrasion; why the difference?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Unlike other sirenians, Steller's sea cow was positively buoyant, meaning they could not completely submerge. " Singular vs plural
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there no information available about sexual dimorphism, or lack thereof?
nope   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Ecology and behavior
  • "They may have also fed on seagrasses, but this could not have been a main food source" should be these seagrasses.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As I've mentioned above, the article keeps switching between referring to the sea cow in the singular and the plural. I think either is fine, as as long as it is consistent.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, actually, there are several remaining.
  • "although they could have been born year-round" the "could have" here is confusing. Did he actually say he saw calves being born year round, or only that he has no evidence that they are not?
"The young are born at any time of year, but most frequently in autumn, as I judged from the new-born little ones that I saw about that time"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • So say it as he does.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "It most likely went extinct" better to specify what went extinct, for clarity
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm reading something very wrong, the text and the phylogeny are saying different things. The phylogeny shows Steller's sea cow as the more basal lineage, and the Cuesta sea cow as the more derived.
the cladogram says H. cuestae and H. spissa are more closely related to each other than to H. gigas   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see you've fixed that error, thanks; but I checked the source, and the depiction of the Dusisiren is different in Furusawa's paper than here. Why is that?
that's basically the cladogram version of the phylogenetic tree, I just lumped all the Dusisiren together instead of making individual branches for each one. Same basic idea's conveyed here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree. The source shows the dusisiren as a paraphyletic taxon, and suggests that H. Gigas and some dusisiren are actually more closely related than the dusisiren are to each other. This is a fundamental difference from the source. Vanamonde (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • " no osteological evidence of the existence of Steller's sea cow, that is skeletal remains" probably clearer as "no osteological evidence, or skeletal remains, of the existence of Steller's sea cow.."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a reference in this section to possible differences in the appearance of juveniles, but no mention of this in the description
The source says the drawing looks like a West Indian manatee calf which has those folds   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Then that's what the text should say; it is OR to suggest that it looks like a juvenile Steller's sea cow.
"According to the proportions of the body it might represent a juvenile...for comparison the picture of a baby manatee [picture of a baby manatee above]...probably however this is, as Heptner believed, a 'heavily distorted' copy"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Their range at the time of their discovery was apparently restricted to the Commander Islands, which consists mainly of Bering Island and Copper Island," "consists mainly" is strange phrasing: "of which the prominent members are" might be better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additionally, it's probably best to be explicit that the range was the shallow seas off the coast of these islands: if I'm not mistaken, often quite far off the coast.
changed to "...restricted to the shallow seas around the Commander Islands..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "remains of three individuals were preserved" should be either "are preserved" or "were found preserved"
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Extinction and sightings
  • I'm a little dissatisfied with the ordering of content in this section. The logical sequence would be "Indigenous hunting - first attempts at hunting by Europeans - Commercial hunting - extinction, possible later sightings - analysis"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Commercial value
  • "Steller's sea cow bones are being sold commercially, however they probably do not actually belong to a Steller's sea cow specimen, more likely an arctic cetacean." Confusing sentence. Would suggest "Steller's sea cow bones are sold commercially today; however, these are highly unlikely to be genuine, and are probably those of an arctic cetacean."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Suggest "As the animal is extinct" in the next sentence.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Portrayals in the media
  • I'm a little dissatisfied with the first two paragraphs of this section, as they seem to be borderline original research. The media in question obviously do not make the connection to Stellers' sea cow specifically; but do the sources do so? If the sources are also only mentioning a generic sea cow, then I'm afraid these paragraphs need to go. Vanamonde (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I added a ref for the Jungle Books one that specifically says "Steller's sea cow", and removed Vernes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the use of Amazon as a source is inappropriate. Given the context, using the work in question as a source should be okay; or you should find a reliable secondary source.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Kona Lanes[edit]

Nominator(s): —ATS 🖖 talk 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the late, great Kona Lanes. Already a Good article, I believe its day in the sun is due. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments -- recusing from coord duties, I guess I have a soft spot for faux-Hawaiian kitsch... ;-)

  • Copyedited prose so pls let me know if I've inadvertently altered any meaning.
  • I note that concerns were raised in the earlier FAC re. depth of coverage and sourcing; I think both have improved since then but will await a formal source review for reliability, and perhaps a spotcheck of sources for accurate use, before considering support for promotion.
  • Although in general the info in the lead doesn't require citation if the same material is cited in the main body, last time I looked quotes were the exception, so "flamboyant neon lights and ostentatious rooflines meant to attract motorists like moths" should be cited.
  • Following on, I think we should clearly attribute quotes in the main body. For instance it should be made clear if it's Hurley saying "expensive and attractive buildings that screamed, 'Have fun here'" or if the author is quoting someone else.
  • "The waning nostalgia took its toll on Kona Lanes over time" -- I think I understand what's meant here but the expression's a bit odd, not quite sure how to improve it as yet but it needs some work.
    • This hasn't been addressed -- "The waning nostalgia took" certainly looks wrong grammatically. Do you mean a nostalgia "boom"? If so I think you'd need to explain roughly when such a boom was considered to have begun (cited to reliable sources naturally). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Ian, I missed this one. I believe I've now addressed the issue in line with the source. Cheers to you! —ATS 🖖 talk 05:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Tks mate, looks good; striking other actioned comments as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian, all looks good. I hope I've addressed the remaining kitsch—er, I mean, concerns. Face-grin.svgATS 🖖 talk 02:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Ok looking now.

Kona Lanes was a bowling center in Costa Mesa, California, from 1958 to 2003. - would prefer if final clause said something like "built/constructed 1958 and demolished in 2003" or somesuch rather than just a date range. Also then remove date from mention of demolition a few sentences on.
  • Otherwise I don't see any prose clangers...and it looks pretty comprehensive so it's looking alright.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

August Meyszner[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about August Meyszner, a former gendarmerie officer and right-wing politician in Austria who travelled to Nazi Germany and joined the SS soon after Hitler's rise to power. After a series of police postings he was appointed by Heinrich Himmler as the head of the SS security and police organs in German-occupied Serbia, a position he held for two years. He was responsible for carrying out of numerous reprisal killings of civilians, the sending of tens of thousands of forced labourers to Germany and other occupied territories, and oversaw the killing of 8,000 Jewish women and children using a gas van. Sidelined in early 1944, he was captured by the Allies at the end of the war and extradited back to Yugoslavia, where he was tried and executed for war crimes. He has been described as one of Himmler's most brutal lieutenants. The article went through Milhist A-Class review in September 2015 and has been tweaked recently in preparation for this nomination. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 17 January 2017 (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) 01:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, as always! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - figure legends that contain a finite verb should end with a period. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day Graham thanks. I think I got them all. Would you mind checking? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - for an engaging, good read and subject to a satisfactory image review. But can we do something about a few fused participles? They are becoming common these days in spoken English (especially the BBC), and I might be flogging a dead donkey but they look ugly to me in prose:

  • with a Military Commander in Serbia being responsible for the military administration
  • with Kuntze's chief of staff describing Meyszner
  • with the men sending long letters of complaint to each other

How about using a simple past tense? "and a Military Commander in Serbia was responsible..." "and Kuntze's chief of staff described" "and the men sent long letters".

Alternatively, sometimes just dumping the "with" works well.

No big deal. Graham Beards (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've had a crack at it, hopefully it is an improvement! Thanks for the review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with the changes. By the way, you are a far better writer than I am; it's always easier to criticise than to create. Graham Beards (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You're very kind, Graham. I am always keen to have input from editors who have a better grasp of grammar than I... Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • What do the colours represent in the map?
  • File:Der_Panther_Pfrimer_Putsch.jpg: not sure the tag is accurate - the photo certainly has an identified individual author
    • I'm pretty sure it is in Austria, as far as the newspaper is concerned. The photograph (I can't make out the photographer's name) would be PD-Austria because it is a lichtbild (simple photograph, not taken in a studio or involving lighting and poses) and was published in 1931, so copyright on it expired in 1981, and therefore before the URAA date. Should I add a PD-Austria tag to cover the photograph? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Draza_Mihailovic,1943.jpg: that tag requires that the image was published before 1973 - was it?
    • Good question, it appears (from the alt text) this was substituted at some stage, have re-instated a PD one of him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:ParteiabzeichenGold_small.png: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments - taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Meyszner's time in Belgrade was characterised by friction and competition with German military, economic and foreign affairs officials and by his visceral hatred and distrust of Serbs. - this sentence flows a bit oddly with the "his" halfway along, but I can't think of an easier way to say it.
Same, I struggled with it too. I've added a comma to break up the two ideas.
With the outbreak of war, Meyszner started being appointed to more senior positions - the "started being appointed" is ungainly. Maybe "After war broke out, Meyszner was appointed to more senior positions" or maybe "Meyszner's career took off" or some other way of wording it...
Is there any further info on his marriage? Did Pia remain with him this whole time? up till he was executed?
No, no more information on his family circumstances in any of the sources.
Aah well. Probably for the best really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking good though and on target to pass I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Cas Liber! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord note -- feel free to seek source review, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Formatting of refs all looks in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Earwig's copyvio tool looks clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 66 - checks out. material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 24 - largely checks out. material mostly faithful to source, but I can't find Kewisch's or Meyszner's names on page 334. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 26 - checks out. material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Cas Liber re: FN24, I think I must have known they were the relevant personalities and only cited Browning for the division of labour, but not the names. Added a citation to Tomasevich 2001 to cover the fact that they were the people concerned. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for now. There are some issues to be dealt with and I can look up the article by Moll and other sources only next week. The following claims seem questionable:

  • Arrested shortly after the July Putsch was launched by the Bavarian branch of the German Nazi Party, during which Dollfuss was assassinated, Does Moll really say that "the Bavarian branch of the German Nazi Party" launched the July Putsch? Literature has it that the coup was mainly engineered by the Viennese SS and Theo Habicht with Hitler behind the scenes. Many putschists were members of the Styrian Heimatschutz. Or does that refer to the Austrian Legion (Österreichische Legion) being trained in Bavaria?
  • I may have misunderstood this, German is not my first (or even third) language. I'll look for another source on the coup attempt. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The July Putsch is still subject of research. Research more recent than Parkinson's (Hans Schafranek and Kurt Bauer) keeps the debate ongoing. Hans Schafranek has argued that the Styrian Heimatschutz conspired with the Landesleitung against the Austrian SA under Hermann Reschny to support the Putsch in Vienna. Schafranek explictly points to the cooperation of Kammerhofer and Meyszner with SS-Gruppenführer Rodenbücher who helped them to reach influential positions and high SS ranks after coup had failed. See his essay: - SS-Wölfe im SA-Pelz in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard.
There is more literature on that. Schafranek edited Vom NS-Verbot zum »Anschluss« : Steirische Nationalsozialisten 1933 – 1938 (2015). An important and award winning work is by Christiane Rothländer, Die Anfänge der Wiener SS (2012). As interesting as that issue is, however, that may lead too far in the context of a Wikipedia article. Thus I would only say, that "the July Putsch was launched" (without names) and hint to Schafranek's research (either referenced to the Standard-article or I can provide a citation to Schafranek's book Sommerfest mit Preisschiessen if needed), because that helps to explain Meyszner's later career.--Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a bit, please check that I have understood Schafranek correctly. I didn't want to get into too much detail, and there are only a couple of direct references to Meyszner in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. I have added the SS and Rauter. There is one more thing, however: The Steirischer Heimatschutz was part of the Heimwehr, but not pars pro toto. The Heimwehr was led by Ernst Rüdiger Starhemberg who actively supported Dollfuß and integrated the Heimwehr into the Fatherland Front. The Styrian Home Guard, however, joined forces with the Nazis. Thus Steirischer Heimatschutz should not link to the Heimwehr article, unless that article elaborates the differences, which is (so far) not the case.--Assayer (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I've redlinked it for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is noted the Meyszner became a member of the Austrian Nazi party as early as 1925. But it is also claimed that his conversion to Nazi thinking was demonstrated by an anti-Jewish diatribe in the Landestag in April 1933. How can someone demonstrate his "conversion" in 1933, when he has been a Nazi since 1925? A "conversion" from what? At the same time the Heimatblock for which Meyszner was a deputy is not mentioned. Let me know if I should help out with some special literature. One thing is for sure, however, not only the Nazi party, but also the Heimatblock were declared illegal in 1933.
  • Added that he was a deputy on the Heimatblock list, it was on p. 245 of Moll. No idea how I missed it, but perhaps because I had already linked Heimwehr. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Moll says "Meyszner war vollständig auf die NS-Linie eingeschwenkt; dies äußerte sich etwa in seiner im April 1933 im Landtag gehaltenen Brandrede gegen die angebliche jüdische Überflutung Wiens." You can demonstrate your views at any time, it doesn't have to be at the time you were converted. I've seen no source that says he was anti-Semitic prior to that speech, although he may well have been. Do you have a suggested alternative wording based on the German? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    As Moll noted on p. 255, for reasons unknown Meyszner's early membership in the Austrian Nazi party had been terminated at some point. He was not transferred into the NSDAP in 1938. According to Lilla, Meyszner joined the Nazi party in 1943. The speech, quoted by Moll on p. 258, is put into context by Pauley, Hahnenschwanz und Hakenkreuz (Wien, 1972), p. 156f.. Pauley explains that the Styrian Heimatschutz under Kammerhofer posited itself against Nazism as late as January 1933, whether for tactical reasons or not, to keep his organization intact. Once Kammerhofer announced a closer cooperation between the Styrian Heimatschutz and the Nazis, Meyszner held his antisemitic speech (that he was an antisemite anyway goes without saying, given his pangerman outlook and his membership in völkisch organizations). I would translate it as if Meyszner had completely switched to the approach [or: the path] of the National Socialists.--Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm not sure what you are saying about his Nazi Party membership. I understand Moll says that he joined the Austrian Nazi Party in September 1925, and that he believed that due to the Venice Agreement, he had a low (pre-Hitler's seizure of power) pan-German Nazi Party number from when the Styrian Home Guard was absorbed by the Nazi Party. Bormann disagreed and Himmler had to intervene to ensure Meyszner received the Golden Party Badge. If Lilla disagrees with Moll regarding this, I'll compare and contrast the two sources, as we would usually do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Nicely done. There is no disagreement between Lilla and Moll. Meyszner and other leaders of the Styrian Home Guard insisted that they had been members of the NSDAP since the Venice agreement, but the Nazi Party did not accept that. The conflict is also described by Pauley. Walter Oberhaidacher, Gauleiter of the Styrian Nazi party, and Franz Xaver Schwarz. Schatzmeister of the NSDAP, decided to ignore the agreement. In 1943 Meyszner agreed to receive membership as of June 1938 and thus received the (honorary) Golden Party Badge. Would he have had a low party membership number (under 100.000), he would have been entitled to the regular Golden Party Badge and there were more benefits for "Alte Kämpfer". On the other hand, the honorary Badge brought automatic membership with it. So Meyszner joined the Nazi party in 1943. It is unclear, however, when Meyszner lost his membership in the Austrian Nazi Party. Maybe because of the split of the Austrian Nazi Party in 1926? But I am just guessing. --Assayer (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no website "Der deutsche Reichstag, 1936: 3. Wahlperiode nach d. 30. Jan. 1933" [The German Reichstag, 1936 Third Legislature from 30 January 1933]. Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum [Munich Digitization Centre] (in German). Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek [Bavarian State Library]. 1936. Retrieved 16 May 2015. The publication being cited (in digitized version) is Ernst Kienast, ed.: Der Großdeutsche Reichstag 1938: IV. Wahlperiode (nach dem 30. Januar 1933). Berlin: R. v. Decker's Verlag, G.Schenck, 1938, p. 316. As a reference work this primary source has been superseded very much by Joachim Lilla et al., ed., Statisten in Uniform: Die Mitglieder des Reichstags 1933-1945. Ein biographisches Handbuch. Düsseldorf: Droste, 2004. I can look that up next week also and provide a scan if desired.
  • Thanks for that. I've fixed the citation, but the material cited to it is pretty pedestrian biographical information, so an exceptional source is not needed, even assuming that you have a source for your statement that it has been superseded by Lilla et al. If Lilla et al has more detail, of course I would welcome access to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Lilla's book is a standard reference book with more details. If you drop me a note by email, I will mail you the text (two pages in pdf-format). It's not in prose, but mainly consists of dates.--Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Assayer I have now added the unique material from Lilla, thanks for that. Can you clarify if there is anything outstanding from your review? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There are some issues which can be dealt with immediately, because the literature has already been used:

  • The article follows Christopher Browning's discussion of the murder of the Jews in Serbia with the help of a gas van, but skips the discussion of the same sources by Menachem Shelach: Sajmiste - An extermination Camp in Serbia in: Holocaust Genocide Stud. 1987;2(2):243-60. and Manoschek, p. 170f. In the closing section it is: According to Moll that Schäfer had claimed that he had received the orders and gas van directly from Berlin and had carried out the killings with little reference to Meyszner.[73] Manoschek accepts Schäfer's assertion, stating that Schäfer also had an independent Gestapo chain of command, over which Meyszner had very limited control. But Schäfer's claims, which he made during a trial, are also cited by Manoschek, so why is it According to Moll, whereas Moll also must have known what is referenced to Manoschek? Moll has written about 15 years later than Manoschek. Doesn't he discuss the evidence?
  • Perhaps it is not a contentious point given that both authors agree, so would be better not to attribute in-text to the sources, but to reword it in WP's voice as "Schäfer claimed that he had received the orders and gas van directly from Berlin, and had carried out the killings with little reference to Meyszner. Schäfer also had an independent Gestapo chain of command, over which Meyszner had very limited control." What do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Moll devoted the larger part of his essay on Meyszner as HSSPF in occupied Serbia. I will have to work with Moll's text more closely, but he notes that there is some historiographical debate, whether Turner described his own role in organizing the murder of the Serbian Jews correctly. (p.313) So the question is: What was Meyszner's role and responsibility? And that is answered differently by historians.--Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Germany and the Second World War is a collection of essays/studies and should be cited as such. The contribution that is cited here is by Hans Umbreit: Towards Continental Dominion.
  • The prose at times seems odd, particularly when the article deals with the complicated situation in former Yugoslavia/occupied Serbia: inserted into a political maelstrom of conflicting lines of command and authority. or Meyszner's appointment further complicated an already complex situation. At the same time the different concepts of occupation rule like "supervisory administration" (see Marzower) vs. Himmler's (and Hitler's) distrust of the Serbs as a Slav people is not pointed out.
  • I'm not sure what you mean here. It is well-established in the literature that the lines of command, control and communication in occupied Serbia were among the most convoluted in occupied Europe, and I have attempted to reflect that in the prose. I don't think it is necessary in biographical article to fully explain the administrative set-up in Serbia and the various conflicting currents among the security and police, military, diplomatic and economic sections of the German administration in order to understand how Meyszner fitted into it and how he eventually came unstuck. The place for the full explanation of all of that is the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article, which makes a fair attempt at explaining it all in some detail. Meyszner's rivalry with Turner, double-dealing with Bader, and implacable opposition to empowering the Serbian puppet regime are all explained in this article, as they are all germane to his biography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If I understand Marzower and Umbreit correctly, Meyszner was sent to Serbia by Himmler for a reason, namely to enforce a different kind of occupation regime, that is, different from what was Turner's idea. Thus this is less about a "political maelstrom" or further complications, but about a power struggle which of course gets complicated, not at least, because Himmler and Hitler apparently changed their minds here and then. --Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it would be more accurate to say that he was sent to reinforce the existing military occupation regime, which was at odds with what Turner wanted to do (ie create a civilian-led Reichskommissariat with himself at the helm, or later, to empower the Serb puppet regime, which Neubacher later continued even after Turner's removal). According to Mazower, Himmler argued Turner and the Wehrmacht weren't being tough enough. I've added that in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • He travelled widely, meeting Nazi leaders in Hungary and Yugoslavia.[10] Consequently, in February 1934 he was interned in Wöllersdorf camp for three-and-a-half months for Nazi activities. I do not think, that it was because of his travels that Meyszner was interned at Wöllersdorf, which was, btw, a concentration camp rather than a detention centre.
  • Poor prose. Fixed by removing "Consequently". I had called it a detention camp (Anhaltelager), which I believe is what the source says, but you are right, in English sources it is commonly known as Wöllersdorf concentration camp. Addressed in the lead and body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

In general I think that these issues can be dealt with and it is nice to see that a rather rare academic work by a specialist of Styrian Nazism like Martin Moll is being used. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm always happy to improve the article where possible with additional sources. There are probably prose fixes that will address a couple of the points. I'll work through them one at a time, and look forward to seeing any additional sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, but now I have access to most of the sources. Most serious issue: Moll's essay is pp. 249-318 of Danubiana Carpathica. There is something wrong with the footnotes.--Assayer (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you are looking at, but I got a PDF copy from someone at WP:RX that has the article beginning on p. 239 and finishing on p. 308, it has the journal title and volume etc at the bottom of the first page. I'll email you what I'm working off, so we are looking at the same thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Assayer I've emailed you the version of Moll I'm using, so you can see where the citations come from. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank's. It seems as if you used an advance or proof copy. The ToC can be found on the website of the journal.(PDF) I sent you my copy and a copy of the Meyszner entry in Lilla's handbook. Let me know what you think of it. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I've now fixed the pagination for Moll. I'll give my eyes a rest and finish up with adding what there is from Lilla. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Assayer please advise if you have anything further. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I will have access to some further sources by tomorrow and will work myself through the article again by the end of the week. Thank you for your patience. --Assayer (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun[edit]

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun was a South Carolina statesman who held a number of high political offices in the United States during the early 19th century, including that of Vice President. He began his career as a modernizer who supported various programs that would increase the power of the Federal government. However, as the sectional divide between the North and South increased, he changed course. He became a strong opponent of protective tariffs, which were harmful to the Southern economy, and a major proponent of nullification and slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from a brief glance of the article:

  • Why don't you use a photograph to illustrate him in the main infobox?
For a while, the lead image was the 1849 Mathew Brady photograph. That was replaced by consensus here. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Is your link correct, it doesn't seem to point to a specific discussion.—indopug (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
4th bullet down. Sorry, I should have said that at the beginning. Display name 99 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • References need to be formatted better—university names have been italicised (they shouldn't be), for example.
Thanks. I've taken care of the part about university names. If there are any other issues, please bring them up specifically. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Also refs 73–85 have been formatted differently than the others, and also feature lengthy quotations from the sourced material (why?).
Here is an excellent question. The part of the Secretary of State section concerning the Texas annexation and election of 1844, which is what includes the lengthy quotations, was written mostly by an editor by the name of 36hourblock. That editor has a citation style that always seems to involve the use of lengthy quotes from the sources. You'll see it in every article that he or she edits. I have never liked the style.
There previously were many more quotes in this article. Before renominating this article I went through the Secretary of State section and removed numerous quotations which I found to be particularly confusing, excessive, or unrelated. Others I managed to work into the main text. I chose to keep the remaining quotes in the article largely due to the fact that I was recently involved in a major dispute with 36hourblock in which that person, after falsely accusing me of being a sock puppet, alleged that I had engaged in harassment and troll-like behavior by altering his or her edits. I did not want a repeat.
Yet, if you say specifically that you concur with my opinion that the quotations are unnecessary, and a distraction in that they are inconsistent with the citation style in the rest of the article, I will remove them. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: Indopug, I have decided to remove all the remaining quotes, revising the citations to make them the same format as the rest of those in the article. I also removed all references to "Presidential Profiles, 2016", as it is still unclear to me what that even is. Display name 99 (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Legacy looks like it needs an overhaul:
  • Historical reputation is far too scattershot and recentist, relying a lot on newspaper articles of the past few months instead of scholarly works. There needs to be more about how historians of the past 165 years have perceived him. Perhaps Thaddeus_Stevens#Historical_and_popular_view can be a model in this regard?
I will try to expand this section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Indopug, thus far I have expanded the section by adding a paragraph about how Calhoun is viewed and portrayed by one of his biograpers, John Niven. It is now the second paragraph of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Indopug, I have added a two-sentence paragraph describing Calhoun as being viewed favorably by historians of the Lost Cause movement. So in the section we now have the traditional Southern perspective, the modern leftist perspective, and a more moderate, nuanced, and balanced perspective, represented by Niven. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Indopug, I have also added a quote from Bartlett about the importance of Calhoun's philosophy regarding the protection of minority rights and of choosing good and virtuous civic leaders. Will this be enough? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Indopug, I have also added a slight bit more to the "Legacy" section about the impact of Calhoun's philosophy on the progress of sectionalism in the South. I wish to know if you know find the section satisfactory. Display name 99 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Film and television is stubby and probably unnecessary. I'd remove it or at the least merge its content with one of the other Legacy subsections.—indopug (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It's accepted practice to include film and other forms of popular media in which biography subjects have been featured. I don't think this content could fit into either of the other sections. Therefore I think it best to leave it where it is. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
indopug, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Indopug, I am attempting to contact you once more on the status of your review. Despite having made yourself a reviewer for this article, you have provided me with no opinion or perspective on how well I have done implementing the changes that you have proposed. You're not supposed to simply post a list of suggestions and then not return to the review. Rather, you should respond to the concerns of the nominator and provide any advice which may be necessary on how to best implement the changes. After this is done, you should probably either "support" or "oppose" the nomination, depending on whether your concerns were properly addressed. I suggest you below on this page to see how Coemgenus has conducted a review in order to determine what an ideal one should look like.
Therefore I ask you: have I responded to your review to your satisfaction? Is there anything else that I might do to improve the article? Display name 99 (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
As I indicated right at the beginning, I only took "a brief glance of the article", and commented on a few things that immediately stood out for me. Therefore, there's no way I can either support or oppose this nomination as a whole. Having said that I will return over the weekend to review my points above, especially about the Legacy section in detail. In the meantime: what makes Shannon Selin's personal website a reliable source? The statement it provides a cite for, "Recently, Calhoun's reputation has suffered ..." seems obvious enough to be better sourced?—indopug (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Indopug, I understand your concerns about this source. I have replaced it with an article-already cited elsewhere in the article-by Clyde Wilson, editor of the Calhoun Papers. Display name 99 (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • As the US does not have freedom of panorama except for buildings, images of 3D works should include tags for the original works in addition to the photo
The Fort Hill historical marker is for a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and which is on the Clemson University campus. Calhoun was buried underneath his gravestone immediately after his death. I'm not sure what kind of copyright issues we would have here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Likely that and the statue are out of copyright, but we should include a tag on the image description page saying so and why. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I've dealt with the gravestone, but I'm not sure what to do about the marker. I suppose there's a good chance that was created after 1923. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Any way to verify that, or to check for other possible reasons it might be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I can email the NPS to try to find a date. But what happens if the marker wasn't erected before 1923? We have plenty of photographs on our encyclopedia of things created after 1923. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
There may be another reason that it would be PD - that is the case for some things that we have photographs for, while others are in a country with different freedom of panorama rules. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, the marker for Fort Hill is on the campus of Clemson University. It's also a historical site that is generally recognized as something preserved for the public, and not for private use. Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so is there a USGov tag that would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I tried a Department of the Interior tag. However, the tag said that the work was created by someone from the U.S. Government as part of an official duty. That is not the case. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, is there any other tag that you would recommend? It's a photo of government property taken by someone who was not working for the government. Display name 99 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
If the marker was created by someone working for the government, a USGov tag is appropriate for the marker; the photo is covered by the CC tag. Or am I misunderstanding the situation? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I have re-added the Department of the Interior tag. While the image itself was not created by the Federal government, the marker in the picture was. Thank you for your assistance. Is there anything else that you would like to bring to my attention regarding the images and sources, or with anything else in the article? Display name 99 (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:John_C_Calhoun_by_Mathew_Brady,_1849.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:John_Caldwell_Calhoun_ca._1843.jpg
The former was published as a lithograph in 1850. As for the second, I don't know for certain of the publican date. It was acquired by the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution in 1978. The identity of the photographer is unknown, and so I imagine it would be difficult to pinpoint an exact publication date. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
For the former, please add details to the description page. For the latter, the current tag requires pre-1923 publication, not just creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I have dealt with the former. On the Commons page, File:John_Caldwell_Calhoun_ca._1843.jpg, there is already a "Licensing" section, which includes a template stating that the photograph was published before 1923 and is thus in the public domain. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
But if we can't verify that the photo was published before 1923, then we don't know whether that tag is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I doubt we will be able to verify it. We don't even know the author or the exact year that the image was taken. Do I need to remove it? Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there another reason it might be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Having been created around 1843, it's likely that it was published before 1923. Even if it wasn't, we don't know who took the picture, so to whom would we credit it? Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we don't know that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:G.P.A._Healy's_portrait_of_John_C._Calhoun,_Charleston_City_Hall_IMG_4589.JPG: photographers of 2D works don't generate a new copyright. What is the status of the original work?
The original work was created by Healy in 1851. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Please update image description page with the appropriate info and tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The page already reads: "Charleston City Chambe; George P.A. Healy's painting of Calhoun, 1851, no copyright". I'm not sure what "tag" you're asking for (I don't work often in Commons or with imaging) but that seems like all the information you could need. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If it was displayed in 1851, {{PD-1923}} would work. But in this case, we should also remove the incorrect information - the photographer does not get any copyright on this work, so that tag shouldn't be there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Jcctypo01.jpg should include details of the original work
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd also suggest doing some MOS work - for example, seeing some overlinking/WP:SEAOFBLUE issues.

I don't see how this is an issue. I'm fairly certain that nothing is linked more than twice in the body of the article. Also, what else is there? Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, on at least a couple of occasions you've linked the same thing twice in the same section. For another example, you've got [[Abbeville, South Carolina|Abbeville]], [[South Carolina]], [[United States|U.S.]] - that's several MOSLINK issues in a single line. Your citation formatting in particular is all over the place and needs serious cleanup - you're mixing up works and publishers often. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I have discovered and removed two duplicate links. Please excuse me, but I can't find any sections with the same thing linked twice. If you're including the infobox, it's ok to have something linked in the infobox and also linked in the body of the article. The MOS article specifically allows for that. Also, to me the citation style does not seem terribly inconsistent. All printed books or journals are cited using the Harvard reference format, and are cited in full at the article's bottom. Internet articles are cited using the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nullification is linked twice in the lead, Randolph twice in War of 1812. MOSLINK also covers other types of linking issues, such as linking multiple items in such a way that they appear to be a single link. As to citations, some of your Harvard refs are not linking correctly, and you are varying significantly in what information is entered in what parameter for the cite templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Those instances of duplicate links have been remedied. I have added the Harvard referencing style to two sources to which it had somehow not been applied previously. I have also increased the consistency in the citation style. Thank you once again for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thank you for the review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support I supported last time, have read the discussion at the old FAC and the article again. I think it deserves promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think "Federal" should be capitalized.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The "Yet" in the fourth paragraph is confusing--I don't think the statement contradicts anything that came before.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Early life
  • "His father, also named Patrick..." would be clearer as "Patrick's father, also named Patrick..."

Patrick's father, also named Patrick

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "These opinions helped shape his son's attitudes regarding these issues." The phrasing here is awkward. I'm not sure it needs to be said at all--the reader will get the idea even without it--but if you want to keep it, something like "The son would follow in his father's political footsteps." Something like that.
Done. I have revised the sentence to read: "Calhoun would eventually adopt his father's states' rights beliefs."Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Much better than my suggestion, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Marriage etc.
  • "He was raised Calvinist but was attracted to Southern varieties of Unitarianism of the sort that attracted Jefferson; but was not outspoken about his religious beliefs." The two "but"s in this sentence make it cumbersome. Maybe "He was raised Calvinist but was attracted to Southern varieties of Unitarianism of the sort that attracted Jefferson, and was not outspoken about his religious beliefs."?
Done. Changed to: "Calhoun was not openly religious. He was raised Calvinist but was attracted to Southern varieties of Unitarianism of the sort that attracted Jefferson. He was generally not outspoken about his religious beliefs."
  • Also: what are "Southern varieties of Unitarianism"? Is there some article you could link to that would explain how they were distinct from Northern and European Unitarians?
An introduction to a part of the Calhoun Papers implies that it was less organized that that found in New England-which makes sense if you consider Jefferson's lack of organized religious adherence. I added this sentence: "Southern Unitarianism was generally less organized than the variety popular in New England." Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Before he died, he was touched by the Second Great Awakening...." How? Did he revert to Trinitarianism?
I couldn't find any strong mention of this claim in the source. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
War of 1812
  • "With a base among the Irish (or Scotch Irish)" Probably just the Scotch Irish, right? The Catholic Irish population of South Carolina must have been minuscule in those days.
They could still have been descendant from those people living in Northern Ireland. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose. However your source material puts it is fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "... thus inaugurating the War of 1812." You don't need "thus" here.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "...break the power of hostile Indians..." You should explain that the Indians in question were allied to the British so the reader understands why Indian fighting had anything to do with a war against Britain.
Done. I added the sentence: "These Indians had, in many cases, cooperated with the British or Spanish in opposing American interests." Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You link Era of Good Feelings, which is good, but it might be useful to briefly say what was significant about it (the demise of the Federalist Party and there basically being only one party in the country).
Done. I added "an era marked by the formal demise of the Federalist Party and increased nationalism". Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Postwar planning
  • "A new bank was chartered as the Second Bank of the United States by President James Madison in 1816." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Congress chartered it? Executives couldn't issue charters on their own. Maybe "Congress chartered a new Second Bank of the United States in 1816."
Done. I have clarified this point. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Throughout his proposals..." "Throughout" is odd here. Do you mean throughout the wording of various proposals, or throughout the time when he proposing things?
Done. I removed the word "out". Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Coemgenus, thank you for the review. I've gotten this far now-I'll do more tonight. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Secretary of War etc.
  • This section is very disorganized. It's hard to get a handle on the narrative, because we keep jumping back and forth in the chronology.
  • "His first priority was an effective navy, including steam frigates..." This paragraph largely restates the ideas you describe in "Postwar planning". It could probably be condensed a lot by reference to his ideas as a member of the House.
I took out the last sentence of the paragraph, which I thought was not exactly relevant to his time as Secretary of War. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "...sought to reduce the operations and finances of the War Department." Did they succeed?
Yes they did. See the Reduction Act, mentioned later in the paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1817, the deplorable state of the War Department led four men to decline offers to accept the Secretary of War position before Calhoun finally assumed the role." This should probably come before the first sentence of the section. You talk about him accepting the job, then a paragraph later describe things that happened before that.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Is footnote 10 meant to cover everything that came before in this paragraph?
Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A link to Indian removal would be useful in the section that pertains to that policy.
Done. See "relocation". Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • On that note: the view of Indian removal here is extremely one-sided. Some analysis of the policy's effects would go a long way toward needed historical context and NPOV-ization.
The First Seminole War was the most important event that took place between the United States and the Indians during Calhoun's tenure as Secretary of War. Calhoun himself had very little role in it other than to oppose the invasion of Florida. We know how that turned out: the Seminoles were beaten and Florida annexed. Generally, the treaties that Calhoun concluded with Indians helped cede more land to white settlers. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Vice presidency
  • "The Electoral College elected Calhoun vice president by a landslide." The actual vote total might be of interest to the reader.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "After Clay, the Speaker of the House and also a candidate in the previous election, was appointed Secretary of State by Adams,..." would be better in active voice: "After Adams appointed Clay, who was also a candidate in the previous election, Secretary of State..."
  • On that score, an introductory sentence naming the four main candidates for the presidency after Calhoun dropped out might set up the situation nicely and save you from mentioning various politicians' candidacies throughout the paragraph.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "However, Calhoun's service..." Since the next sections explain this more fully, I'd cut this sentence completely.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "The southern legislators miscalculated and the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" passed and was signed by President Adams." We don't need to keep calling Adams by his title, and this would be better in active voice. "The southern legislators miscalculated: the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" passed and Adams signed it into law."
That's the first time that Adams is referred to by his title. I don't see an issue with it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "President Jackson, meanwhile..." again, don't need to repeat his title. See MOS:SURNAME.
Done. I've removed this one. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "was strongly against" ---> "opposed". Avoiding light verbs makes for stronger prose.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you missed this one, so I fixed it for you. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "In May 1830, Jackson discovered that Calhoun had asked President Monroe to censure then-General Jackson for his invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 while Calhoun was serving as Secretary of War." How about: 'In May 1830, Jackson discovered that Calhoun, while serving in Monroe's cabinet, had asked the President to censure Jackson for his 1818 invasion of Spanish Florida."
  • "Jackson had invaded Florida..." You already explained this in the "secretary of War" section.
Done. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This whole paragraph about the censure has nothing to do with nullification. It might be better in one of the other sections of "Vice Presidency," either in the first part or in "Resignation".
The censure issue and nullification are very much connected. All of the scandals that placed Calhoun at odds with Jackson-censure, Petticoat, and nullification-all sort of got grouped together. Jackson loved to personalize just about any kind of dispute, and the censure issue, along with the Petticoat affair, gave him the ammunition to do so with nullification. It is important to understand his mindset here. To Jackson, all of these issues were attempts made by a few scheming and bitter men-such as Calhoun and Clay-to undermine the federal government and his administration. It was all a great conspiracy. Calhoun didn't get his way in Florida, and he was seeking revenge. That is more or less how Jackson saw the situation. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think "Federal" needs a capital F here.
Done. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Petticoat affair
  • In the first paragraph, the first sentence would work better as the last sentence.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "...South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne was considered less capable..." By whom?
I added a quote from the South Carolina newspaper City Gazette. In 1830, Webster had mopped the floor with Hayne in a series of debates, after which Hayne had been unable to do anything to reduce the tariff. Calhoun had a more distinguished record, and so the South Carolina legislature thought that he might do a job. Sure enough, he and Clay negotiated the Tariff of 1833, which Jackson reluctantly signed and which ended the crisis. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
First term...
  • "However, he gained little support, even from the South, and so decided to quit." The important fact in the sentence is that he quit, not that he decided. "However, he gained little support, even from the South, and quit the race."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Coemgenus, here's a little more. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Appointment and the Annexation of Texas
  • I made some minor changes [21]
  • "He abandoned his quest in December 1843, before the Democratic Convention convened, having failed to mobilize solid southern support." You already explained this in the previous section.
Done. I removed this sentence and the one before it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Again: "President Tyler and his allies..." --> "Tyler and his allies"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Moreover, Tyler declared national security to be at stake: If foreign powers – Great Britain in particular – Texas would be reduced to a British cotton-producing reserve and a base to exert geostrategic influence over North America." There's a word or two missing from this sentence.
Done. See my edit here.Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "synonymous with slavery" --this quote seems to refer to something, but it's not clear what.
The idea is that many in the North considered the term "states' rights" to be merely a substitute for slavery. I have tried to clarify this here.
  • "due to the fact that" is almost always better as "because"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Calhoun's linking of Texas annexation to the expansion of slavery had totally alienated many who might previously have supported the treaty." might be better as "In linking Texas annexation to the expansion of slavery, Calhoun had alienated many who might previously have supported the treaty."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "after fierce partisan struggles" Did the vote really break down on party lines? I had the impression that it was more sectional.
It was mostly partisan. Whigs had strength in the North and in parts of the South-especially the Upper South. They almost unanimously rejected it. I have added the vote totals by party here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Election of 1844
  • "As a result, the highly pro-Texas partisan, James K. Polk, a strong Jacksonian and former House Speaker and Governor of Tennessee, won the nomination." You could lose some of the adverbs and keep the sentence's meaning while making the prose more encyclopedic. E.g., "As a result, James K. Polk, a pro-Texas Jacksonian and former House Speaker and Governor of Tennessee, won the nomination."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Oregon boundary dispute
  • All of the action in this sub-section takes place after Calhoun was back in the Senate. Wouldn't it be better placed in that section?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Second term
  • "he chose to abstain from voting"--->"he abstained from voting"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Rejection of the Compromise
  • "...Calhoun, weeks from death and too feeble to speak..." What was the nature of his illness? Did it pop up suddenly, or had his health been declining for some time?
I have attempted to elaborate on this here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Agrarian republicanism
  • The MoS suggests using prose instead of lists when at all possible. See MOS:LISTBULLET.
Done. I have combined this section into a single paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The evils of war etc.
  • "Calhoun was consistently opposed to the War with Mexico from the outset..." I would strike out either "consistently" or "from the outset".
Done. I have chosen the latter. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Coemgenus, I have responded to all of your concerns up until this point. Thank you for your review. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Concurrent majority
  • The first four paragraphs are very good, but the "Disquisition on Government" section would be best as a separate article. As it stands, it's far too long and detailed for a general biography article on Calhoun.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Monuments and memorials
  • Calhoun County, Georgia, is not the only Calhoun County. Either list them all, or list none of them (I incline toward the latter).
Done. I have removed any mention of counties. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Film and television
IMDB is not a reliable source, and I don't think many of the films listed there are particularly notable. La Amistad is by the far the most famous movie to portray Calhoun. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, we can agree to disagree on that one. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd link Calhoun College and Residential college, if you keep this section. I'm on the fence about whether it belongs here in more than one sentence. It has far more to do with modern-day Yale than with Calhoun's actual legacy. Maybe consider condensing it here.
I have linked these two things. I think that the Yale part is important, because it demonstrates the attempt to balance a respect and acknowledgement of the past with the values of the present. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Further reading
  • If you don't actually link to them in the article, the "ref = harv" field isn't necessary, and it actually creates an erro message for users who have a certain cite-format-checking extension in their monobook.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Coemgenus, I have responded to your remaining concerns. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, that seems to be everything. This article looks to be up to snuff. Thanks for bearing with my many comments. I'm glad to support this nomination of an article about an important figure in American history. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, thank you for your support and for your comprehensive and helpful review of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Louis Leblanc[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

An ice hockey player who recently retired after a somewhat disappointing career. It's been a GA for a while, and now that he's retired there shouldn't be much effort to keep it at a high standard. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "Yves works ... Marie works": Some will object per WP:ASOF, but that page isn't a black-and-white guideline. I'm not sure what to tell you.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the editing, always good to have someone else go through my writing and clean it up. As for the note about the parents and their work, I'm also struggling to come up with something better, so feel unless someone else knows a different way to saw that it isn't really something that matters for the time being. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Leaning support. I'd suggest adding "As of 2010", and "As of 2013" to the statements about Leblanc's parents' jobs, and Leblanc's relationship with Wozniak. Other than that I think this is in good shape and expect to support once you make that change. I've copyedited; please revert anything I messed up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the wording, and thanks for the edits. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

CMLL World Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship, promoted by the oldest professional wrestling promotion in the world. It was an FAC in April 2016 but unfortunately died on the vine due to lack of input from reviewers. I have created a lot of Good or Featured content on Wikipedia and I am always willing to listed to suggestions and made adjustments to help improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia.  MPJ-DK  15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808[edit]


I've done copy-editing throughout the article. There was a bit more than what I expected for an FAC and I feel that this should have been taken through a copy-editing process before nomination.

  • I noticed your work and I am grateful for it as well, there was more than I was aware of for sure and I apologize. Question - is it normal to spell out all "15th" etc.? I followed the convention of anything under 10 is spelled out but left the rest as numbers.  MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It depends on what style guide you go by. If you prefer the numbers above 10 to be written as numbers, you can change those back if you want. --JDC808 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Nah I'm good with the change, I was just wondering if it was one of the things to put on my personal "checklist" to always spell them out.  MPJ-DK  02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyways, I'm mainly familiar with WWE's championship articles, so I have a question as WWE only recognizes title changes, does CMLL also recognize title defenses in their titles' histories?

  • Well with CMLL it's inconsistent - TV announcers will often mention that it's the "fourth defense" etc. but it's hardly ever referred to in writing. Since championship matches are much rarer in CMLL it is totally possible to provide a list of defenses, I am just not sure when to included them and when not to, I went with "not" in this case.  MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I was mainly asking because in some spots of the article, defenses were noted (e.g., Último Guerrero is officially credited with 20 successful title defenses by CMLL,..."). --JDC808 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
      • So for Guerrero they specifically mentioned 20 and that it was a record, a comment I stumbled and figured it would make an interestig addition to the reigns section. Since I had a "most defenses" I researched the "least" defenses too and noted the oddities to kinda cover all bases. I think it makes for good info in the article, but I probably would not want to put it in list form.  MPJ-DK  02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

For the tournaments, does their happen to be specific dates (and specific shows) for when each round occurred? --JDC808 02:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I will look around, the second tournament definitely needs dates as the matches were spread out over several shows and I can find show names etc. MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I added some information on the 1992 tournament, that one had the least amount of detail that has now been added. I think the other two have all the information I know of.  MPJ-DK  03:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all your input so far JDC808, and the help with the copyediting, definitly helping make this a stronger article.  MPJ-DK  00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Meant to come back to this earlier today (technically yesterday in my time zone). I'm gonna look over the article more tomorrow (or rather later today). Also, if you have some free time, I also have an FAC up. It's of the 2013 video game God of War: Ascension. --JDC808 05:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

One comment before I'm off for the night. I happened to look at the article history and noticed this edit you made. I had added "respectively" because the way it was worded sounded like that was the order. I'll have a follow up on this when I return later. --JDC808 05:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Gonna breakdown the article section by section:


Possible way to rewrite the first paragraph:

  1. The CMLL World Heavyweight Championship (Spanish: Campeonato Mundial de Peso Completo del CMLL) is a professional wrestling world heavyweight championship that was established in 1991. Promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL), the promotion introduced the championship to signal their independence from the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA). As part of the move away from the NWA, CMLL established a number of other championships also designated as "world championships" for a variety of divisions, such as the [link one or two of the others here]. The World Heavyweight Championship was the first CMLL title to be created, and the inaugural champion was Konnan el Bárbaro, who won the title by defeating Cien Caras in the finals of a tournament on June 9, 1991. The current champion is Máximo Sexy, who is in his [#] reign. He is the fifteenth person to hold the championship and the eighteenth overall champion.
  • The italicized part could be omitted as the body of the article covers who Konnan defeated. I'll leave that decision to you.
    • True it's a detail better saved for the detailed section, I will remove.  MPJ-DK  00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The last sentence is not entirely necessary for the lead (as it is covered in Reigns). Again, I'll leave that decision to you.
    • Well technially everything in the lead should be covered in main body ;-) so in this case I disagree.  MPJ-DK  00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I guess I should have said let the Reigns section go into this detail (similar to the above point). To me, it kinda seemed trivial for the lead. But it's fine if you wanna keep it. --JDC808 00:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph is fine, aside from me linking "Mexican wrestling". --JDC808 23:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Did a little copy-editing on the lead, as seen here with the edit summary.

Something else I meant to ask sooner on, is there a picture of the actual championship? I think that would be better for the infobox picture, and the picture of the current champion can go in the Reigns section. --JDC808 02:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I have not found one with a proper licese unfortunately.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Take this, download it, and then upload it to Wikipedia with the proper rationale. It's from --JDC808 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Added, I used the same basic rational as several WWE championship belt images. Hopefully it does not get deleted. Thank you for the generic image, that's a great find.  MPJ-DK  01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Did CMLL leave the NWA in 1991 or in the late-1980s? In the lead, I was under the impression that they left the NWA in 1991 with the creation of this championship. However, in the History section, it says that the EMLL left the NWA in the late-1980s and became CMLL.

  • Left in late 1980s, renamed to CMLL in 1991 where they introduced the championship.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • they left the NWA in the late-1980s. Did they still have a working relationship with them until 1991, or did they just not have a championship for a few years until they introduced this title? --JDC808 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Alright so this gets a little convoluted here. They left the NWA, but still used the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship, NWA World Middleweight Championship and the NWA World Welterweight Championship as well as a slew of "Mexican National" championships, so they had PLENTY of championships. In 1991 they rebranded to make it obvious they were not with the NWA any more - fans were confused since they promoted three NWA championships etc. So they created a number of "CMLL World" titles and downplayed the NWA ones (but still promoted them). Of course they actually still promote three NWA labelled championships today, almost 30 years after leaving - CMLL, they're that weird relative that you love despite of them being weird (or maybe because they are).  MPJ-DK  15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay, that helps in clarifying this. I made these two edits, 1 and 2, for clarification. This article doesn't need to get into the detail of CMLL still promoting three of NWA's titles. --JDC808 21:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"On April 2, 2009, Último Guerrero successfully defended the title against Rey Mendoza Jr. on an independent wrestling promotion show in Gomez Palacio, marking the first time the CMLL World title was defended on a non-CMLL promoted show."

  • Was this the first time that a CMLL World Championship was defended on a non-CMLL show, or the first time that the Heavyweight Championship was defended on a non-CMLL show? If it is the former, that sentence should be reworded as "marking the first time that a CMLL World title....."; if it was the latter, then change "CMLL World title" to "Heavyweight Championship" or "Heavyweight title". I ask this because there are other CMLL World titles, and I don't know if any of those had been defended on a non-CMLL show before the Heavyweight.
  • I am not sure if others were defended prior, the source spoke only of the cmll heavy. I left it at that to not goo into OR territory.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • In that case, reword it to Heavyweight, because that would still be correct. --JDC808 00:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

State what Garza's weight division was when he won the championship. It can be stated as "The Heavyweight Championship was no exception as several champions were under the weight limit, for example, Héctor Garza, who is classified as a [weight division and link it]." --JDC808 02:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I will get that added.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I added in that he would be in the "Junior Light Heavyweight" at his weight and threw in a source for Garza's billed weight as well to make sure it's got all bases covered.  MPJ-DK  02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
1991 tournament

This is the follow up from earlier that I had mentioned. To avoid ambiguity, for the first two battle royals, I would suggest only mentioning those who were eliminated. Before doing that, however, how were there multiple winners for the battle royals? For example, the first one. Was it an 8-man battle royal and the match ended when only four wrestlers were left in the ring? --JDC808 03:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It ended with four people still in the ring. And I will look at the wording to tighten it up.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, this could be reworded to something like:

"The first round of the tournament saw two eight-man battle royals, with each ending when four wrestlers were left in the ring. This was used to cut the field in half with the remaining wrestlers from each match advancing to the next round. The first battle royal featured Konnan, Rayo de Jalisco Jr., Black Magic, and Mascara Ano 2000 advancing, while Brazo de Plata, Vampiro Canadiense, Universo 2000, and El Egipcio were eliminated. The second battle royal saw Nitron, Pierroth Jr., Pirata Morgan, and Cien Caras progress to the next round, with Fabulous Blondie, Gran Markus Jr., Máscara Sagrada, and El Egipcio being eliminated. The second round saw another pair of battle royals, this time with four men in each and ending when two wrestlers were left in the ring. This narrowed down the tournament to the final four wrestlers, who faced off in traditional semifinals matches."

  • "finals" can be omitted as it is shown in the bracket, and this paragraph shows how they got to the semifinals in the bracket.
  • Also, just noticed something, how was El Egipcio in both battle royals? --JDC808 00:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah if you recall I called CMLL "weird" earlier? Yeah this is one of those cases, from all sources I have seen on the tournament they had Egipico in both blocks - Not sure why they did that other than some sort of massivly disorganized planning snafu.  MPJ-DK  15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Did not even read my own note that's in the article - Apparently he was a last minute replacement for someone who did not show up.  MPJ-DK  15:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I am also at fault for not looking at the note lol I had copy-pasted the paragraph and did reworking here so I didn't look at the note as I was concerned with how the paragraph was worded. The wording above (with that note) should suffice. --JDC808 21:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe I have addressed the last couple of concerns you raised JDC808. Once again thank you for your contributions, it's a stronger article now.  MPJ-DK  02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support: This has been the most extensive FAC review I've done (not saying that's a bad thing; usually an extensive review is done by the time I get to an FAC). I read over the article again and I feel comfortable in giving my support for this FAC. --JDC808 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: I did not do a source review. I will let someone else take care of that. I did glance over the ref list and the sources appear to be okay (I do like that there are a good number of print sources). Check the format on the sources and make sure that they all match (for example, ref 28 is "" where the others from that site are "CageMatch"). --JDC808 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I screw anything up.

  • "...established in 1991 and promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL). The promotion introduced the championship to signal their independence from the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA)...": the use of "The promotion" here surprised me; "their independence" seems to mean "the promotion's independence". After checking a couple of links I realized that in pro wrestling a promotion is a company, not a marketing initiative, but this isn't going to be clear to readers new to the subject. At a minimum, link "promotion" to professional wrestling promotion, but I think it would be better to join the two sentences: "...established in 1991 and promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL), who introduced the championship to signal their independence from the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA)..."
  • Done, thanks for catching that one, to me "Promotion" is clear, but that's also because I'm a lifelong fan.
  • Suggest linking "scripted ending" to kayfabe in the lead.
  • Done
  • "EMLL left the NWA to avoid their politics": a bit vague; can you be more specific? Do you mean internal politicking, or something to do with national politics?
  • Internal NWA politics, I will try to clarify when I find a source to support the clarification.
  • "making him one of only two champions without a single successful title defense": later in the article you say "Three champions never had a successful title defense" -- can you explain?
  • The "two" is a mistake, or more likely it's outdated information since it was written prior to Garza leaving CMLL making him the third champion without a defense, I updated it to "three"

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your input, I appreciate it.  MPJ-DK  12:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. The remaining point, about NWA politics, can be addressed when you find a source, and isn't worth holding up the FAC for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Have I missed an image or source review? If not, these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • You did not miss it, I had not put the request in yet, just added it now. Last review kinda petered out so I did not want to put it on the list until I had some feedback going out of respect for people's time. Thank you for the reminder.  MPJ-DK  22:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Image review - licensing and sources of the images are fine, but this image[22] does not list the actual source in the description, only the Commons file it was cropped from. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • FunkMonk thank you for the review. I have removed the Norman Smiley image from the article.  MPJ-DK  23:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It can be kept, it just needs a link to the Flickr page on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I updated the license to refer to the same link as the original image. The link is dead and I cannot find it on either - is that still acceptable FunkMonk? I am going to hold of on adding the pic back until the licensing is 100% okay.  MPJ-DK  11:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we have a reason to doubt it was once on that site. But of course, if some archived version could be found and linked to, it would be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Acne vulgaris[edit]

Nominator(s): TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the very common chronic skin condition acne vulgaris and underwent significant refinement during the last FAC. I strongly 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) 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by CFCF[edit]

Reserving a spot for a coming review (may not occur in its entirety before the 10th of January). Prior to the full review I may perform some minor c/e and adjustments. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Terrific, and thank you responding so quickly CFCF. I do have a question for you. What is it about the procedures part in the lead do you feel needs clarification? So far other readers have felt this section was clear so I'm curious to hear your thoughts about that part. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh right: well procedures is a little vague — considering quite an industry exists offering all-manner of "facials". It would be better to explain this as "medical procedures" or some qualification that explains that much of what is on offer does not work. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I will start by going through the prose for issues with readability and clarity, diving into specific sources later. For what it's worth this likely fulfills all the criteria for FA already. However it is an important topic and when it reaches the main page the article should be a good as possible. Some early points:

  • Images are important as there is significant variation in presentation:
    1. We should try to find images that show acne on different skin types. Acne looks very different on dark skin
    2. We should try to find quality images of acne of varying severity.

These are not necessarily requirements for FA, but if we can we should include them. I will take a look if I can find anything. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with everything you said CFCF. We do have photos that exhibit some variance in acne severity and on different skin colors. We don't have any high-quality images of acne vulgaris on someone with very dark skin and my last review of the Wikimedia Commons images was unrevealing. If you know of a good image, I agree it would be worthwhile to include. I have no objection to rewording procedures as "medical procedures". I think the efficacy is well-addressed in the body and we don't go into significant detail about the relative efficacy of medications, lifestyle changes, or the medical procedures in the lead. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been looking and will continue looking for images. Unfortunately there aren't that many in the medical literature that are free. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected but thanks for looking. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I intend to keep my comments coming rolling and I hope they do not overwhelm you.

  • This article currently redirects from "acne", yet makes no mention of other types of acne such as
    • acne rosacea
      • I'm not sure what you mean. When I search acne rosacea this redirects to the rosacea page. This is briefly covered in the differential diagnosis section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • acne inversa (hidradenitis suppurativa, Wikipedia's use of that name is debatable, should potentially be moved to acne inversa)
There is some debate whether these should be classified as acne or not, but they are widely referred to as such and I think about a sentence differentiating them from acne vulgaris is due in the classifications section. I am able to provide you with a high quality source that describes both the classification as such as well as the controversy surrounding the classification.
That's a fair point. I have seen the literature refer to hidradenitis suppurativa as acne inversa. Which source did you have in mind for the classification/controversy? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that the hidradenitis suppurativa page should be moved to acne inversa since it's not really a type of acne and its pathogenesis has more differences than similarities. I found a good 2014 Clinics in Dermatology review that sums it up nicely. I'll add a brief mention that it is sometimes referred to as acne inversa but is not truly a form of acne vulgaris. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No mention of "background erythema" — a strong factor differentiating acne vulgaris from acne rosacea
    • That specific phrase wasn't used but rosacea is discussed in the differential diagnosis section as above. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Blackhead is explained as an open pore, but is also referred to as an "open comedone", this should be in classification
    • I'm unclear on the suggested edit here. The discussion of blackheads' definition is within the classification section already. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Mention of juveline acne needed
    • I'm assuming you meant juvenile acne here (which doesn't even have a Wikipedia page to link to). Hasn't been featured in any acne review I've seen so far. If you have good sources demonstrating this deserves mention, I'll take a look. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Mention of papullopustules needed (simple as we mention both papules and pustules in the classification
    • I haven't seen this mentioned in any review I've seen so far. Do you have an illustrative source that mentions a papulopustule as a characteristic acne lesion? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@CFCF:, I have to question whether the term "papulopustule" is widely accepted as a proper term for a type of characteristic acne lesion. Use of this term does not appear to be widespread as evidenced by the paucity of mention in the medical literature, see here [23]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • We could potentially mention secondary infection with other microbes such as s. aureus
    • That's reasonable. Where in the article did you have in mind? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We should carry information on classification of scarring, mentioning: hypertrophic (common), keloid (rare)
    • This information is in the article in the scarring section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To fulfill this I can offer help finding images and accessing sources, mail me if you need help with sources. I have sources for all the statements above.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF:, I believe I have addressed each of the suggested edits. Are there any further comments or suggestions or would you be willing to support the FA nomination at this point? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@CFCF:? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I support the FA nomination. More work can be done, but when it comes to medicine — there is no article where this isn't the case. I may end up adding some things myself prior to the main page feature. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by My Core Competency is Competency[edit]

Comment - Wow... You have done such a great job improving this article! Here are a few initial thoughts: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is used to treat active acne, not just scars (I am most familiar with red light therapy; check Pubmed for a reference). Microneedling and subcision are two other common treatments for acne scars ([24], [25]). Cryotherapy with dry ice was once a very common treatment for acne (see [26]; you can probably find a better reference), maybe you can add it as a historical note (I think some docs still do this). Hydroquinone should definitely be mentioned for treatment of PIH. For meds where both oral and topical forms are avaliable, it should be made clear which form is being referred to in the article (for example, is "dapsone" being used to refer to oral dapsone or topical dapsone gel; the same applies to clindamycin as another example). I would like to see Whey protein specifically added as a cause (that's a big trigger in people taking protein supplements to enhance weight lifting). I know this is an article on acne "vulgaris", but it would be nice to see the various subtypes of acne briefly mentioned, including other conditions that are closely related (such as SAPHO and PAPA syndromes) (see: [27]). A bit more coverage of drug-induced causes would be a plus too, for example, acne from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors (cetuximab, panitumumab) and small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (eg, gefitinib, erlotinib, lapatinib (see [28]). Perhaps olumacostat glasareti should also be mentioned as a possible future treatment (see: [29]). Cosmetic adhesive pads could also be mentioned as a treatment (see here [30]). Also, some comments on the role of cosmetics/make-up might be beneficial (both with respect to concealing acne, as well as acting as a possible cause of acne (comedogenic vs non-comedogenic products)). Perhaps the US iPledge program should also be mentioned with regard to oral isotretinoin (see [31]). Though acne lesions are rarely biopsied to confirm the diagnosis, there are distinctive features visible in a skin biopsy specimen when examined by a pathologist under the microscope; it might be nice to have a description (and photo if possible) of that dermatopathology in the article (you may need a better reference, but see [32]). Would a "Notable cases" section be a good idea, as is seen with other FA's like here [33] and here [34], a "Etymology and pronunciation" section like here [35], and/or an "Other animals" section (apparently cats can get acne, see here [36]; though you'll need better sourcing for your article)? And a question I have is this, is it a problem that some of the references are quite heavily cited, such as this one: [37] (I don't know if there are any pertinent wikipedia policies regarding this)? There are many other fun references that could be used for this possible feature article (I think this is a great one, for example: [≤]). Another thing you might try is to find author email addresses in the reference articles you have used and email those authors inviting them to comment here (that might give you some really useful feedback). Additionally, I wonder if the article name should instead be reversed to simply acne with a redirect from acne vulgaris (perhaps someone else at the Medicine project can chime in on that); then all the various subtypes could be merged into and redirected towards this article (most of which are stub type articles). Maybe a "Further reading" section could be added at the end of the article (obviously not required, but I find it to be a nice addition (see [38])). But overall, fantastic work! ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Core, that was a rather large block of text you left so I'll try to work through it in order.
  • I'll look into the photodynamic therapy part to see if I can find high-quality evidence to support the assertion that it's used for both acne & acne scars and report back with what I find.
So, just to clarify, the article does not say photodynamic therapy is used solely for acne scars. I think the article makes it pretty clear that it's used for acne vulgaris itself too since it discusses its mechanisms involve reducing bacterial (e.g., P. acnes) load and reduces sebum production. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The microneedling search you linked there is mainly from one journal (which is not MEDLINE-indexed) and was not mentioned in a slew of high-quality review articles so I would question how common this really is as a treatment for acne and/or acne scars. I'll have to look into the subcision part more.
I've added a few lines about the microneedling treatment in the procedures section for the sake of being comprehensive. It appears to have received limited study for acne vulgaris and scarring so far but it has been reviewed in JAAD so I agree that it's worth mentioning. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll look more into cryotherapy but very few (1-2) cover this topic for acne vulgaris so if it was once common (per that 1968 paper), it doesn't appear to be anymore.
I performed another search for cryotherapy and acne vulgaris and there's very little mention. Cutis has an article that discusses it but it's a low impact journal so it's questionable whether it really merits inclusion in the article since it doesn't appear to be a prominent treatment. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll take another look at the PIH section re: hydroquinone.
A brief section discussing hydroquinone has been added to the treatment section since it is a frequently used treatment for acne-associated PIH. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The mention of other acne subtypes would add unnecessary length to the article (which is already quite long, IMO) and there are dedicated Wikipedia pages to drug-induced acne (although those need a considerable amount of work). I believe those pages would be the more appropriate places to include discussion of the medications you mentioned (e.g., EGFR inhibitors).
  • I'll take another look at the dapsone bit to see if that requires clarification.
I've clarified that topical dapsone was meant in one sentence where it was ambiguous. The formulation of clindamycin under discussion is clear in each instance it is mentioned in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you have a high-quality source you can cite regarding the whey protein claim? Most review articles state diet has not been conclusively linked to acne vulgaris incidence or severity as the current article states.
per [39]...[40]review-[41]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see whey specifically mentioned there. Also, @My Core Competency is Competency:, in [42] you said you thought the article could do with a good copyedit. Where do you think it could use this specifically? If you can identify problematic areas, I'm happy to address them. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The source you linked for the cosmetic adhesive pads is not a high-quality one (not a MEDLINE-indexed journal).
  • If you have good sources to suggest for inclusion regarding the makeup to conceal acne, that might be a useful addition to the society/culture section so I'd be interested to hear your suggestions about that.
  • I think specific mention of the US IPledge program might be a bit too U.S.-centric for the article but that's just my two cents. If the consensus is that this is okay for inclusion, it might be worthwhile mentioning in the retinoid or society/culture sections.
  • A brief addition of the histopathology is not a bad idea but it will be hard to incorporate that into simple language for a general readership. I'll look into that more.
  • I'm unsure about a notable cases section. It might be a reasonable addition to the society/culture section if we can find good examples.
  • I personally don't think the etymology section is particularly important since that's discussed in the history section.
  • It's okay to cite a review heavily if it's an influential and important review. I think there is definitely adequate diversity in the reviews included in the article considering there are over 100 references. Additionally, many of the claims referenced to that article are also supported by other reviews as well so I think we're fine there.
  • The JAMA article you cite is an old primary source so I wouldn't recommend its inclusion.
  • The further reading suggestion is a nice one if you have any specific sources you would like to present for review.
  • I would vote to keep the article as acne vulgaris since it's established in the very beginning of the article that it's referring to what is colloquially called acne. I think naming the article itself "acne" is too vague since there are so many subtypes. @Doc James:, @Opabinia regalis:, @Seppi333:, @CFCF:, any thoughts about these suggestions? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tyler, my initial comment was from just an initial skimming of the article. I can give you more feedback once those initial issues are fully addressed (and I do think you have overlooked a few of my initial comments (probably by accident)). With regard to copy editing, again it is not my strength, but I can say that subjectively (to me), this article does not flow/read like one of Wikipedia's best articles. Here are just two examples/honest questions I have:

"Boxcar scars are round or ovoid indented scars with sharp borders and vary in size from 1.5–4 mm across." Is the right type of dash used here and should there be a space between the "4" and "mm" ? (I don't know) Is a comma needed after "ovoid"?
"Frequently used combinations include the following: antibiotic + benzoyl peroxide, antibiotic + topical retinoid, or topical retinoid + benzoyl peroxide." Should plus signs be used here? Or should there be words instead?

I think you should have multiple copy editors look this article over again.

Whey protein is mentioned in the full text of that article (search reference 18 for "Whey"). And with regard to references, the ones I provided above were just to get you started. I realize better sources need to be found for some of the facts/issues I mentioned (but they are out there and you can find them). On a related note, think about what your audience would want to know about; take a young woman for example. She is going to want to know about cosmetics (do they cause acne, can she use them). There needs to be some coverage of cosmetics, including cosmetic adhesive pads, etc.

My feeling is that opinion on the length of a FA is irrelevant and subjective (it takes the length it takes to make an excellent article). My preference would be that you change the article name to "acne" and redirect from "acne vulgaris" as well and merge in all the obscure subtypes of acne into this article (like pomade acne - that is never going to be more than a ~1 sentence stub anyway). Once all those are merged in (see here for a good list [43]) then you can have a really interesting "etymology section" talking about all the obscure names, including what "vulgaris" means (common). Plus, people are going to search for "acne" not "acne vulgaris".

While this may be controversial, and I don't have strong feelings about it, Brad Pitt might be one option for a "notable cases" section (Google him and acne scarring - he is "known" for his bad skin).

Here are some ISBN's for further reading: 0723435715, 032331967X, 0323244750, 0071669043.

--My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Which specific comments do you think I have overlooked Core? I'm pretty sure I addressed just about everything you mentioned earlier and have incorporated many of your suggestions into the article. The ones I didn't were generally ones I disagreed with or did not see good sources to support the idea. No comma is needed after the word ovoid and I'm pretty sure that type of dash was felt to be okay by Grammarfascist (and many others who have read through so far so I'd be surprised if someone changed that) and none of the aforementioned seemed to have any issue with the + sign (but if someone vociferously advocated for the word "and" there, I wouldn't be opposed since it's so minor a change). I'm not really sure why the article doesn't read to you like one of Wikipedia's best. I think article length is important (within reason) for the sake of readability. We must keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia for a general readership and if it's endlessly long then few will read it. I'm going to agree with Opabinia and say the article should remain acne vulgaris. I think the other acne articles simply need to be developed. If we add in all the other forms of acne, that's going to lengthen the article even further. The article does come up if the term "acne" is searched so we should be okay there, but I'd be interested to hear what other members of the community have to say about these matters. I'll take a look into the whey/acne link but from what I've seen the consensus amongst secondary sources is there is no convincing link at this time. Lastly, why do cosmetics need to be discussed in this article? As above, what reference(s) do you suggest for this? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
So, looking into the question of a link between whey and acne, I find it interesting that the most recent JAAD guidelines from 2016 say that observational evidence (often very limited by retrospective design and self-reporting to say the least and no RCT evidence) has suggested a link between dairy and acne severity but found that milk (especially skim) was associated yet cheese and yogurt were not. It strikes me as peculiar that other dairy products such as yogurt would not show the same correlation if this were truly attributable to whey protein. Granted, this is totally my own analysis on the matter and inadmissible as WP:OR, but I felt it was worth mentioning all the same. Taken together, since whey protein is mentioned in a JAAD 2014 review already included in the article, I think it's reasonable to allow brief mention but whey protein's link does not seem to have much evidence behind it at this time. I have added a brief statement covering the topic. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Things you have yet to address at all: adding brief mention of other conditions that are closely related (such as SAPHO and PAPA syndromes) (this is a separate issue from adding in the subtypes of acne), adding mention of olumacostat glasareti as a possible future treatment, adding an "other animals" section, and emailing article authors for feedback. With regard to copy editing, if you can get User:Tony1 to look at this article and he thinks it's ready for FA status, then I would be satisfied on this point (I did post on his talk page here [44]). I have also already answered "why do cosmetics need to be discussed in this article" and references are out there (search through here [45] and see more specifically here [46], [47], [48], [49]). With regard to other initial content issues that remain unresolved, I suggest you solicit many more opinions from other less biased third party users regarding: mention of the US IPledge program, addition of notable cases, addition of an etymology section, addition of cryotherapy, changing the article name to "acne" and merging in all the various subtypes (including adding drug-induced causes of acne), addition of dermpath findings, the presence of heavily cited sources (is that a problem?), addition of a "Further reading" section. I would love more users (10+ ?) debating these issues, not just you and I and two other users (this is healthy for the FA process). For the time being, I oppose this nomination.--My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, there is essentially zero chance of 10+ users weighing in on topics like "should olumacostat glasaretil be covered". (But here's one more: there's no need to add unproven, still-in-development possible treatments to an already long article about a disease with many existing treatments.) Also, Wikipedians are perfectly capable of making judgments about whether an article meets the FA criteria; while there have been other projects aimed at soliciting external review, contacting outside authors has never been an expectation at FA. As for the cosmetics thing, see also my comments in the first FAC about body image and media representations - I could believe there's an article waiting to be written at acne in popular culture, but I'm not sure it needs to be in this article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for more users participating in this FA review, even if they don't chime in on all the questions raised. Regarding asking outside authors to review this article,I suggested that idea thinking it might be helpful, not an expectation (though I have brought it up again as Tyler did not respond to the idea); I don't feel strongly about this issue. Cosmetics, on the other hand, I do. This is a general article about acne with no mention of cosmetics, no matter how brief - it is a major omission. I don't think a whole section is necessarily needed, but some type of coverage is. And concerning olumacostat glasaretil and "there's no need to add unproven, still-in-development possible treatments", have you read the "research" section in this article? By your reasoning essentially that entire section should be deleted (which I would not agree with). --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think it's slightly premature to oppose the nomination based on the above issues since I'm actively addressing them. I have tried getting other editors over here (pinged above for opinions though I think 10+ is a little ambitious) but I'll ping them again. @Doc James:, @Seppi333:, @CFCF:, @Ozzie10aaaa: any thoughts about Core's suggestions and concerns? More opinions are always welcome and strongly encouraged. Core, I'll try to address your concerns that have not been sufficiently addressed. I left a comment for Tony yesterday so we'll see if he answers soon and has any additional ideas for copyediting but I did make some tweaks yesterday that should improve the article's readability. Regarding your suggestions/concerns above, I'll address them in order.
  • I had previously grouped the concern you had about SAPHO and PAPA syndromes into the same issue as not mentioning the various acne subtypes. I'll look into this issue more to see if mention is warranted and report back soon.
So, looking into the matter further, the most recent reviews I found discussing SAPHO syndrome specify that acne conglobata and acne fulminans occur in up to 25% of patients with this rare syndrome and these seem to be regarded as dermatologic entities distinct from acne vulgaris (unless I'm missing something) but other reviews do mention variable severity of the acne so perhaps acne conglobata and fulminans are simply severe forms of the acne vulgaris spectrum. Is that correct Core or would you view that as a misrepresentation of the definition of acne conglobata and fulminans? If these are just severe variants of acne vulgaris, then I agree it's worth mentioning and have a good review article from Clinics in Dermatology I can use to add this information and a few other syndromes. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I did briefly look at the olumacostat glasareti trial you linked earlier. I have to look into it more to see if it merits brief mention in the research section.
I think this is still too preliminary to warrant mention after further review of the cited trial. The results are encouraging but it's a single phase IIa trial of relatively short duration. The other treatments mentioned in the research section are largely reviewed in a secondary source so I think we can wait for a secondary source to emerge covering olumacostat glasareti (very interesting novel MOA though!). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't feel strongly about the other animals section but certainly don't think its absence should preclude an FA nomination from going through. I'd be curious to hear what other editors think about this idea.
  • I don't see where you explained the need for discussion about cosmetics. In your original suggestion, you mention cosmetic adhesive pads should be mentioned and link to a non-MEDLINE indexed journal (which I did address above since it's not a high-quality source though I'm sure you're right that high-quality sources do exist). Additionally, you suggested mentioning the use of makeup as a cause of acne but I believe this belongs in the acne cosmetica article. With respect to the use of makeup to conceal/minimize the appearance of acne, I believe that may have a place in the society & culture section though I would need a good source (thanks for linking the PubMed search-I'll explore that).
  • I think it's reasonable to have other opinions on the IPledge question. I still think it's a bit too U.S. centric but if consensus says otherwise I'm happy to mention it.
  • I'm looking into dermpath findings so stay tuned (This was addressed above as a good suggestion in my earlier comments and it hasn't been forgotten).
  • I maintain that with >100 sources there is adequate diversity despite some reviews being heavily cited (as above, this is addressed by the fact that most of the statements supported by some of these heavily cited reviews are verified in others).
  • I don't feel strongly about the notable cases section but I think it's optional and shouldn't preclude upgrade to FA.
  • I still don't think cryotherapy is worthy of mention and would be WP:UNDUE. It's very sparsely mentioned in recent high-quality literature (from the search I did anyway but if you come across high-quality sources really discussing it, please let me know)
  • I think the mention of the drug-induced acne belongs in the acne medicamentosa article since that seems to have enough of a distinction to not call that true acne vulgaris but a more specific form of acne. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Tyler - I can see you are working hard on this article, and you’re doing a good job! I took some time to reflect about this FAC the last hour, and I really don’t want to dig in any further on these issues. Whatever you all decide is fine with me. If you do end up adding a notable cases section, you could reference celebs who have admitted to having acne and endorsed Proactiv in commercials (see specifically [50]). I will not stand in your way any further and look forward to seeing what the ultimate acne FA looks like! --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@My Core Competency is Competency:, that's entirely up to you. I'm certainly not trying to dissuade you from participating. In fact, I encourage you to stay and wait to see what other editors think since we value your input. As you can see, I am incorporating many of your suggestions and I do think they are helpful. I'm not suggesting that you're obstructing anything but I do disagree with some suggestions you've made (that's certainly allowed and okay-this is why we have discussion). Since you're a dermatologist, can you weigh in on the question I posed about the acne conglobata/acne fulminans and SAPHO/PAPA syndromes? If you could provide some insight about that, it would certainly help clarify whether their mention is appropriate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I must say I do not agree with MCCiC about mentioning SAPHO and PAPA, these are just one of a multitude of disorders that display acne as part of their presentation. I mean if we don't stop there we're going to have to list them all by name. Certain mention of disorders which present themselves with acne may be due, including acne medicamentosa, but hardly more than a sentence, making it undue to mention SAPHO and PAPA by name.

We should remember that this is a Wikipedia FA, not a full Cochrane review, frankly these requirements strike me as far from what FA entails. None of our FA's are anywhere near perfect, and if we expect perfection we will simply get nothing. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Opabinia[edit]

I reviewed this article in some detail in the previous FAC round and just re-read it. While I still think there's probably room to expand the "society and culture" section, I haven't found as much material as I would've expected and think this subtopic may actually be better off covered elsewhere, somewhere like body image. In response to the above, I think the article's current name is preferable. I'm out of nitpicks and I support this nomination. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Seppi333[edit]

Continuing from where I left off during the last nomination...

I'm going to take on a review of the article's MOS compliance (criterion 2) now. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Criterion 2a (MOS:LEAD): pending review. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    I've made a few minor edits to the lead to improve clarity/flow. Overall, the lead appears to conform to MOS:LEAD. It has an appropriate image/infobox, the first sentence adequately establishes the scope and is correctly formatted, it is composed of exactly 4 paragraphs which is consistent with the paragraph limit for long articles, and the lead paragraphs adequately summarize the article IMO. As of right now, I think that the current lead conforms to criterion 2a. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Criterion 2b (MOS:LAYOUT): since this is a medical article, the section ordering is indicated by MOS:MED. From looking at the TOC and a cursory inspection of the sections (mainly to identify any single sentence paragraphs and see how section hatnotes were used), I can see that the layout conforms to MOS:MED#Diseases or disorders or syndromes. There's no issues with the formatting in the EL section, the image layout is fine (per my image review during the last nomination), and the correct infobox for a disease ({{Infobox medical condition}}) is used in the article.
    In a nutshell, I see no issues with the current layout. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Criterion 2c (MOS:CITE): pending review - reviewing citation formatting and consistency is rather tedious, so I'll probably end up doing this last. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Does the article pass this criterion in your view @Seppi333: or are additional edits needed? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@TylerDurden8823: I'll take a look tomorrow. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds great, thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I spot-checked about a quarter of the ~100 references in the article and every one of them is consistently formatted. I'm satisfied with the reference formatting based upon that sample. Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Criterion 2 overall (general WP:MOS compliance): I've gone through the article to find and fix formatting issues relevant to MOS:NUM/MOS:DATE (partially done via script), MOS:NBSP/MOS:DASH (partially done via script), MOS:TEXT, and MOS:ABBR. The revisions made by me and the nominator during my image review in the last FAC fully addressed my concerns relevant to MOS:IMAGE and MOS:ALT/MOS:CAPTION. I'm not going to go through every aspect of the MOS since this isn't actually necessary for FA promotion; however, based upon a fairly thorough examination of the article's source and the article itself, I don't see any further issues with any of these components of the MOS. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Seppi, that sounds great. Once you've finished reviewing the last few criteria about the lead and citation formatting/consistency, please be sure to let me know if anything needs fixing and I'll attend to it immediately. Once that criterion is satisfied, please let me know if there are other issues you see with the article (if you care to comment on them) and elaborate if you support or oppose the FA nomination. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Seppi333:, any updates on your assessment of MOS compliance? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll follow up soon. Sorry for the delay. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Seppi333:, any update? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I've reviewed the lead section. I'll tackle the citations sometime in the next week or two. This is going to be pretty tedious. From a cursory look, the author and date formatting is slightly inconsistent. E.g., some dates use a day, month, and year - others just use a month/year. I'd suggest just cutting the day and using a consistent month/year format. The author formatting in most citations is "[last name], [first and middle initials w/o periods]; [2nd author last name], [2nd author first and middle initials]; etc."; however, some citations include a period in the initials or do not initialize the authors' first names and middle initials. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll work on tweaking the citations for consistency to make your review easier when you do it. Thanks for reviewing the lead! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support promotion based upon my review of the MOS and images (criteria 2 and 3). Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comments[edit]

I think we are OK for source and image reviews. That leaves us still needing a spot check of sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing; I'll leave a note at WT:FAC. Additionally, I'd just like a non-medical editor to glance over the prose to check for accessibility for the general reader. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Archie vs. Predator[edit]

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the four-issue comic book miniseries Archie vs Predator. The format follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics. I am open to any and all suggestions and always willing to work on any issues there may be. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments from Aoba
  • I am not sure the bolded text for “meets” in the “Development” subsection is really necessary as the difference in the titles is made clear in the context of the sentence.
addressed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Shouldn’t the first reference be at the end of the sentence for the first sentence of the “Development” subsection? The placement seems somewhat awkward.
I originally put it there because the ref sourced that half of the sentence, and the second half was sourced by the ref at the end of the second sentence following. I've moved it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The “Publication” subsection is composed of rather short paragraphs. It would greatly benefit this section and the article as a whole to somehow combine all of these smaller paragraphs into a single and make it a cohesive narrative.
Done Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would combine the first and second paragraphs and the third and fourth paragraphs of the “Plot” section as the paragraphs as it currently stands are rather short and choppy.
Done Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of red links. That is not a problem as I understand the importance of red links, but make sure that all of the red links are subjects that may lead to articles in the future.
I removed links for the individuals/websites that are least likely to have articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would recommend revising the second paragraph of the “Reception” section with this resource in mind here. You want the reception sections to read like a narrative informing the reader about the critical response to the material. Also, are there any more reviews for this series? This section seems rather short. You might also want to expand on the reviews you already have in the section.
  • I am not sure what you mean by “After Archie proposed the crossover”? Who is the Archie in this context? It makes me think of the fictional character, which is obviously not correct. Could you make this clearer for an unfamiliar reader?
Clarified that it was Archie Comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on the sentence about the editorial pushback for the story arc? Do you know what the story arc was and what the final version turned out to be? And could expand on what depth she added to Dilton Doiley? I know this may not be possible, but I want to clarify on these points.
I would really like to expand on the pushback, but the writer was vague in the interview. I suspect she had to be coy, since she was talking about a development the copyright holder did not approve.
I can expand on the depth she added, but I don't have a source to support anything specific. Is the work itself sufficient to support Dilton's additional motivation, or would that be OR? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response! I was more so curious if there is more information about this. These sentences look fine as there are right now, and I think that all of the references are appropriate for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that “Synopsis” is a more appropriate section title than “Plot” as I have seen this wording used more in the comic-related FAs. However, this may be more of a stylistic choice so this is up to you on this one.
The project MOS is oddly silent on this, since it's geared more toward articles about creators and characters. I've changed this to reflect your observation. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer:Good job with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will give another look and most likely support this FAC. Good luck with getting this promoted in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I have made changes based on your suggestions. Thank you for the input. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: Thank you for your quick responses. You have done a wonderful job with this article. I support this nomination. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my FAC for Russell family (Passions)? 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) 14:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

By chance, I just finished reading this comic. There is quite an extensive afterword (and foreword) in the hard-cover version I have (along with other "behind the scenes" extras), and it seems like an oversight that much of this detail is left out, as it could provide much more context in most of the sections here. I assume you don't have these pages? If not, I can perhaps send some of them to you. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're correct - I have not looked through the hardcover. I'm going to my LCS later today, I'll see if they have a copy I can peruse. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I found a copy in the shop yesterday, but it was still shrink wrapped. Any access you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you enable email or send me one? Then I can send you some mobile photos, if they turn out good. --FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I have added additional material. Thanks for sending the images of those pages! Argento Surfer (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Cool, I'll review this after the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems when the Predator character is mentioned, Predator (alien) should be linked to, rather than the franchise page?
  • "1994 one-shot Archie Meets the Punisher" I'd maybe put "issue" or "comic" after one shot, just to break up the continuous blue link.
  • I think the roles of people involved should be stated at first mention. Such as "the artist Fernando Ruiz", etc.
  • "or that he would be get to be involved" Something seems wrong.
  • "Soon after, many media outlets carrying the news used a headline indicating it was not a joke." Wouldn't this sentence make more sense if it was explained before whether the announcement had been seen as a joke earlier?
  • Shouldn't it be mentioned in the synopsis that the predator only attacks the characters when they are armed? Seems to be a pretty important point.
  • "best selling comic book among other release that month" Releases?
  • "The book received positive review" Reviews?
  • "him meeting the galaxy's deadliest hunter, the Predator" Only stated in the intro. I think the Predator character needs more presentation in the article body. Unfamiliar readers would hardly know that it is an alien from a movie from just reading this article.
  • It seems it would be interesting to go into a bit more depth about the art style? The hardcover extras explain why they went for the "classic" Archie style (rather than more realistic, as in other recent Archie comics), and that they had to simplify the Predator a great deal, and that all the artists worked on the same physical papers, which isn't done much anymore.
  • Image review - there is a single fair use image in low res with an appropriate rationale.
I have addressed these points. I expanded on the not-a-joke headline to clarify why readers may have thought it was a joke, but as far as I know all those headlines were to avoid the idea, not dispel it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, but seems the last point about art style wasn't addressed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I also think the intro should have a very short synopsis of the story. It is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't hit the save button on the last point before I edited this. Both points have been addressed. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - everything addressed nicely, and it was good to see some more content added for comprehensiveness. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, looks good - I am not much of a comic reader so this might sound dumb, but how does this comic slot in with Archie canon if Archie and main characters are killed? Is it an alternate timeline and if so are there others in it or is it standalone?
Archie has pretty loose cannon and the stories don't usually reference each other, similar to The Simpsons. An alternate timeline would probably be the best way to describe this particular miniseries. So far, there have been no follow up stories to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
ok then. Would a note to this effect be helpful? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I've added the non-canon status to the lead. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it stated specifically in the sources that it is non-canonical? Also, there should be no info in the intro not found in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC) seemed WP:BLUE to me. Characters die here, but they're alive in all the other Archie material (except maybe Afterlife with Archie). I'm happy to move it from the lead to the PH section, or remove it entirely. Whichever will satisfy both you and @Casliber:. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but to play Devil's advocate, it could also just be another "universe", since multiverses aren't entirely unknown in comics... Especially since there seem to be various parallel Archie runs in different styles as well. My point being that if it isn't stated specifically in a source, it can be hard to make the judgement here... FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree, but I see your point. That line has been removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't necessarily have to be removed; if others are for it, I have no problem,. But if a source could be found, it would of course be nicer. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This has a couple of supports, but nothing has happened for quite a while and we are in danger of stalling now. If nothing happens in the next week, we might have to consider archiving. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps ping some editors you think may be interested, Argento Surfer? Notify relevant projects? I've been told this doesn't count as WP:Canvassing. Pinging has saved my nominations before. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is fine as long as the notices are neutrally worded and don't ask for support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I have notified the comics and alien projects. If no one responds in the next couple days, I will try pinging specific editors. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Please revert my copyedits if I've messed anything up.

  • Is it possible to clarify the licensing relationship when Dark Horse and Fox are first mentioned? A reader who's never heard of either won't know that Dark Horse produce the Predator comic and Fox produce the movie.
  • A related point: you say that "Dark Horse and Fox quickly agreed", but later refer to only two licensors when talking about de Campi's script, implying that Dark Horse had no say at that stage. I would have thought Fox were the real licensor, so did Dark Horse really have a say? Or did they just have to release comic book rights?
  • Are the Ghastly Awards worth a redlink?

Other than these minor points it looks in good shape and I expect to support once these are settled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I have clarified the first point in the lead. To the second point, I assume that since the book was being edited by a Dark Horse employee, Dark Horse's concerns were addressed at an earlier stage and therefore in a different category from Archie and Fox's concerns. That's just speculation on my part - the sources unfortunately don't provide more clarity. To the third, I suppose it wouldn't hurt. A search shows other articles have mentioned these awards as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
OK -- can you mention (and cite) the info about Dark Horse and Fox in the body as well as the lead? Everything in the lead should also be in the body, and of course we need a cite in the body. That's the only remaining point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp[edit]

  • The lead mentions that "Dark Horse ... holds the license to comics featuring the Predator character owned by 20th Century Fox." But I didn't seem to see that in the main text. It just jumps directly into saying that Dark Horse and 20th Century Fox agreed to the idea, without any introduction of their role as stakeholders. Moisejp (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • done.
  • A small point, but the article says that Dark Horse had published the Archie Archives reprints. So did Archie Comics and Dark Horse have previous business dealings, and if so is it worthwhile mentioning more explicitly?
  • I expanded on this a bit to clarify Wright had coordinated with Archie before.
  • Possible consistency issues: Archie Andrews and Betty Cooper are wiki-linked and called by their full names in the lead, and given mini-introductions ("all-American teenager", "high school student"—are two intros required for Archie?—and "one of Archie's girlfriends"); in the main text for the first mention of Betty and Veronica ("She drew inspiration for the story from the 1940s era of Archie, when Betty and Veronica...") are only called by their first names, with no wiki-links or introductions; in the Synopsis section there are wiki-links for everyone but Archie, but again only first names are used, and no introductions (except Kevin Keller)—it may assume that all readers already know who Betty, Veronica, and Jughead are. Moisejp (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have linked full names for all characters in the synopsis except for Dilton, who was linked in the PH section.
  • "In one case, editorial pushback led her to rewrite a story arc, and she was much happier with the final version.[7] She was pleased when she got to add depth to Dilton Doiley, a character she feels is often overlooked in regular Archie comics." I wasn't sure (and didn't look at the sources), but are the two sentences talking about the same story arc? My guess is they probably are, but if so, maybe it would be possible to make the transition clearer between the two sentences?
  • I couldn't find any additional information on the altered storyline. Campi was rather coy in the interview, I'm guessing because she can't discuss ideas that weren't approved by the licensors.
  • "Archie Comics and Dark Horse Comics jointly announced Archie vs. Predator and the creative team at the 2014 New York Comic Con." I was wondering whether "and the creative team" could be cut from this sentence—it seems like a less important point, and doesn't flow very well for me. It means they announced both the comic and the team that had made it? If you would like to keep it in, may I suggest "...and its creative team"? Moisejp (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I changed it to your suggestion. New comic titles are sometimes announced before the writer and/or artist are determined. It happens often enough that I think it deserves a mention.
  • "A 128-page hardcover collecting the series was released November 4, 2015." FunkMonk mentioned above that there were "behind the scenes extras" included. Would it be worthwhile to briefly mention this?
  • I added that it includes "bonus content". I can be more specific if you would like.
  • "Betty and Veronica take refuge at Lodge Manor." I believe this is so called because Veronica's family are the Lodges? But Veronica's last name has not been given yet in the article. Moisejp (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Veronica is now introduced with first and last name.
  • The Synopsis section feels like it has a lot of subject-verb-object sentences. May I suggest varying the structure of a couple more sentences in the section for better overall flow?
  • I have not fixed this yet, but am currently working on the best places to make changes.
  • "praised it for remaining true to both properties". I think that means true to both Archie and the Predator, but would it be better to spell these out for extra clarity? Moisejp (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • done

In general, a very interesting article, and I expect to support if you address the comments above. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. Your changes look good. I made several additional copy-edits just now. One other little point, the sales figures in the Reception section are for all of the USA? Not worldwide sales, right? It could be good to specify this. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The sales numbers are... complicated. The numbers provided are estimates from Diamond Comic Distributors, which is virtual monopoly on comic sales to comic specialty shops in North America. It also operates worldwide with competing distributors. Precise numbers that include other distributors and "newsstand sales" (such as grocery stores, supermarkets, Barnes & Noble) are not available. Industry insiders often comment that the reported numbers are inaccurate, and that's backed up by the discrepancy between the best sellers as reported by Diamond and the New York Times (The NYT uses bookscan data from non-specialty stores). However, the error in the numbers are typically consistent, which does allow for accurate month-to-month comparison and relative rankings. This is why I didn't list any specific numbers for the individual sales, just the sales decline and rankings. Most of this is tangential to this specific book, but I've specified that Diamond ranked the HC 36th for the month. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

Just a reminder that as well as addressing the comments above, I think we still need 1) a source review for formatting and reliability, and 2) if I'm correct in assuming this is the nominator's first FAC, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This is my first FAC. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

I started looking at the sources, so I might as well do a source review. Just on first glance:

  • Some refs are missing names. I added a few for you already. Refs #19 and #31 are still missing names.
  • In refs #21–24 should Alex de Campi's name be last name first? That's what I would have thought.
  • You have a wiki-link for Alex de Campi in ref #21 but the first appearance of her name is in ref #2.

I'll continue looking tomorrow or soon, and try to spotcheck some sources too. By the way, it's not a requirement for FA, but have you thought of archiving all of your online sources? It's a good idea for preserving access to the sources in the future (i.e., reducing linkrot). Moisejp (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It may take a day or two for me to locate the names for those two sources. Most of my work is done through an internet filter, and I'll need to make a special trip to re-access those two sites. I'll fix the de Campi link and name order. I don't have any experience archiving sources. I don't suppose there's a handy how-to link? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll try to hunt down some info for you about archiving, or type up a little explanation. It's pretty straightforward once you get the hang of it. Another thing I noticed is that your references are inconsistent about whether they use a template—for example, your Sunu, Steve and Emm, Fox ones don't, but there are others. It's a good idea to have a clean, consistent structure to your referencing. This also helps when other editors want to assist in maintaining an article in the future. In case you need them, here is a list of templates you can use. I wasn't sure what you meant about an internet filter limiting your online access, but if you need help quickly getting names or other parameters for your references, I could maybe help. I have to run right now, but will follow up again soon. Moisejp (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Most of my editing is done while I'm at work and most of the internet is blocked for not being work related. I don't have the internet at home, either. My normal method for page creation is to Google relevant (blocked) sites, email the links to myself, then open the pages on my laptop at a library. I take the laptop home and review the content at my leisure. Once the page is mostly done, I email to myself and tweak it in my sandbox while I'm at work. Hence, I can't review the two sources you mentioned right now, but I should be able to get them corrected in a day or two.
I'll start reformatting the citations today. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ben Crosby[edit]

Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Questions?) 05:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Third time's a charm? I really hope so.

After contributing just 35 edits since May (including an incredibly embarrassing single edit in all of November) due to a variety of off-wiki issues, which happened to be the primary reason why this failed the last FAC, I'm trying to get back into editing, and I figured that the best way to start out is to finally finish dealing with this article. I've recently gone back and fixed all of the outstanding concerns from last time, and although I've been wrong with this kind of a statement in the past, I think that this miniscule nine paragraph article is now free of all of my various flaws.

And just to give a very brief description: Ben Crosby was a late-19th century football player and coach, who basically accomplished nothing with his life before dying at 22 from Typhoid. He spent one year as a head coach of an important team and gained notability in his playing career for being worse than someone younger than him. I hope you like the article!

Thanks to everyone who reviews this. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 05:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I only had one issue last time, and I see you've edited to remove some of the repetition, but I think if you made it "Crosby died on December 29, 1892 at the age of 24" it would be clear that he died from typhoid. As it stands, since "succumbs" usually means "died", I think it's still repetitious. Alternatively you could edit the first mention of typhoid to remove the word "succumbs" and just say that it he contracted typhoid; I'm guessing you phrase it as you do because the source doesn't make it clear whether he contracted typhoid at that point, or the "severe cold" was typhoid all along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I think I understand what you mean now, and I've changed the paragraph accordingly. Thanks for coming back and reviewing again, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. The above was the only remaining issue from my previous review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Mike. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As before, quotes should only be used minimally and only really for something memorable. Both of the following should be eminently fixable
"'contracted a "severe cold" - can be dequoted "URTI" or something, "fell very ill with a cold/URTI"
his illness intensified and he apparently "succumbed to an attack of typhoid fever". - "his illness intensified and he apparently fell gravely ill from typhoid fever." (or somesuch)

Otherwise looking on track for FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about taking so long to give you a response; I'll try to address your concerns later today. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, that took longer than it should have. Sorry about that. I made a change based on your first point. On the second, I'd prefer to keep it how it is. Mike Christie noted it somewhat above; the sources are relatively ambiguous in their description of events, and I'm also not sure how medically accurate their wordings are. I think in this case using the quote is justified as it's the best way of expressing the information presented, without the possibility of misconstruing its meaning. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 12:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Wow, you corrected everything I saw on the BC#2 FAC, and did it in a very clear and concise manner. No other objections. I'm happy to support this. — Maile (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for following up and for the support. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Source review – All of the references appear reliable and the links are working fine. The only issue I see with the formatting is that there is a mixture of 10- and 13-digit ISBN numbers; I believe the MoS favors the 13-digit ones. This is easy to fix; go here and type the 10-digit number in (click a button to hyphenate them), and it spits out the 13-digit number. Other than that admittedly minor concern, everything looks good in the sourcing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I've corrected this. Also, I went through and added OCLCs for all remaining sources that could have had them before. Thanks reviewing again, Giants2008. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 12:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – I supported this article at the previous FAC and it looks to have improved since then, with the other commentary it's received. Having re-read it, I found no new issues to report. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88[edit]

This is a good short article: its brevity should not be confused for a lack of comprehensiveness. The following issues are all very much minor. I have little doubt that they can be addressed quickly and easily.

  • "which he was then commended for following the upset victory". This would read better with the preposition earlier and removal of the unnecessary "then": "for which he was commended following the upset victory". But perhaps the bigger issue with this sentence is this: he was commended for the win, not for the extra practices he scheduled. The sentence is ambiguous about this, and suggests that Crosby was specifically commended for his hard-ass coaching.
  • The article's lead section mentions a "cold", but the later and more detailed discussion of the circumstances of his death refers only to a "serious illness". The result is an internal inconsistency. I wonder if the reference to a cold is strictly accurate given the vagueness of such a diagnosis, especially in that era. It might be better to stick to the terminology of "illness".
  • "As a child, Crosby attended Hopkins Grammar School in New Haven, Connecticut, the second person in his family to do so." The phrasing of this sentence immediately made be wonder who the other person in his family to attend the school was.
  • "Crosby was very popular while at Yale". The word "very" looks to be vague and unnecessary inflation.
  • "The team eventually finished the season with a perfect record and would be retroactively named national champions." Why was it retroactive? If nothing out-of-the-ordinary happened, weren't they just "named national champions".
  • "Despite losing his spot, Crosby remained popular through his senior year at the university" I would not expect the loss of one's football team spot to result automatically in a decline in one's popularity. Accordingly, is "despite losing his spot" appropriate?
  • "first that had been independent of the program." - "who" would be better than "that".
  • "Crosby also caught the attention of the press with his scheduling of constant practices leading up to the game". The word "constant" literally means 24 hours a day. Perhaps "more frequent" or something similar would be better.

The final paragraph is very good. Syek88 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Have I missed an image review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • ok, 2 of 3 are definitely in Public Domain due to age and publishing date. The third File:Ben Crosby 1891.png is clearly of an age to be public domain except that its publishing history is unclear. Worst-case scenario is a Fair Use rationale, which is valid, as there are no other photos of the person. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • i.e. I think we're in business...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A further note: While we are waiting for Syek88 to finish their review, a few things jump out from the article in terms of prose. For instance, we are using "Crosby" rather a lot, and some rewording to avoid this would be good. Also, in the lead, we have "A member of both Delta Kappa Epsilon and Skull and Bones, Crosby was a two-year starter on the football team and a backup on the crew team", which I'm afraid makes little sense to me and I suspect to a lot of readers. Before we promote this, I'd like one or two more eyes on the prose. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Another note: Everything has gone a little quiet, but can I just check if Syek88 plans to revisit? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I had been waiting for the article's author to respond to my (fairly minor) points. Even if there is no response, I am not opposing, if that assists. Syek88 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@A Texas Historian: If nothing happens soon, and the nominator is not responding, we might be forced to archive this I'm afraid. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I've just been getting distracted. I've already dealt with most of Syek's points and I'll try to address the remaining ones soon. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 16:34, 22 February 2017 (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.


Notified: User:BillC, WT:MED

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been updated with high quality sources since 2006 and thus many of the refs are old. Also a number of primary sources are used rather than high quality secondary sources. Also I just deleted a 1/3 of the article as it was little more than spam added by likely paid editors.[51] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • This needs to be delisted for the reasons stated. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Transcluded this FAR to the main FAR page, so more people can see this and hopefully will repair the article. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Suleiman the Magnificent[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Ottoman Empire, Muslim history task force, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Turkey, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

Tagged for six months for lacking reliable references, failed verification, and unsourced statements. Original nominator has retired. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • This is going to require the attention of someone with considerable expertise in this area and access to appropriate references. Unless any such individual is forthcoming (which looks unlikely), I think that this is a case for FARC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe Al Ameer son? Has edited a lot of articles about Ottoman-era subjects, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the consideration @FunkMonk:, and excuse me for the very late response. I've gotten pretty busy w/ work the past couple weeks. Not sure if I'd be able to tackle this. It would need a pretty dedicated editor to sort things out if there are deep sourcing problems. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]


Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Review commentary[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because......unfortunately, this article has slipped from featured quality over the past decade. Last review back in 2008 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indonesia/archive1

Dead sources
Ref formatting all over.
Many one or two sentence paragraphs.
Duplicate reference and cite errors.
Sections with few refs. (like Architecture)
Odd image placement with text sandwiching.
Huge icons. Done Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Different styles of English.
Out dated info from 2006.

......list goes on....... Lots to fix.....needs a big overhaul ...Not even GA level at this point in my view. --Moxy (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the version from the 2008 FAR. It is a thorough yet concise appraisal of the subject. The current version is filled with boosterism, and has bloated to more than twice the size. Ditching the current article and working on the 2008 version instead may be the most efficient way to bring the article back up to par. CMD (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I would worry that might replace up to date material with out of date material. It would be easy to compare the two versions and move down the article and relegate material to daughter articles or remove it. The article stands at 71 kb of prose, which is significantly larger than the 50 kb prose we recommend maximum article size at. I'd normally insist that discussion have taken place on the talk page first but the size and breadth of the article mean that coming to FAR is inevitable and anyway FAR is probably the best place for a thorough overhaul (that is needed) to be properly assessed and reviewed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting just dumping the 2008 one back into the live version, but that working from that base and updating that may produce a quicker and better result than working from the current article and trying to trim down on the excesses in prose and tone. Sorry for the confusion. CMD (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Chris will want to see this, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: no, my bad. I should have realised that was what you meant. Still, we agree on that pathway anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've tried maintaining the article before. Ultra-nationalists always seem to find their way back to "fluff up" the article. I agree with Chipmunk: starting from the 2008 version will likely be easier.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Needs a thorough overhaul. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree. I have noticed this trend of fluff up/whitewashing on a number of country articles (most recently Saudi Arabia) and there is only so much we can do. I would be OK with starting from the 2008 base, comparing with the present version and adding content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I have copied the 2008 version to User:Chipmunkdavis/Indonesia (minus interwikis and category application), which is easier to look at than a page in history. It's there as a reference or as a draft page. I don't have time to work on it myself at the moment, but others can feel free to do what they want on that page. I don't know how long this stays open before the process moves to delisting, but it would be nice to save what was one of the best country articles. CMD (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include coverage, referencing, and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. Fails 1e (stability). Article undergoes major changes on a regular basis, such as the addition[52][53][54][55] and removal[56] of substantial pieces of content (examples from the last 30 days of changes not performed as part of the review process). The article is more than twice as large as it was when promoted and reverting to an earlier revision could lead to reinsertion of outdated material and removal of relevant content, nor would it address the reason(s) why the page is under constant revision. DrKay (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. Significant attention is needed to changes since nomination, and such work is not occurring. --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist for reasons above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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 know, that has always troubled me slightly, but I've never done anything about it... until now! Thanks for the push. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have addressed concerns raised, and added a restaurant section as suggested. Where do we go from here? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been walking through the area with a view to making suggestions. There's history around every corner there. Walking down King Street, for example, at one end, by the Apple Store, there's a plaque commemorating the National Sporting Club. Down the other end is the original branch of Moss Bros which closed recently, alas. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm too busy currently to give this much attention. Perhaps it can be postponed a month or two. Andrew D. (talk)
  • Comment The process is that "The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage." We are just waiting for that to happen. There was no first stage, so usually the second stage is rejected. I think there was no rejection of this second stage because the article is scheduled for the main page, and it was felt appropriate to give it a look over. It has been looked over and the article has been cleared of recent errors, and has been updated and expanded along the lines suggested in the FAR. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Scott, Andrew Davidson, and Casliber: Where do we stand here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Trying to read this, the main outstanding concern appears to be @Andrew Davidson:'s issue around comprehensiveness. So the question is, what should be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Since you pinged, I'll answer. Despite the fiddling and diddling in evidence above your question, my concerns as originally stated remain almost entirely unresolved in this mess of an article.  — Scott talk 23:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
O-kay, before we get stuck into copyediting too far, do you think there's anything actually missing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually I do think the prose can be tightened. I'll take my coord hat off and keep trimming. Will solicit some independent and thorough eyes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
update - I've had one runthrough and I found some spots I had to massage. I tend to agree with Scott that some material is placed in odd spots, and there is some unnecessary repetition. I can't see any prose glitches now, but I generally find that if I found as many as I did, I suspect there are more that I will have missed. I need to sleep on this and have another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments / Singora CasLiber has asked me to look at the prose. I'll do this over the coming week. Singora (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback / Singora

Scotts' comments can be summarized as:

  • 1. The introduction is too long.
  • 2. The history section is poor.
  • 3. The geography and landmarks sections are tangled.
  • 4. Much of the article is a "hodgepodge" of trivia and unnecessary detail.
  • 5. The prose is weak.
  • 6. Conclusion: this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting.

I agree with Scott. I'm surprised there's no section for footnotes (something needs to be done about the excessive trivia and unnecessary detail). IMO, the only interesting part of this article concerns Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies, the "essential guide and accessory for any serious gentleman of pleasure". Singora (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I think this needs to be moved to FARC as unresolved concerns are significant and I have been editing it so cannot wear coordinator hat...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the point of this process now. The page was featured on the main page and so that's a done deal. Further agonising about the content does not seem efficient – see diminishing returns. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The point of the process is whether or not the article meets FA criteria. It has these two segments. From this point on folks can state delist or keep below and/or try and fix things. Whether or not an article has been on the main page is not relevant now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include prose, coverage and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The opening comments have some merit, but it's all arguable. I see nothing definitively outside the criteria. DrKay (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with DrKay here. There are arguably quite a few things that could be improved here, but I don't see any workable comments. This is meant to be a collaborative process, and I don't see how meaningful work could commence based on what's posted here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I've been watching this for a while, and like DrKay and Laser, I agree that there are some valid points raised above. Unfortunately, there is nothing really actionable or concrete. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)