Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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




Nominator(s): Eric Corbett talk; SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This article, part of our Scottish mythology series, tells of the centaur-like nuckelavee of Orkney, the most horrible of all Scottish demons with its immense head, lack of skin, and breath that could destroy crops. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Sagaciousphil, Eric Corbett 17:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Denbies is a large country estate in the southeast of England, named after the farmer John Denby who owned the land in the mid-16th century. It achieved some notoriety in the mid-18th century after it was purchased by Jonathan Tyers, the proprietor of the pleasure garden just outside London. For reasons that are unclear, Tyers decided to install a garden known as The Valley of the Shadow of Death, incorporating macabre artefacts such as two upturned stone coffins topped by human skulls, as a reminder that time is fleeting and that life is short. What remains of the estate is now the site of the largest vineyard in England, but that's another story. Eric Corbett 17:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto[edit]

The Valley of the Shadow of Death

  • Why are we using quotes for "labyrinth"? Who said this?
    Because it's a direct quote from Brian Allen (1981), ref #11, which is cited at the end of the sentence. Eric Corbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "It had a thatched roof and fake stonework panels to form smaller internal enclosures, every panel covered in verses..." → "It had a thatched roof and fake stonework panels which formed smaller internal enclosures. The panels featured verses reminding the reader of "the vanity, the shortness and insufficiency of human pleasures"? I think we may need to put up with the panels/panel repetition unless you can think of an alternative?
    Changed to "It had a thatched roof and internal enclosures formed by fake stonework panels, each covered in verses ...". Eric Corbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "admonishing us that Time is fleeting, and even the least portion of it to be employed in reflections on Eternity" -- who said this?
    It's a direct quotation attributed to refs #15 and #16. Eric Corbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "To a sloping desk in the centre of the temple was chained a copy of Edward Young's poem Night-Thoughts and Robert Blair's The Grave, bound in black leather." → "Chained to a sloping desk in the centre of the temple was a copy of Edward Young's poem Night-Thoughts and Robert Blair's The Grave, bound in black leather."
    Done. Eric Corbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Denison family ownership

  • "Denison had a son, William Joseph, and two daughters, Elizabeth and Anna Maria, from his second wife." → either "with" his second wife or "from" his second marriage, surely?
    Good point, done. Eric Corbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Like his father, Denison junior was a banker and became a senior partner in his father's banking company..." → "Like his father, Denison junior was a banker who became a senior partner in his father's banking company..."?
    Your version doesn't work, as it suggests that Denison junior's father also became a senior partner in his father's banking company, which he didn't. Eric Corbett 18:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Cubitt's new mansion

  • "Almost one hundred rooms made up the Italianate structure's three storeys, stretching across nine bays in a square formation." → "Almost one hundred rooms made up the Italianate structure's three storeys, and stretched across nine bays in a square formation."
    I prefer the version as it stands. Eric Corbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


  • This section seems to repeat refs [32] and [33] quite a lot. Could these be trimmed down?
    Done. Eric Corbett 18:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The remaining rooms on the basement level were workshops, wine cellars, parlours for the butler, housekeeper and other principle servants together with general storerooms." – "The remaining rooms on the basement level were... housekeeper and other principle servants"? Maybe "housekeeper and other principle servants quarters"?
    I don't see anything wrong with the current version and I'm loath to suggest that parlours = quarters, as the latter implies sleeping quarters to me. Eric Corbett 18:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    My point here was that the opening starts "The remaining rooms on the basement level were..." You list "workshops, wine cellars, [and] parlours for the butler" – all rooms. The "housekeeper and other principle servants" are not rooms, they are people. It sounds odd, I think, because these are people and you say "rooms" in the opening line. CassiantoTalk 21:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've had a go at tweaking it very slightly? SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, much better I think. CassiantoTalk 09:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


  • "These were maintained by thirteen gardeners under the jurisdiction of a head gardener." – gardeners/gardener repetition; suggest swapping gardener with head groundsman?
    Replaced with "These were maintained by thirteen staff under the jurisdiction of a head gardener.". Eric Corbett 19:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Decline and dispersal

  • "that year Henry moved to the mansion house after his father decamped to London following the death of Henry's mother.[44] He inherited the title and extensive estate after the death of his father in 1917.[44] -- identical refs in close succession. Would one cover all?
    It would. I think the first citation was only put in to make it easier to move sentences around while we were working on the article, now removed. Eric Corbett 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nicely worked and very interesting. This is well researched, thoughtfully illustrated and comprehensive. CassiantoTalk 00:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read through the article. Eric Corbett
Thanks, Cass. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Joss Whedon[edit]

Nominator(s): Glitchygirl (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the American screenwriter, director and producer Joss Whedon. I'm not the creator but the primary author of the page itself. It has gone through a successful good article nomination and now has been improved and fine combed in such a way that warrants a featured article nomination. Glitchygirl (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

2000 UEFA Cup Final riots[edit]

Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a riot involving football hooliganism in Copenhagen around the 2000 UEFA Cup Final between fans of Arsenal F.C. and Galatasaray S.K.. I believe it should be featured because I believe it fulfills all the criteria, goes into detail about it, is sourced well and is balanced. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on a thorough read. I have concerns about the sourcing, the adherence to NPOV and the quality of the writing. --John (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Can you give me some details? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Of course, I will post a fuller review here later today. --John (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Non-exhaustive list of problems:
        • Sourcing: Don't use tabloids. I see Daily Record, Daily Mirror X3 and Daily Mail. None of these can be used in an article like this which concerns living people.
        • NPOV: " was reported that members of Arsenal's hooligan firms The Herd and The Gooners,[9]" (another bad source there as well), "In Turkey, the media portrayed Galatasaray fans as acting in self-defence, with criticism directed at the British fans for allegedly attacking members of the press.[12] However, there were conflicting reports, with claims that some Galatasaray fans were instigating some of the violence.[39] Later on, British media blame also transferred towards Galatasaray fans.[40]" All over the place. The Aftermath section is the worst and really needs a complete rewrite. Quotes should be summarised.
        • Prose: "Leeds fans had been drinking in bars reportedly taunting local people and Turkish police intervened to stop fights breaking out." What is wrong with that sentence? There are probably twenty sentences like that in the article. It will need a major rewrite to meet FA standard. Don't be disheartened; get better sources, deal with the NPOV and then polish the prose. There's no point in doing it any other way. I also endorse Brianboulton's comments below. --John (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: On sources, you might start by looking at Ref 9, where the source page has disappeared – and I would question anyway this source's credentials as a high-quality reliable source. Ref 38 looks equally dubious on reliablity grounds. The prose reads rather raggedly throughout – just a few examples:

  • "Arsenal made it to the final" is tabloid journalese rather than encyclopaedic
  • The relative pronoun "which" should not occur twice in a single sentence ("Galatasaray fans entered the area shortly afterwards which precipitated a fight between the two sets of supporters, which led to the two Leeds fans being stabbed")
  • The sentence "The stabbings caused anger throughout the United Kingdom, and subsequently it was reported that members of Arsenal's hooligan firms The Herd and The Gooners, wanted to avenge their deaths, and telephoned other British hooligan firms, inviting them to join them in Copenhagen to attack Galatasaray fans" is clunky, vague ("it was reported") and ungrammatical ("their deaths" appears to refer to the hooligan firms)
  • Use of numerics for small numbers, even to start sentences.

These are, I stress, are examples; the whole text needs to be polished up to meet FA standards. It seems you have made some effort to improve the prose since the last significant peer review in July 2013, but it really needs the input of a fresh pair of knowledgeable eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Gonzalo[edit]

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been working on this article on-and-off since the storm's formation last October, and after a recent final push to tie up loose ends and flesh out my research, I think it's among the finest tropical cyclone articles on the site. I hope you'll agree. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls[edit]

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an American evangelical organization of Christian women who evangelize to female workers in the sex industry. The article has received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors and has undergone a successful good article nomination. Neelix (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • links are returning errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have repaired the link rot; all of the links are working now. Neelix (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This is certainly an unusual organisation - nice work in developing the article on it.

I have the following specific comments:

  • "When JC's Girls was first founded, pornographic film director James DiGiorgio took glamour photographs of three JC's Girls members for the organization's original website without asking for payment. DiGiorgio was not a Christian, but said that he was helping JC's Girls because the sex industry is "always trying to preach freedom of speech [so] anyone in this industry who has a problem with [JC's Girls'] message is a fucking hypocrite." - is this important enough to be in the lead?
  • "JC's Girls is less focused on seeking conversions than on communicating the message to women in the sex industry that Christians exist who aren't judging them and are willing to accept them." - this repeats what's in the previous para (but is a good summary - you might want to move the material around and trim a bit)
  • "Within a year of founding JC's Girls, Veitch had lost 25 pounds and become more physically fit to show that the organization's message is not motivated by jealousy" - this is a bit confusing, and is it relevant?
    • Comment from the GA Reviewer: This point is notable and interesting; Veitch was preemptively addressing a possible future criticism of her organization, and rightfully so. As the wording is apparently confusing, it could be made clearer, perhaps by moving Veitch's motivation closer to the beginning of the sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Theresa Scher, a former stripper and call girl, was looking for a way out of the sex industry" - if she was a " former stripper and call girl", why did she still need a way out of the industry?
  • "These guidelines were established because some women who had quickly gone from working in the sex industry to evangelizing with JC's Girls soon left the organization and returned to the sex industry" - whoa - these people try to exclude women who might not permanently transition out of the sex industry after a fairly short intervention which doesn't include any support to improve their skills, financial resources or any health and drug issues? Talk about self defeating. The wording around this seems unduly positive.
  • From a quick Google Scholar search, this journal article appears to include some coverage of this organisation.

I also have the following general comments:

  • The article presents this organisation as essentially operating in a vacuum aside from its interactions with various churches. Does it work with other religious or secular organisations to provide holistic support to the women who approach it for assistance? If not, why not? (this goes to my second-to-last point above: there's reams of evidence that interventions like this need to be multifaceted to be effective).
  • The article also presents the organisation as being novel when, as I understand it, it's not. There are lots of support organisations which are based around taking a generally non-judgemental approach, not to mention social workers and welfare services which provide assistance to women in the sex industry.
  • Have their been responses to this organisation from feminist commentators and organisations, social workers, or sex worker organisations? Some aspects of it seem likely to attract criticism (the glamour photos and use of sex appeal to preach to men, the underlying implicit assumption that the women in the sex industry need saving through religion, what appears to be a fairly amateur and ad-hoc approach to providing assistance to vulnerable women, etc). Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment from the GA Reviewer: All three good points; if the sources exist it could very well be true that this article needs to be broader in scope in order to qualify as a Featured article. Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, Nick-D! I believe that I have addressed most of your concerns. I have replaced the information about DiGiorgio in the lead with the quotation by Barone. I have restructured and trimmed the "Ideology" section to avoid repetition and to improve flow. I removed the word "former" from the sentence introducing Scher. I have added the Liturgy source you indicated; thank you for finding it! I think that the statement about Veitch losing weight and becoming more physically fit is relevant to the article, so I have combined it with the quotation in a way that I hope makes it less confusing.
I'm not sure what to make of the second-last of your specific comments. The goal of JC's Girls is to communicate to sex workers that there are Christians who are willing to accept them; their goal is not to get women out of the sex industry, nor is it to turn sex workers into evangelists, and official evangelism is the only activity that JC's Girls excludes people from on the basis of their likelihood to return to the sex industry. The article makes clear that JC's Girls is very willing to include sex workers at their churches even if the women never leave the sex industry at all. Is there a way that you feel this can be made clearer in the article? I hope this explanation addresses the first of your general comments as well. As far as I know the only organizations with which JC's Girls has collaborated are Hookers for Jesus and the churches mentioned in the article.
With respect to your second general comment, I think the novelty of this organization lies in its humble ambitions; it simply seeks to connect sex workers with churches that will love them. The organization does not attempt to get the women to leave the sex industry, which is, as far as I know, a novel idea among Christian organizations involved with the sex industry. As for your third general comment, I have added all of the sources I have been able to find that relate in any way to JC's Girls, and I would be glad to add any more that you know of. I agree that the organization seems like one that would be likely to attract criticism, although I have searched through multiple journal databases as well as Google, and I have not found any more criticism than is already present in the article.
I hope my alterations of the article and my responses here have addressed your concerns. If they have not, please let me know, and I would be glad to engage with them further. Thank you again for your comments. Neelix (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Panama–Pacific commemorative coins[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... five coins that were issued for the Panama-Pacific Exposition, a very successful World's Fair-type event in San Francisco. They were not popular at the time but are rather expensive today. And the $50 pieces are very handsome. I wish I owned one.Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Support – I sometimes think Wehwalt must be in league with the Devil: how else can he write such readable articles about so dry a topic as coins, for Heaven's sake? This one is well up to standard: clear, balanced, well sourced, beautifully illustrated and in top notch prose. – Tim riley talk 08:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Old Nick has not as yet requested conom credit.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • One circular link in the template involving a hyphen rather than an endash (I think). No DABs and external links OK.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • submitting designs, which are similar to the actual coins Shouldn't this be "were"?
  • Since the US was not yet engaged in WWI in 1915, I'm not sure why Swiatek and Breen thought it ironic. But that's on them, not on you.
  • Shouldn't Art historian Cornelius Vermeule deemed the obverse of the half dollar "a halfway point between the designs on French silver pieces early in the new century and A. A. Weinman's 'Walking Liberty' for the half dollar". be in the section on the half dollar rather than the quarter eagle?
  • I fear that Swiatek and Breen misidentified Athena's armor; it's scale mail, not plate mail.
I'll just say mail, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
All done except where commented. Thank you for the review & support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Flickr_-_…trialsanderrors_-_Panama-Pacific_International_Exposition,_San_Francisco,_aeroplane_view,_1915.jpg: bit confused about this - the image description says PD but the licensing tag is CC? PD seems more likely, as copyright would probably be expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I've taken care of that. Thank you for going through it in such detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Support, with the following nitpicks:

  • Background: "In 1904, San Francisco merchant Rueben Hale proposed an exposition in his home city for 1915, both to commemorate the opening of the Panama Canal and to mark the 400th anniversary of Vasco Núñez de Balboa becoming the first European known to view the Pacific Ocean from the Americas..." As other cities were clearly in the running to host the exposition, would it be more accurate to say that Hale proposed that his city host the exposition, rather than implying that he originated the whole idea?
From what I can tell, New Orleans tried to poach it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe the fourth paragraph of the Background section is misplaced? The successful outcome of the exposition is not really part of the background to the issue of the coins.
It's the least awkward place to put it. I generally have such a paragraph late in the article, but I think it necessary to discuss the PPIE early.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The words "as they are today" are probably best removed, and left to inference, to avoid question about what "today" means.
I've modified it to avoid the word "today", but I feel the reader may not be familiar with the pramtice, so have to lead him along part of the way.
  • Legislation: what happened to H.R. 16902?
According to what I can tell from Congressional ProQuest, it never came out of committee. They were probably using both sides of the Capitol to see who would pass the bill first. But I don't find the legislative history finder in there reliable enough that I can draw any conclusions for the article. That being said, the Congressional ProQuest has been a great help in this kind of article, and I will miss it when my access ends at the end of summer.
  • Design: Link Union shield
  • Production and distribution: "There, hubs would be made that the Mint could use to produce coinage dies, as they could do it faster than could the Mint." Slightly hard to follow, without a clearer definition of "they". Perhaps "the company" rather than "they"
  • I'm a bit puzzled by this sentence: "Such an outcry could have caused the Mint to re-issue the coin, this time with the mint mark" – isn't that what happened?

The usual slightly dodgy goings on, told with the usual brio. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just based on how my teachers taught me to right, many moons ago in New Jersey, but thanks. My deep gratitude for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I've made the changes except where noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Taught you to right??! Maybe one lesson too few. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps my commentary on the New Jersey Edyukation Systum was a bit understated.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ernest Lawrence[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Ernest Lawrence, one of the more famous and controversial scientists of the 20th century. He is still well-known today because the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory are named after him. As is a chemical element. Indeed, he could write his name and address in elements: Lr Bk Cf Am. In an era when most top scientists studied in Europe, his education was entirely in America. He was known for his right-wing politics in a time when Academics, particularly at Berkeley, were noted for affiliation with left-wing causes, yet managed to be on good terms with them. He commanded high salaries and was never afraid of asking others to work for little or nothing. Above all, he was a strong believer in the principle of bigger being better, which he applied to everything from laboratory instruments to nuclear weapons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "at the same time. By this time, ... By this time": Too much.
    Re-worded. Thanks for your help, as always. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, for example his doctoral students, are not sourced in the text
    Added something about them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher locations
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Use a consistent date format
    Ran a script over it. [1] Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    It's by the local historian at Oak Ridge. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Maya civilization[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Maya civilization was one of the great civilizations of world history, with the earliest cities developing in the 8th century BC. The civilization developed a complex society, with major cities, a fully developed writing system, and a warrior aristocracy. It underwent a number of major changes through its history, and the Maya area was never unified into a "Maya Empire", rather existing as a large number of competing polities entwined in a complex network of alliances, vassalage, and enmities. I did a lot of work on this for the Core Contest, and it recently passed GA. It's well polished, and it would be a shame not to take it that final step after so much work. I look forward to any feedback. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod Seems a magnificent piece of work! It's great to see a really BIG topic at FAC, & a vindication of Wikipedia:The Core Contest. It will take some time to work through - I went to "art" first & have fiddled a bit there. More comments later.

  • Were the Maya much involved in the complicated improvement of cultivated maize, or was that essentially complete before their time? The same for other plants I suppose.
According to The Mysterious Origin of Maize by Mary W. Eubanks, maize domestication took place outside of the Maya area, in central Mexico, and in Oaxaca. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

More later, Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Link some things at "The set of traits shared by Mesoamerican cultures also included astronomical knowledge, blood and human sacrifice, and a cosmovision that viewed the world as divided into four divisions aligned with the cardinal directions, each with different attributes, and a three-way division of the world into the celestial realm, the earth, and the underworld"? There are various possibilities, all linked below I'm sure, but a long way down. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In general some paras should be split - I realize the alleged 4 para lead limit is one issue. The one beginning "Chiapas occupies the extreme southeast of Mexico;..." is 279 words long.
  • on the other hand "but all regions of Mesoamerica cultivated the base crops of maize, beans, and squashes" were linked in the lead, a little way above. They turn up again lower down.
  • " after c. 1000 AD copper, silver and gold were worked. " not linked anywhere.
  • "Geography" Paras 1 & 2, too much repetition & repeated links between these and from lead I think
  • "Geography" this is pretty confusing/meaningless without a map namimg some of these places or features.
  • Lots of repeated links in Pre-Classic
  • Classic period: Something awry at "The period was one the peak of large-scale construction and urbanism..."
  • "There is evidence that the Maya population exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment; contributing factors included exhaustion of agricultural potential, deforestation, and overhunting of megafauna. Shifts in climate appear to have simultaneously resulted in a 200-year long drought." rather chewy to read - the bolded bits create slight confusion. Don't we have a better link, and indeed phrase, for "exhaustion of agricultural potential"?
  • That's it for now. More later, Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Maunus This is a great piece of work definitely, and the topic will be an immensely important addition to the FA collection. Given the scarcity of Native American related topics at that level I think it is worth it for the article to be sure that we set the best possible precedent. Particularly I think we need to give some serious thought to the question of representation. I will list some concerns that I have about this below. I realize that addressing these concerns will be a bit of work, requiring some reorganization and rewriting. I am not adamant that all of this has to be addressed in a specific way, but I think for me to be able to support we will at least have to have the discussion about how to approach this and how best to address the basic concerns.

  • The article focuses on the "ancient" Maya civilization. I think it risks doing so at the expense of severing the historical Maya culture from contemporary Maya culture and in doing so reinforcing a myth that I think the article should in fact debunk - namely the myth that "the Maya disappeared". I think the way to address this would be to make sure that the myth is explicitly debunked, and that the continuity between ancient and contemporary Maya culture is part of the framing of all parts of the article. There are for example no illustrations of living Maya people. A section towards the end on "Maya culture today", might be one way to address this problem, but it would also motivate some reframing thoughout the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to distinguish between Maya culture and the Maya civilization - which effectively ended with the incorporation of the Maya region into the extended Old World economic and technological order, and were no longer free to develop, build, worship, fight, etc. according to their own indigenous interests. The point is well made that they did not disappear, however, and a section near the end on the continuance of Maya culture would be worthwhile. When writing the Spanish conquest of the Maya articles, I believe I wrote something along these lines that I could incorporate into the article. When working on this article for the Core Contest, I was acutely aware of how lengthy the article was getting - the problem was never what to write, rather what to leave out. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I think such a distinction is both highly problematic (both because of the hierarchic implications of distinguishing between culture and civilization, and because there is no way to objectively define a point in time when a civilizaiton ends and becomes a culture, and also because it arbitrarily sever modern Maya from their past). And even if it is possible I dont think it can be done without describing the way that the civilization relates to the culture. I understand the length problems, but I would never personally prefer a short article to a comprehensive one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly not for me to define cultures and civilizations, and the relationship between the two; however, once the area was incorporated into the Spanish Empire, many of the definining elements of the Maya civilization either disappeared altogether, went underground, or were merged with European cultural elements. I don't think there will be many sources at all that refer to the Maya civilization continuing after the Spanish conquest. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you can be pretty sure that many Maya would disagree and state that Maya civilization is what they live and breathe every day. When I said "how the civilization relates to the culture" I didnt mean that you should try to elaborate on the differences between those two concepts, but describe which cultural aspects of the civilization live on in contemporary Maya culture.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I will put together a section - it shouldn't be too difficult. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to say that though the distinction between a culture and a civilization may always be rather "problematic", that does not mean it should not be made. In fact it is probably easier to do so with the Maya than almost any other large culture, because the collapse(s) was/were apparently very dramatic, and also because our sources about the long immediately succeeding periods are so very slim in comparison. The article title is "Maya civilization" and I think it should mainly stick to what it says on the tin. It would be highly undesirable to largely skip nearly 1,000 years and have a lot on the post-conquest culture that we know a lot about, as though that were the same subject. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I disagree. It would not have to "skip 1000 years" for one - it would of course include the 500 years from the conquest to now - and suggesting that the sources about the intermediate period is slim is simply wrong. These are exactly the misconceptions that the article should dispell if it wants to convey a contemporary understanding of the Maya and their civilization.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I didn't think you would agree. It's strange how this sort of approach, so popular in the 19th century regarding Europe, and so totally discredited now, seems to persist in anthropology when it comes to the Global South. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I dont even understand what you mean by that. You have it backward it seems, and in general seem not to have much idea about anthropology. The idea of "civilization" is a 19th century concept that Europeans have used to hierarchically order peoples in the global south as being on a lower stage of development. That is why anthropologists tend not to use it. Just like Danes can claim continuation from the Vikings and the Moden greeks from Greek civilization - today then obviously the millions of contmeporary Maya can claim cultural continuity from their pre-conquest ancestors. To arbitrarily set a cut off point where the "civilization" suddenly becomes a culture is a 19th century silly idea, that has no backing in contemporary scholarship whether in anthropology or in any other discipline. It is your misconception about long hiatus periods that is counterfactual and which the article needs to clearly debunk because it is the most common misconception about the Maya.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
"Danes can claim continuation from the Vikings and the Modern greeks from Greek civilization" are two excellent examples of the discredited approach I referred to, with the Anglo-Saxons and modern Britain a third. It was the Nazis who really put the stake in the heart of that sort of stuff. By the way, don't tell a Dane he is descended from Vikings - they may get very upset. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
You may want to try not to lecture Danes about what Danes think. Danes like me are generally proud of the Danish Viking past, and it is integrated in almost all aspects of Danish national identity. The same for Greeks. So yes, it is discredited as an expression of historical fact, largely thanks to anthropologists who have repeatedly questioned is correspondence with historical reality. And it is of course anthropologists who have played the major role in exposing the fallacies of nationalist ideologies in general. But the fact of historical continuation and the claim of it are two different things. And just as English people happily claim Alfred the Great as their nations founder, so do every body else with their National symbols - regardless of whether that relation is historically factual. Denying the ability to politically claim their history only to colonized peoples is hypocritical and contrary to how anyone writes history of the peoples of the global south today, and hence contrary to how we should write history today on wikipedia. You will not find a book about the Maya written since 1980s that do not emphasize the continuity with contemporary Maya and the fact that Maya civilization never dissappeared. Contemporary Mayas are the stewards and proprietors of the Maya civilization, just as the Greek Nation are of the Greek Civilization, The Egyptian Nation of the Egyptian Civilization. The fact that the Maya happened to be conquered at one point in history and have spent the last 500 years as part of colonial states changes nothing of this.[this response has been edited after editconflict with response below, main meaning has not been changed]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Actually, and rightly or wrongly, very few British people would "claim Alfred the great as their nations founder", happily or not, and many would not have heard of him at all. But I don't think there is much to be gained by continuing this. It would be nice if you or others could join in restoring "Viking" to WP's articles, after the attempted mass-removal of the word, which the admins have completely failed to do anything about. Of course that was actually by a Swede. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are right it leads nowhere. I dont really understand why you have taken up a habit of taking swings against me and anthropology as a discipline whenever our paths cross on wiki lately. It is not very productive. s for Vikings, I may descend from one, but I dont generally edit Nordic history articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important that the article remain focused on the pre-Columbian Maya - the modern Maya is a theme for another article, such as Maya peoples or Maya society (which currently contains ancient Maya society, and should probably be moved). However, I will put in a short section stressing the continuity of Maya culture. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree of course that the focus should be on the pre-columbian tradition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Short section added. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The Maya are the only precolumbian people for whom we have access to written historical sources, and correspondingly we have actual historical knowledge about Maya rulers as individuals, and about political relations in their own words. Could we imagine writing about Roman civilization without mentioning specific rulers by name and describing their political achievements? In the history section here, the only named individual in the running text is David Stuart. The only mentioned Maya individual in the history section is K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat (no mention of his period of rulership, which would serve to give him life as a historical figure), in a picture caption. No Pacal, No Siyaj K'ak, No Spearthrower Owl, or Yax k'uk Mo, no Lady Xok etc. The representation of history is anonymized and described as a process without actors (the cities themselves are given agency), which I think reinforces antiquated stereotypes of the Maya as an anonymous "lost civilization" with no "real" history. (Jasaw Chan Kawiil is mentioned twice, but not in the history section, and Taj Chan Ahjk is mentioned in the writing section). I also think some examples of how Maya texts record historical events, such as conquests would be needed in the history section, where illustrations are focused only on temple structures and archeological non-textual remains.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct of course - Siyaj K'ak, Y'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat, Uaxackajun Ub'aah Kawiil, Yax Nuun Ayiin etc. can certainly be worked into the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added some names and dated events, more to follow. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The Maya civilization is described in a vacuum, with little description of the wider Mesoamerican context, their predecessors and contemporaries with whom they shared cultural patterns and trade and political relations. I think this can be addressed simultaneously with my first point, for example by making a "Cultural background" section - where the ethno-linguistic, cultural and historical makeup of Mesoamerica is presented and the Maya are situated within that larger framework. That would also be a place where the cultivation of Maize, as suggested by Johnbod, could be addressed, and where the continuity between ancient and contemporary cultures can be emphasized.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added a section briefly summarising Mesoamerica. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a little too short (and that the geography section is correspondingly too long and detailed). I think this would be a good section in which to point out that Maya civilization = civilization of Maya peoples, and that Maya peoples = people who speak Mayan languages. And if I were you I would integrate the short "language" section into the "Mesoamerica" section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I will expand it some, but this is an article about the Maya; I don't think it should branch out too much - full detail should be available in the Mesoamerica article. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, I think that it should not so much be about "Mesoamerica" in general, but about "Mesoamerica and the Maya", i.e. drawing out the specific relations between the Mesoamerican culture area and the Maya civilization. For example speakers of Mayan languages are assumed to have participated in the Mesoamerican culture area since its beginning, not necessarily being the first to cultivate maize or build a pyramid - but they definitely participated in the networks of knowledge and trade through which those innovations spread in the earliest period. And they have continuously been receiving and sending goods and ideas from other areas of Mesoamerica - so mentioning some of the elements the maya share with the rest of Mesoamerica (ball courts, vigesimal numerals, calendar, sacrifice, political organization etc.) as well as the areas where they stand out, might be a good thing to have in that section. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The "rediscovery" section is both weirdly placed, and, I think, badly named. It suggests again, that Maya civilization was lost untill white people came and "rediscovered" it. Maya civilization of course was alive and well at the conquest, with thriving cities. And the ruins, though some were admittedly forgotten, played an active part in the way that Maya understood, and continue to understand their past. I think this section should be refocused to be not about "rediscovery" but about scientific study. And it probaly also should be moved up to right after the history section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I probably inherited this section title and position from the pre-existing article. I'll see what I can do with it. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Moved and renamed. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the writing section is good, but I think it should give a basic idea of how the script works particularly focusing on the fact that it records Mayan languages that we can actually read. In contrast I think it focuses a bit too much on the mechanics of writing, which could be shortened. At least one example of a glyphic texts with its transliteration and translation I think is necessary. Other places where glyphic text might be good illustrations is where you mention the Maya words Kalomte, k'uhul Ajaw - which are of course extremely frequently occuring glyphs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Diversidad de Maiz mesoamericano.jpg
Amazing Maize.jpg
Beautyfull corn.JPG
Corncobs edit1.jpg
Día Internacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (7852553230).jpg
  • About Images: I think the lead should not have two images of monumental architecture, it would be better if one of them depicted some other cultural form. I think a hieroglyphic text would be good, but it could also be a vase or a flint or a stucco detail. The atlatl photo is terrible and doesnt provide any information - I would remove it. The Maize photo is also quite poor, and I think a different more aesthetically pleasing photo of corn should be easy to find.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I kind of liked the maize photo, because it showed diffent colours of maize... Simon Burchell (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sure we can find one where the maize is better in focus and doesnt look like its been eaten by gorgojo. I'll look around.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I've switched the image. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added a section describing reading order etc. I'll add an inscription and translation, as soon as I can find a decent photo on Commons corresponding to a sourced block-by-block transcription. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think that an analytical line drawing would be better than a photo of an actual inscription. To my great surprise there isn't even one of those at our article on the script. Perhaps we could get one made in svg at the graphics lab. The standard example is the differnt ways to write "b'alam" with a logogram, with syllabograms and with combination of the logogram with syllabograms as phonetic complements. For example found at page 24-25 in this pdf.[2] I am sure the graphic artists at the graphics lab could make svg examples of these examples. I've taken the liberty of requesting them at the graphics lab.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Breathe (Kylie Minogue song)[edit]

Nominator(s): GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 06:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the song "Breathe" by Australian recording artist Kylie Minogue. I have been working hard with all the Impossible Princess related articles (remixes, tours, singles, songs, etc.) and I aim to achieve GA and/or FA pass rates for all the articles. I have a lot of research conducted for the articles and I have submitted several articles for GA. However, some had to be removed as there were many reference problems, incorrect grammar, prose, (the list goes on and on). I have edited all the articles and I am trying to get Impossible Princess up to a FA status so I can then handle the songs, remixes and song articles. After a VERY constructive review for the GA, it had passed and I am going to submit this because I want this to be a featured article. I have conducted research, wrote several parts of this article and extended it to its maximum amount. I personally like the entire Impossible Princess era and I strive to get all the articles a pass rate for either GA or FA. Thank you. GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 06:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Hope you can turn Impossible Princess into a Featured Topic. I have some questions:
  • "Throughout the video, a giant glass orb is seen on the screen and is shone in a mysterious light." Is "shone" the right word here? Or do you mean "shown"?
  • "Minogue sported a pink shirt and long skirt; she sang while being backed by her live band." I'm unsure of the significance of the pink shirt here, and is it necessary to emphasis that her band was alive, as the alternative seems somewhat grisly?
  • "The song was featured on the second segment for the tour for which Minogue wore a black, long-collared shirt and three-quarter pants, similar to the costume off 'Did It Again'." Do you mean "off" or "of" here?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Oops I didn't see these mistakes. They have been fixed. GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 04:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No worries! All the best with getting this through FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Another early German battleship for your consideration. The ship had a fairly uneventful career, and was too old to see much use in World War I. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


  • No DABs.
  • I made a few adjustments to the infobox and the main body. However, there are a lot of missing links in the infobox and a few in the description.
  • Move horsepower and boilers to new |ship power= line.
  • Link overhaul, target ship, guard ship
  • Is that the one volume of HRS that only has an ASIN?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Onward and upward - this is the next in a bunch of constellations that are being buffed. Thought it was boring but has some fascinating tidbits. Has had a professional lookover from astronomer Mike Peel and a reasonably thorough GAN from Curly Turkey - so let me know what else needs doing. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support—the article's gone through only minor tweaks since I saw it, and I thought it was up to snuff then (except for some unfortunate sandwiching with the infobox). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Based on a read through, I think it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Regarding 'Mic' (with single quotes), my sense is that consensus at FAC, even for non-AmEng articles, is for double quotes except for single letter abbreviations (sometimes) and a few other special cases. See WP:MOS#Reasons to prefer double quotation marks to single quotation marks, which applies the principle to phrases like "must see" as well as to quotations. It wouldn't bother me at all if consensus changed at either MOS or FAC, but I haven't seen evidence of that so far. I only mention this once per customer; I don't like to push this point because it might be seen as a pro-AmEng agenda, which it's not. The IAU (at seems to use italics rather than single or double quotes, which would also be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thx - my feeling is italics probably as a word-as-word situation. However we have a bunch of other constellation FAs with the single quotes. I think the best thing is a quick RfC and change all constellations at once to preferred version. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure Cas, works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – usual high quality stuff. One thing: "The stars that comprise Microscopium are in a region previously considered the hind feet of Sagittarius, a neighboring constellation." -- Who considerd this? CassiantoTalk 23:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thx -will double check. source doesn't say but it'd be early celestial cartographers before the 1750s I suspect. This is the logical answer but not stated in source however.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem if it doesn't. Perhaps its best to avoid OR even if the answer is obvious. CassiantoTalk 08:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Blue-linking "French" is pushing things a bit, in terms of WP:OVERLINK, and your bibliographic style is not entirely consistent: you tell us that Cambridge and London are in the UK, but we are left in ignorance of the whereabouts of Florida and New Jersey. That apart (and looking just a little askance at "to all intents and purposes") I have nothing but praise for a fine article that is comprehensible even to someone like me, to whom astronomy is a closed book. – Tim riley talk 09:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
oh dear, I unlinked French. I've always done states for north america and australia and countries elsewhere.....thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

John Wilton (general)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I started improving this article on Australia's senior soldier for most of the Vietnam era way back in 2012, partly to follow up my work on his predecessor as Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Frederick Scherger, and partly to see if I could add a general to my list of air marshal and admiral FAs. The "epitome of the professional army officer", as his biographer David Horner put it, John Wilton was as cool and "proper" as his clipped moustache and stern visage suggested, but a leader who always seemed to have the welfare of his soldiers at heart. A great deal has been written about him, from his early regimental service in India with the British Army, to his son burning his draft card in front of Parliament House, Canberra, so I hope I've correctly balanced what to put in and what to leave out. Thanks to all who helped out at the article's recent GA and A-Class reviews, and to everyone who comments here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support -- interesting piece on an important figure. I fixed a few formatting issues with the refs; other than that, it looks sound. CassiantoTalk 00:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Tks Cassianto, and I appreciate the eagle eye on my formatting errors! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this at A-class. This included an Image review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Tks for that, Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources appear to be reliable and appropriately formatted. Spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Scientific Detective Monthly[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Scientific Detective Monthly is an oddity; a magazine that tried to appeal to both detective story fans and fans of the burgeoning (in 1930) field of science fiction. It failed at both, and is now one of the rarest of all genre magazines: I hope I've managed to make the story of its failure interesting. This is probably the last of these magazines I'll be nominating for a while; there are only two or three sf pulps left not at FA or GA level now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Support pending image check -- recusing from coord duties to review a few noms as I'll shortly be putting up one of my own...

  • Copyedited a bit so let me know if I misinterpreted anything.
  • Structure and level of detail look okay for this short-lived venture. The main thing I remember reading about the mag in one of my sf history books (and in hindsight it seems obvious from the title alone!) was that it folded after satisfying neither the sf nor the detective fiction market, and you said just that.
  • Sources look reliable and I couldn't spot any formatting issues.
  • Image-wise, I'll admit I'm not familiar with the licence so that perhaps should be checked by an expert.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Your copyedits look good, except that I changed "may have" back to "might have" in one case -- could be a BrEng thing but I'm pretty sure "might have" is the right usage there. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No prob! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Waddesdon Bequest[edit]

Nominator(s): Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a spectacular collection of Renaissance treasures bequeathed to the British Museum by a Rothschild. It is the only part of the museum's collection that is always displayed together. Within the museum it is moving to a new, more prominent, position, and the display opens next month (June 2015). I don't think we have any FAs, and not many articles at all about collections, and though the range of types of objects and periods here is considerable, the unifying taste is distinctive, and very much of its time (the late 19th century). Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MHOD: Very interesting subject matter. I have a few comments:

  • RE: the block quote regarding Ferdinand's bequest, could this be excerpted in the lede and reproduced in full (with accompanying material) in the body of the article? Related to this point, I feel like the article would benefit from a section devoted to the background of the collection as a whole, i.e. the circumstances of Rothschild acquiring these pieces, his donation of them to the Museum, and whether others were donating similarly etc..
Yes, I should be able to do this later in the week. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Started this, but I think not finished it. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Now done, with a "history" section at the beginning and a short one on the BM display history at the end. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • RE: schatzkammer and treasure house, are these distinct terms or simply the German and its equivalent phrase in English (in which case should it be "schatzkammer or 'treasure house'"?)
A bit distinct - schatzkammer literally translates to "treasure room/chamber", but the rather vague "treasure house" is more usual in English, so I think it is best left as is. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to note I have made a few minor changes myself.
  • Is there any way that "Objects from before the Renaissance" can be shortened? (I take your point about "Pre-Renaissance" not working, didn't gauge the dating of the objects at a glance.) Perhaps Medieval and Classical objects?
I can't think of a better alternative, but open to suggestions. "Medieval and Classical objects" is only 5 characters shorter. One could say "Earlier objects" but unless the lead has been read and absorbed, that begs the question "earlier than what?". Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Under 'Jewellery': "There is no such difficulty [in placing the country of manufacture] with the most famous jewel in the collection". This sentence is quite verbose, and despite it I still don't know what the country of manufacture is from the next few sentences.
Oh! Ok, "made in London" added. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is the Lyte Jewel emboldened? And, related to this, why is it the only item of the collection emboldened? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It redirects here, as being pretty well known. References in books etc tend to just say "British Museum", which will be the picture credit. I hope it will get its own article before long in fact. There are a few other objects with "names" that might be worth redirecting, but I haven't done them. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Lyte had drawn up a family tree tracing James' descent back to the legendary Trojan Brut." I think it could be made more explicit that this is the reason James gave Lyte the jewel. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Now "Lyte was not a regular at court, but he had drawn up a family tree tracing James' descent back to the legendary Trojan, Brut." Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

It is very unkind of you to put this enticing article forward at a time when the collection is not on display. I can hardly wait! We can rely on you to update the article once the move has taken place, I know. Once it has, the little box linking to Commons "Room 45, British Museum" will want updating, as presumably will the Commons page itself, but I'm sure you have this in mind already. Tim riley talk 10:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tim! Only about 3 weeks to wait - I'm not sure of the actual date of the re-opening. There will also be an event for Wikipedians before long, which I hope will generate some more articles on individual pieces or groups, or some artists. Also new and better photos. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Re-opens to the public on 11 June, I see now. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. By then, I hope, this alluring article will have its wholly justified FA gold star. Very pleased to add my support. Tim riley talk 15:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

Sorry, I don't understand this. All my photos (most in the article, like that one) use the age-based rationale, don't they? Equally I think the object is at least as 3D as a coin, which we assume doesn't pass as 2D in this context. I can see only one photo, apart from the painting, that might pass as 2D (File:Waddesdon bequest British Museum DSCF9814 03.JPG). Many that I expect you are thinking of have curved surfaces that actually present considerable difficulties to a skilled photographer (not me). Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
All of these likely could use an age-based rationale, but most of the images currently in the article use CC BY-SA, representing your or others' copyright as photographer only. However, I've looked into some of the UK freedom of panorama rules, and it appears they apply more broadly than elsewhere, so I'll withdraw that suggestion. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Certainly all the objects in the bequest are out of artist's copyright. Whether any count as 2D is questionable. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Carl Nielsen[edit]

Nominator(s): Ipigott, Smerus, Mirokado and ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Carl Nielsen, generally considered to be Denmark's greatest composer... Although during his lifetime he was seen as something of an "outsider", since his death, particularly since the 1960s, he has come to be seen as one of the great composers.

The context behind this nomination is unusual. Ipigott, who lives for part of the year in Denmark I believe, only realised about a month ago that the 150th anniversary of Nielsen's birth is on 9 June, a day which will get significant attention not only in Denmark but internationally. We thought what a great thing it would be to have a TFA for Nielsen on 9 June, even if last minute. So in the past month, we've been led by Ipigott to overhaul the article. It recently passed GA. My initial concern was that the biographical coverage wasn't quite as detailed as you'd expect, but I believe the Nielsen website contains the bulk of the detail on this which has mostly already been consulted, and I did ask Tim riley to look in the British Library and he found very little material I think. Several editors mentioned that they thought it should be an FA candidate. I asked Brian to perform an initial peer review himself and asked if he thought it was too late to nom. He believes the article is viable, and has stated that he is willing to do a vigorous review to try to get it up to the required standard. I don't want everybody to feel rushed here, there's still 24 days to go before the day, but I'd like the delegates and reviewers to keep in mind the target, should this succeed here. I believe there's still a long way to go, and wouldn't normally nom without a major prior review, but at least half a dozen of us think the 150th anniversary is worth doing this over, and I want to give this the maximum chance in the time we have left.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying note: "Brian" above is me (not everybody will know that). I confirm that I said I thought that this could be nominated, but I expect further review action here and will be providing further comments myself. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The regulars will, but I guess FAC is viewed by more people than we think at times!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Some minor finishing touches still coming in to ensure this is the best possible article, hope this is OK given the circumstances here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments and support by Maunus[edit]

  • I lend my linguistic services if any online sources in Danish need to be spotchecked.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
On a brief overview of citations and sources I am a little apprehensive about overreliance on the Carl Nielsen Edition website and other online sources (BBC,, New Yorker, NYT, Carl Nielsen society) and underreliance of published literature, such as some of the handful of biographies written about him which many of which are absent (the ones cited are from 1947, and one by Lawson from 1997). Newer studies include Reynolds 2010 "Carl Nielsen's voice: his songs in context" (pretty crucial since his songs are what he is mostly known for in Denmark), Grimley 2010 "Carl Nielsen and the Idea of Modernism", the Pictorial biography must also have some usefulness as well as the four volumes of Carl Nielsen studies. I also find the bibliography layout and citation notes (with its mixture of short linked and long unlinked citations) to be confusing and not very aesthetically pleasing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus. That there's an abundance of biographical material readily available isn't true. Even in the British library there's very little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
On google books there are at least 5 different biographies and in addition his own famus account of his childhood. I've provided the titles of some of the ones that seem to be missing above. Even the ones that are used are not cited more than once or twice each and the bulk of citations are to web sources and the royal library website.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I said readily available. Even the British Library had very little on him. The Lawson book I believe is heavily photographed anyway. Do you stock all of the books in your local library Maunus? Even on there's not much available.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I imagine I could get my hands on them within a week or two through interlibrary loan.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The Carl Nielsen Edition is a substantial academic work available in print (isbns are in the citations) as well as on the web site, although I imagine few can afford to purchase the printed version so it is great that we can also link to online files. Reynolds (2010) would be an excellent source for an article about Nielsen's songs, but most of it is rather specialised for this article. We refer to it twice in the section about the songs. Chapter 1 (pp. 13–49) does provide a biographical overview.
I agree that a reference list of all short entries looks nicer. Disadvantages of moving the web-based citations down to the citations list include: an extra click before the reader can open the reference; paper-based and web-based references get mixed up; care needed in naming the link for pages without an author (done quite nicely using publication name in Irataba, a current FAC). An advantage is that the reader can easier answer the question: "what resources have been cited?" because they are in an ordered list. It is though possible to move the citations down if we decide that is preferable. Thoughts from others? --Mirokado (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I always add web sources and book sfn notes together in the citations section and have promoted many articles this way. I'd like to see Maunus get hold of those books and we can see then if he's right about the content in them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I donøt think I have volunteered to do that. There are also 5 volumes of "Carl Nielsen Studies" that are not being used. The reliance on the "Edition" and websources, makes me worried about how well the article represents the literature. It is easy to miss larger themes in the scholarship or subtly misrepresent it if only engaging the academic scholarship superficially.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Worried? Not sure I believe that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Exchange for concerned if you like.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There are also full long refs to journal articles in the citations mixed in with the short linked ones. There is a mixture of citation styles in use.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I've moved all the longer citations to the citation list, with some tidying up en passant. --Mirokado (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed, and it looks much better now I think. Thanks!--·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In the section "mature composer" we hear of his son in-law without having heard that he had any children, except for the "love child". I think the children should be in the marriage section and not all the way down in the legacy section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the "songs and hymns" section needs expansion. This is the crux of his importance within Denmark. Every night I sing a Carl Nielsen melody for my kids as I put them to sleep, and my parents did the same for me. There is hardly a meeting or social occasion in Denmark where Carl Nielsen songs are not likely to be sung. Reynolds' book as well as her article in Carl Nielsen studies vol 4 would be good for this. And so would probably Colin Roth's article in the same volume.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Maunus, for all your constructive comments and your pertinent edits on the content. I have in fact looked at several contributions by Anne Marie Reynolds who has long been the leading expert on Nielsen at the Royal Library. There are in fact significant excerpts of "Carl Nielsen's Voice" on the web, including a summary of her analysis of his songs (p. 24). While I have referred to Nielsen's songs in the article, as their appreciation is limited to Denmark (and possibly the other Scandinavian countries), I intentionally did not include a major section on them in the biography. As my wife is Danish and my children and grandchildren also speak the language, I am of course familiar with many of them myself. I think virtually every Dane can sing or hum half a dozen of his songs (mostly without knowing who wrote them). I would nevertheless welcome further feedback on how far other editors consider they should be covered in detail here. An alternative would be a separate article on Carl Nielsen's songs which I think I could put together quite quickly. That might keep everyone happy.--Ipigott (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the appreciation of the songs is not shared by all is not very relevant given that there is an English language literature about it. A stand alone article would be good certainly, but the current focus is the main article where a summary of three lines is just not enough. I would say that the section needs to be at least three or four times the size of what it is now, mention his collaboration with Laub, his favorite poets (Aakjaer, Andersen) and his three volumes of songs as well as the titles of some of his best known songs - and perhaps his falling out with Laub over their competing alternative versions of the national hymn. And it might be worth including the quote where he states that his songs are closest to his heart.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, a main article on his songs would be the best way to cover it with just a summary here, rather than bloating it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The section is so short that it has to be either expanded or combined into another section. It is not a summary at all and is highly superficial. As it is now I think it falls short of the requirement of comprehensiveness. Carl Nielsen himself stated that he found his popular songs to be closer to his heart than his symphonies btw. This alone means that more than two lines about them is required.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I have expanded the section and (I hope) made clear some of the significance of the songs.--Smerus (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that it is clearly better now, but starting it with a quote comes off a little odd I think. Better would be to start with a topic sentence about his song production and the importance of his songs within his oeuvre. I also think his collections of songs published separately require mention, as do his collaboration with Laub specifically. And I think the short quote on page 121 in Reynolds is better than the one youve chosen (My large symphonies are one thing, but the simple, popular song lies closer to my heart [1924]).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is always a question of taste. The quote I chose to begin I think emphasizes that for Nielsen (and for foreigners) the folk music is a 'Denmark thing.' I think the rest of what I have written indicates the importance of his songs to him (and to Danes) and that they ate parallel to , but also separate from thew rest of his output. I will try to add a bit more about Laub and I like the other quote you mention. But if we go into greater details, that I think (I am sure) is something for a separate article, not for the biography article. It's so easy to get carried away with the things that are close to one. --Smerus (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the weakness of beginning with the quote is that it doesnt really bring the reader into the topic of the section. I think it is ok to have a quote, but I think the otherone is both shorter and clearer. I am not suggesting the section should be longer than the section on his symphonies of course, and what Isuggest to add does not necessarily add to the length, of the section for example with a shorter quote and some condensation of the slightly repetitive statements about the national implications of his songs, it would probably end up being the same length as it is now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think Smerus has done an excellent job of covering the essentials of Nielsen's songs. For the English-speaking reader at least, the initial quotation not only explains Nielsen's love of songs about his country but also summarizes the reasons why his songs fail to strike a chord with foreigners. (Very perceptive of him at the time, n'est-ce pas?) I think we should leave the quote where it is. Sooner or later I intend to write a separate article on Nielsen's songs but to me this certainly seems adequate for the main biography. @Maunus: Are you happy with the way in which your suggestions have been implemented? Is there anything else of importance you think we need to deal with?--Ipigott (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't say I am happy with the way the section works as prose, I don't think the reader is likely to get as much information out of the quote as you suggest because there isn't an introductory couple of sentences to describe his song production. Reynolds by the way is sill not cited in the section, only the foreword by Krabbe. It is not something I will oppose over either, but I may end up adding the information I think is missing to the section myself. I haven't reviewed whether the academic sources I mentioned are being used more than before.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, Now I am in fact very happy with the section, I think the latest changes have near perfected it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I support the promotion of the article. I still think it can develop its engagement with the literature better, and I think criterion 1c is its weak point. But overall it is a commendable article that I am happy to support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Support by Gerda[edit]

I like the impressive growth of the article from a few weeks ago. I find the prose readable without problems, thank you! Minor points for the moment:

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Same in his works list? I would do it myself but have little time this week.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Are you suggesting we should revise the List of compositions by Carl Nielsen along these lines? And the articles to which they link? Quite an intricate and time consuming job at this stage in the proceedings and perhaps not strictly necessary for the purposes of FAC on the main article? If we only have 24 hours left, perhaps it's more important to deal with other matters.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggested that to improve the works also on the occasion would be a good idea. It has nothing to do with this FAC outcome, and I didn't suggest that you should do it. - I might do it myself last minute. At the moment I enjoy a few days off, and on returning I have several projects until 7 June. - Remember, I wrote Franz Kafka works as a supplement to Kafka, a DYK on TFA day (and one of very few I wrote to make it to the stats). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • When you introduce a new piece, prepare it by a genre upfront, such as cantata Hymnus amoris, rather than giving only the scoring after the title. - Reading again , I found that it was mentioned before but without link and translation, will change that. How about consistently original titles, with a translation the first time?
Hope this is OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • His wife with name and profession is mentioned twice in the lead, - the second time could be just "his wife".
Removed in second instance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that there is no article about the edition of his works and the catalogue, also some of the people important in his life. Are there articles in Danish for which stubs could be created?
Of course!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I found some and made ill for them. Almost another set in the translation project ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am also surprises that the children are not in Life but Legacy, and I count five, no?
Now under "Marriage and children" - as also suggested--Ipigott (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not happy with images on the left under a header, - old-fashioned training.
Moved as many as I could.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we say "Danish premiere"? Premiere in Denmark? (That may be just my limited English)
Yes, that's fine, more common way of saying it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead: can we say first what he is known for and then the "difficulties"?
I've made a short addition here but I think it is important to relate his personal life to his musical developments. Is this now OK?--Ipigott (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Early years: Can his mother first give him a violin, then he speaking about it?
Well spotted. I've reworded this slightly. Now it looks fine to me.--Ipigott (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Musical style: Instead of style, we hear about reception first. Perhaps a different para for that, after style?
I've started to sort this out. Might move some of the style section to reception. See also suggestions on talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Translation of Moderen?
  • Negro Dance (and the others) needs italics or quotation ;)
  • decide "Op." vs. "Op" consistently, please (didn't find the first because of that)
    • have made Op consistent throughout (I think) --Smerus (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

More to follow --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Progressing nicely!

  • Provide "alt=" for all images, as an accessibility feature for people who don't see the image. Tell them what they would see. (first item on the checklist) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Years ago I began to use this for the images in my articles but never had any feedback. Although it does not seem to be a requirement for FA, I'll do it if I have time.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Done - Both Smerus and I have been working on this. I think you'll be happy with the result.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Be careful using the symbol for "done", I like it but others think it increases loading time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. When commenting on GA, I was told to use the symbol but I've now removed it and won't use it again. I always try to keep as many people as happy as possible.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Only one point not yet addressed: consistently original titles with translation in brackets the first time. I'll leave you for a few days, leaning towards support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I am not quite sure what you would like to see here. Are you suggesting that in the lead, for example, we should change the text to read "He premiered his Suite for Strygeorkster (Suite for Strings) in 1888..." (ditto for the other works, Wind Quintet, Maskerade, etc.)? Or are your comments intended strictly for the music section? For me, a bit of variety makes the text more readable. I think it would be less attractive to refer to all his symphonies in the style "Symphony No. 1", if they are also known as the First Symphony and so on, especially in cases when we can also call them by their more familiar names (Espansiva, Simplice...). The use of various names seems to me to be a good thing. I have looked at a number of the other FA articles on composers and they all seem to use the same kind of variety. Perhaps Smerus could comment on this? Maybe your approach is just a wee bit too German: Ordnung muss sein!!! (No offense intended.) It would be a pity if our failure to follow up on this continued to be the reason for your lack of support when we've been doing so much to improve the article as quickly as possible and have been able to implement nearly all your other helpful suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I remember Kafka, again. We made a decision early on to use the German titles with English in brackets, because he wrote in German. I admit that music is different. Pieces known by an English title should probably be given in English, and Suite for Strings may be one of them, also symphonies and string quartets, which leaves things as Hymnus Amoris and the Danish ones. If you say the variety is on purpose, that's also fine, - I just noticed that there was no answer so far. - Back to vacation, take your time.
@Gerda Arendt: Glad to see you finally came back on line, Gerda. I saw you had been away for a couple of days. I didn't know I was bothering on your holiday though. Hope you're enjoying yourself. I don't really think we should adopt the Kafka approach for composers. I think it all reads very nicely as it is. So are you now willing to support our efforts? You say "take your time". Is that because you think it's too late to meet Crisco's deadline? I must say for the past three or four days I've spent hours and hours trying to respond to all your suggestion and those of the others on this page. Maybe it has all been in vain. Now I think the ball is in your court. Whatever the timing it would be really helpful if you could lend us your support.--Ipigott (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Carl_Nielsen.jpg: this will need a US PD tag, but currently there isn't enough information to support the current tag - what is the source, who is the author...?
Done - Image replaced with details of author and source. PD US tag included.
  • Everything with only a life+70 tag will also need some kind of US PD tag
Done - I think they now all have the necessary tags but will now look in detail at the files mentioned below.
  • File:Carl_Nielsen_ca_1880.jpg: if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
Done - Author identified with dates.
Same with File:Carl_Nielsen_at_childhood_house.jpg
Done - Have changed licence as it is not a work of art
Same with File:Nielsen5_poster.jpg
  • File:Anne_Marie_Carl-Nielsen.jpg: when/where was this first published? What steps have you taken to try to find the author? On what basis would this have been PD by the URAA date? Also, the source link is dead. All of these also apply to File:Anne_marie_Carl-Nielsen_with_statue.jpg
With the help of We hope, wWe've found a new image of the family which I think meets all requirements.--Ipigott (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang,_Lolland.jpg: Source link is dead, and how do we know the author died over 70 years ago?
archived page link. We hope (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Saul_og_David_(Carl_Nielsen),,_Stockholm_1931.jpg: when/where was this first published?
There are additional details here indicating that it was first published in January 1931. Have added these details to Commons.
  • Sound clips should indicate licensing status of the works themselves as well as the performances
Comment: what do you (all) think of moving most sounds to the work in the works list, leaving only one representative here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Done: now only in Wind Quintet article.Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Since freedom of panorama in Denmark only extends to buildings, File:Vestre_Kirkegård_Carl_Nielsen.JPG should reflect the licensing status of the work as well as the photo
the grave was designed by his wife who died in February 1945. It is therefore PD in the EU and I have edited Wikicommons accordingly. But I don't know whether this meets Wikipedia criteria.--Smerus (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately the rule of "life of author plus 70 years" in countries like USA, UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc. all allow the copyright to run until year end, so the actual grave won't be out of copyright until 31 December 2015 in many countries. Sorry. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Front_side_of_Danish_100_kr_note_(1997_series).jpg: the fact that he was put on a banknote can be explained in text - will need further rationale for including non-free image
  • There is a good fair use rationale for the use of the image already on the image page. The template used is {{Non-free use rationale 2}}, which - as I understand it - is a perfectly acceptable means of providing an FUR and is used as part of the upload wizard. I can't see a problem with what is there already. Unless the objection is that no image should be used at all because it can be replaced by text? --RexxS (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - I've seen the rationale, it's not wrong, I just don't agree that it in combination with the text justifies the use of a non-free image in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I would argue that it is important to display an image of the 100 crown note here. It is a major item in indicating the importance Denmark accorded this composer. Without the image, the text would not be very meaningful. (My opinion of course.)--Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose simply because of the number of problems here - will be happy to strike once at least some are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: We have been trying very hard to deal with all the issues you raised and I think we have made substantial progress. I hope you will now be ready to waive your opposition. Thanks very much for explaining all the problems which needed to be addressed. It's the first time I have been involved in an FAC and I am no expert on image copyrights, etc., so I hope the modifications are in order.--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the improvements made I have stricken my oppose, though to be clear this is not yet a pass.

  • We still disagree on the banknote, as discussed above - Crisco, thoughts?
    • I've generally considered such things to fail NFCC No. 8, as there is no "critical" discussion, and no detrimental effect to readers' understanding if the image is not included. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the image of the banknote.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sound clip issue from above has not yet been addressed
Now in Wind Quintet as suggested.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Anything using {{PD-US}} or similar needs to demonstrate that the image was published, not just created, prior to 1923
  • File:Carl_Nielsen_family_at_Fuglsang,_Lolland.jpg: source link is dead, and how do we know the unknown author died over 70 years ago? Given the creation date it is possible they did not
Live link now restored (here. I've added it to Commons. This appears to be an amateur photo (not a work of art) and therefore should be PD in DK. The tagging needs to be changed.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the licence tags and think this is now perfectly in order.--Ipigott (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Nielsen5_poster.jpg is not a photographic image
  • File:Anne_marie_Carl-Nielsen_with_statue.jpg: source link is dead, and on what basis do we believe it was PD in Denmark on the URAA date?
Image removed.--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Vestre_Kirkegård_Carl_Nielsen.JPG: as above, life+70 needs to be supplemented by a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RexxS[edit]

The text size and colours used meet our standards outlined in MOS:ACCESS. Unfortunately, not one image in the article has alt text. That will result in some visitors who use a screen reader hearing something like "Link Saul og David open parentheses Carl Nielsen close parentheses comma comma Stockholm 1931 dot jay pee gee {then} Carl Nielsen with the cast of Saul og David, Stockholm 1931". --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Can you clarify please, is alt text a requirement for FA status, or is it an optional improvement? If the former, are formulas such as 'alt=photograph' acceptable?--Smerus (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (watching, and I made the same request above): the alt text tells a person who can not see the image what he would see, as a service to that person. To say "photograph" is better than nothing. Perhaps look at examples that were recently accepted, such as BWV 165 where the FAC has a detailed list of accessibility features. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Personally I encourage the use of alt text but, no, it's not a requirement for FAC and won't be until or unless it's mandated for all articles under MOS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You're wong. WP:FACR #2 requires the article to follow "the style guidelines". The link there is to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, of which Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is now an integral part. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Images begins with the words "Images should include an alt attribute ...". Alt text is just as mandatory for articles as any other section of MOS.
Additionally, FACR has this opening sentence: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing" (my emphasis). I maintain that a professional standard of presentation on a website demands compliance with WCAG 2.0, and no professional web-designer would get away with creating a website where images had no alt text. If Featured Articles are genuinely to exemplify "our very best work", then they must accommodate visually impaired readers - at the very least by not forcing them to listen to the sort of garbage that the example in my opening remark illustrates.
What is worse on Wikipedia is that almost all of our images are linked (because of attribution) and links require something for a screen-reader to read out. That's why we get the filename read out in the absence of alt text.
You can kid yourselves that you can ignore sections of the MOS that you don't like; but the MOS is there for a reason. How you deal with such uncomfortable truths is, of course, completely up to you. --RexxS (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. all done. What's with the 'kid yourselves' stuff? I only asked for advice.--Smerus (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being brusque, but the advice you got previously was sub-optimal, and from somebody who should know better. My apologies also for not addressing your question fully. If you use alt text that says "photograph" then that is what the screen reader will announce as the target of the link. If you imagine you're using a screen reader, you can make a decision at that point to follow the link (it might be something interesting) or continue on to hear the caption. I'm not sure that "photograph" is going to help inform that decision, but it certainly is a lot better than "Saul og David open parentheses ... dot jay pee gee" which is probably what you'd get now. I'd suggest something like "Carl Nielsen with several actors" might do a better job; it's difficult because the caption is already partially describing the image rather than concentrating on developing the reason why the image is there in the first place (as it should per WP:CAPTION). Getting the right images in the appropriate place with the right alt text and caption is a tough job if we want to make this an example of our very best work. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
OK much clearer, thanks. I may revisit in this light.--Smerus (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Easy does it, Rexx. At no stage did I say FAC should ignore MOS, more the opposite, that if MOS mandates the use of alt text then so should FAC. There have been many discussions on alt text in FAC and the latest consensus I recall was that the MOS guidance was problematic and therefore difficult to make a requirement, quite a different thing to "ignoring a part of the MOS you don't like". Granted it's been quite some time since then and if things are more straightforward now then perhaps it should be revisited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If you think that the guidance in MOS:ACCESS #images is problematic, then you need to raise your concerns on that talk page. In the meantime, that guideline enjoys community consensus in just the same way as any other part of MOS, and is mandatory in articles to exactly the same extent as any other part of the MOS, no more and no less. I accept that writing good alternate text is difficult and finding reviewers who can adjudicate on that aspect of the MOS is not easy, although I've always found Graham87 to be unfailingly helpful with questions concerning screen readers, as he has used one or another for many years. I do remember when Eubulides invested so much effort into the issues of alt text that he burned himself out and sadly retired, resulting in the FAC process dropping the requirement for alt text at the time. Since then, I believe that things have moved on, and I would recommend that you re-visit the current guidance as a whole: the purpose of images in articles, focussed captions, and complementary alt text together form an area that still offers many opportunities for improvement in so much of Wikipedia. I have no wish to try to force anything upon the FAC process, but it is worth reminding the regulars, once in a while, that Featured Articles are copied by large numbers of editors and even a small improvement in an FA can cascade into very many improvements throughout the rest of our project. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just skimming through the comments prior to a review, and came across this. There is nothing mandatory about following what are guidelines, rather than bright-line policies. Advisable, certainly; good practice, definitely, but not mandatory. This is, however, all rather moot, as the images all now carry the alt. My review follows shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who suggested that "it's not a requirement for FAC and won't be until or unless it's mandated for all articles under MOS". The whole of MOS is a guideline, not a "bright-line policy" (whatever that may be - see WP:PAG for definitions), yet I read it as a requirement for FA status under criterion 2. Of course it's not mandatory for any any article to meet FAC criterion 2, but I had thought it was necessary to meet that in order to be promoted. Can I take it that the next time an objection is raised under any other part of criterion 2, you'll be opposing that objection on the grounds that adherence to MOS is advisable and good practice, but not mandatory for FA status? --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
As I've already said, it's a moot point, and I have no wish to continue any discussion. You have your opinion. It's not one I share and I will leave it at that. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that "follows the style guidelines" does not mean that an article has to be 100% compliant with everything in the MOS. Because MOS is not a brightline policy but a guideline. An FA should follow the general spirit of the MOS, not every letter. Alt-text is good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting thought, Maunus. But how is anyone to know which of the MOS guidelines an article doesn't have to follow to be promoted to FA status? Because as soon as we start saying we can ignore 1% of the guidance as long as we follow the other 99% (or whatever fraction you pick), there's a "thin end of the wedge" argument that rapidly devalues the entire process. Should we amend Criterion 2 to read "It follows most of the style guidelines" or "It follows the general spirit of the style guidelines"? --RexxS (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Trough consensus, RexxS. No need to change the criterion since it already doesnt say "complies fully with the MOS", and since the MOS isnt a policy with which one can request compliance.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally I've never seen much use in Alt text, in fact I'm not sure why people would think it compulsory and can't recall ever adding it to an article in nearly ten years here. I've seen some cases like "man with curly hair smiling at the photographer" and wondered how it was encyclopedic. I must be missing something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
That is a somewhat disingenious thing to say unless you are actually accessing wikipedia through a screenreader. Kind of like saying "ive personally never seen the use of wheelchair access ramps" while having full use of ones legs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same thing here? Define alt text for me. I'm talking about the lame "alt" captions you see in articles like this which say "Pitt smiling".♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we are talking about the same thing. But you seem to not realize that that lame text is the only way that people who access wikipedia through a screenreader know that there is an image and what it is depicting. In absence of an alt text that can be grabbed by the screen reader the reader simply reads the name of the picture file and the html. That has to be pretty annoying to listen to. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If they can't see the image I don't see the point in describing it. Either they can see it or they can't. I suppose if the image file is being read anyway and alt text replaces it then it is an improvement, but why can't there be some coding instead which tells their screen reader to avoid reading File: or something ending in .jpg or .png, wouldn't that be better than having to read the lame "bearded man smiling" thing? I'm not sure why it would be an absolute essential to an article, it's sort of like saying a plane isn't fit to fly because it hasn't a ramp and seat for disabled folk. I suppose that there are some people who use screen readers and we should cater for them too, but I don't think it should be an essential for FA in my opinion anyway. Editors should be encouraged to be considerate to people who use screen readers I think, but to say "this can't possibly pass FAC, it doesn't have alt text", seems a bit extreme. But if Rexx or anybody else thinks it's important I'm not going to object, feel free to add it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Every non-decorative image has to have a link (for attribution). When a screen reader reaches the image it will announce a link and read out the alt text. If there's no alt text, it may read out the filename of the image. So in your Brad Pitt example, they hear something like "Link Pitt smiling", which is better than hearing something like "Link Brad Pitt Fury two zero one four dot jay pee gee"; and clearly preferable to announcing "Link", but not saying what it is a link to. The point of describing the image for someone who can't see is to supply them with the information conveyed by the image. Not every blind person has been blind since birth and many will have a memory of what objects look like, so it behoves us to do our best with the description. Our vision is not "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge (except blind folk)". Alt text is by no means essential for "the regular user", other than the regular user who is visually impaired, or the regular user who has a low bandwidth and turns off images, or the regular user in a third-world country who can't afford to pay the data charges for large images. As for the flying analogy, it's a bit more like saying the airline isn't doing its job if it doesn't make reasonable arrangements for disabled passengers. You may find and enlightening on that issue.
I don't think we're disagreeing that some people will feel that making reasonable changes to improve the experience of some of our visitors is a good thing. I accept that we shouldn't impose such a burden on editors preparing for FAC that they feel it becomes a barrier to them, and that we have a job to do in encouraging editors to consider all the accessibility issues. But let's take small steps at a time, where we can. Thank you, Smerus, for supplying alt text for this article. You've improved it. And that's what counts. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rexx, yeah I don't have much experience with blind people, I wouldn't know what works best for them. But if there are a significant number of people who use screenreaders we should probably cater for them. Admittedly I didn't actually realise the purpose of the alt text all of these years, that's why I was ignorant of it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @RexxS: and @Maunus: I've expanded on the alt text as I think the general idea is that people should be given an idea of what the images actually depict, not just something approximating the caption. In any case, I think you'll find it is now adequate for the requirement.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Ipigott, you're right: alt text is meant to be a replacement for the image for those who cannot see it. You've made a further improvement by reducing the overlap between alt text and caption, and that makes it just that little bit nicer for those using screen readers. I'd like to compliment you especially on the alt text you provided for the theatrical poster because you've given the same information to someone who can't see that poster as a sighted visitor would get from reading it - that's a perfect example of alt text! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I had my grounding years ago in the articles on Van Gogh where it was really important to describe the paintings. These images are less critical. Do you ever get any feedback from those with visual difficulties? It would be interesting to know whether our efforts are worthwhile. Perhaps you should reply on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Early years

  • "Nørre Lyndelse near Sortelung south of Odense": comma after Sortelung?
  • "Nielsen gave an account of his introduction to music: "I had heard music before, heard father play the violin and cornet, heard mother singing, and, when in bed with the measles, I had tried myself out on the little violin".[4] He had received the instrument from his mother when he was in bed with the measles at the age of six": do we need to be told about being in bed with measles twice? (If these were on two separate occasions, this should be made clear and the wording tweaked).
  • "However..." Always a bit of a red flag, and I'm not sure it is needed here
Done --Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Studies and early career

  • "Valdemar Tofte (da) (1832–1907)," is this how we do links to other language wikis? (I've not come across it before, and it confused more than enlightened me).
I've left this as it is for now as I will start an article on Tofte today or tomorrow.
This is how we do red links to topics which have an entry in a different language. The confusion will be gone as soon as the red link is filled, which will happen before the birthday, promised. Seven of ten are already done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there something from the MoS that could be shown? I wouldn't take the word of the QAI project on anything. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I can understand why some might not like the look of it but I think it's very productive to alert editors in articles and we should aim to transwiki them asap. That link will be cleared soon enough anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that it may be useful, but it's not something I would expect to see in an FA. Things that break the reader's flow, or cause them to stumble, especially a non-standard piece of formatting, shouldn't hinder understanding. A stub would remove the need for the confusing (da), or even dropping the Danish link into a footnote where it could be properly explained would be better than this format, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that a FA better has no red links. In FAC state, it's a good idea to invite translation of related articles, which I did in the form, helping both to notice it and to have easy access to the article in the other language. Thanks to SusunW (a QAI member) for the translations. - The collaboration on this article by all involved is delightful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Hans Demant (1827–97)": I think the full year is needed on the second figure for life span years.
Done - You are right as per MS-DOB.-- Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mature composer

As it's a venue it shouldn't be.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I see this has been fixed.--Ipigott (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Fourth (1914–16) and Fifth Symphonies (1921–22), arguably his greatest works": according to who?
In addition to Fanning, others including Bernstein and the conductor Alan Gilbert also saw them as masterpieces. See for example this.--Ipigott (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Fifth Symphonies": should be a lower case "s" I think, as it's not the title
You are right. It's been fixed.--Ipigott (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Hansen was unable to undertake publication": it does beg the question why not...
I remember reading that it was partly to do with Hansen's financial difficulties at the time but I haven't been able to find the ref. I'll keep searching and try to add something.--

Final years and death

  • "The final large scale orchestral works were his Flute Concerto": it's a new section, so I think we should stretch to including his name
  • Is there a picture of the statue that could be included here?
Unfortunately hot possible in Denmark because of copyright restrictions.--Ipigott (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

First section—the biography—done; the Music section to follow in the morning. – SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


There are still a two cases of Op., as opposed to Op

done --Ipigott (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


  • Is the punctuation in this quote "a poor boy...passing through adversity and frugality...marches into Copenhagen and...comes to conquer the position as the uncrowned King" as it is in the original, or are these malformed ellipses in search of spaces?
Sorry, I don't understand what the problem is here. The quote appears to be based on sequences with points de suspension. It can be found here and also here but I do not have the necessary subscriptions to access the full articles. How can we resolve this?--Ipigott (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've got jstor access and seen the original now. With the removal of small sections of text the ellipses should have a non-breaking space before the three dots - I've done this one here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto on the quote "We must go the pure and the clear"

  • And on "in music... [I]t is intervals"
I have corrected the above ellipses, thanks.--Smerus (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. I can see these have now all been corrected.--Ipigott (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "These two sides were "officially" brought together": is officially a quote?
Done. Quotes dropped.--Ipigott (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I see that below you have "being typically 'Danish'." in a single mark. If official isn't a quote, then go for consistency.
Done --Ipigott (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


  • Could the first two short paras be combined? (Push back on the comment if you wish, but at least consider it)
Done. Good suggestion.--Ipigott (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Image caption "premiere of Carl Nielsen's fifth Symphony": Should it be "Fifth Symphony"?
Done. (Of course it should.) --Ipigott (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Op 50 (1921-2)": should be "1921-22"
Done. Already corrected.--Ipigott (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


  • Ditto my comments further up on being confused by "by Vilhelm Andersen (da),": a stub would suffice in the short term to remove the unclear "(da)".
Now a blue link.--Ipigott (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any need for the {{clear}} at the bottom of the section – on my monitor there is a socking great whack of ugly white space in there.
OK on mine, but I'm guessing you use the default tiny text. Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Orchestral music

  • "Op 39 (1907-8)": needs a double digit on the second figure
Done.--Ipigott (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Chamber music

  • "four large scale chamber works": I think it should be large-scale, but I'm always on slightly shaky ground with hyphens
done. You are right. Also under Final years.--Ipigott (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "an example of the composer's 'progressive tonality',": is there any need for the single quote marks here?
Done. No need as already wikilinked above.--Ipigott (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Keyboard works

  • Ditto on the single marks for "The 'anti-romantic' tone": I'm not sure how such a use measures up to the strictures of our MoS, but I'm more concerned about whether they are actually needed.
Done.--Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done to the beginning of the Reception section. More to follow shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Schro, some excellent comments here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Finishing off...


  • Consider merging those two stubby paragraphs at the beginning
Done. --Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "euphoric reception": I'd support that with the name of the person who said so, to avoid accusation of WP:PEACOCK terms
Toned down. --Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "snob audience... filthy music": another question over whether the original punctuation has it so, or if this is an ellipsis needing a space?
Done. Reworded.--Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Para 4: we have "large scale" and "large-scale" in close proximity
Done. --Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "composer's personality, warts and all": is this entirely encyclopaedic?
Done. (Deleted) Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)--
  • "his music is now a regular feature": when is "now"? "as at ..." would probably suit better
Done. Reworded.--Ipigott (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


  • "the outstanding organist": most people on the page are "outstanding" for one reason or another, and adding such praise to one and not the others looks odd.
Done.--Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The banknote is an interesting one and should, I think, be retained if possible, although given such scant coverage in the article it may be difficult to justify the inclusion of the non-free image. Is there something pertinent in the news media at the time of its unveiling to explain why Nielsen was selected? An additional line or two saying the Danish Mint (or whoever) chose "exemplary Danes", or "cultural heroes of Denmark" would help secure the image in place.
Have added something here.--Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "anniversary of the birth of Carl Nielsen": just Nielsen will do
Done.--Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You will also need to check your footnotes in a few places. A quick skim shows things like FNs 16 and 104 which need to be pp., not p.

All good, aside from that, in an interesting read. I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, SchoCat, for all these useful suggestions. I've tried to follow up on everything. Hope I've done a good job. Well past my bedtime now!--Ipigott (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the ellipses again, per WP:ELLIPSES, which staes that "this ... is the correct method". They shouldn't go in brackets, and the use in brackets at WP:ELLIPSES is to demonstrate the differences in the dots, not the examples of how they should be used.

Support on prose. Good luck with the deadline. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Schro.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I reviewed this article for GA, and remarked at the time that it was approaching FA standard. Since then it has been further improved. It is thoroughly and widely sourced, a pleasure to read, balanced in approach and well proportioned. I have been much involved with composer FAs myself over recent years, and I think the present article is of the same standard. While rereading it with FA in prospect I have continually compared the article with that in Grove (by David Fanning). The Wikipedia article loses nothing by the comparison, in my view. – Tim riley talk 07:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim, that means a lot coming from somebody with as much experience in composer articles as you. Many thanks for the earlier review of this too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from BB[edit]

I carried out a somewhat hurried talkpage review of the article before it was nominated here, and have since been looking more closely at the Music section. Most of the issues in that section that I thought needed further work have been raised by other reviewers; having just read through the section again, I'm satisfied that it meets FA requirements – an excellent introduction to Nielsen and his music, very helpful to readers without knowledge of this under-appreciated composer. (Scandalously, in his Lives and Times of the Great Composers, Michael Sheen ignores Nielsen's existence.) Meeting the requested TFA deadline for Nielsen's 150th may not prove possible, but all credit to the team for trying. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Brian, not only for your support but above all for your encouragement and your extremely useful informal review. I believe today or tomorrow could be the deadline for TFA for 9 June, if I have interpreted Crisco 1492 correctly. Maybe we can still just make it?--Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've still got the ninth open. The images are still an issue here (as I mentioned on my talk page before the nomination), and I'd expect that to hold up the FAC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That's good to know. We've been working hard on the images and hope to receive reactions from Nikkimaria shortly. If there are still minor details to be attended to, I hope she will bring them to our attention so that we can sort them out as soon as possible. Maybe you Crisco 1492 could be more specific yourself? I'm afraid I'm far from being an expert on the Commons copyright rules but have been trying to do my best to sort things out.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've got some RL stuff to handle first, but if there are still outstanding issues when I've got the time, I'll take a look. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a suggestion which I'd rather not need to make, but would the main authors of the article be willing to have someone like Chris remove the photos which are at issue and keeping the article from FA status? Since time is so, so short right now, it's the only thing I could come up with that would get the article to FA by the deadline. We hope (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, I understand we have strict standards so please do whatever is necessary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Needs must etc.--Smerus (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I've already removed several of the problem images. Possibly the others can be dealt with by correcting the tagging? I'm not sure how the poster should be handled. It certainly looks to me as if it should be PD. Perhaps We hope can sort it out? And also the tagging of the image of the grave which strictly speaking in now PD. Perhaps Crisco can then delete any that are still causing a major problem for FA. I have found other images with the names of photographers, etc., which could no doubt be added later to enhance the visual quality of the article but I don't want to introduce any additional problems at this stage.--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I have found and updated the source on the Fuglsang image so this looks OK now provided the right tags are used.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I have also added a US tag to File:Carl Nielsen and family 1904.jpg which should also be OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The "just in case" files-

I spent some time at HathiTrust last night and found a 1917 photo of him which is in the PD in the US as it was published in a 1917 Danish book on music. The problem with HathiTrust is that those not in the US aren't allowed full viewing or any copying due to an apparent IP "discrimination" system the site uses. Dr. B. and I have worked and dealt with the issue in the past (various works of William Burges, Ritz, London) by my copying the needed material and hosting it on my OneDrive because there was a lot of it.
Much of what those in the UK were locked out of with Burges and the Ritz were 100+ year old British trade magazines. Am quite sure those in Denmark are not able to fully view the 1917 book the photo came from; a better solution for HathiTrust would be to allow viewing only for non-US IPs as reading something doesn't violate any copyrights anywhere.
I also went to flickr, where the Carl Nielsen Museum has uploaded some photos. Did not select any of those with sculptures in them due to possible copyright issues, but these photos could be used to "flesh out" the article if necessary. A hand with enlarging the Commons descriptions of these files would be most welcome! :-)
Dont think we need this any longer. The one we have now is better.---Ipigott (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Not appropriate to illustrate anything in my opinion.--Ipigott (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

What can be done about the photos at issue is for someone to contact the Carl Nielsen Museum and the Danish Royal Libary to ask if they will grant OTRS permission for the photos wanted for the article. This can be done after the conclusion of this FAC, because there's just not enough time to get permission granted now. We hope (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I've seen all these any cannot yet see their place in this article. There are others at the Odense Museum which may be more suitable. Thanks anyway for all you interest and the useful work you have done in connection with the article. Hope we can work together in the future.Ipigott (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@We hope: I suggested at least three times here and on email to Dr. B that I could contact the Royal Library and the Odense Museum for further background on the images but never received any support. As a result, I now think it is most important to make do with what we have at the moment so that we can post the article on 9 June. I will nevertheless look into the above suggestions but I think our problem is mainly a result of insufficient expertise on the need to include appropriate licensing tags on some of the images we had already included in the article. As you will have noticed, I have played around with some of them (including the one you uploaded yourslef) and have added PD licenses, etc., but I am really no expert. I have also found several others (not yet uploaded) fom various sites with a specified photographer but I don't want to upset anything at this late critical stage. I think you have been doing a great job to help us along but I have noticed that you had not always included the necessary tags. I have tried to rectify the situation for two or three images but I may have made a mess of things. At least Crisco 1492 has something more to take into account before deleting more images.--Ipigott (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott:-The above files were gathered for a "worst case" scenario after image decisions re: what goes and stays are made. If, for example, everything or nearly everything has to go because it doesn't fit with one license requirement or another, the article would be left with very few or no photos at all. It wasn't my intention to offer these except for that. We hope (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd just focus on getting the images free enough to pass FAC. We can add more images later. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: I've tried my best to get the licences right for all the images in the article. I hope everything is OK now.--Ipigott (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll let Nikki have a look. Wouldn't want to cut in.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: No reactions from Nikkimaria for the past two days. I am worried that we are getting dangerously near to the deadline if further work is required, even though you say you have reserved the article for 9 June. If other images need to be removed from the article, would it continue to be a candidate for FA or would new images need to be introduced? If the latter, I could try to examine the copyright on some alternatives. I hope this can be sorted out reasonably soon.--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • She may be busy, Ipigott. Don't worry too much about the date... I've discussed things with Brian, and we've got an agreement worked out. So long as this passes, of course. Nikki, if you want me to take over, just let me know. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Thanks for your immediate response. That's quite a relief. I look forward to further reactions on the images soon.--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Cliftonian[edit]

Went into this one with basically no background knowledge, looking forward to an enlightening and enjoyable read. I was not disappointed. Well-structured and finely written; a pleasure to look through even for a classical music philistine like myself. I copyedited a little here and there but found nothing to stop me from lending my support. Well done indeed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Cliftonian, also means a lot coming from a "classical music philistine"!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto[edit]

A thoroughly enjoyable article with nothing to report. A fine collaborative effort on an important composer. CassiantoTalk 23:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Cass!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood (naval)[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood was one of the British Royal Navy's largest operations of World War II, and one of its most embarrassing failures. A force centred around five aircraft carriers was dispatched in late August 1944 to repeatedly attack the German battleship Tirpitz at her anchorage in northern Norway. However, due to a combination of bad weather and the inadequate performance of the RN's main strike bomber all they achieved was to put a large dent in the roof of one of the battleship's turrets and strike her with another shoddily made bomb which failed to explode. Following the operation, the task of attacking Tirpitz was transferred to the Royal Air Force, which soon put her permanently out of action.

This article is the third and final in the trilogy of articles on RN carrier attacks against Tirpitz during 1944 I've developed (following on from Operation Tungsten and Operation Mascot, both of which have been assessed as FAs). It passed a GA review in July last year and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in September. It has since been considerably expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "PM": See WP:MOSTIME. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've just fixed the AMs and PMs - thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: a read through didn't turn up any issues. The article looks to be in good shape and I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed the article at A-class and my concerns were addressed there. Another read through did not reveal any additional issues. Great work, Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


  • The first raid (Operation Planet) was launched on 21 April but cancelled three days "launched" makes me think of aircraft taking off; perhaps "sortied" (with a link to sortie)? Same for the Tiger Claw usage, although perhaps a simple "began" might be appropriate.
    • That's a good point: I've tweaked the wording to "initiated" and "began" Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "failed to" would read better than "did not"
    • I've swapped that in on a few of the occasions - this helps vary the text Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Link strafe
  • Shorten links to FAA squadrons to just their number after the first time the full title is spelled out. The list in the 2nd para of the Opposing Forces section is a bit monotonous.
    • Not sure about this to be honest - I've already shortened the links a bit, and NAS looks clunky. Leaving out the "Naval Air" bit also isn't consistent with the naming conventions for these units used in sources (just "squadron" is usually only applied to RAF units) Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
      • In my experience, RN-centric sources use just the number of the squadron, without spelling out Naval Air Squadron or using the abbreviation. I'd only worry about anything other than the number if you had to distinguish between RAF and FAA squadrons in the same article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a link to Bukta?
  • I don't really think that you describe the flak suppression mission of some of the escorting fighters, so it was a bit of a surprise to read that flak crews had heavy losses.
    • Unfortunately the sources don't describe this in any detail at all. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Don't really need the detail, but you should mention a bit about the tactics employed during the attacks where some aircraft were dedicated flak suppressors, while other went straight for the Tirpitz. And talk about sequencing of the attacks, etc., so much as you can reconstruct from the sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Be sure to standardize your use of state/country in the publisher locations in the bibiliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Well spotted; done Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Almost forgot, link Fleet Air Arm.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Falstaff (opera)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 14:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This nomination is a valediction to the late John Webber, who edited WP as Viva-Verdi. He and I worked separately and then together on upgrading the article, and I assumed he and I would co-nominate it for FAC. But I am sad to say that John died in March. He knew a hundred times more about Verdi than I ever shall, but I take it on myself to nominate the article in both our names. It had a very thorough and helpful peer review, and I hope it will be judged worthy of promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk 14:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda[edit]

I share the sentiments expressed above, grateful for the immense contribution of Viva-Verdi towards our love of Verdi's music. For the moment a first comment: The lead deals in some detail with the neglect, without first positively saying something about the characteristics of the work, such as ensembles vs. arias. More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • A thought: Otello is mentioned and linked before the list of Shakespeare's plays touched by Verdi, - I would still like a link to the opera rather than the play Othello in that list, because in the opera's article, the play appears soon, in the play's article, you need another click. Same for Macbeth (opera) vs. Macbeth.
    • A good point. I'll ponder this. If others have views they will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 20:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think a subsection "Libretto" (under "Composition") might be an idea, and in the same perhaps first the necessity to shorten, then modifications between the (missing) first version and the final.
    • That could work, but I'm not certain it would clarify matters. Shall ponder. Tim riley talk 20:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I realize in reading that we have lovely details about the collaboration of librettist and composer but I would enjoy more details on the music itself and how it compares to earlier works by Verdi.
    • I think this is covered as much as a mere encyclopaedia article can cover it. It is indeed tempting to go into more detail, but I really think we should forbear, to keep the article reasonably concise. Tim riley talk 20:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I will not (for lack of intimate knowledge) write four supplementing articles, as He was despised for Messiah, but think the music deserves at least as much coverage as the performance history ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, I'll try sketching something out, though I shall sorely feel the absence of Viva-Verdi. If I can work up something useful I'll put it in. Tim riley talk 10:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
          • I've given it my best shot. Ora pro nobis. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking forward to more time with the music and the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Some very minor tweaks here, prior to the review. A few other minor points:
  • A couple of the FNs (1 & 9, for example) have the opening part of the quote mark as part of the link, and the closing part outside the link. Others have them both as part of the link, so that's the best way to go.
    • Done. Checked throughout. Tim riley talk 10:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • FN13 Location needed
    • FN13, being a book ref, is now just the author and page number with full details (including location) in the Sources section. Tim riley talk 10:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • FN21 I think the formatting needs a tweak here: it looks like Shakespeare's first name is ed...
  • FN51 (Civetta). Are there any other divisions that could be used, such as chapter?
    • Done. Is there any MoS guidance on how to deal with such pageless online books? Tim riley talk 10:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, WP:Page numbers says "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title." So, as long as there is some indication as far as you can possibly and sensibly provide it, then that is all OK. - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Good. Thanks a lot for that, which I'll bookmark. Tim riley talk 10:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • FN65 Do you have the page number?

- SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you for these points, SchroCat. I ought to have taken a little more time to check that John's and my referencing styles were consistent. I shall go away and refine with a most critical eye and report back. Tim riley talk 20:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • All now attended to, I hope satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 10:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

All good for me, in terms of the source review. I will return for a prose review shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Some hairsplits and miscellaneous comments:
  • Are you aware of {{efn}} and {{Notelist}}? "#tag:ref" is pretty ugly.
    • I've used the "efn" when working with other editors who prefer it. But it results in "a", "b" etc for footnotes, which no other work of reference known to me ever does. But now you've pointed me in that general direction, I am interested in the "notelist-lr" option for future articles: that would produce a professional-looking format, and would distinguish more obviously between footnotes and citations. Thank you. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • many studio recordings and live tapings: or "many studio and live recordings"? By 2015 I'm sure there've been digital live recordings?
  • He wrote of "the large number of years in my age": one of my pet peeves—read aloud, the quote is not introduced as a quote, and thus the switch from third person to first referring to the same person is jarring.
    • Not sure I agree, but changed withal. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yet, as his biographer Mary Jane Phillips-Matz notes, "Verdi could not hide his delight at the idea of writing another opera".; "Yes, Sir! A fugue ... and a buffa fugue", which "could probably be fitted in".; "I will leave the theatre, and [Ricordi] will have to take the score away".: are these quotations punctuated here in the sources? I get the feeling they are, in which case the punctuation shuld go inside the quotemarks.
    • I'm afraid I really don't know. This is how Viva-Verdi transcribed it, and I have no reason to think it inaccurate. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • an English critic, R A Streatfeild,: MOS:SPACEINITS says: "An initial is followed by a full stop (period) and a space". There's nothing on the talkpage, whic makes me suspect the page should be moved.
    • This is one of those cases where the MoS bears no relation to reality, as in its universally-ignored rule that we don't link from within quotations, or that we have to change an author's title if it doesn't fit the MoS (we had to change Wodehouse's chosen title Leave it to Psmith to Leave It to Psmith). In British usage, full stops after people's initials have been old hat for decades, long dropped by HM Government, the BBC etc. I know US (perhaps I should say U. S.) usage is keen on "periods", but for present purposes local usage might be left undisturbed. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • official ticket prices were thirty times greater than usual: do we know what those prices were? It might be worth throwing them in an endnote.
    • It isn't in my sources. I think it was I and not Viva-Verdi who added this, so I think I must conclude that we don't know. I'll add this to my list of things to research when next at the British Library, and will footnote it if I find the facts. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • In fact it was in my sources after all, and I have just added a note as suggested. Tim riley talk 13:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • the applause for Verdi and the cast lasted an hour: did it really? That sounds almost beyond plausibility.
    • It's widely attested in contemporary press reports and in the book sources. In our (or at least my) own time, Kenneth MacMillan's Romeo and Juliet was applauded for forty minutes or so at its Covent Garden premiere in 1965. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Renascence: you wouldn't prefer a term more familiar to more readers?
    • I doubt if any reader interested in this opera is likely to struggle with the word, and it didn't cause comment at peer review, but I'd be happy to consider any suggested alternative that conveys the same import.
      • Well, I wouldn't suggest anything that wasn't obvious, and I only bring it up in the spirit that Wikipedia is aimed at a broad general audience. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for taking the trouble to comment. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Obviously a high quality article that I'm happy to support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Your support is gratefully received. Thank you so much. Tim riley talk 10:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Boito-1893.jpg: in what country was this published?
    • Britain. I'll add it to the details on the image page. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Verdi_aux_répétitions_de_Falstaff_1894.jpg needs a US PD tag
    • Replaced with a "PD-US-1923-abroad " version. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Verdi-La_Scala_premiere_of_Falstaff_1893.jpg: where was this first published?
    • I'm afraid I don't know, and for sadly obvious reasons can't ask. I've removed it. Luckily, we are still well provided for with images at this part of the narrative. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Boito-Verdi_-_Falstaff_libretto.jpg needs a US PD tag, but it's not clear that the existing tag applies - who is the author? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • As with the second image, above, I've replaced it with an EnWP "PD-US-1923-abroad" version. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thank you, as ever, Nikkimaria, for your customary care in reviewing. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

From Smerus[edit]

Support, definitely. Alas I don't have much time at present for profound comments (or perhaps that's just as well) but this seems to me a magnificent article and a memorable tribute to User:Viva-Verdi. Here are some notes so jejune that they scarcely even amount to nit-picks: -

  • Shouldn't the first mention of Falstaff in the lead (end of para 1) be linked to Falstaff?
    • Some kind colleague is ahead of me here, and has done the deed. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Very trivial point but I don't think Verdi considered 'La Tempesta' for a moment before rejecting it - the offer came from Benjamin Lumley who was a poor prospect for actually paying - maybe "he was offered 'The Tempest' " is a bit more like it. (Halevy took up the offer and it was a flop).
  • In 'composition' - link to Brentford?
  • In 'premieres' - you don't need to repeat 'his publisher' before Ricordi.
  • Just to be boring - isn't 'Renascence' a bit affected? - I feel 'Re-assessment' or 'Renaissance' would be better - but that's only me. De gustibus and all that.
    • You're the second reviewer to think this. I'll try to find a plainer word. I don't quite go for 'Re-assessment' or 'Renaissance', but will have a good rummage in the thesaurus. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Very far from nit-picks, and I shall look forward to working through them. Thank you very much indeed, Smerus. Tim riley talk 15:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
PS Actually I see that Halevy's La Tempesta (libretto Scribe and Petro Giannone) was premiered in 1850, (8th June) so Verdi must have been offered the libretto (if at all) before that year, and the source cited is incorrect. Lumley brought Verdi to London for I Masnadieri in 1847 and it was a complete flop. Until that year, Lumley had pretended that Mendelssohn had agreed to set La Tempesta (he hadn't). The death of Mendelssohn in 1847 gave Lumley a lucky escape. I am unaware of any evidence that Lumley offered the libretto to Verdi, and personally (for what it is worth) I strongly doubt it. This source (p. 61) says "Exactly what happened between approximately 4 November 1847, the date of Mendelssohn’s death, and January 1850, when Halévy was contracted as composer, is unclear." So if it were up to me, I would omit any mention of La tempesta in the article.--Smerus (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Postscript duly noted, and acted on, along with excellent earlier points. Thank you so much! Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian thoughts[edit]

Support from Cliftonian: I'm sure John Webber would have been extremely disappointed by my ignorance of Verdi and Sir John Falstaff, but I look forward to learning about them by reviewing this article. I did not know John but I'm sure he would have been very touched by this tribute from you, Tim.

  • I have copyedited in bits and pieces throughout; feel free to put back anything you don't like
  • A nitpick, but in the lead we refer to "Henry IV, parts 1 and 2" and in the body we refer to "Henry IV, Part 1 and Part 2". Either is fine in my view but we should be consistent
  • "moved from act 2 scene 2 to scene 1" we mean to act 2 scene 1, or scene 1 of the entire opera?
  • Santa'Agata or Sant'Agata?
  • We say that Maurel wouldn't perform in Germany, then that the production was "taken by the original company, led by Maurel, to Genoa, Rome, Venice, Trieste, Vienna and Berlin". Had Maurel dropped his reservations about performing in Germany, or should we mention who sang in Berlin in his place?
    • It's foonoted, but I could put in the main text if wanted. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The first performances abroad" For most readers Italy itself will be "abroad". Perhaps "outside Italy"?
    • Hmm. In context I think "abroad" is OK, but I've changed as you suggest. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Fenton, a young gentleman—but did he mess in the wardroom or the cockpit with the midshipmen?
    • Ambiguous. In the play he's a young, broke member of minor nobility on the make. Here's he's an all purpose handsome hero, but now I look at the original score there are few descriptions of the characters, and "gentleman" comes from the published Shakespeare dramatis personae. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of the "Music and drama" section needs a citation inline.

I'm sorry not to have more to add, but the article is really that good. Thorough and engaging even to one such as me with next-to-no background knowledge. Thank you for yet another enlightening and enjoyable read. My comments above do not detract from the support I am happy to give above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cliftonian, for these comments. Some good catches in there, for which I'm grateful. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cg2p0B0u8m (talk)[edit]

  • The Italians have reciprocated with their lead photo of Fugère as Sir John Falstaff....
    • Excellent! I laughed aloud. I'll just satisfy myself that it complies with WP's stringent copyright rules - which at first sight I think it does - and then I'll add it somewhere in the article. Delectable! Tim riley talk 18:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Now posted into the info-box. Superb! Thank you, mon général! Tim riley talk 19:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the link to Victor Maurel's 1907 recording of "Quand'ero paggio", at at the bottom of the page working? If not (it didn't appear to me), you could use the Gallica link (
  • and perhaps the 'List of performances of Falstaff by Verdi on Operabase' link should say "List of recent and future performances.."
    • Definitely. I shall add accordingly. Tim riley talk 18:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Ah! I can't: this is a WP template, which one can't tamper with. Tim riley talk 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Conception : Could we have a date for Rossini's comment about Verdi's lack of comedy?
    • Alas, the source doesn't give it. Tim riley talk 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Composition : is reiterated (He reiterated this idea ...) the right word?
    • I think so. Happy to entertain alternatives, though. Tim riley talk 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The cast table needs a chorus : the IMSLP score says Borghesi e Poplani - Servi di Ford - Mascherata di folleti, di fate, di strehge, ecc
    • It does indeed, and so does my facsimile score of the 1893 original. I'll translate and add. A good catch – thank you! Tim riley talk 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Act 2 : when I read 'hamper' I thought of picnics. Shakespeare simply says basket, Kobbe (H) says a 'big washbasket'Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • A very fair point. I'll tweak the prose. Mind you, Kobbe's "washbasket" isn't a word I have ever heard, and the OED mentions it only in passing. Laundry basket is the phrase we need. Tim riley talk 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you for these points, which I shall enjoy working through. Tim riley talk 18:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to you, and to Viva Verdi, for this fine article! Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt[edit]

Support Bravo! Very well done indeed. Just a few comments:

  • Consider splitting the first paragraph after "Milan" as there seems a change of theme.
  • The approximate date of Toscanini's efforts to revive it would be good to include, I think.
  • "In his tragic operas Verdi introduced moments of comedy in, for instance, Un ballo in maschera and La forza del destino" this feels a bit awkward. Perhaps "He had included moments of comedy even in his tragic operas; for example in ..."
  • When did the public learn of Falstaff? Can anything be said about the public reaction then?
  • "After Verdi and Strepponi left Milan on 2 March, Casa Ricordi, encouraged the composer to go to the planned Rome performance of 14 April, to maintain the momentum and excitement that the opera had generated." The comma after "Ricordi" should probably go. This sentence is a bit awkward.
  • "The first performances outside Italy" perhaps add "Kingdom of" before Italy to cover yourself on Trieste.
  • I would mention Verdi's death at some point; if it can be tied in to the relative lull in performances of Falstaff, all the better.
Act 3
  • "and together they and their allies have been watching secretly. " I would strike "together". I'm not sure what it adds.
  • Through-composed should probably be linked in the main text, not in a footnote.
  • Shouldn't "A. Herring"be italicised?
Not my favourite opera, but I enjoyed the article very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this. I've acted on all your suggestions. (I must confess I had to look up the import of your comments about Trieste.) Your input and support are greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 08:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


Support An excellent article and a worthy FA in its own right. That this is in tribute to John Webber only adds to the experience of those here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Yes as Schro says, this really is a top notch article on a core article in this field. A great read and a fine tribute too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to SchroCat and Dr B for the support and kind comments. At Gerda's suggestion I've tacked on 500 more words on the music, which I hope will also command your approval if you happen to revisit the page. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Support. I copy-edited this article and made various comments there that were resolved by Tim riley. This is an excellent treatment of the history, text, music and criticism of this opera. I believe it is some of the best work on Wikipedia, and I congratulate Tim riley on another excellent piece of work. I heartily support this for promotion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments, the support and the copy-editing. In the circumstances I am anxious to do justice not only to the subject but to my late collaborator. Your input, Ssilvers, is most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 16:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod comment Great stuff! The only thing I can think is that it would be nice to have a sort of canon tables relating the opera's scenes to the Shakespeare plays, mainly MWoW, at least as far as the action goes, not odd passages. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a most attractive idea. We could make it collapsible so that them as wanted to see it could and them as didn't wouldn't have to. I'll make a start on that, but I think perhaps the present review can go ahead regardless. Tim riley talk 18:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Phew! I’ve made a start (on paper at this stage), but it’s going to take a long time. But I think it will be worth the work. Just don’t expect to see it any time soon! Tim riley talk 12:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry! Perhaps foolishly, I thought it would be fairly straightforward, with the opera not having very many scenes. It certainly isn't necessary for FA status. I'd help, but I don't have time at the moment. Do take your time. On a quick consult with Prof. Google, this had more detail than the average comparison. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
No apology required, Johnbod! It's an excellent idea, and I shall enjoy working on it at leisure. I have one major crib to hand already. Tim riley talk 15:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support: I have been watching this article from afar (long ago it was on my "possibly to do" list}. I think that in short order Tim has converted a promising article into a gem, and have no hesitation in supporting its elevation. Great work. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Brian, for your input at peer review, your help with sources, and your support and kind words here. Tim riley talk 07:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support -- I missed this owing to real life, but I took the time to read this today at the BFI museum during a rare day off. I wasn't disappointed and you have done Verdi proud I'm sure. CassiantoTalk 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Cassianto! Carry on Up the Merry Wives, you know! Tim riley talk 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate[edit]

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 09:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an unwieldy title, which if promoted would end the nine-year reign of Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering as the FA with the longest title, but the article itself is fairly straightforward. In the early 1830s, artist William Etty had acquired a (deserved) reputation for thinly-disguised pornography masquerading as art, and tried to address this with The Destroying Angel…, in which assorted loose-moralled types receive a thorough smiting.

The "Reception" section is slightly longer than is usual on painting articles; because it was painted specifically with how it would be received by critics in mind, the critical response on its initial unveiling is more significant than for most visual arts articles. Likewise, as with The Sirens and Ulysses the legacy section is shorter than might be expected; Etty fell from fashion very quickly, so there are few people influenced by him, and for the last 150+ years the painting has hung in Manchester where for various reasons artworks tend to receive less attention from historians than they might elsewhere. – iridescent 09:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Etty had become famous for nude paintings, and had acquired a reputation for tastelessness, indecency and a lack of creativity.: my whole family just gave me strange looks as I unexpectedly burst out laughing at this line. I'll have to make time to come back for a review. Thank you, iridescent! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of these two articles in the FAC list is serendipitous, isn't it? Etty's problem was that a glance over his works will show that the only thing he could paint well was pornography—his conventional portraits tend to look like they're straining to lay an egg. The more I see of him, the more I'm coming to find him interesting, and I'll try to write a proper biography of him at some point; he seems to have genuinely believed he was performing his Christian duty by showing off God's creation without obscuring it with clothes, and to have been constantly surprised when early 19th-century England wasn't receptive to this. – iridescent 10:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "in today's terms": possibly a WP:DATED issue, but not my call. The footnote that gives a date seems sufficient to me.
  • The price conversions are generated the the {{inflation}} template, so "in today's terms" should always be correct as it the figures update automatically. (The UK inflation rate is currently zero and barring unforeseen circumstances will remain around that figure until 2020, so even if it stops updating it won't cause any significant effect.) a policy Using the Consumer Price Index is always contentious for anything other than staples is potentially contentious, but in this case I think it's reasonable, as we're talking about individual buyers of paintings and the question is effectively "how much could they have bought with the money if they hadn't spent it on pictures?". – iridescent 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The best I can tell, Wikipedians haven't reached consensus on the question of how best to handle this, so it's not my call (with my copyeditor hat on). - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Each human figure is shown in a different position and expresses terror in a different way, and are deliberately painted": singular/plural
  • I think this is a legitimate jump from singular to plural, as it's initially talking about individual items and later about the group. It's analogous to "Each member of the basketball team is under five feet tall, and they have lost their last 30 games". – iridescent 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a grammar issue, not a comprehension issue. There's no word that's available as the antecedent of "are" (unlike in your analogy, where "they" is the subject). - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I went with "each is" instead of "are". - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Behind the central figures of the lunatic, daemon and gambler are a group of figures who have only just realised what is happening. A male figure ... female figure ... female figure": lots of figures
  • Removed a couple of "figures". It's complicated by the fact that it's not always apparent which characters are intended to be human. Most of them are obvious, but the characters being discussed here—the guy in the smurf hat and the two topless women—are painted in the same pale tones as the humans but are quite likely to be intended to represent anarchy. (A red liberty cap would have been as readily understood in the 1830s as a symbol of radical revolution as a swastika armband is recognised today as a symbol of fascism.) – iridescent 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "and perhaps also by the cholera epidemic": That's my edit ... that may need an "indirectly", depending on your meaning
  • AFAIK he never mentioned his thinking behind the composition, so this is all speculation. He certainly had form for painting corpses from reality (see The Sirens and Ulysses), so might have worked directly from memories of the bodies piled in the streets during the epidemic, but it's equally possible that the whole thing is entirely imaginary. – iridescent 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "(writing under the name of 'Ridolfi')": Possibly a MOS:QUOTEMARKS violation. I've seen plenty of single quotes around individual letters, though.
  • I'm not entirely sure—MOS:QUOTEMARK is about titles rather than pseudonyms, and I'm not sure if we even have a policy on this. My attitude towards punctuation has always been not to worry provided changes don't affect the meaning, if anyone feels the need to change it. – iridescent 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • A better link: WP:MOS#Reasons to prefer double quotation marks to single quotation marks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I think the consensus leans in favor of double quote marks for all except single letters (which can comfortably take single or double quote marks at FAC, for some reason). But I prefer not to push the point for BritEng articles, because it's too easy to misunderstand my intent, that I might be misunderstanding BritEng or trying to force AmEng on everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or disagree with any of my comments.
  • The article will require an infobox
  • No article requires an infobox, and WP:VAMOS articles less than most. As a visual arts article on an image containing substantial detail which is only easily visible at higher resolutions so needs the lead image as large as possible, this is pretty much the poster child for an article which shouldn't have an infobox. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
(This was a failed attempt at smartassery in reaction to the hidden comment that begins the article source.) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate, also known as The Destroying Angel and Daemons Inflicting Divine Vengeance on the Wicked and Intemperate[1] and The Destruction of the Temple of Vice: I might move these down (to the end of the last paragraph maybe?) as this flood of barely-different titles is an ugly way to open an article
  • It's ugly, but necessary, since it doesn't have a "primary" title as such. (I've used Interrupting the Orgies… as the article title as that's what Manchester Art Gallery currently have it labelled as so that's what people are more likely to search on, but it doesn't have any kind of primacy.) The "also known as" could go in brackets, but shouldn't be moved out of the first sentence. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ahead of John Constable: "ahead" in what sense? Chosen at his expense? Placed in a higher position?
  • Both. RA is the highest rank in the English arts world; Constable was bumped to 1829 to make way for Etty in 1828. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • many critics condemned his repeated depictions of female nudity as indecent: I wonder if we can get more context here—the nude was already a well established painting subject, was it not?
  • No, it was virtually nonexistent in England as a painting subject, and completely unacceptable socially. Other than classical relics, the first significant English publicly-displayed nude in London was the Wellington Monument of 1822, only 10 years before The Destroying Angel was completed. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • about £5,000 in today's term: when is "today"?
  • In terms of the {{inflation}} template, "today" is generally between one and two years ago. The template updates automatically once the CPI figures are released. The {{Inflation-fn}} template, which is used on each occurrence of an "as of today" price conversion, automatically generates a footnote giving the date and source of the figures being used. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't wikilink this unless and until we have an article on him, it goes to a disambiguation page on which the Payne in question doesn't appear: is it likely there will ever be an article on him? If there is, you may want to do a Henry Payne (dab)
  • The dab page already exists. The hidden-text warning is there to stop people adding a link to it, as it's highly unlikely this particular Henry Payne will ever warrant an article. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • What I'd meant by "(dab)" was "(fill-in-the-blank)", but if he's unlikely to warrant an article, then whatever. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It measures 127.8 cm by 101.9 cm (50 in by 40 in): you don't like {{convert}}?
  • The {{convert}} template can't handle feet-and-inches in multiple dimensions—it would output as 127.8 by 101.9 cm (4.19 by 3.34 ft)—so the conversions have to be completed manually. This has been a documented bug for as long as I can remember, and no-one has ever shown any inclination to fix it, so I imagine it never will be. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That's surprising—in that I've always been pleasantly surprised that the template would handle everything I'd throw at it. Disappointing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Each human figure is shown in a different position and expresses terror in a different way, and are deliberately painted: "each" takes the singular, but "is deliberately" sounds wrong. I might go with "and they are".
  • See my comments above to Dank; I think (but am willing to be persuaded) that this is a legitimate shift from singular to plural. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • If the antecedent is singular, I don't think there's such a thing as a "legitimate" switch to the plural—which is why I suggest throwing in a new antecedent. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Raving Madness: worth a redlink?
  • I considered it, but probably not unless someone writes it. It's very unlikely ever to get a stand-alone article, as it's a single architectural element of the gateway to Bedlam. Even on Caius Gabriel Cibber it isn't redlinked. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (identified as a Bacchante by Sarah Burnage of the University of York): the wording makes me wonder: was she the first to identify it? Was it a mystery? Disputed?
  • Burnage claims it's a Bacchante; I've not seen the claim made elsewhere, but feel it's worthy of inclusion. (Burnage curated the only significant Etty exhibition of the last 100 years, so her opinions are more important than most.) I personally think Burnage is wrong here, and given the woman's pose and the fact that Revolution has his arm around her waist she's supposed to represent Marianne (and consequently anarchy, which was a Big Deal in 19th-century Europe), but that's well over the line into OR. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • To the left of the painting: "to the left of" suggests to me outside the painting
  • Reworded to "On the left-hand side of the painting" which should be clearer. – iridescent 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that! – iridescent 10:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod comments[edit]

  • The dimensions should be in the lead, or at least in the caption to the top pic.
  • This gets complicated, now I dig into it. The source just refers to "Breughell's frightful fancies", which could be a reference to Pieter the Elder, Pieter the Younger or Jan the Elder. In the 1830s, the hell paintings of P the E (Dull Gret, The Fall of the Angels and The Triumph of Death) would probably have been best known in England through reproductions by his sons. Of his sons, Pieter the Younger ("Hell Brueghel") was at that time attributed with further hell paintings, but those have since been reattributed to Jan. Given how messy this is now I look into it, I'm going to change this to a direct quote and de-link it. – iridescent 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Would Brueghel family work? Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Possibly, although I'm thinking it might make sense to remove it altogether or replace it with something vague like "Flemish apocalyptic paintings". All our articles on the Brueghels are fairly dreadful. – iridescent 16:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Pieter Bruegel the Elder in particular is a long-standing disgrace. You know that describing PBtE as "Flemish" is inviting trouble - see his talk page? Why, he isn't even documented as setting foot in the county of Flanders! Both likely birthplaces are now (just) in the Netherlands. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Meh. He lived in Brussels, he worked in Antwerp, he was taught by the Flemish van Aelst, his wife was Flemish, he died in Brussels, he's buried in Brussels, Dull Gret and The Fall of the Angels are in Antwerp and Brussels respectively, and aside from a single painting in Rotterdam not a single work of his is on display anywhere in the modern Netherlands. The man's a Belgian. – iridescent 10:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
He's a Brabanter. The English usage that South Netherlands = Flanders is what makes our Belgian colleagues cross. Neither Brussels nor Antwerp are Flemish cities according to them. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Meh again. The map at nl:Vlaanderen covers Brussels and Antwerp, and the world has not yet come to an end. We describe Beethoven as German even though no such country existed in his lifetime and he spent all his adult life in Vienna. (Unless someone suggests a better alternative, I'm just going to leave it as a unlinked quote. In any case, the writer saying it would have been thinking of Pieter II, as in the 1830s the hell paintings were attributed to him.) – iridescent 11:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, fine as it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't sources mention the borrowing of the collapsing columns in the left background from Giulio Romano's Sala dei Giganti in Palazzo Te? If so, worth a line.
  • None that I can find; aside from Burnage's chapter on the painting it really hasn't been written about much. Per my comments to Curly Turkey above about the obvious reference to Marianne/Liberty, I can see quite a few obvious references in here, but mentioning them is going to over the line into OR; the only ones I can find specific sources for are Raving Madness and the Barberini Faun. – iridescent 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not usually on display, is it? It would be nice to add something on that if possible - even if only that it was/was not on display at some recent date.
  • As of a couple of years ago it was hanging in the MAG, albeit tucked away in a corner. Their online catalogue is currently down for maintenance; I'm going to be in Manchester in a couple of weeks and will poke my head in and see if it's still on display. (I suspect it probably is; given how much they invested in Sirens, they have a vested interest in generating interest in Etty.) It was certainly exhibited in the Etty retrospective at the York Art Gallery in 2011. – iridescent 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. York is worth mentioning I think, if you have a ref. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Done – iridescent 16:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support That's all I could find, plus I made a couple of edits [5]. Nice piece, and I think the emphasis on the taste/nudity issue is correct. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
All comments sorted, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Playboy[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Chester Brown got over his anxiety and guilt over his obsessive masturbating by drawing it for the world to see. He now advocates prostitution to replace traditional sexual relations. It all begins here, along with graphic depictions of Brown's peculiar masturbation style. Clearly this is the article editors will be tumbling over each other to review. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: this article, not enough to be an FA. 333-blue 12:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Abuwtiyuw would disagree. FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"Not enough to be a FA" is not a valid basis for opposing. You have to specify what it is that's is lacking from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Without further elaboration, this will not be taken into consideration by the FAC Coordinators when closing. Graham Beards (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
This user has been permanently blocked at Chinese wikipedia, because constantly create disturbances at FAC, GAN, FPC and even speedy delection & AFD. For example, nominate a article at AFD to GAN, just for keep that article. And the worst part is: whatever talk, warning, 3 days block, 3 months black, apparently he really don't give a sxxx.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose

Poorly written and amateurish. This is one of the worst FAC nominations I've ever seen. Drivel like this would never get published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Singora (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The prose is a bit rough in places, but it's fixable. One goal of FAC is to give positive input on articles, so any comment on what is lacking would help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Generally the FURs could be more comprehensive - particularly the parameters that are flagged as missing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments

  • anxiety over his obsessive mastubation over Playboy Playmate models - Over/over... perhaps "to" for the second one?
  • From 1986 Toronto-based Vortex Comics began publishing Yummy Fur. - Avoid repeating the "From year" sentence structure.
  • surreal serial - I see what you did there.
  • Simpler in his artwork - Is this necessary? You've already said that he began to simplify.
    • Hmm ... I wanted to reword this before ... He had begun simplifying before The Playboy, and continued to simplify afterwards as well. Thinkthinkthink ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • angel-demon - you don't describe it as an angel/demon earlier...
    • I actually di quite a bit of rearranging to deal with this—you may want to take a peak. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Though he knows his friends shortly will read it, he still feels uncomfortable talking with them about it face-to-face - I feel as if this could be tightened a bit "Though he knows his friends shortly will read it, he still feels uncomfortable discussing his masturbation with them" or something
    • I put this in, but changed "his masturbation" to "it" to encompass everything. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • similar to the trope of the angel and devil on the shoulders. - Perhaps "similar to the shoulder devil trope.
    • Hmm ... the source's point was that it combines the angel and the devil. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Chet feels terrified - This strikes me as working better in the synopsis section. This would also avoid the repetition
  • Some interpretations - whose?
  • Any of Matt's works worth citing/name dropping?
  • He portrays his friend Kris's negative reaction in "Showing Helder" to his depiction her in "Helder". - Is this really worth including in the running text?
    • I guess it could be clearer, but this is the main reaction that drove him to turn make the switch to stories of his adolescence. It's pretty much the main thrust of "Showing Helder", which appeared the issue before The Playboy began. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Any contemporary reviews?
    • Aside from the ones I've included, not that I'm aware of. Until recently Brown seems to have been more talked about that written about—lots of name-dropping, but little analysis. There were also very few outlets for stuff like this back then other than The Comics Journal. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Has Brown revisited pornography in his later works? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • In a way—in "Danny's Story" he's got jizzy tissues strewn all over the floor with his magazines, and in Paying for It he pays to give Alley Baggett a hug. Nothing direct, and nothing sources pick up on. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Crisco, thanks for slagging the prose, but you forgot to oppose. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - I get the feeling that the prose could probably be cleaned up a bit more, but it reads acceptably to me, now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Support – I could do without the rather prissy "mother passes away" – in the words of Noël Coward, "She didn't pass over, pass on or pass out – she died!" WP:EUPHEMISM, you know. And it may just be my irredeemably puerile mind, but in the context of this article I'd be inclined to redraw the phrase, "Brown comes across friends of his parents". That apart, an accomplished article, striking just the right note, which I imagine was far from easy to do. The adverse comment, above, from Singora seems to me inexplicable. – Tim riley talk 08:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, thanks! I've obliterated that "passes away"—I don't know how I let it through. I'm disappointed my puerile mind didn't notice that "comes across", though—I've changed it to "encounter", at least until I can come up with something less stiff. Curly Turkey ¡gobble!


Nominator(s): RO(talk), ·maunus · snunɐɯ·, and ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an important Native American leader named Irataba. I believe it should be featured because of the quality of the article, which has been edited and reviewed by numerous respected Wikipedians. RO(talk) 16:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator note - For the edification of anyone revisiting this for review, can the nominators provide a high-level summary of what was changed since the last nomination? I recall substantive disagreement in FAC1 about the suitability of Waters. I see he his no longer cited in the article—but has all the prose written in consultation with his text been removed? Also from FAC2: "Maunus ... seems to have some specialist books now to further expand it". Was that done? --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laser. Maunus had a book coming at the time of withdrawal, but I believe he has since added all he intended adding. I did tell him that if he began expanding it again during the FAC I'd revert it. He finished on it about ten days ago and believes it is now comprehensive and FA standard I think. He also took care of some of the past sources, including Waters I believe. RO has since copyedited it and everything should now be stable and above board. I opted out of the renomination though because I wasn't prepared to deal with possible catty comments, but I hope this continues to attract decent input regardless.Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, yes I have removed the material that relied un unreliable sources, and added material from other specialist sources. I feel the article is ready for a review now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
All the sourcing has been checked, but I've also requested a source review: ([6]), and several parts of the article have been rewritten by Maunus, who has finished with his expansion/copyediting. RO(talk) 16:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Dr. Blofeld and Rationalobserver. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article has undergone substantial review and reworking since it was last put up for FAC. In particular, the copyvio issues The issues with sourcing and tone raised at the time of the pervious FAC have been resolved, as far as I can see, problematic edits have been fixed and overall the article is substantially improved. I do not believe I am eligible to review this FAC in this round because since the previous one I have made at least some minor contributions to the article, as has @Maunus:, who also was an FAC reviewer last time. However, the issues I raised then have been addressed, so though I am now an "involved" editor, I think I could support this FAC, though I do invite new reviewers to give it a thorough looksee. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, thanks for the vote of confidence, but the "copyvio issue" you linked to above is a false positive set off by a Wikipedia mirror site. Please consider striking that part of your comment, which is not accurate, as copyvio did not even come up at any of the previous peer reviews or FACs. RO(talk) 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hm. Looks like you are correct. Will do. Should clarify my issues, the copyvio concern was less the issue for me anyway. Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Alt text isn't required, but if it's included it should be accurate - File:Irataba_by_Balduin_Möllhausen,_1857.jpg is a lithograph, not itself a pencil drawing - and shouldn't duplicate the caption
Fixed. RO(talk) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Irataba.jpg: recalling the conversation from the previous nom, suggest including source for date and authorship (and if authorship is truly unknown suggest not including it)
I am not sure about those. Dr. Blofeld found that awesome image. RO(talk) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It is the ideal main image, yup. I believe I asked We hope to look into it. It would have been taken about 1864, and given that he's in uniform, probably by the army. It's undoubtedly PD, but some more details about it might be good.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's the previous conversations about the Irataba 1864 photo and others in the article. Right now, I don't know what the map listed below is based on--would need to start searching for something similar to try determining that. We hope (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:The_Colorado_River_Indian_Reservation_in_Relation_to_Arizona,_California_and_Associated_Counties.jpg: what is the base map here? The caption at the bottom suggests previous publication. Also, what is the source of the data reflected here? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm really not sure, but I think it's the original work of User:Cenglish, who has been inactive since 2011. RO(talk) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
There are a couple of other maps of the reservation online, but none that really look like this one except for the shape as far as I can find.[7][8]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that if the uploader said it was own work, it probably is. If it comes down to replacing the image or sourcing, I did a search at the BIA web site and per US-PD, I think these could be replaced if need be, and in the meantime I will add citations to the image page at any rate (Nikki? Verify?) Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Would need to see the potential replacement to comment on it. The source looks good for the second question (thanks), but I'm not sure about the first - often self-uploaded maps use a pre-existing map as their base and impose data on top of it. I've tried tracking the ID number at the bottom, no luck. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

SupportComment from John I took a wee hack at the prose which has been substantially rewritten since I last reviewed it. However and subsequently need to be used with care. I think on prose it now marginally passes FAC and the sourcing also looks ok to me, though I will defer to others on this. --John (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Irataba's travels Would he have used the Panama Canal Railway to cross the isthmus? It seems likely but I'd be interested to know. We can't just say he sailed to New York as modern readers may think he would sail via the canal, which was decades away at this point. --John (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but I don't think any of the sources specifically state that. RO(talk) 19:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Shame. Oh well. --John (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
This source tells a little about how the travel from SF to New York was done in those years. We know he traveled on the SS Orizaba to Panama.[9]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Never mind. I think I am ok with the current wording, if everybody else is. If it isn't described in the sources we cannot describe it here. I just didn't want us to falsely imply that he could have sailed direct from SF to NYC before that was the route. --John (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing As this has been raised in the past, can I confirm whether supporters (Montanabw (talk · contribs), Tim riley (talk · contribs), Ssven2 (talk · contribs), Ipigott (talk · contribs), Jaguar (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk · contribs)) specifically support the current sourcing following review? I don't feel able to do this as I don't fully understand the questions that were raised in the previous FAC. I think I could support if this is the case. I am reasonably happy with the prose but a bit like Montanabw I have now edited the article quite a bit so may be thought to have a COI so my putative support would have to be read with that in mind. --John (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John for double checking but I have already handled this with my support below.--Ipigott (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Maunus (talk · contribs) addressed most of my concerns, I also tweaked some things myself, which is why I think it best I do not review the article for this FAC round. My concerns at the previous FAC were that when I looked at the actual sources available online, material was either attributed to a very wide page range (5-10 pages) and/or didn't actually fit the citation. There were also problems with the way primary sources were used and issues of tone. I believe all of those issues have been addressed. I do think that source spotchecks should still be done by independent reviewers, just to be sure we are all good now. Montanabw(talk) 19:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I've requested an independant source review: ([10]). RO(talk) 19:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Any concerns I had about the prose, the tone and the sourcing have now been addressed. Support, with the proviso already expressed about COI. --John (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Replying to John, above: I have no quibble with the sourcing, but I repeat that I know practically nothing of the subject and certainly can't pretend to judge one source against another. If RO thinks an independent review is wanted I think it admirable, showing how seriously the nominators treat the matter. Tim riley talk 20:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Support – a couple of suggested tweaks, but nothing to fuss about:

  • In 1871–1872 general General George Crook – the MoS bids us use "1871–72" as the date-range style, and one General is enough for Cook.
  • Kroeber and Fontana: really "american indians" in lower case?
  • I didn't spot a gratuitous "however", but John's wise advice, above, on this is always worth following.

Those small points apart, very happy to support for FA. As a layman I find the content evidently comprehensive, the sourcing and citation are fine and the prose is pleasingly readable. – Tim riley talk 20:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Tim! I've fixed those points you mentioned ([11]); thanks for the heads up! RO(talk) 20:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • My support was based purely on prose, which looks good to me. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Support — I am on a break. Having supported this article before, it does look better now. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Support I'm glad to see there has been substantial progress on the points I raised during the last review.--Ipigott (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Support I've reveiwed this four times now, why isn't this FA already!? JAGUAR  16:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Thought it was one already!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Mirokado[edit]

I've made the odd copyedit since the last review, but I think I still count as an independent reviewer. The article is a good read and further improved since last time. Just a few comments and open questions:

  • Lead
    • ...he led several hundred of his supporters to the Colorado River Valley: is this including "Valley" a proper name? Even if so, does the new reservation represent substantially all of it? I suspect not, so a small "v" may be appropriate here.
    • wl Chemehuevi in the lead too?
    • the formulation "xx is mixed: yy but zz" should probably be relegated to film stubs, although it is sometimes difficult to think of an alternative.
    • In 2002, the US Bureau of Land Management designated 32,745 acres (13,251 ha) as Ireteba Peaks Wilderness.: Where? It is mentioned later in the article, but slightly more, brief, detail here would be good. Perhaps: "In 2002, the US Bureau of Land Management designated 32,745 acres (13,251 ha) in the Eldorado Mountains as Ireteba Peaks Wilderness."
  • Background
    • repetition of "present-day": can we find language that makes this clear enough the first time?
    • Irataba was a hereditary leader of the Huttoh Pah group, ...: Was he "a leader" or "the leader" of that group at the time he was leading? The is probably only unclear in this rather specific context of a particular group at a particular time.
  • Ives Expedition
    • is the plural of Paiute Paiutes or Paiute? similarly: Hualapais or Hualapai? "Paiute" and "Hualapai" seem more natural as plural forms to me (generally for such names ending in a vowel sound) and I see that Hualapai refers to "the Hualapai" rather than "the Hualapais". Further down, in the Later years section, we refer to "ongoing conflicts with Paiutes and Chemehuevi" which seems particularly inconsistent.

* Conflict with the US army

    • In spite of Irataba visiting the garrison several times arguing for their release, ...: "...visiting...arguing..." limps a bit. Perhaps "Although Irataba visited the garrison several times and argued for their release, ..."
  • Later years
    • Picture caption – who was Ah-oochy Kah-ma?
  • References / Sources
    • "Parker Troth". The Yuma Daily Sun has both the open access icon and (subscription required). Reading open access this looks incorrect and the icon should be removed. (Some pages via that provider are open, others not).

I can't see anything here which will prevent my support. Well done to everyone who has worked so hard on this article. --Mirokado (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Mirokado, I've addressed most of your above comments here: ([12]), and I'll respond to the ones I didn't resolve. Paiutes is proper for plural, but one could also say "the Paiute", and refer to them as a whole. I'm actually not sure who Ah-oochy Kah-ma is. We hope found that image, and maybe they can shed some light on that person's identity. RO(talk) 20:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, another quick response! Supporting now, we can sort out Ah-oochy Kah-ma as convenient. As far as "Paiutes" are concerned, I will defer to you unless anyone else joins the conversation. Striking addressed comments. --Mirokado (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's the LOC link and he's only identified as a friend of Irataba. The photo was taken by Carlos Gentile (who has no WP article, BTW). While traveling the West and photographing, Gentile adopted a small boy he named Carlos Montezuma.
I did some research on that Smithsonian portrait of Irataba and found it was part of Montezuma's collection and was donated to the Smithsonian by his widow. Montezuma did a lot of lecturing about the tribes of the West; the Irataba portrait was one of the slides he used for his talks. My belief is that the Smithsonian Irataba photo was also taken by Gentile, as Montezuma was only 8 years of age when Irataba died. We hope (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Support. A couple of very minor MoS tweaks made to the citations, but all good throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Support. I've been involved in the peer review of this article, and all my concerns were addressed there; the article has had plenty of experienced input, and the article is certainly in much better shape than when I first saw it; the referencing concerns raised at peer review appear to have been dealt with. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: did you want another spot check? I thought somebody already did one at the last FAC?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Tks DrB, unless I missed it, doesn't look to me that an independent spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing has been done on this article yet, and I think we should see that, as well as the usual source review for formatting and reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN20, 76, 112: page?
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
  • Check alphabetization of Webb in Bibliography
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher/location
  • Shumway or all seems to have an identified publisher
  • ISBN for Wilson?
  • Further reading should be its own level-2 section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

During the lightning-quick Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the 4th Army earned the dubious distinction of having virtually fallen apart due to fifth column actions and Croat desertions even before the Germans crossed the Drava. A whole regiment rebelled and took over a largish town. After the 14th Panzer Division drove 160 km and captured Zagreb on 10 April (along with 15,000 soldiers and 22 generals) in a single day, the Germans facilitated the proclamation of the notorious fascist puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia. The mostly Serb remnants of the 4th Army continued to withdraw into the Bosnian interior until the capture of Sarajevo on 15 April. The article passed Milhist A-class review in January this year, and I believe it is comprehensive and meets or is close to meeting all the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a legendary Vlach ruler of Transylvania whose existence is subject to scholarly debates. Gelou is often mentioned as one of the first Romanian rulers in Romanian historiography. Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Since Romania does not have freedom of panorama, File:GilauCJ2013_(3).JPG needs to identify the copyright status of the original work as well as the photo
  • File:Gesta_hungarorum_map.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:Magyarok-Bejovetele-ChroniconPictum.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your remark. I noticed the creator of the first picture. Fakirbakir, could you help in connection with the two other pictures. I do not even understand the problem. Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Problems fixed. The two pictures are obviously PD-Art,PD-100. Nikkimaria is right, the photo of Gelou's sculpture has to be removed.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Fakirbakir, thank you for your assistance (again). Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Columbian mammoth[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the second-best known species of mammoth (after the woolly one), and being from America, also one of the largest. I have tried to be as comprehensive with the literature and imagery as possible. Some of the text is similar or identical to that in the woolly mammoth FA (mainly in the evolution and dentition sections) as these species have several features in common. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments - I read through this while on a smartphone somewhere out and about. Most of the article reads ok except the lead is clunky in places. will post some queries below:
The Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) was a species of mammoth, the common name for the extinct elephant genus Mammuthus. The Columbian mammoth lived during the Pleistocene epoch, and inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica. --middle bit clunky - would trim to "The Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) was a species of mammoth that inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica during the Pleistocene epoch."
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
NB: best to comment on Calliopejen's edits to let folks know if you're happy with them (she's also left some queries in commented out notes.
And my rejigging of lead, while we're there.
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I'll fix the issues above and those raised during copy edit today. Not sure if Calliopejen1 is completely finished copy editing (dentition, palaeobiology and distribution are largely untouched), but I think the sections she has already finished should be fine for me to edit. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I have now addressed all the issues raised during copy-editing. Just notify me if you have further questions, Calliopejen1. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep. ok, looking better...more now.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
that inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica during the Pleistocene epoch. - do we know approximately where in the U.S.? It's a big place north to south....
As shown on this map[13], it is most of the US. I have added "northern", but not sure if it is enough or is udnerstandable? FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
there are alotta mammoths in the first para of Evolution...if we can reduce one or two it'd flow better...
Removed two, better? FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Apart from their larger size and more "primitive" molars, - why is primitive in quotes here?
Many specimens also accumulated in "natural traps" - ditto
... male mammoths mainly lived alone and were more "adventurous" .. - ditto
supported the "overkill hypothesis" - ditto, especially as unquoted a few lines before.
Removed the quotes mentioned above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose - I can't see anything else to fix but I often miss things so will feel happier when some other folks look at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz CLR[edit]

Nominator(s): The359 (Talk) 17:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Renominating as this candidate received no input before being archived.

This article is about a series of race cars which suffered unusual accidents in their one and only race and have become part of the history of the 24 Hours of Le Mans and motorsport in general as a famous failure. They are often very well recognized through video and pictures of the accidents, but not well understood. Mercedes-Benz effectively forgot about these cars in the years since but one has reappeared in recent years. The359 (Talk) 17:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Wolbo (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first Wimbledon tennis tournament, held in 1877, and as such has great historical significance within the sport of tennis. The prize money for the inaugural Wimbledon was ever so slightly less than this year's £26.75m. The article achieved GA status in June 2013 and since then has been significantly improved. It is comprehensive regarding information that can be found in reliable sources. A peer review was recently concluded and the constructive feedback (thanks to Brianboulton and Resolute) was implemented. As an aside, WP Tennis has more than 20,000 articles but does not yet have a single FA (apart from two FAs for tennis video games), it would be great if this could become the first one. Hopefully it will result in a TFA during the men's final on 12 July. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated.--Wolbo (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Wimbledon 1877.jpg The referenced book is from 2001. To claim PD-1923, we need to show that the image was actually published before 1923 (not just that it was created before then). Also, once that's dealt with, the template {{PD-anon-1923}} would probably be simplest for the license.
From Todd, Tom (1979). The Tennis Players : from Pagan Rites to Strawberries and Cream (p. 95) it is known that the image was sketched during the event by an artist of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News but I have no access to the magazine edition in which it was published. Have added the {{PD-anon-1923}} template.
  • That's not proof of publication, however; it is simply proof of creation. Publication is when it was made available to the public. If it is anonymous and first published in 1979, it's almost certainly copyrighted in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, I found a source on Amazon which is from the July 14, 1877 edition of Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News but it is a slightly different version than the one used in the article and published in Todd (1979) and Barrett (2001). Can I upload it to File:Wimbledon 1877.jpg as a replacement (with modified source info) or does it need to be a new Commons image? --Wolbo (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That's sufficient proof. Yeah, if you want to upload that version (I can see why; it's a bit more detailed), feel free to overwrite the one on Commons. Either way we should note this pre-1923 printing, even though our immediate source may be different. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Lawn Tennis Court 1874.jpg - If Wingfield's authorship (or his attribution as the author) is made by the source (or other sources), I'd tag this {{PD-old-100}}; this indicates that the image is not only PD in both the US and the European Union, but also in countries such as Mexico and Columbia.
Done. The image was published in Wingfield's original rules booklet of tennis in 1874, the image has no further attribution.--Wolbo (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:1876 Racket.jpg - What page number was this image found on (the source is a 500+ page book; people shouldn't have to go through the whole thing to find the image)? If it didn't have a page number, then the location of the plate. Also, it would be better if full bibliographic information (available here) could be provided for the source as well.
Done. --Wolbo (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Henry jones.jpg - Proof of pre-1923 publication? Also, if that can be found, {{PD-anon-1923}} would work best; the current template doesn't apply to Britain (which is PD-70 for anonymous works) and many other countries.
Haven't found proof yet, still searching.--Wolbo (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Wolbo (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Haven't found proof yet, still searching.--Wolbo (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro[edit]

Comments: I've read to the end of background so far, and done some light copyediting. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


  • This article used British spelling, but we have "standardized" in the lead, and the more common British spelling of "standardised" in the main body.
Done. I understand both forms are acceptable in British English but as "standardised" is more common that is now used.--Wolbo (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was the world's first official lawn tennis tournament, and the first of what was later to be called a Grand Slam tournament or "Major".": I'm not a huge fan of this sentence. Maybe something like "It was the world's first official lawn tennis tournament, and was later recognised as the first Grand Slam tournament or "Major"."?
Done.--Wolbo (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • On this point, also made in the main body, this tournament would not have been called or recognised as a major in 1877, or presumably for some time after. No-one taking part would have thought of it in this way, so it is better to go for the "later recognised" form, or similar. But it does beg two questions: How prestigious was it for those taking part (and don't think we fully address this later), and when was it later called a "grand slam"? (Although we're drifting away from the main topic, it may be worth a note saying when the concept of a Grand Slam event first took off.)
The first edition was obviously not yet seen as prestigious, see also Gore's remarks. At that point it might just have become another fad like croquet or rinking. It was quickly seen as the most important and prestigious tournament, in the first decade or so together with the Irish Championships. Wimbledon was designated as an official World (Grass) Championship by the International Lawn Tennis Federation (ILTF) in 1913, together with the World Hard Court Championships and World Covered Court Championships. This lasted until 1923 when it became an 'Official Championship' (together with the championships of France, USA and Australia) to allow the USA, whose championship was also played on grass, to join the ILTF. The term Grand Slam was not an official designation and was first used by the press in 1933 (see 1). This info is probably too tangential to include in the main article but I will add it to a note or create a new note.--Wolbo (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
That would cover it nicely. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I also noticed on this point that there is an error in the current Note i: "There is a record of a tournament held in August 1976": Presumably this should be 1876?
Corrected. Well spotted.--Wolbo (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "A set of rules was drawn up for the tournament, derived from the first standardized rules of tennis that had been issued in May 1875 by the Marylebone Cricket Club.": Maybe clarify here why a cricket club is writing tennis rules.
Done. Added ", the governing body for rackets and real tennis.". Also changed "rules of tennis that had been issued in May 1875" to "rules of tennis issued in May 1875".--Wolbo (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "A Gentlemen's Singles event was the only competition held in the championship, and was contested on grass courts by 22 competitors who each paid a one guinea entrance fee.": What about the slightly neater "The Gentlemen's Singles, the only event the championship, was contested on grass courts by 22 competitors who each paid one guinea to enter."(Also avoids the later repetition of entrance fee)
That does indeed read a bit smoother. With a slight alteration it has been rephrased to "The Gentlemen's Singles competition, the only event of the championship, was contested on grass courts by 22 players who each paid one guinea to participate."--Wolbo (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


  • "played by the populace.[5][6] The popularity": Can we avoid this populace...popularity tongue twister?
Done. Changed 'popularity' to 'prominence'.--Wolbo (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "and the service had to bounce beyond the service line instead of in front of it": "instead" implies that previous games followed the "in front" rule. Maybe rephrase as "beyond the service line, in contrast to the modern game in which the ball must land in front."
Changed to "and the service had to bounce beyond the service line." --Wolbo (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "to capitalise on the upcoming interest in this new sport": upcoming sounds odd here.
Not sure what the 'oddness' is, can you elaborate? --Wolbo (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Upcoming suggests that they knew it was going to become popular before that happened. What about "growing interest"?
  • "a dozen new club members were added": Were added sounds like they had little choice in the matter. "Joined"?
No proof this was in any way involuntary. Updated.--Wolbo (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "On 3 March 1875 the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) convened a meeting at its Lord's Cricket Ground to test the various versions of lawn tennis that had been developed with the aim to standardise its rules.": As above, maybe clarify why they were involved. We have the later information "the MCC, in its capacity as the governing body for rackets and real tennis", which would be better at the beginning here.
This part was made slightly more concise as a result of the peer review, I have moved the segment ", in its capacity as the governing body for rackets and real tennis, " to the beginning of the paragraph to clarify the involvement of the MCC.--Wolbo (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "as well as the rackets method of scoring in which each game consisted of 15 points": Ambiguous. Does this mean they scored in multiples of 15, or the score went to 15, or it was the best of 15...? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


  • "and made himself responsible for the remaining amount.": We do not specify what amount was remaining; as it reads now, it looks like the other 20 people covered the costs.
  • Why do we split the "first announcement" into two separate quotes?
Converted the second blockquote to a paraphrase.--Wolbo (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • On a related note, for me personally, I think there are a few too many quotes like this from rules, announcements, etc. I prefer a paraphrase, but that is just me. (I don't expect anything doing about this, and it does not affect my support)
See above.--Wolbo (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Visitors were informed that those arriving by horse and carriage should use the entrance at Worple Road while those who planned to come by foot could best use the railway path.": Given that the people being told this could not have been visitors yet, perhaps "Potential visitors were informed"? I also think "could best use" is a little awkward. Maybe just "should use"?
Done. Changed to 'Potential visitors' and 'were advised to use'.--Wolbo (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The rules are given in something like the present tense. I'm not sure if this is correct unless we are quoting directly. But I really don't know here, and maybe an MoS expert could clarify?
  • The rules as given are perhaps a little confusing in terms of attribution. One rule has a reference, the others don't. What is the attribution for the other rules? At the very least, the last rule should have a reference after it.
  • Again on the scoring, "The real tennis method of scoring by fifteens will be adopted": Does this mean that they used the modern tennis scoring system of 15, 30, 40? Or a different one? Modern readers may assume this, so a little clarity is needed one way or another.
  • "while the rackets used were an adaptation of those used in real tennis, with a small and slightly lopsided head": Why is real tennis in italics? (Maybe I'm missing something!)
My thinking was that putting it in italics could prevent readers from misinterpreting 'real' as an adjective instead of part of a noun. Another option to avoid possible confusion would be to wikilink it but that has already been done several times in the article. --Wolbo (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The ball-boys kept the tennis balls in canvas 'wells'": Why do we have quotation marks? Perhaps something like bag would be better, but if we really need quotation marks, I think they need to be doubled.
Removed quotation marks.--Wolbo (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The quarterfinals were played on Wednesday, 11 July for an increasing number of spectators.": Does this mean that spectator numbers increased during the quarter final, or numbers were up compared to the previous matches?
The spectator numbers probably did increase during the match but what is meant is compared to the previous matches. The sentence has been updated to clarify this.--Wolbo (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "When the semifinal stage had concluded on Thursday, 12 July play was suspended until next Monday, 16 July due to the Eton v Harrow cricket match that was played at Lord's Cricket Ground on Friday and Saturday.": I'm assuming this was because it would be a rival attraction for spectators, as it was an incredibly popular match, but this is not clear to modern readers who are not 19th century cricket fanatics, so maybe clarify the reason.

I've done some minor copy-editing, which you may freely revert if I've messed up or you don't like any of it. To conclude later, but looking good. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Brianboulton[edit]

I think that before submitting detailed comments, I'll wait until Sarastro has worked his way through. For the moment, though, I'll just point out that the first paragraph of the Background begins "It is believed..." This is not encyclopaedically acceptable. If this theory of the origins of tennis is voiced by your source Gillmeister, you should attribute it to him, e.g. "A theory suggested by the cultural historian Heiner Gillmeister is that the origins of tennis lie..." or some such wording. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Burning of Parliament[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As the UK election count carries on with about 300 seats announced, it's time to turns minds to the burning down of Parliament. The last time there was a major fire in Parliament was 1834 and it was an accident that destroyed most of the medieval structure of the royal palace. This article has undergone a recent re-write, and I am hugely grateful to Cassianto, Crisco 1492, Curly Turkey, Tim riley, Brianboulton, Dr. Blofeld and KJP1 for their superb thoughts and comments in a very productive peer review. – SchroCat (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Support – This fine article is a welcome distraction from tonight's horrifying parliamentary events. It is a splendid read, comprehensive, balanced, well proportioned, properly and widely sourced and well illustrated. Clearly FA standard. Tim riley talk 04:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your thoughts and comments both here and at the PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

My prose comments seem to have been lost in the hustle and bustle of PR. Here they are again

  • a publicly run Brigade - why the capital B?
  • to get a good view, and many took to the river in whatever craft they could find or hire to get a better view - view / view
  • What caused the casualties?
  • The sources don't outline how. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 34 of the competitors - shouldn't start sentences with numerals
  • 2 miles of corridors - worth including the metric? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No idea how I missed those! All done now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The "B" in brigade? The nine casualties? (In such a commotion, there could be many causes; trampling, fire...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • For some reason I'd made the changes, but not saved it! (got side-tracked). - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Had my say at PR. Looks really good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Cheers Crisco - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Did you respond to my comments at the PR? I oddly didn't see a response from you that you'd done so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry Doc, I dealt with them all, but didn't, for some unknown reason, thank you for your comments. Many thanks. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Cheers Doc - some great comments in the PR, so many thanks for those. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I'm a satisfied peer reviewer and the excellent comments from my colleagues seem to have improved it further. CassiantoTalk 10:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Cheers Cass. As always, your comments at PR were great in strengthening the article. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: PR seems solid and the article looks great! TheMagikCow (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, TheMagikCow: your thoughts and support are most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Map could be a bit larger - the details referred to in the caption aren't really legible at that size
  • I've upped it a little, and it's much clearer now. I can't do it too much more (I think) as it'll start sandwiching text with the tallies image on wider screens (I'm on a laptop at the moment, and all is OK, but I'll check later on my main machine. -SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Augustus_Welby_Northmore_Pugin00.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Both points dealt with on the Pugin. Many thanks indeed, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Source review

(based on this revision)

  • UK Parliament is a publisher, not a work
  • FN#6 should note the publisher
  • FN#49 and FN#66 shouldn't use an mdash, but rather an ndash
  • Location for The Observer?
  • FN#99: Access date?
  • OCLC for The Speeches of Charles Dickens?
  • Consider archiving some of these web references, to avoid the possibility of dead links becoming a problem in the future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • All done, bar the last (so far). I only know the rather tedious way of manually archiving single links, but I have heard somewhere that it's possible to automatically do them in large batches. Any thoughts on how to ensure I don't have to do them one by one? Thanks so much for the review - very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with any bots, no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I've done it the old school way. All now done, cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Anythingyouwant[edit]

  • Neutral. Oppose for now, per User:Johnbod's comments below about the map and images. I would like to see a clear image of what the building looked like beforehand, from the outside. Ideally, that image would be juxtaposed with an image of what it looked like after reconstruction, from the same angle. That way we might better appreciate (1) what was destroyed, and (2) how different the place would look today but for this little faux pas. Incidentally, you mention "Gothic Revival" in the lead as the style of the new structure, but I don't see any wikilinked style of the old structure, in the lead. Also, Lord Althorp is often credited with issuing a famous command during the fire, and the crowds were not merely watching, but cheering quite happily in favor of the damage to parliament.[14] Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts on this. If I can break down your comments a little:
1. I've not seen an external image from the same angle, partly because the buildings are on a slightly different alignment. Instead I've gone for the two of the interiors of the Lords and Commons.
2. There may have been a single style, but I don't remember seeing it. If there isn't, it's because the complex was the result of developments over several centuries. I'll go back over the sources later this evening to see if it says anything other than "medieval".
3. I know of Althorp's comment, but it certainly wasn't a command: Braidwood made the decision based on the progress of the fire, not at Althorp's direction.
4. The weight of the sources point in the direction of the crowd not cheering, although they had mixed reactions to the fire, and the quotes of the two eye-witnesses Carlyle and Hobhouse cover that. The BBC has, in comparison to more in depth investigations into the fire, simplified the reaction too far to be usable.
Thanks again for your thoughts: I'll get back to you on whether the sources describe the Palace as being of one identifiable style by 1834. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and I'll be curious about the pre-1834 style. As for an external image, are you saying that we can't get any external image at all, showing the building beforehand? That would seem odd. If Althorp wasn't giving a command, then why not debunk the common notion that he was? As for Hobhouse and Carlyle, it would be nice if we could provide a third source as a tiebreaker (Caroline Shenton's book says quite a lot about public reactions to the fire, which are as interesting as the facts of the fire itself). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need a "tie-breaker". We reflect what the sources say, and do so in as neutral and balanced way as we can. Providing something that moesthe argument towards one side or t'other would not properly reflect the sources. Yes, Shenton is excellent on all aspects of the fire, including the crowd reactions, but we also have to try and keep this in balance with the rest of the article, rather than try and give too much emphasis to this, at the expense of the other aspects of the fire. I'll be back shortly with the info about the architecture. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
As to whether Hobhouse was correct or Carlyle was correct, a brief quote from Shenton herself woukd clear it up: "The atmosphere was generally one of stunned astonishment rather than festivity."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need to. The eyewitnesses show two different opinions, both of which are probably correct (we don't know where they were in the crowd, or at what time, and both are probably accuratly reporting their impressions). Shenton makes it clear that she has an impression of what may have happened, rather than just reporting a straight "fact", which isunverifiable at this distance. I do prefer to show the actual impressions, rather than trying to judge one side against the other based only on a C21st historian's own POV. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Shenton considered many more sources than Carlyle and Hobhouse, her conclusion (quoted above) is very concise, and so she's a perfect secondary source; I'm not suggesting to delete anything. Anyway, here is an excellent external pre-fire pic of the House of Commons and House of Lords. And here is another external pre-fire pic showing the chimney very prominently.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm well aware of what Shenton and several other sources have written as I have read her and others several times. I am happy with what is there and do not propose to change it in favour of any particular "side", which would not reflect the full range of sources available. – SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, both are passable images, but I do not propose removing the images of the Lords and Commons (which is what we'd have to do) to put these in. It's a judgement call, and I invite uninvolved parties to comment further on the selection of internal or external views of the old Palace. – SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you would like to consider Shenton to be a "side" then it's puzzling why her side cannot be briefly included ("The atmosphere was generally one of stunned astonishment rather than festivity"). I don't see why any image would have to be removed in order to show what the original building exterior looked like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
We'd have to remove images because we're about at saturation point with images in the article. On wider screens we are already close to sandwiching the text as it is, so to add any more, we'd have to take some out. – SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd put one of those two pics at the top of this stack, modifying heading to "Before and after the fire started". If you want to see image saturation, take a look at Wells Cathedral!  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Adding another image would end up with the Braidwood image out of alignment with his text, and have it going into the "Aftermath" section, which leads to the text sandwiching up against the Barry/Pugin image. As I've said, I'd like to hear the views of third parties on this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I'd like to hear from third parties too. This article has 17 images, compared to 56 in Wells Cathedral so it's not quite jammed yet. And if more text is needed to provide a sufficient home for more images, a great place to start would be by including the Shenton quote: "Caroline Shenton has examined further evidence of the crowd's reaction, and concludes that 'The atmosphere was generally one of stunned astonishment rather than festivity'". I think these two changes alone would greatly accentuate the excellent work you have done. But perhaps third parties will disagree with me about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Adding that tiny amount of text would not avoid sandwiching issues, which would need about 400 words. - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Of the two pre-fire images I suggested, this one much more closely corresponds to the image at the top of this Wikipedia article. I can take this pre-fire image to the Wikipedia graphics lab if anyone would like to see how much it could be improved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


  • As lovely as I'm sure they are, please, no more images. To much of a good thing can be bad and I think the article will suffer as a consequence of adding too many images. CassiantoTalk 21:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like there to be a decent image of the pre-1834 parliament somewhere on Wikipedia, and if such an image becomes available then I would be glad to put it elsewhere than in this article, though it seems highly relevant here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
...and I'm sure there will be, but your complaint is moot seeing as you now say you wish to see it "somewhere" on WP as opposed to just here. Have you considered finding one yourself and uploading it to the encyclopedia? If and when you do, here would be the wrong place as there is no room at the inn. CassiantoTalk 21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The Palace of Westminster seems an obvious place? – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Houses of Parliament before 1834 Fire
Yup, thanks, that's what I'm thinking of. I have found a very nice image that I just uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (at right). Cheers. Feel free to change your mind about including it here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── KJP1, Anythingyouwant mentioned that we "mention 'Gothic Revival' in the lead as the style of the new structure, but I don't see any wikilinked style of the old structure, in the lead": I've gone through my sources and it's not entirely clear what would be the best term (or terms) to use. There's a mention of a generic "medieval" style, as well as gothic, but sort of hints at other bits. As you're our resident architectural expert, do you have a view on this? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Support: I also had an input at peer review and think an interesting article of high quality has been well polished by the PR. For what it is worth, I'm really not sure the collection of buildings that comprised the old palace, constructed over more than six centuries, could be said to have a defining style. If you look at the illustration, you seem to have some Wyatville Gothic - a hint of Ashridge, a bit of Palladianism, and some original medieval work. I'm a long way from my Pevsner, and no sources come to mind, but I don't think it would be appropriate to try to encapsulate the architectural style(s) of the earlier palace in a single term. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks KJP1, your comments and thoughts at PR were invaluable in the improvement of this article. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Support: The considerable volume of comment and suggestions from the peer review has been used intelligently to produce an article that is informative, entertaining, and of high quality. My only complaint might be that the page is somewhat over-illustrated, but I recognise that this is a matter of opinion. Well worthy of featured status. Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, Brian. Your cmments were as insightful as alwaysand strengthened the article hugely. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Singora (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC). Really good! Four points:

  • In the first line you say the palace was destroyed; in the second line of paragraph two you add "The fire ... destroyed a large part of the palace". This seems inconsistent.
  • Good spot: now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think articles with too many photos look a bit cheap.
  • Do you mean specifically photos, or any images? Which would you suggest I get rid of, as I think they all serve a purpose, but happy to mull over any suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Your sources include three articles from The Observer and two from The Times. When I click these links I expect to read the original article; I've zero interest in seeing a Wiki article about the newspaper.
  • The names of the papers are linked, which is what they link to. If the article titles were linked, that would be what the link would point to. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher, was one of those present that night, and he later recalled that ..." should be "Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher, was one of those present that night and later wrote ...". Carlyle's letter are out of copyright and in the public Domain. Link to the source rather than a Wiki article. This is the link:
  • I've linked the main source to the archive, rather than linking away from Wiki in the middle of the article, which I think is frowned upon by the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughts. If you could let me know about the images, I'll review that point again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see you've already linked to Carlyle's letters. Apologies! I missed that. I only saw the Wiki link to Thomas Carlyle. I see what you mean about the newspaper sources, but I'd not considered this before. I assumed that links would point to the article you're citing. So why link three times to a Wiki article about The Observer? I'll let you and your fan club decide which images (if any) could be removed. Once again, you've written a very good article. Singora (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to remove the fourth painting in 16 October 1834 as it's really not a very clear one with much to look at and four images in a row seems a lot. The problem though is that very painting seems one of the more notable ones and has its own article! Ah well. Other than that I don't think they look too bad at all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

  • Oppose for now Pretty much there, but more clarity is needed as to what was there, and what went in the fire:
  • Echoing complaints above, it isn't very clear what the buildings that were destroyed were or looked like. The list of kings at the start of "background" "The Palace of Westminster originally dates from the first half of the eleventh century when Canute the Great built his royal residence on the side of the River Thames. Successive kings added to the complex: Edward the Confessor built Westminster Abbey; William the Conqueror began building a new palace; his son, William Rufus, continued the process, which included Westminster Hall, started in 1097; Henry III built new exchequer buildings in 1270..." isn't very helpful, since I'd imagine only work by the last two, at most, remained to be burned. What dates were the buildings burned? Shenton must cover this surely? There are in fact a number of images that can be used, either on Commons already, or easy to upload. But these should be captioned explaining how they relate to the plan already used; in particular which of the various Gothic gable-fronts is featured. From my reading of the article and looking at images, the large Georgian building at the left of the current top image is the Speaker's House, which burned down. But I'm not sure about this, and I should be.
  • Im not sure what you mean by "What dates were the buildings burned?" your comment of "only work by the last two, at most, remained to be burned" is off the mark: the complex developed over time and aspects of the buildings survived and were merged into the rest. As I've said above, I don't intend to add an image of the outside of the building: there are two images of the inside (Lorda and Commons). It's a judgement call, and I've gone down this route, rather than the other. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean "What were the approximate dates of building of the parts of the palace that were burned?", to which it is becoming clear that you don't know the answer. I don't think this is an extravagant request, or one that is impossible to source. It seems you don't intend to use the images you already have to explain the buildings either. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not try and double guess what I know the answer to or not: I was asking for clarification for a poorly worded question (the answer, prior to clarification, would have been 1834). - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I really don't like the tiny 3/4-high multiple images, which I doubt are MOS-compliant. Use mini-galleries instead. The settings used at Waddesdon Bequest allow decent sizes & room for captions, and would allow for more images.
    • I don't think the article will benefit from more images. This has already been discussed above. CassiantoTalk 15:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw. But not settled, and I disagree with you. In fact the images already used, or the same number with a few swops, would probably be sufficient, if they were well-explained, which they are not at present. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
My gut reaction here is to leave them as they are, but it's certainly not set in stone (although I am not a fan of the mini-gallery approach). I don't think they somehow infringe the MoS: Crisco 1492, does the placement of images here go against the MoS in any way? – SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
They come out far smaller that the default size (220px), which MOS discourages. I don't think that being part of a "multiple" gets round that myself, though I don't know if that issue has been pronounced upon. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any previous discussions, though the template documentation suggests it is allowed. When it comes to the multiple image template, the problem is that using the default thumbnail size means that images end up having different heights, which looks highly unprofessional and generates white space; hence why, in the past, I've helped Schro standardize images heights instead of widths. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Could someone point me to the policy that says we cannot have images below 220px? I've searched through a couple of the relevant pages and can see nothing that disbars marginally smaller images from being used, so I suspect I've missed the relevant page. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If you are uploading more images to Commons, please categorize them properly, unlike the the Constable you uploaded. They do not need to go to "Category:National legislatures", but they do need to go to "Category:Palace of Westminster" or "Category:Palace of Westminster in art"! In fact there should be sub-cats on Commons for the old PoW, and the fire. Personally I'd favour more images, but they should be explained properly.
  • I think we are at saturation point with images, and some have commented that there may be too many, so I am not inclined to add yet more. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Barry planned what Christopher Jones, the former BBC political editor, has called "one long spine of Lords' and Commons' Chambers"[77] which enabled the Speaker of the House of Commons to look through the line of the building to see the Queen's throne in the House of Lords." What everybody else calls this is an enfilade, and the PoW is mentioned in that article, which should be linked.

Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Enfilade now added. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the image of the map is particularly useful, as compared to the image suggested above showing the buildings before the fire. But if the map is kept, is it correct? The same map is in the Palace of Westminster article, where the caption says: "The Court of Requests, between the two Houses, would become the new home of the Lords in 1801." The map is dated 1746 so it was largely obsolete by the time of the fire.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The current lead image shows pretty much the same view as the one above, with added flames and smoke. Both show the complex end on, and you need the map, and either the explanations which the article does not provide, or a period of thinking about it (and knowing the present site) to work out more or less what is what. As it is, the unspecified but built-up/yard (?) areas of the map give rise to many mysteries. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead image (like the one above) is a kind of "L" shape, with the base of the "L" being farthest from the vantage point. It would be wise for this Wikipedia article to say which of the two houses is the base of the "L", and to show the "L" clearly on the map, if the map is kept.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The images are I think the view from about the stray "A" at the bottom of the map, done in 1746, which was presumably before the large Georgian building on the left of both pictures (Speaker's House?) was built. They thus show none of the Houses of Lords and Commons, nor Westminster Hall, at all well. This is what makes the (a) map necessary. The large gable rising above the other buildings is presumably the west end of Westminster Hall. But I entirely agree, and have been saying, that much better explanations are needed. It is unacceptable in an FA that this sort of puzzling-out needs to be done by the reader. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Helpful map now pointlessly removed, article taken a slight backward step. I do not think an addition of a replacement image would be beneficial, given the comments of those who already think there are too many images. – SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't blame me, I didn't propose that at all, and described the map as "necessary" just above. If you have chosen to remove the one element that went some way to explain the layout of the buildings, the need for explanation by other means becomes all the more pressing, but you have made no moves in this direction. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, because I am at work without sources or the time to look into them. I will edit the section in question when I am ready to. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Fine. There's no rush. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Now added - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that little list doesn't cut it I'm afraid. You need to boil down this comprehensive account into a section, and then caption several of the images to explain what it is they show. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't need to do that. This is the article about the fire, not a full history and description of the Palace of Westminster. You may leave your oppose to stand if you wish, but I do not agree with what would be bloating of that section and will not add to it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A "full" description is not in question, but an article on a fire cannot be called comprehensive with no attempt at describing the physical characteristics of the site that was burned. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a description, and it is entirely adequate for the article. You have your opinion, and that is fine, but, like your personal opinion on the use galleries, it is not one I share. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Brayley Plate II.jpg
I have just uploaded a detailed floor plan of the palace as it existed just prior to the fire. I still need to add some descriptive information, and will do so soon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
That's extremely helpful. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the map, User:SchroCat. There's one tiny thing that could remove some confusion: putting a red dot onto the map showing the vantage point for the image in the lede. Would that be okay? We could make a separate map image with the dot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No, that would not be acceptable. Not only can the lead image can change at any time, to judge where the position was would be to go too far into OR. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. One last question from me: the image description for the map says "The Old Court of Requests, afterwards the House o. Lords, and made the House of Commons since the fire.... C. The Painted Chamber, fitted up for the House of Lords in 1834-5." Since I am lazy, could you please tell me whether the Wikipedia article reflects these facts, and the apparent reality that the remnants of the palace were adequate to continue giving shelter to parliament?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The answer is in the article, which you seem to have opposed without reading, if you don't know the answer! – SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the caption at the top image should say which house is at right, and which house is at rear. Since you don't want to answer my question, I will read through the article again to find the answer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, the answer to my question seems to be in the following text: "The fire lasted for most of the night and destroyed a large part of the palace, including the converted St Stephen's Chapel—the meeting place of the House of Commons—the Lords Chamber, the Painted Chamber and the official residences.....Parliament still needed somewhere to meet, and the Lesser Hall and Painted Chamber were re-roofed and furnished for the Commons and Lords respectively." This seems a bit contradictory; the Painted Chamber was damaged rather than destroyed, or else the Lords couldn't have moved there. As for the "Lesser Hall", you start discussing it without saying what it was used for prior to the fire; contrary to Brayley, you say that the old House of Lords was destroyed rather than damaged. If I have erred here, it is because I am not an expert in this area, which is why I posed this as a question to you, User:SchroCat.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

And now,you have the answer after finally reading the article. Well done. - SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I did read the article previously, and even after reading through it again the answer was still unclear. Therefore, I have directly edited the Wikipedia article.[15]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
It was extremely clear in the original. Your edit was,poor and I've reverted: I'll tweak it properly in the morning. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thank you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

HMS Collingwood (1908)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

HMS Collingwood was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships and frequently served as a flagship during her short career. Completed a few years before World War I, she played a minor role in the war with only participation in the Battle of Jutland enlivening the endless routine of patrols in the North Sea and training. Rendered obsolete by the ever-increasing size and power of more recent dreadnoughts, she became a training ship after the war until she was sold for scrap in 1922. The recent publication of her ship's log has confirmed what I've been otherwise been unable to document and I believe that she now meets the A-class criteria. As always, I'd like readers to look for stray usages of American English and unexplained jargon in addition to the normal things like prose, etc. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and hopefully only needs minor tweaking to fully satisfy the FAC criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Just one question that didn't come to me during the A-class review - the text of the WNT specifically mentions Collingwood as a ship Britain could retain for non-combatant use - any clue why the RN decided to get rid of her anyway? Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Nothing about that in my sources, but neither Colossus nor Collingwood were retained as they could have been. My best guess is that the RN had plenty of ships that it could use for training and that the government felt that they was too expensive to operate in a time of fiscal austerity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, and that makes sense to me. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Jane's should be italicized in caption
  • Map could be slightly larger
  • File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • File:First_battle_squadron_in_the_North_Sea_(April_1915).jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Revised the licenses as necessary. Thanks for looking this over with your usual thoroughness.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Singora (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • RE: ALTERATIONS. "In addition, a pair of 3-inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns were added". WERE -> WAS. PAIR = SINGULAR
  • RE: CONSTRUCTION AND CAREER. "Including her armament, her cost is variously quoted at £1,680,888[3] or £1,731,640". Could you try "Costs including armament are quoted at £1,680,888 and £1,731,640"? I don't think you need the word "variously"; the word "or" seems wrong. Then again, maybe "or" is better than "and". But you do need to avoid repeating the word "her".
  • RE: WORLD WAR 1. "After arriving in Portland on 27 July, Collingwood (...) was ordered to proceed to Scapa Flow on 29 July". Could you not try "two days later"?
  • RE: WORLD WAR 1. You've used the phrase "fruitless sweep" twice in the opening paragraph.
  • RE: WORLD WAR 1. "did not become engaged" -> "did not participate".
  • RE: WORLD WAR 1. Paragraph four uses the word "severe" twice.
  • RE: BATTLE OF JUTLAND. "Prince Albert was a sub-lieutenant commanding the forward turret (...) and he sat in the open on the turret roof during a lull in the action". The word "he" is redundant.
  • RE: SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITY. "After the battle, the ship was transferred to ...". Is that comma necessary?
  • RE: SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITY. "Collingwood was sold to John Cashmore Ltd for scrap on 12 December and arrived at Newport, Wales on 3 March 1923 to begin demolition". The ship didn't begin anything; she went to Newport to be demolished.
    • Good suggestions, all, although I don't believe that you are correct regarding your first point. Forex, "the first pair of brothers were told..." "Were" is appropriate in both cases because the second noun in the sentence (guns or brothers) is plural. Thanks for taking time to look this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Tom Simpson[edit]

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Tom Simpson, one of Britain's most successful professional cyclists. I brought it up to GA back in 2013 and I'm keen to get it to FA, ideally on the front page on 13 July (the anniversary of his death). It's had a thorough copy edit thanks to Miniapolis over at WP:GOCE. The peer review only had one user's (Brianboulton) help. One thing I've found hard is toning down the cycling detail in the prose. All comments are welcome. Thanks. BaldBoris 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Support I thought this was able to pass FA when it passed GA. Solid work here. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Support. Like Disc Wheel, I felt that this article was able to pass FA when it was already at GA. I also note that BaldBoris has proposed 13 July for a potential showing if it was to be promoted...It could equally be sufficient for 5 September, as that would mark the 50th anniversary of him becoming world champion. But other than that, would be delighted to see this reach the top echelon. Pardon the pun. Craig(talk) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

SSX 3[edit]

Nominator(s): BlookerG talk 01:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

SSX 3 is a game I hold pretty dearly to my heart. I grew up playing it, and felt like a suitable way to show my admiration of it would be to get its article up to featured status. The article has already been promoted to GA class, and has also just been through a relatively unsuccessful peer review where I was trying to find any ways to improve it, but I have added some more development info after said GA review. After making some comparisons with another FA class snowboard video game article, 1080° Snowboarding, I'm going to be bold and submit it for a featured article review. Thanks in advance to anyone planning on reviewing this, as your constructive criticism will give me much needed ideas for making this the best article I can possibly achieve. BlookerG talk 01:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Procedural note: This was incorrectly filed as an FAR on May 4, and has been moved here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

R. V. C. Bodley[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the British Army officer, author and journalist. After successfully nominating this article for GA, DYK and A-Class Military History, as well as having a peer review and the infobox image listed as the POTD, I believe this article is ready for FAC. Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (See? That wasn't so bad.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support

  • Did some copyediting, seen here
  • Inconsistancy:<ref> tags and {{sfn}} tags, and as per WP:MOS, you should use one or the other.
  • The other four articles i've had pass through FAC use both, and I don't think i've had someone mention this at FAC before. Can you point out where in WP:MOS it says to only use one or the other? Thanks. Freikorp (talk)
  • You should add isbns or oclcs (for older works) to two of the sources in the Bibliography.
  • I'm guessing since you using the same London Gazette issue over and over, you should put it with the other references and put page numbers for it in the citations.
  • One issue of the London Gazette is used twice. The other 6 citations to the gazette are from different issues. in any case, I don't know how to format an sfn for a work that does not have an author, which none of the Gazette articles do. If you want me to do all the rest, can you format one of them for me so I know how to do it? Thanks. Freikorp (talk)

Well, that's all I could find for now. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Images is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

2012 Budweiser Shootout[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of two NASCAR exhibition races held in 2012. The Budweiser Shootout, was won by Kyle Busch, after passing Tony Stewart on the race's final lap. This is my second attempt at FAC for this article, which failed because of issues with prose. Since then, it has undergone a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors to address the concerns from the last time. I gladly welcome all feedback and comments regarding this article. Z105space (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. I think this partly failed because of prose but also because of a lack of response. I'll gladly support as the article is in better shape than it was when I peer reviewed it and the GOCE looked at it; I'd hate to see this archived again due to a lack of reviews. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about,Emily Ratajkowski who is an elite bikini model (has appeared in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue for the last two years) and who is best known as the model from the video for "Blurred Lines", which was the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries. The page was viewed 3.2 million times in 2013 and 1.5 million times in 2014. Ratajkowski has parlayed her model buzz into sex symbol status and some movie roles, including a role in Gone Girl. I am hoping for a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday in about 13 months from now. After making progress on this article in 2014 (An October WP:GAN, a November WP:PR and a December WP:GOCE), I think this article is moving in the proper direction for a WP:FAC nomination. During and since the first FAC, I feel progress was made toward various concerns.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff[edit]

I don't know if I will have time for a full review, but here are some things that I noticed immediately:

I wasn't asking if they are reliable, although since they have been questioned multiple times it would be wise to find an additional/alternate source. I did not see those reviewers saying it was okay after your replies. What I was really talking about though was similar to my comment above. Changing unlinked to linked SheKnows Media can help those that question the reliability of those sources. BollyJeff | talk 21:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes the support for some of the sources is lacking from the reviewers, but no one is pointing to any specifically as not being WP:RS. I would swap out any if I could.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Please try harder on this. Here is another one: -> Fashion Model Directory BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you suggest I do with Styleite?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
That link is okay. Its better than nothing. BollyJeff | talk 23:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
O.K., I have double checked all of them now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No sources for Andrew's Alteration and A Year and a Day other than IMDB?? Not reliable enough.
    • Is there another industry source for a filmography. I believe that even the most notable actors have filmographies with questionable sourcing like this. I believe that in the case of a filmography this is almost considered a reliable source for this purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Any sources to prove that the website and Twitter accounts cited are indeed her official accounts?
    • Her twitter has the verified accounts emblem on it and that page points to the website that we are claiming is her official website.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems like she is known more for instagram than twitter. I would still look for a reliable source that makes a direct reference to her social media account(s) if I were you. BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you base this IG notoriety on? Have there been problems with Twitter verified accounts in the past?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey. this seems to verify the @emrata twitter handle.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
It says Instagram though doesn't it? Must be the same handle for both. But that is the kind of source I was talking about, yes. BTW, how does the "Twitter verified account" thing work? BollyJeff | talk 23:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
There are a bunch of even better sources that are also all really referring to her IG account: Allure, MTV and USA Today. What do you want me to do with this sourcing?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
A verified account is something that a notable person can attain by following a process that I am unfamiliar with. I have never heard of any issues with a verified account.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It just seems like if she is so big on Twitter and Instagram, then there should be some mention of both of them in the article. I see the verified check mark on both now, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 03:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Too much info on "Blurred Lines" in the lead, including three mentions by name. This article is about Emily, not a song.
  • 'Rise to fame' section: Begins with "The video". What video? Previous section was titled 'Music video performances', plural. You should add at least one source that actually calls her a sex symbol after the first sentence.
I googled "Emily Ratajkowski sex symbol" and the very first response was this from 2013. Wont this work? BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for digging this one up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this would be a better source for the Hot 100 list than the two you current have, no?
    • I have swapped the one you suggested for the second one. However, since these were from primary sources, I have retained the secondary source to confirm that the list has notability beyond the primary source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

. BollyJeff | talk 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Could Nikkimaria or Elcobbola please look at the Fair Use rationale at this image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the stated purpose, combined with the text given in the article, is sufficient to overcome the tag's proviso not to use such images in the articles of the people they picture. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, The intent of the text is to explain that this is the image that made her a star, essentially. Is there something about the FUR that is wrong or is it the text of the article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it's wrong, just that it's insufficient - it's not clear why we need to see the cover to understand the text. Do any of the sources expand on what it was about the cover that was important, or was it just the fact of being on the cover and getting exposure through that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
When I look at the image, it is apparent to me why this particular image could propel a woman to some form of notoriety, which makes it obvious to me why just talking about such an image is not sufficient. If you told me of an image that was the reason for her success, I would want to understand in words or by presentation why such an image could propel a person to stardom. The picture is stunning in the revelation of brooding eyes, lean physique (visible rib cage), yet bodacious physical presence. In addition the placement of the hands, heel and toes add class. The use of shadow in key places are all things that can be observed. I am unable to find a critique of the picture. But the article includes multiple anecdotal summary statements about the memorable overall experience of viewing the image by some of the leading men of the entertainment world. Beyond the summary statements by these people and the picture itself there is not much else to go on. However, I don't think it is truly necessary to have a critical review of the image. You say "it's insufficient". Then you talk about needing more of something. Would you like a more developed FUR or more developed text?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Both - you give a great explanation here but it does not come through in what is currently present. However, you might not be able to source it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Until Elcobbola shows up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Nikkimaria. Certain of the explanation above reads to me like the conflation of significance to the subject with significance to the reader's understanding (see “Relationships” in the “8. Significance” section of the non-free dispatch). That Ratajkowski’s appearance on a magazine was the catalyst for her discovery by Thicke is readily understood through prose. Now, if it was indeed the unique visual characteristics mentioned (“stunning in the revelation [...] the placement [...] (t)he use of shadow in key places”) that inspired and persuaded Thicke, there might very well be a case. However, as Nikkimaria noted, that is currently merely OR. Without a sourced discussion, we cannot presume to know the mind of Thicke. Alternatively stated, there's a distinction to be made between the artistry of the cover image and the mere woman on the cover. Was the cover actually necessary, or would he have chosen her even if he'd happened by her on the street? Right now, the only evidence is that the cover was a means of acquaintance; that its unique visual style had a meaningful role is unsupported supposition. Эlcobbola talk 15:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note that we have had two WP:RFCs involving this image at Talk:Treats! where I have previously presented my arguments regarding use of this image. The second one put more attention on this image. Note that in that RFC, Masem, who I believe continues to review here said "on Emily's page, if this shot was critically discussed (as it seems to be) and noted as the career-launching photo for the model, it clearly is fine on the model's page."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Masem's comment reminds me to consider what constitutes critical review. Photographic techniques need not be discussed. Comments like those I made above about use of shadow and body positioning need not be discussed either. I think two statements that this image stood out from the pantheon of model imagery availed to the leading male sex symbols of our day is a significant critical commentary. Do they need to say why it stood out to make it critical commentary. We all know how many models are trying to get into videos of artists who produce #1 songs. Isn't the fact that this picture stood out to two such individuals significant critical commentary. Saying it stood out to both is encylopedic. Once we have two such encyclopedic thoughts, then we need to summarize that and present it to the reader in a way that helps them understand. I have spent enough time with WP:WPVA subjects here (dozens of FAs and GAs in that project, including many sculpture and painting FAs and a few individual photo GAs as well as some artist GAs) to take a look at a photo and conceive the reasons for its significance. My photo GAs for More Demi Moore and Demi's Birthday Suit mostly say stuff about a bunch of people thinking an image was significant and not stuff about photographic techniques and such. I think what we need to see is clearly shown. People think this image stands out. The reader can not see why without seeing the image in truth and if we had prose explaining why then maybe we might not need to see the images. Without prose explaining in a detailed manner why the image stands out we should let the image speak for itself. The image is a very strong artistic presentation. Despite my own feelings about the subject of the photo, I think the artistic merits of the image are apparent. This is not just a "gorgeous girl who was featured naked on covers" as Sandy discussed below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The image doesn't need discussion of the photographic nature, etc. but it does need more than what amounts to a single comment that "this image launched her career". Your other examples provide the type of commentary that doesn't necessary need to be critically about the image but show why the image is important (and in these cases, important enough for their own articles). In this case, we're still at the idea this launched her career, and that's just not enough alone. You don't have many sources to say why this image stands out to any great degree, particularly in comparison to those other images were are much more iconic in nature. I'm not saying these sources might not exist but the article's current content lacks them to readily include the image yet. There's a possibility you can get it there, but it does need much more commentary whether critically about the image, or more about the legacy/iconic nature of the image. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Masem, Elcobbola and SandyGeorgia, Does this suffice for NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It's fair enough, discussion specifically on the photo. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Not great, but fair. Эlcobbola talk 22:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki and EC; the prose here is plodding throughout, quite deficient, and so far off the 1a mark, that I don't see any utility in entering an oppose and then having to follow up on it, but I hope the use of that image in two articles can be dealt with while we're here. (As a prose example, without even going beyond the lead, one finds: "Her acting career began with youth acting roles in the San Diego area before gaining a recurring role on iCarly and later roles in major films." Her acting career got a role in a film, cool. As another example of the trivia-laden prose, "She also was invited to the 18th annual May 15, 2014 Condé Nast Traveler Hot List Party.". How surprising that a gorgeous girl who was featured naked on covers would be invited to such an event!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

First, your comments as "plodding throughout, quite deficient, and so far off the 1a mark" seem a bit harsh for an article that has had a recent (less than 6 months ago) WP:GOCE review by Baffle gab1978 that resulted in these changes. I will request another GOCE review after this FAC, if it does not generate enough commentary to help me improve the prose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Second, as you know, almost all of my WP:FACs that succeed do so with a lot of copyediting by others. I am a good encyclopedic researcher but not a good writer. I hope you do not discourage the commentary that this fully researched subject needs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Third, I'll respond above regarding the image momentarily.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You are not alone Tony; I know how you feel. GOCE does not always get the job done sufficiently for FA. I wish there was a better way than begging known good writers to go over it. But honestly, this article still has technical issues as well, as noted in my comments above. I would not support it even with better writing. BollyJeff | talk 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Bollyjeff, I seem to have missed some of your responses above. This no doubt has to do with my Ubering schedule, which is usually Fri-Mon and your Friday responses above. Now, I know what the editors who work full time go through. Your responses above are appreciated. I will review them and try to address them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I realize your response was really from late Thursday in Chicago, but by that time I am doing my semiweekly review to changes to my watchlist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hastings Line[edit]

Nominator(s): Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a secondary railway line in the United Kingdom. It was built across difficult terrain requiring many tunnels. Lax supervision of the construction of the tunnels meant that a following rectification of the defects discovered, a restricted loading gauge was required for 140 years. During a modernisation scheme in the 1980s, measures were taken to remove the loading gauge restriction. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


I know little about the railways, other than using them, so please view my comments in the light of that ignorance:

  • Lead
    • "a secondary railway line…" – we could do with either a link or an explanation for this far from self-explanatory term
      • Drawing a blank here. I could add a series of notes, but the would come across the problem of needing to reference them. Would the term "secondary main line" convey the meaning better? Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I'd leave it as it is, I think. The general drift is clear enough. I thought it might be a precise technical term, but as it isn't one I think it is fine.
    • "the South eastern Railway" – the capitalisation looks odd, and I see it doesn't tally with the WP article or your own capitalisation in the main text of this article.
    • "Supervision of the construction … the construction" in the same sentence.
    • "the line … when the line" another repetition
      • Lede rewritten to avoid the repetition 18:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Background
    • I'm not making a big point of this, but I'm not sure the dogged listing of the various parliamentary stages is all that relevant. Unless there was any controversy during the passage of the bill I'd be inclined to say that it was introduced in the Commons on x, passed by both Houses by y and given the Royal Assent on z.
  • Hyphenation
    • "Bo-peep" (four times) or "Bopeep" (9 times) Junction? Consistency wanted.
      • I've gone with the modern spelling of "Bopeep", but note that the pub is spelled as "Bo Peep". Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Duplicate blue-links
    • Ashford
    • Bexhill West Branch Line
      • removed one of the 3 Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • branch line
      • Not found as a link Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • British Rail Class 201
      • removed one of the 3 Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • British Rail Class 202
      • Not done, sufficiently far apart and needed for context and consistency Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • British Rail Class 203
      • Not done, sufficiently far apart and needed for context and consistency Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • British Railways
  • Only one link found Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • chains
    • Obscure unit, linked through conversion template Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • London, Chatham and Dover Railway
    • Cudworth
  • not done, linked in full on first occurrence and by surname on second. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • East Coastway Line
    • East Sussex (twice)
    • Eastbourne
      • Eastbourne railway station reduced to one link Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Hastings
      • Hastings railway station reduced to one link after lede Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • High Weald
      • reduced to one link after lede Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Kent
      • reduced to one link after lede Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • London and South Western Railway
    • Pevensey
      • One link altered to link to railway station article Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Queen Victoria
    • Railways Act 1921
    • Redhill (twice)
      • Redhill railway station reduced to one link Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Robertsbridge (twice)
      • Robertsbridge railway station reduced to one link Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Rother Valley Railway (twice)
    • SER branch
      • link not found Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Sevenoaks
      • Sevenoaks railway station reduced to one link Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Southern Region
      • One link removed Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Transport Act 1947
    • Whatlington
    • World War I
    • World War II
  • Superfluous blue-links
    • mile
      • Mile has to be linked as it is linked from the conversion of distances from miles and chains to kilometres. chain (unit) is a relatively obscure unit of measurement nowadays, which is why in needs to be linked. Can't have one without the other. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • London
      • London is within context, and thus linkable. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Hmm. No persuaded, but not pressing the point. Tim riley talk 15:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • References
    • Why give the location for The Times in brackets at each mention but not do the same for The Morning Chronicle, The Morning Post, etc?
      • Locations added. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Similarly, why give the day of the week – "Monday, 10 March" etc – for The Times but not for the others?
    • Ref 52: newspaper title should be italicised
    • Ref 55: hyphen should be en-dash
    • Ref 83: The Morning Chronicle has lost its definite article, which it had at the three earlier mentions
    • Ref 84: something awry with the capitalisation, I think
    • Ref 127: as for ref 52
  • Sources
    • ISBNs/OCLCs missing for Carr, Garrett, Kidner (1963), Neve, Nock (both), Rose.
      • Neve (1933), Nock (1961) and Kidner (1963) were published before the introduction of ISBNs. Catt (Carr?), Garrett and Rose do not have ISBNs. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
      • @Redrose64: can you help with OCLCs please? Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    Catt (1970) should have either an ISBN or a SBN, it's old enough (a SBN is merely an ISBN which lacks the initial 0); however, it's Oakwood Press, and they didn't start using visible ISBNs until quite late - about 1980 I think; so there might not be one for this book, unless it was reprinted later on. However, Oakwood Press didn't often do straight reprints - they usually had the book revised and enlarged at the same time, so searching for an ISBN online might well turn up that of a later edition - not a good idea. If there is a visible ISBN, it may be inside the book, at the top or bottom of the of the first page of text. For books in their "Locomotion Papers" series, there may be a number on the front cover, just below the photograph, at the left-hand side - and in extremely small type. All my examples have "ISSN: 0305-5493" in this position, but that's obviously not unique to the book.
    Garrett (1987) should have an ISBN somewhere. My copy is the 3rd edition (1999), ISBN 0-85361-516-0 but as I noted above, that should not be used as the ISBN for an earlier edition.
    Bit puzzled here. There is no Kidner (1963): there is Dendy Marshall & Kidner (1963); Kidner (1977) and Kidner (1985). Which of these is in error?
    My copy of Nock (1961) is the 1971 paperback edition, marked "SBN 7110-0268-1" which directly converts to ISBN 0-7110-0268-1. I don't know if it was revised or not, but it's not likely - Ian Allan tended to put out a book with part of the content unaltered from the original, but a different title to give the impression that it was new. I've been ripped off like that before.
    Nock (1987) is a book club edition. These almost never had an ISBN, but were identical in all important respects to the original editions, in this case one from Patrick Stephens Ltd. so its ISBN should begin 1-85260-
    ISBN 0-85059-735-8, OCLC 14128551 --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    Rose (1984) may be a private publication. If they were not sold through a commercial distributor, they probably didn't need an ISBN. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)he
    I am so sorry! I ought to have pointed you in the direction of WorldCat, from which the ref numbers are immediately available: e.g. Garrett is ISBN 0853611009 or 9780853611004 (the 13 digit version is preferred by the MoS, but what the hell). For older books the OCLC numbers are there for the copying. Tim riley talk 20:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    If a book has no ISBN stated, it's because there isn't one printed in the book. All OCLC numbers that I could find have now been added. Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry to blather on about this, but where you cite ISBNs it is not customary to add OCLCs as well. One or the other, usually. Just mentioning it, as it will probably come up in the source review. Tim riley talk 15:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    Oh well, now they're there they might as well stay. Gives people another search option if they are interested. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Judge: MOS:ALLCAPS
      • This is the exact title of the book, per the title page. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    OPC usually gave their main titles in all-caps, both on the cover and title page. We normally reformat titles of books, articles etc. to Title Case - see MOS:ALLCAPS. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    Done Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Authors' initials: need for consistency: Garret has no full stops; Bradley, Butt, Nock (once) et al have full stops but no space between the initials; Judge, Kidner, Nock (once) et al have full stops and a space between initials.
    • Hyphens should be en-dashes in the first two Yonge entries.
      • Template edited to fix this Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope these few comments are of help. I enjoyed this article, and I look forward to supporting it. – Tim riley talk 06:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And I now do, with pleasure. Tim riley talk 15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyclone Anne[edit]

Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Severe Tropical Cyclone Anne which affected the island nations of Tuvalu, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and the Solomon Islands back in January 1988. I have worked on this article for several months now and feel that now is the time for me to obtain some feedback on it from the community and that its worthy of being an FA.Jason Rees (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Multi-page citations should use "pp." not "p."
  • Ranges should use unspaced endashes not hyphens or emdashes (and check dash usage in article body as well)
    • I ran the [16] dashes script over the article and hope that this is now sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • FN27: URL redirects to another page
    • I have found an archive url of this page and fixed it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in where you include publisher locations, and be more specific than US
    • I think ive fixed this now.Jason Rees (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • FN5, 13, 16: page?
    • There were none associated with the news articles when i checked them on Lexis Nexis this morning.Jason Rees (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
    • On its own its probably not overly reliable, however, my thought process was that it backs up what the museum was saying and seems to go a little bit further.Jason Rees (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments on prose and presentation
  • It seems weird to mention Roy in the first two lines of the article, since—as far as I can tell—the storms had nothing to do with each other.
    • Not sure to be honest since they were twins per the JTWC and if it was today we would probably be finding impact in Kiribati.Jason Rees (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Before" and "after" are collectively used ~17 times in the lead and MH. There's nothing inherently wrong with the words, but the sentence structure they lend itself to do get monotonous.
    • Ive removed one instance and will see what I can do when i get chance.Jason Rees (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Category" should be capitalized to be more in line with the thousand+ other TC articles.
  • During January 12 after the cyclone had turned and started to move towards the south, Cyclone Anne became the most powerful tropical cyclone to affect New Caledonia in 12 years as it made landfall on the French Overseas Territory. - this could simply be "After turning toward the south on January 12, Anne struck New Caledonia, becoming the strongest tropical cyclone to affect the FOT in 12 years."
  • After the cyclone had moved back into the Coral Sea - you never said it was there in the first place...
  • "Within" is used 19 times in the relatively short article (including at the beginnings of three sentences in the second impact of preps/impact). Try to find some different words... in, on, over, throughout, across.
    • You did some copyediting so could you clairfy if this is still an issue.Jason Rees (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • torrential rain, flooding and storm surge caused damage to houses, crops, and property - either use the Oxford comma or don't but really, do :P
  • Extensive damage was also recorded on the islands of Vanua Lava and Gaua. Extensive damage was also reported on New Caledonia...

This is all to say that the article needs a fairly extensive copyediting session (though I haven't gone beyond the lead yet, so I could be making assumptions). The content seems good at first glance. I'll try to go through the page in the near future, but I can't make any promises, so you might want to enlist another editor in the meantime. Shouldn't be too hard to get this in shape. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments - I made some basic copyediting, per JC. If you disagree, please let me know. Here are some other comments.

  • No need to link Roy in the See also, considering it's linked already. Find another link. Ditto Agi. Link Agi in the article when you first mention it. Then, you should find other, similar storms to link in see also.
  • You say it was the strongest New Caledonia landfall, but you don't say the winds. Why?
  • Why no links for the various islands in the lead?
  • I think you should put a note in, along the lines of what I did in Typhoon Maemi, saying what the FMS is. That way, the reader knows instantly that it is an important meteorological service, and not just some weather office for Fiji. Ditto with "United States Joint Typhoon Warning Center".
  • "Over the next two days the Southern Hemisphere system developed further as it was steered towards the south-southwest along an area of high pressure, before it became equivalent to a tropical storm while passing through the Tuvaluan Islands." - this should be split up, but I'm not sure *when* it became a TS
  • "the cyclone passed through Temotu Province and about 55 km (35 mi) to the northwest of Anuta Island" - why no mention of the country?
  • "After the cyclone re-emerged into the Coral Sea" - when was it first in the Coral Sea?
  • Do you have a better way of saying "as it was caught up in the upper westerly flow"? It could use a bit more explanation.
  • "where strong gale force winds of 70 km/h (45 mph) were recorded" - as it was a gust, does the mph need to be rounded to the nearest 5? Typically we don't if it's an exact gust.
  • You might want to add a note about "10-minute sustained". As 10-minute is the standard, you could add a note saying all wind values are 10-minute unless otherwise stated.
  • "Anuta, Utupua, the Duff Islands and the Reef Islands all reported extensive damage to property and crops with at least 25 houses and 5 classrooms damaged." - this directly contradicts the previous sentences about the province escaping the strong winds. Or, was there heavy damage due to lighter winds? Something isn't right.
  • "Vanuatuan" isn't correct. The denonym is "Ni-Vanuatu", but I don't think that's any better for such a general term. Are you ok with "Northern Vanuatu Islands"?
  • "Within Vanuatu, over 1600 people were made homeless while wind gusts of up to 225 km/h (140 mph) were recorded." - neither are related aside from general impact. You should have met stats separate from actual impacts
  • "Torrential rain, flooding and storm surge caused damage to houses, crops, and property while triggering a landslide on the island of Epi." - did all of this happen on Epi? Also, what distinguishes property from houses?
  • "The hardest hit area was Torba Province with severe damage recorded on the islands of Ureparapara and the Torres Islands, while extensive damage was recorded on the islands of Vanua Lava and Gaua." - I have no idea what's going on here. You already said "During January 10, the cyclone directly passed over the Torres Islands and came within 65 km (40 mi) of the Banks Islands". This sort of info should be together. Or, is all of this in Torba Province? That means little for people who don't know the provinces of Vanuatu.
  • "There were reports of 4–5 m (13–16 ft) tidal waves" - so, most people think of tidal waves as tsunamis, or something of the sort. I assume this refers to just storm-generated waves?
  • "while significant wave heights of over 11 m (36 ft) were recorded" - where? On land?
  • "Some areas reported crop damage between 90 and 100%" - which areas? Was it just one farm? That sentence is kinda wishy-washy?
  • You mention winds "up to 150 km/h (95 mph)" in Noumea. That's useless, as technically 1 km/h is within the range of 0 up to 150. Do you know the exact figure?
  • "The last wooden Royal Navy boat was scheduled to be sunk on January 12, but was moved to January 19 due to the cyclones." - this needs context
  • How are there references to Euros? They didn't come out until 7 years after the storm
    • There are references to Euros in the articles because the references for the aftermath are from the EU and use the "fictional" European Currency Unit. When this was abolished it was apparently determined that 1 ECU = 1 Euro and as a result I felt it better to use the non-fictional currency rather than the fictional.Jason Rees (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hope none of these are too troublesome to deal with. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Just for the record I am aware of these comments but have become busy in real life, i am aiming to deal with most of them on Sunday if i dont find time before.Jason Rees (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Have you addressed any of these comments? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Pavel Nedvěd[edit]

Nominator(s): C679 12:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Pavel Nedvěd, a Czech footballer who won the coveted Ballon d'Or in 2003. The article has gone through a good article review, two peer reviews and a copy edit from WP:GOCE. C679 12:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I should also declare my participation in the WikiCup. C679 12:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments: I think this has a little way to go. I notice that the 2015 peer review got no comments at all; you may be better approaching some copy-editors or FA regulars to have a look and get some quality feedback. PR can be a graveyard. The more eyes on this the better. Here are some comments on the lead, to get you started. I will not oppose at the moment, but I think this needs a lot of work to be FA quality. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • "Described as one of the best footballers of his generation, he is also regarded as one of the most successful players to emerge from the Czech Republic,": Described by who, regarded by who? My confidence in these statements is lessened further by their reference to a BBC article from 2000 which has no publisher, author or date information.
  • "winning domestic and European accolades": What sort of accolades? Trophies? Awards? Praise?
  • "during which he attracted international attention": This is quite vague.
  • "He also captained the national team at Euro 2004, where they were defeated in the semi-final to eventual champions Greece, and Nedvěd was named as part of the Team of the Tournament.": This could be tightened up considerably. For example: "During the 2004 European Championship [this should be written in full here], he captained the national team to the semi finals, where they were defeated by the eventual champions Greece, and he was named in the Team of the Tournament."
  • "Furthermore, Nedvěd helped his team qualify for the World Cup for the first time since the breakup of Czechoslovakia." Furthermore does not really work here; and which World Cup are we talking about? The last date given was 2004, when there was no World Cup and the qualifiers had only just begun.
  • "Winning the Ballon d'Or as European Footballer of the Year in 2003, Nedvěd was the second Czech player to receive the honour and the first since the breakup of Czechoslovakia. ": Second time we've mentioned the breakup of Czechoslovakia in a short space; such repetition is best avoided. Maybe better phrased, for example, "In 2003, Nedvěd became just the second Czech player to win the Balloon d'Or"
  • Quite a few sentences begin "Nedved" or "He"; more variety is needed, particularly in the lead.
  • The lead should summarise the whole article, and there are areas missing: for example, his early life, his playing style, and many of his achievements at club level. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 404[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 21:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the northern extension of the Don Valley Parkway, an existing Featured Article, above Highway 401, a second FA. After an extended break by myself, this article was just promoted to A-class by WP:HWY. I feel it is worthy of the star and figured you might agree! Floydian τ ¢ 21:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. I reviewed this article at the ACR and believe it meets the criteria. I also did a source review at ACR (spotchecks not done). - Evad37 [talk] 23:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I also reviewed this article at the ACR and feel it meets the FA criteria. I also conducted an image review at the ACR. Dough4872 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


  • "mostly of the Parclo A4 configuration"
Jargon is bad, especially jargon that requires one to click through to understand the meaning. There's no reason not to call this "partial cloverleaf" or, most accurately and easiest to understand in this example, "half cloverleaf".
Half cloverleaf would be an inaccurate term. I've switched it to partial cloverleaf, which is correct terminology and not jargon. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Exit numbers on the freeway " ... "there are no exit numbers posted on the parkway"
This needs fixing.
Parkway = Don Valley Parkway. Made this more apparent. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "form a separate carriageway with no access to Sheppard"
Worth mentioning that this is done with k-rails and the roadway is not separated.
Ontario Tall Walls nowadays, hasn't been a beam since the 90s. It is a single stretch of pavement, but I believe that detail is a little minute; the physical separation makes them, in all essence, separate carriageways. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "To the west and north of Sheppard Avenue is Fairview Mall, which has its own connection with the southbound lanes"
No, the entrance is part of the southbound Sheppard cloverleaf.
It meant more that one doesn't have to get on to Sheppard to get on the 404, but I've mentioned this now. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The freeway passes west of Buttonville Airport and encounters an interchange with 16th Avenue"
Encounters? Perhaps just "and then..."?
But then it reads as if it passes by the interchange, rather than it being a connection. I just switched it to "and then interchanges with" - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The third contract called for a four lane extension from Davis Drive to Green Lane and the reconstruction of Green Lane into a four-laned arterial road between Leslie Street and Woodbine Avenue"
OK, here's my real problem. This section basically fails to relate the long history that the arrival of the 404 at Davis had on the area. Davis became completely snarled with traffic, as did Leslie. Green Lane became a major route in spite of it being one lane (and initially gravel!) and ending at the "infinite light". The elimination of the Bogartown Curve didn't help matters. As someone that had to drive this every day for about a year, the disaster that was eastern Newmarket traffic from 1989 to 2002 simply not being mentioned seems like a serious oversight. Instead, the article implies the opposite...
I actually never came across this when I was researching. It certainly wasn't as big a press issue as snarls created by the 407 ending at McCowan/Markham Rds (and now at Harmony Rd) from what I found. This I will look into, but give me a couple of days to dig it up and write it in. If sources directly connect traffic issues to resident concerns and to the 404, it certainly merits inclusion here. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
"This was completed on October 24, 1989. Since then, the route has been expanded in width and extended"
Which to me implies this was a continuous process.
Without having specific dates, how would you word that so as not to imply a continual construction project? - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
And then we come to the issue of the Bradford Bypass. Unlike the Davis snarl, the Bradford Bypass is new enough to trivially find many articles on, and the aftermath of its cancellation. The extensions of Green to the west are also not mentioned. All of this is to get the traffic out of the Newmarket area.
I don't believe the history of the Bradford Bypass or Newmarket traffic in general relates to this article. A Transport in Newmarket, Ontario article would be the best place for this information. It's still not even officially cancelled, just postponed indefinitely at this time. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't consider this to be FA quality with these issues of major import missing from the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Noting that I've tried to contact the nominator since I suspect they may not have seen the objections above. --Rschen7754 04:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Maury Markowitz: I've addressed everything and just finished adding a significant paragraph on the Newmarket issues, though nothing made mention of the Bogarttown Curve in relation to it. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

61 Cygni[edit]

Nominator(s): -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a visual binary system in the constellation Cygnus. The last nomination failed die to lack of any attention from commentators and this try should make it go. Thanks..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This one is right up my alley, so here goes...

  • all the images check out.
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • there are a number of duplicate links that should be unlnked. There's a great tool for finding these, here.
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • the lead has lots of cites. Generally I would suggest moving these out of the lead where possible, and placing them on the first mention in the body. I find that makes the lead easier to read and less distracting.
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of the correctness of the statement, but "till date" made my head swim. Is this a wrong-side-of-the-pond issue?
Rewrote..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Thus it not only has no proper name, it has no Greek letter name either." This statement is doubly confusing. The first part of the statement suggests that it has no proper name because it has a flamsreed designation, which I don't think is correct? Moreover, the lead suggests it does have a proper name (assuming "proper" means what I think it does in this context). The second part definitely needs some explanation, as I don't think most readers will be familiar with the constellation naming conventions. And if the names in the lead are common, it would seem they should be discussed here - how did it get these names, and why aren't they proper?
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Observation history" starts in 1804, which seems unlikely as it is naked eye visible. Is there really no record of it on any charts or maps prior to this time?
None could be found..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "313.6 mas" is not converted.
Converted to light years..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • " Groombridge 1830" this whole section is oddly worded, IMHO, perhaps "Only a few years after Bessel's measurement, Groombridge 1830 was discovered to have a larger proper motion and became the second highest known. It was later moved further down the list by Kapteyn's Star and Barnard's Star. 61 Cygni currently has the seventh highest proper motion of all stellar systems listed in the modern Hipparcos Catalogue, but retains the title of highest proper motion among visible stars."
Rewrote..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest "By 1911, further observations had improved on Bessel's parallax measurement of 313.6 mas to 310.0 mas. This corresponds to a motion transverse to our line of sight of 79 km/s. Observations at Yerkes Observatory measured its radial velocity as 62 km/s[29]. Using the two measurements together yielded a space velocity of about 100 km/s, moving towards a point about 12 degrees west of Orion's belt."
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "member of a comoving group of stars" what is the difference between "comoving group of stars" and a binary? Is this referring to a much larger group of stars with 26 members, or 26 other examples of the same type of group? In their case it would seem that some explanation here would be helpful.
Piped..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "An observer using"... shouldn't this be in the next section where it talks about "although it appears to be a single star"?
Properties exclusively deal with the physical properties and IMO, have nothing to do with a guideline for an observer. Please correct me of I am wrong...-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Cygni A has served as a stable K5 V "anchor point" of the MK classification system" I think this needs some expansion. There's a lot of unexplained jargon there - what is MK, and why is 61 the anchor? And what does "stable" mean in the context of it being a variable?
Its linked to their own respective articles and a further explanation will do no good (IMO)..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Component A has about 11% more mass than component B" If we're talking about 61 Cygni A and B, why the sudden change to use the term "Component"? It seems some of this para should be part of the previous and vice versa?
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "that a third body must"... definitely mention that this first estimate was 16 jupiter masses. That explains the next statement, which is...
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Reports of this third body served as inspiration for Hal Clement's 1953 science fiction novel Mission of Gravity." On of sci fi's great novels, but I think we need a cite on that.
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • suggest a para break at "in 1977" or alternately "in 1978"
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Should the mention of the habitable zone be here, or in the Properties?
Properties throw a light on that but this section can better explain it...-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Measurements of this system"... this comes immediately after talking about the SIM, but appears to be unrelated? If so, a para break would be useful.
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Not to be confused with 16 Cygni" - really don't need this. if anyone is confused about transposing digits, this note isn't going to help them!
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made some additional minor GR edits and one re-arrangement. But as I somewhat suspected, it was not difficult to find documentation on earlier observational history. I'm back to Bradly in 1753 so far, which suggests that they were aware it was a binary and had high proper motion well into the 16th century. Given the use of Flamsteed, I suspect that the history doesn't go back more than another 40 years, but it's a start. Here is a good article with some of the history. I'm willing to take a stab at this myself if you'd like, but I leave it to your decision. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please....-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 11:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have made some pretty significant edits to the article. I have attempted to address the issue of the naming, but it remains unclear because I cannot find a suitable online reference, only the mention of a mention. I would also like to clarify exactly what von Struve was saying, because it is clear other observers knew it was a binary decades earlier and the various references stating he was the first to suggest it are obviously wrong. Others phrase it to be that he was the first to strongly argue for it, but laking any original sources I can't really say what it's about. I think both of these issues deserve more work before continuing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

When its almost improbable that you will get a source, can you suggest some way to get it out..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 17:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The only thing I'm really uncomfortable with is the von Struve issue about the binary. I suspect this is simply a confusion of words - it appears he was making the argument that it really was a gravitational binary, as opposed to an optical one, but no one really says that. Removing that would have no effect on quality, IMHO, while removing the mention of Flamsteed's naming would. So let me work on Flamsteed for a day or two? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Please, if you could..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 13:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Looks like its a trifle and if superfluous, I shall remove it. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 08:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment I've gone though part of it. There are a number of usage errors that concern me. None of us are perfect, but the frequency of odd or incorrect usages is concerning.
  • "Bessel's Star or Piazzi's Flying Star" do these names have any currency? Ghits for Piazzi are just over 3,000 (for 61 Cygni it's over 120,000).
  • " reported detections of a massive planet " possibly "evidence" for "detections"
  • "Despite of many such claims". I wouldn't bother correcting the error, I'd just delete the whole phrase. The rest of the sentence stands fine on its own and concludes the lede well.
  • "till date" to date
  • "61 Cygni is relatively dim and does not appear on ancient star maps and has not been associated with a traditional name in western[16] or Chinese systems,[17] although a full accounting of the over 3000 stars in the later system has not yet been completed." Several issues. The multiple and, the lenghty part of the sentence that follows the second and. "full accounting" is not a phrase I necessarily associate with astronomy. "later system" should be "latter system". If you mean not all of the stars mapped by Chinese astronomers have been identified, but there's work to be done, come out and say it.
  • "assigned for stars." Maybe "assigned to stars"
  • "Right Ascension" why the caps?
  • "not using Greek letters" this feels too abrupt to me.
  • The final sentence of this is trying to do way too much.
Observational history
  • "when he noticed it being a double." Huh?
I'll come back to this as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Done but all..-Thè Heralðthe joy of the LORDmy strength 16:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I have a PR promised but I'll come back when that's done. It should be by the weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Observational history
  • "The first well recorded observation of the star " The star? Not the system?>
  • "when he noticed it as a double star" should "as" be "was"?
  • After the build up, what were the results of Herschel's observations?
  • "this date". More likely "that date"
  • "Piazzi's repeated measurements led to a definitive value of its motion which he published in 1804.[23][24] who christened it the "Flying Star" There is a significant grammar problem in this sentence.
  • "primary target " perhaps "prime candidate", then later on, when you speak of the other two stars, change "likely candidates" to "possiblitities"
  • "Attempts include François Arago and Claude-Louis Mathieu in 1812 at 500 mas" this is likely to puzzle the reader.
  • It's a bit obscure why Peters felt the need for another value. That's all a bit muddled there.
  • I think "von", beginning a sentence, should probably be capitalised
  • "all of these numbers are more accurate than the equipment being used could possibly measure" This seems a bit difficult as well. What you are basically saying is that they took the value to more significant digits than the data would justify. I'm not sure how you phrase that scientifically but I'm sure you can work something up.
Amateur observation
  • "61 Cyg's" Is this perhaps a nickname?
  • Why is binary system linked, in particular, here? You've been using the term, on and off, thoughout the article. I'm not saying it's a bad place to have a link, I'm just trying to figure out the rationale. This section seems so introductory it is a surprise to find it so late in the article.
  • Gyr should probably be linked inline, it may be well to just explain it in a parens.
That's really all I have. I'll make another run through the prose once you've one these. Not ready to take a position on support or opposing, I want someone with more knowledge in the field than I. Once you get into specialized science, all I can really do is look at prose and MOS.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Done all and rewrote. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Master of Puppets[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, often cited as their musical peak. I think it is well researched and hope it satisfies the FA criteria.--Retrohead (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Media check - all OK
  • Additionally, this song sample has a second problem with "minimal usage", as the song is already extensively covered in a second article. Multiple usages for the same purpose in separate articles are generally discouraged (WP:NFC). Suggestion: could you use a different song as sample of the album's style to avoid this issue?
I removed it from the song article, and added a more specific rationale for its use.
OK thanks. Not really a big fan of this strict rule myself (for all cases), but it's the current handling within WP:NFC. GJ
  • File:Metallica_(1986)_Welcome_Home_(Sanitarium)_sample.ogg - length OK, needs a more specific "purpose of use", see point 2.
  • File:Kirk Hammett playing.jpg - I suggest to replace this one with a different image: 1) the original Flickr link is no longer available 2) the original uploader, while uploading in good faith, had several of their uploads removed for copyright reasons. Considering the image looks somewhat professional and has Photoshop changes in its EXIF, it would be better to use a different image. It's not an outright copyvio, but the image's history is unclear.
I could not find other images showing the band performing something from this album, so if it's not a flagrant copyright violation, I'd prefer to keep it.
After reasonable research, let's keep the image then (I couldn't find a similar version as well, thanks for double-checking). GJ
  • Bonus question: probably obvious and just my lack of knowledge, but how do you know that Hammett is performing "Master of Puppets" (and not a different song) here, as stated in the caption?
I've seen this show on YouTube, and this is an angle from "Master of Puppets".
I knew it was something obvious :) - have updated the description to include that detail. GJ

(ec) Some clarification and cleanup needed, but nothing unsolvable. GermanJoe (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Update (some points struck) Could you expand/specify the "purpose of use" for the second sample as well please? Aside from that minor point all media should be gtg. GermanJoe (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Done, added a more specific explanation for the use of the "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)" sample.--Retrohead (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, have updated the header status (all OK). GermanJoe (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Tomica
  • The pictures have alt, good
Ok, noted.
  • There are no redirects
Noted, tnx.
Yes, this was a case at the GA review. You need to be a user on Classic Rock in order to enter their website.
  • Okay, the lead it's kinda confusing. Although it's grammatically totally fine, usually we follow the format; general info, composition, critical reception, commercial performance, singles, tour... Do you think you can re-arrange it?
Now it is background–composition–critical reception–commercial performance–touring
  • Metallica embarked on a five-month tour of the US in support of Ozzy Osbourne. → This got me confused... do you mean with a support from Ozzy Ozbourne? And does the tour have a name?
They were supporting Ozzy. The tour was called Damage, Inc. Tour, mentioned in the 'Touring' section.
  • Background and recording:
    • already entitled Master of Puppets ---> already is redundant
The word "already" implies to the reader that the album title was given before the songs were completed.
  • after the end of each quote sentence u need to provide a reference — Tom(T2ME) 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you've thought of Hammett's statement. Done.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments from  — ₳aron
  • You could use a flat list for the producers in the Info box so that they are bulleted.
Flat list added.
  • album released on a major label. → album to be released on a major label.
I used only released because it is finished action. To be released would indicate that the album is about to be released.
  • Master of Puppets is the band's → Master of Puppets was the band's
I think it's safe to assume that an album would chart on an album chart.
  • and became → and it became
It is dropped in the second clause because it is part of a sentence that refers to the album.
It is dropped in the second clause because it is part of a sentence that refers to the album.
  • and is one of the most influential heavy metal albums → and is has become one of the most influential heavy metal albums.
the meaning of both alternatives is the same, the second one is just a bit wordier.
  • The cover was designed → The album's artwork was designed
Artwork and cover art are synonyms. I opted to use a more diverse vocabulary, although both term are used throughout the article.
  • What was Ozzy Osbourne doing? Solo tour, group tour? If so, what tour?
Ozzy was touring with a band of his own (not with Black Sabbath). The sources I looked in doesn't mention the name of his tour, just the name of Metallica's— Damage, Inc. Tour.
  • Metallica honored the album's twentieth anniversary in 2006 by playing it in its entirety. → Where?
The tour is explained in detail in the 'Live performances'. I don't think listing various countries in the lead would make it read as a summary of the entire article.
Saying in a world tour or something similar won't hurt. It's not a complete sentence.  — ₳aron 23:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ok, world tour can be added.--Retrohead (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

These are just things I picked up on from the Lead alone. Also, neither the Commercial performance section nor the Chart table mention of or includes it's peaked of number 19 on the Billboard Hard Rock album chart. There's a lot of white space once you get to the Personnel, Charts and Certifications. I'd make Personnel two columns, and move the Certifications table up into the Charts section, re-naming it Charts and certifications, with both as sub-sections. 09:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

These suggestions are a mere case of editorial preference. Another editor might suggest bringing the sections back to the older state based on WP:MOS-ALBUM. I appreciate your overall input and time, but the points above were addressed by a two copyeditors and reverting the prose back to its "verbose" character might hurt the nomination.--Retrohead (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Just because two copyeditors did it one way, doesn't mean it's the "right" way. As such, I believe how it is right now is hurting it. It's not about personal editorial style, it's about the management of content and structure, and it's nothing that hasn't been suggested to me before.  — ₳aron 23:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Earthh
  • album released on a major label. → album to be released on a major label.
Doesn't "to be released" suggests that the album is about to be released? The album was released 30 years ago (finished action), and released only is grammatically correct, I believe.
In this instance no, it doesn't.
  • album to be certified platinum. It was certified 6× platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in 2003 for shipping six million copies in the United States. → album to be certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). It has since been certified six-times platinum denoting shipments of over six million copies in the United States.
Don't you think it is more appropriate to feature the year (2003) instead of the undetermined "since"?
Since we're talking about the lead, details like year of certification goes in the article's body.
  • and is one of the most influential heavy metal albums. → and has become one of the most influential heavy metal albums.
  • I would split Personnel in two columns and rename it Credits and personnel.
There are three sub-sections there, which one should go where?
I would remove them, anything like this is good.
  • I would also move Certifications to Charts, renaming the section Charts and certifications.
WP:ALBUM/CERT suggests these information to be placed in independent sections.
In case the album has achieved multiple certifications. Here the info relating charts and certifications can be put together.
  • There's a very inconsistent use of publishers; either use them for all or none.
The book citation should necessary feature its publisher, as for the other links (websites, online magazines/news) I've omitted the publisher and kept only the author and work fields.
I see at FN46 Billboard (Nielsen Business Media), and then in the following source the publisher is omitted. According to {{cite web}}, the publisher parameter should not be used for magazines and newspapers.
  • Per the verifiability policy, you should cite sources clearly and precisely, specifying page or section (see Help:References and page numbers). I suggest that you use shortened footnotes that link to a shortened reference in a list with a separate reference list with full citations (WP:SRF).

It's a fairly strong article, Retrohead, but isn't FA-worthy yet. Best of luck improving the article.--Earthh (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Avianca Flight 52[edit]

Nominator(s): Veggies (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a Boeing 707 flight between Colombia and New York City that crashed on January 25, 1990 due to fuel starvation. Veggies (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of this accident, which is odd considering the date. This is superb article and totally fascinating.

  • I found the intro statement somewhat difficult to read. The information is all good, but it's sort of randomly placed and repetitive. There's also some examples of connecting statements being used to connect things that aren't really related (talking to traffic control did not cause the aircraft to run out of fuel) How about something to the effect of...
Avianca Flight 52, a Boeing 707, ran out of fuel and crashed while on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport on January 25, 1990. Eight of the nine crew members and 65 of the 149 passengers on board were killed. Hundreds of emergency personnel responded to the crash site and helped save victims. Many of those who survived were severely injured and required months or years to physically recover.
Flight 52 was a regularly scheduled flight from Bogotá to New York, via Medellín. The flight left Medellín with more than enough fuel for the journey and progressed toward JFK normally. While en route, the flight was placed in three holding patterns while approaching New York and became critically low on fuel. The flight attempted to make a landing at JFK, but bad weather, coupled with poor communication and inadequate management of the aircraft, [really?] forced it to abort and attempt a go-around. The flight ran out of fuel before it was able to make a second landing attempt. The airplane crashed approximately 20 miles (32 km) from JFK, striking a hillside in the small village of Cove Neck, New York, on the north shore of Long Island.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the crash resulted from the flight crew failing to properly declare a fuel emergency, resulting in air traffic control underestimating the seriousness of the situation. Weather, air traffic controller performance, and FAA traffic management were also cited as contributing to the events that led to the accident. This conclusion was controversial, with disagreement between investigators, passengers, and Avianca as to who was ultimately responsible. Eventually, the US Federal Government joined with Avianca to settle damages due to the victims. The crash was also portrayed in a variety of media.
I'm not perfectly happy with this either, but I think its somewhat better?
  • Could you say more about what's inadequate or being repeated about the intro?
  • link to hush kit, remove quotes around second instance.
  • B-707, or simply 707? I've always seen the later.
Changed it to 707
  • "At least six bodies were found outside the fuselage" This statement seems out of place, should it not be in the previous section? Or is there some detail I'm missing here? And does this total include the deck crew, or is this passengers only?
I moved it to a better spot.
  • "evacuated to hospitals" suggest para break here, but I'll leave this one to you.
  • "At least one emergency responder" I think this should be the first statement, priests after.
  • "At least one flight crew member was airlifted" Cockpit crew or flight crew? If the later, this should be moved down.
Flight crew is the cockpit crew. The flight attendants and maître d' are called cabin crew.
  • "Two surviving male passengers " definitely should be a separate para.
I moved them to a better section
  • "The investigation of Flight 52 began immediately after the crash" I'm not sure this requires mentioning, it always does.
Deleted it.
  • "FDR foil was found to have been taped down at some point" What does "taped down" mean?
The report doesn't elaborate on "taped down." The foil is much like a roll of aluminum foil. If you tape the edge of the foil to the roll, you won't be able to extract it. But that's my interpretation.
  • "they were being treated routinely and not given any emergency priority" I'd like to see an explanation as to why this is.
I'm not sure how to explain this. I'm just citing the report, not giving what I think is my opinion. I assume the ATC would simply give them a straight vector to their final approach, not have them do loops in the air. Again, my interpretation.
  • "The report cited recurring maintenance problems with the airplane's autopilot" this is not mentioned in the section on the aircraft, and it seems it should be.
I mentioned it in the aircraft section as suggested.
  • "The same summer" suggest making this its own para.
Done. Thank you, @Maury Markowitz: for your input. -- Veggies (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest increasing size of both map and diagram to improve readability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Coord note -- @Veggies: I've seen no response to any of the comments above in almost two weeks, if you don't have the time or inclination to continue with the review then it will have to be archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: , Ian, I haven't found the time to make a comprehensive post here, but I suggest this be archived for a serious miss at comprehensiveness. Pilots don't just fly around a plane full of people and run out of fuel. The cultural and linguistic issues that contributed to the crash have been the subject of scholarly research that is not dealt with here. The nominator needs to spend more time on research ... I could list all of the missing sources if needed, but I did the work several weeks ago and would have to reconstruct it. It is obvious to anyone who understands Spanish and the hispanic culture what happened here, and that issue is covered by scholarly sources, and it is significant because of the changes in procedures that resulted. In other words, these people did not die in vain, and this article is a miss. See google scholar and plain old google on Avianca 52 and the language and cultural issues that led to the crash. The miss here is by focusing on FAA sources and leaving out other types of scholarly research and sourcing ... pls deal with the cultural aspects of how this crash happened, and how that then made it significant in changes that occurred. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how to respond to this. If there's a major study on Avianca 52 regarding linguistics and the changes it brought about in the US airline ATC industry, I've yet to hear about it. I surveyed Google Scholar and didn't find much of interest (74 results—mostly 0-2 citations each). Also, I don't understand what you mean by "I did the work several weeks ago and would have to reconstruct it." Did you "do" that work on Wikipedia, on your sandbox,—what? -- Veggies (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I did the google searches on another device (from which it is hard to type), late at night. If you really aren't able to find the sources (it should not be that hard), I will do the work again and post them here tomorrow. Out of time for now ... I'm sorry I didn't save those results somewhere, and it was Ian's post hitting my watchlist that jogged my memory of my late-night reading that I hadn't followed up on. Later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The post is non-specific but I will assume SG is referring to Malcolm Gladwell's comments, which I trust just as much as anything else the man says (i.e., zero). As was quickly pointed out, there is a earlier example of precisely the same thing happening to a US crew.
SG states that "Pilots don't just fly around a plane full of people and run out of fuel.". Oh yes they do. All the time. And why? Because the cockpit crew doesn't clearly and specifically report the problem to the person that needs to know about it. In this case the engineer repeatedly stated he had declared an emergency when he had done no such thing. In the case of UA173, the cockpit crew repeatedly made non-specific remarks about the problem and never clearly stated what was going on.
Reading over the sources, and this article is a pretty faithful representation IMHO, it's "obvious" to me that they had bad cockpit communications. And by "obvious" I mean "obvious to someone that took their commercial pilot recs and had this drilled into them over and over and over." There is a cultural issue involved, but that's the one that's always existed, the PIC who doesn't listen. This is DRILLED into you these days, specifically because of events like this.
But don't take my word for it, we have the word of the NTSB report, which the airline agreed to. I looked for sources that said otherwise, but apparently your google-fu is better than mine. In the meantime I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with this article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Google scholar produces (at least):

  • Ulijn J & Strother JB (2012). The Influence of Culture on Information Overload
  • Cultural issues SandyGeorgia 15:46, 20 May 2015 — continues after insertion below
Abstract does not mention Avianca and the text-access is restricted. I see no evidence that it is directly about the subject per the reliable source guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talkcontribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
What does this article say about the subject that has not been covered?
Looks like a primary source to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talkcontribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
I already saw this article before I rewrote the Avianca page. It is restricted-access, like the rest, but from what I gleaned, it only mentioned the crash obliquely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talkcontribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
  • If you are writing an FA, per 1c, you cannot "glean" content without reviewing it. It is not I who has to access these articles-- it is you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No. I don't. That's the point. All I can review is the abstracts. And "gleaned" doesn't mean I used it (without citations) in the article. -- Veggies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
What does this say that the article does not cover?
I see nothing about Avianca in the abstracts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggies (talkcontribs) 15:37, 20 May 2015
Per 1c, you should not be accessing abstracts; you should be accessing the articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Where are the articles, then?—You linked to the abstracts. -- Veggies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Possibly here. [17] Graham Beards (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Mentions Avianca twice—neither in any way that would add anything significant to the article.
Source is not about Avianca.
The Avianca article cites the lack of brace-position instructions as contributing to severity of injuries. What else does this (restricted-access) article add?
Not about Avianca—and I'll use this as proof that you didn't read any of the articles you Googled. "Avianca" is cited as an "uptake loop"—that's it. If you don't want to support FA-nomination, @SandyGeorgia:, fine. Just don't expect me to play fetch with every Google link you throw at me. -- Veggies (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the followup. You (and the coords) may use it as you like, because my post is a week old, and I will be traveling now and unable to respond further. (I am unconvinced that because Maury M doesn't like Malcolm Gladwell, that info can be excluded, there is a helpful analysis there of the language issues, but you may convince the Coords that Gladwell is not a good source.)

However. I can say the same for your feedback here, because I did not find the text access restricted on Uljin & Struther, and it is about Avianca 52. I do not have journal access for the others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In the future, would you please not interrupt my posts, and particularly without signing each entry? If makes followup and tracking much harder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So, the nomination would seem to be failing 1b and 1c unless these sources are examined (there are more-- samples only).

My google scholar search did not cough up the Malcolm Gladwell mentioned by Maury Markowitz, although he does show up on regular google searches. I'm not sure a case can be made for excluding that source based on you (Maury) not liking the man, though. He does seem to have a handle on the cultural deference that contributed.

Also, no I am not discussing "precisely the same thing" as in the US crew: I am saying the article does not examine the specific language and cultural issues. The US crew was dealing with a separate emergency (and I presume they spoke English, although I didn't delve all the way into that article). SandyGeorgia 15:46, 20 May 2015 — continues after insertion below

And you want me to do what with those articles? Firstly,
Whose comment is this it is unsigned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Mine, from an abandoned attempt to untangle this mess. Struck. -- Veggies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As I read this version, I also noted 1a (prose) issues-- samples only:

  1. Repetitive and unnecessarily laborious prose, resulting in ... resulted from ... resulting in ... three times in two sentences
    ... ran out of fuel on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), resulting in the aircraft crashing onto a hillside ... the crash resulted from the flight crew failing to properly declare a fuel emergency, resulting in air traffic control underestimating the seriousness of the situation.
    How about trying simple English like "ran out of fuel ... and crashed ... More words is not always better than less.
  2. More of same:
    The flight left Medellín with more than enough fuel for the journey and progressed toward JFK normally. While en route, the flight was placed in three holding patterns.
    Why can't we simplify ? The flight left Medellín with more than enough fuel, but was placed in three holding patterns while en route to JFK.
  3. Due to poor communication between the air crew and the air traffic controllers
    Not phrased quite correctly ... there were communication problems among the crew and between the crew and controllers ... this needs rephrasing based on sources I present later (here).
  4. ... well as an inadequate management of the fuel load by the pilots ...
  5. This dire situation was not recognized as an emergency by the controllers.
    Again, not quite correct on the phrasing for the same reason ... the controllers didn't have info to even suspect a fuel emergency.
  6. More laborious prose:
    The flight attempted to make a landing at JFK, but bad weather, coupled with poor communication and inadequate management of the aircraft, forced it to abort and attempt a go-around. The flight ran out of fuel before it was able to make a second landing attempt.
    Do flights attempt landings or do aircraft attempt landings? Inadequate management twice in two sentences.
    Why not something along the lines of ... The first landing attempt at JFK was aborted because of bad weather and <whatever>; during a go-around to attempt a second landing, the flight ran out of fuel.
  7. Eventually, the US Federal Government joined with Avianca to settle damages due to the victims.
    settle damages due to victims?????
  8. The crash was also portrayed in a variety of media.
    Says nothing.

These are samples only from the lead; I could continue on with the rest of the article, but I do not believe that FAC is the best place for extensively rewriting articles. Also:

  • There are MOS:LQ issues-- please review.
  • I find the mention of cocaine to be gratuitous and off-topic (just because the news highlights sensational aspects doesn't mean we have to), but if you must include such, perhaps this is a source that could be examined?
  • Surely we can find a way to refer to cockpit and crew personnel without saying the flight was manned (gender neutral language pls).
This is debatable: the root of the word is possibly latin for "hand" as in "manage", "manual", "maintenance" and others; ( see also "man the decks" "all hands on decks"). Graham Beards (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If the sourcing concerns are addressed, and an independent copyeditor (someone not familiar with the topic or involved with it so far) goes through and cleans up prose and jargon (the middle of the article gets unnecessarily jargony), I'll be happy to re-engage. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

failing 1b and 1c unless these sources are examined
I have examined them, and only one of them even mentions the issue you're talking about. The majority of the papers have to do with language issues, which I believe the article covers with reasonable depth already. Among the links are papers on the use of English in ATC comms and cabin briefings, using cross-cultural icons in automation systems, the use of synthesized voices to clarify language issues due to accents, etc. I could address them paper by paper if you wish. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: Don't bother. He made a bad-faith attempt to oppose nomination for some reason. I looked at all the articles he Googled. Some have nothing to do with the flight. He simply cited them because Google recognized the words "Avianca Flight 52". He didn't bother to actually read any of the articles and, instead, threw them all on here as "evidence" that the article was lacking in...something. -- Veggies (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the majority do have to do with language issues (they all do, I believe): that is my point about the relevance of them (that pilots don't just fly around and not pay attention to fuel, killing lots of people-- there was a cultural and language issue here that was significant, and led to changes in procedures). Anyway, see my response above, where you and Veggies seem to be differing about what is in those articles. I'm unable to followup for several weeks due to travel, and trust the coords will discount my commentary if need be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
You mind telling me why you deleted my signed comment? -- Veggies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(Still here, travel delay.) Naturally, I was unaware of having deleted anything, do not know how that may have happened, and apologize if I did! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
SG you are not addressing the issue I am raising. In your original post you spoke of "obvious" "hispanic culture" issues that resulted in "changes in procedures". The citations you added earlier did not address this. Are you talking solely about language issues now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

God of War: Ascension[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 15:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2013 PlayStation 3 video game, God of War: Ascension. I've tried to edit and model this off of the somewhat recently promoted FA, God of War III, though of course there are differences. JDC808 15:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Milan – San Remo[edit]

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015 Milan - San Remo cycling race, one of the most important one-day races in the cycling calendar. The race has had a controversial few years with several changes to the classic route, but this year's race was successful enough that future events will use the route again. I successfully took it to Good Article status a couple of weeks ago. This is my first attempt at nominating an article for Featured Article status and I'm doing so with some nervousness: I hope I've got the process right! Relentlessly (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. This is the best and most complete cycling article I've read about a race. The references are varied and pertinent. The prose is top-notch. The race is notable too: it is one of the five Cycling Monuments, the most important races on the calendar besides the Grand Tours. It deserves to be on the front page. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 16:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not asking you to add "race" to the page title ... I consider WP:TITLE and WP:RM to be above my paygrade ... but I'm uncomfortable enough with the page title that it stopped me from copyediting and supporting on prose. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Dank, thanks for your comment. Could you clarify your concern? The race is universally known as Milan – San Remo (or Milano–Sanremo), by the race organisers, by the cycling media, by cycling fans. It is never referred to as "Milan – San Remo race". The current title (a) matches every single cycling race article and (b) complies with WP:COMMONNAME. Relentlessly (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually you're right. My problem isn't with the page title, it's with the first sentence. Here are the first 3 "Milan – San Remo" ghits to websites not dedicated to cycling:
  • Each of these treats "Milan – San Remo" as the proper noun, so they all support the current page title, but an adjective rather than a noun, except in headlines, which aren't expected to be grammatical. I'd like to see more research on this, but if a wide variety of sources use "Milan – San Remo" as an adjective, then it probably shouldn't be a page title, since page titles are nouns or noun phrases. [added 14:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)]
  • Also, none of them starts off "The 2015 Milan – San Remo was the 106th edition of the Milan – San Remo one-day cycling classic", which is redundant. (I don't personally care whose rules we follow, but "avoid redundancy" is one of the rules FAC reviewers tend to follow.) Instead, one says "Milan-San Remo one-day race", and the other two say "the Milan-San Remo one-day race, the first of the season’s five 'Monument' classics". Also see WP:REDUNDANCY, which redirects to LEAD. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying. I've modified the lead to "The 2015 Milan – San Remo was a one-day cycling classic that took place in Italy on 22 March." It could be modified further to "The 2015 Milan – San Remo one-day cycling classic took place in Italy on 22 March." This seems less good to me, though I will happily concede expertise to you! Hopefully what I've done has improved it. Relentlessly (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Dank, just wondering if you might be able to take another look? I'm really keen to get your comments on prose. Many thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Continuing soon. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm in caffeine withdrawal, so I'm going to hand a few problems off to other reviewers. It would be a good idea to reduce or eliminate the use of "Milan – San Remo" as a noun, per the links I gave above.
  • "(150.2 mi))": Avoid )) per MOS.
  • " was extremely technical"?
  • "9 kilometres (5.6 mi) section": needs a fix, but VisualEditor isn't cooperating
  • " With Cavendish not in perfect form, his Etixx-Quick Step also had Zdeněk Štybar and 2014 world champion Michał Kwiatkowski able to attempt an attack in the final part of the race.": ?
  • " A group therefore came together into the finishing straight.": I don't get "therefore" here. In general, try to avoid cause-and-effect words if they're not necessary.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for you review, Dank; I'm grateful for your comments and your copyedits. I've fixed all the specific points you raise and I'll have a look through to clean up the others, the therefores and the meants, etc. I'm still not convinced about a problem with "Milan – San Remo" being used as a noun: it is universal in the specialist media and not unknown in general media (e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21]). I'm reluctant to change this one, though I won't go to the wall over it. Relentlessly (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
      • The larger issue of what might be called jargon is probably the copyediting issue that causes me the most trouble, because of how Wikipedia works and because of the expectations that go with my wiki-jobs. I can't be considered neutral. Also, page titles are a whole thing unto themselves, and I haven't invested the time to learn them well. I'm willing to leave it alone for now, while noting that none of the links that either of us have given use "Milan – San Remo" in the text (headlines don't count) without first using something else as the implied noun ... race, classic, whatever. Another example: "400-meter" is used as an adjective, not a noun, in copyedited text ... you can tell from the hyphen and lack of an "s" ... but that doesn't mean that journalists don't write about the "400-meter" (as well as the "400 meters"), they do ... after they've mentioned a suitable noun phrase somewhere, so that you know what "400-meter" is supposed to modify. Standing alone doesn't stop a phrase from being adjectival. Lots of adjectives don't sit in front of the noun they modify. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
      • To clarify: I'm not asking you to change the page title, because there's a lot more to page titles than just good copyediting principles, but I'm hoping that you (or someone) will go through the text making sure that "race" or "classic" or something occurs either before (and nearby) or immediately after every occurrence of "Milan – San Remo" (similarly to the way this is handled in all the links you and I have cited). - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of San Patricio[edit]

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the smaller battles of the Texas Revolution and a terrific illustration of Texan incompetence. One side literally got caught sleeping. The commander escaped due to a series of crazy coincidences. It's a scene worthy of a novelist's imagination. Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "Goliad Campaign": Readers who don't know what that is won't have a clear idea of what the first sentence is saying. I think of it as Mexico's main or first offensive in the war ... would that be inaccurate?
  • "His campaign was to neutralize the Texian soldiers gathered along the coast.": In the sense of "his campaign would later neutralize ...", or "the goal of his campaign was ..."?
  • Not an issue for me, but there's at least one hidden comment.
  • "While Santa Anna personally led the bulk of his troops inland to San Antonio de Béxar, he ordered General José de Urrea": To resolve the arguably ambiguous "while", I'd either go with "was personally leading" or drop the "while" and change "he" to "and".
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I did some copyediting to address your concerns. [22] I also removed one of the hidden comments. The other is commenting out an image. I am still working on verifying the licensing, so the image is hidden unless that happens. I can remove that completely if it is an issue to have it hidden. Thanks for taking a look at the article! Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks very nice. I think both the title of the article and the way it's presented in the infobox suggest that "Battle of San Patricio" is a proper noun, so I went with "Battle". I don't mind if you revert, but if so, I'd want to resolve the tension with the infobox. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my following comments:
  • English-speaking settlers in the Mexican border region of [[Mexican Texas|Texas]]: I wonder if there's a better way to link that so readers don't assume it's linking to Texas. Maybe "border region of Mexican Texas"?
  • In the early nineteenth century, captured pirates were executed immediately.: in general, or in Mexico?
  • Why is File:Frank W Johnson.JPG commented out? And are there really no other images you could include besides the map?
  • The fighting ended within fifteen minutes.: short one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon at FAC.
    • Personally, I'd prefer this stays like it is, I think it was a good judgment call. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I fixed this to follow your suggestion
  • Execution of pirates was a general thing, not just in Mexico.
    • It'd be nice to clarify this, but I can't think of a wording that would do it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have been having difficulty verifying the PD status of the Frank W. Johnson image, so I commented it out for now. I know it was taken before 1884 and given to an artist before 1908, and that it has resided in the Texas archives since 1927, but I don't know who took the picture and haven't been able to track down if it has been published before. I found one picture purporting to be of General Urrea, but I can't verify it either.
Thanks for your ce help! Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for tolerating my hairsplitting. I'm giving this article my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support: Loving the story, but I have to admit I've very confused about the political situation being described...

  • "Leading federalists in Mexico"
Ok, so it seems the Texians were, essentially, being swept up in a larger movement covering much of Mexico? But then...
  • "Most importantly, it would move the war zone outside of Texas"
This seems to imply the opposite.
  • "The Texas provisional government"
Sooo... has Texas succeeded? Is Texas mostly "american" by this point? I think a little more background is warranted here.
  • "Mexican troops had been told that the house where Johnson was quartered was one of their targets, yet a lamp burned in the window "
What is this "yet"? It seems a leap to suggest that the Mexican troops would have been confused by a lamp, "yet" it seems to be what this is trying to imply.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look! You brought up some great points. I fleshed out the background section a little more. Do you think that helps enough?

  • The "yet" does mean they were confused. It said earlier in the section that loyalists were instructed to leave a lamp burning. So now they have intelligence that says the rebel leader is in THIS house, BUT the house has a lamp, implying federalists were living there. Do I need to reword it somehow?

Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a great improvement IMHO. The issue with the lamp... I see I missed the part about the lamp burning. Perhaps simply a re-mention... "seeing the lamp burning, and having been told the loyalists would have one,..." Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I see why I missed it... is it there? I can't find "lamp" or "light" anywhere earlier in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
centralists were asked to declare their loyalties by leaving lanterns burning in their windows. I used "lamp" as a synonym later. Karanacs (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Got it... so then I reiterate the "reminder" idea...
"Mexican troops had been told that the house where Johnson was quartered was one of their targets, yet a lamp burned in the window, the signal that this was the home of loyalist."
It doesn't extend the sentence too much, but I do think it makes it easier to read. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and I added your suggestion. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

The text is adequately cited and everything is properly formatted. I had some concerns about "Republic of Texas Press", but it seems to be an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield, a mainstream publisher. Everything else checks out fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Tks Coemgenus. Would you mind doing a more comprehensive/general review as well? I just wouldn't mind one extra pair of eyes before we look at promotion, and the nom hasn't exactly been open forever at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, I'll take a look at it today. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Further comments[edit]

  • In "Background", you mention "Dr. James Grant". Under WP:CREDENTIALS, I think this usage is discouraged.
  • "The provisional governor, Henry Smith, was opposed to the..." I find "opposed" is almost always a better substitute for "was opposed to", unless you think it changes the sentence's meaning.
  • "...into territory officially part of the state of Tamaulipas..." This construction is confusing to someone not familiar with Texas history. I'm assuming it's because the territory in question was called a part of Tamaulipas by the Mexican government, but claimed by Texas? Or have I got that wrong?
  • "...Mexican dragoons began preparing..." Probably better as "...Mexican dragoons prepared..."
  • "The fighting ended within fifteen minutes." This might be my own pet peeve, but one-sentence paragraphs always look bad to me. Here, it kind of works, but I'm on the fence. Keep it separate from the paragraph above or not, your call. I just want to raise the issue for you.
  • Other than these minor issues, the article looks great. Looking forward to supporting. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Elliott Fitch Shepard[edit]

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk · vbm) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this article merely to fill a gap in Wikipedia's biography collection. For someone who I couldn't find a single photograph of or really any detailed source about at first, I was surprised that as I researched, I found that Elliott Fitch Shepard was very well documented. I found numerous photographs and accounts in very surprising places, and to be honest this article should now be one of the most useful and comprehensive accounts of his life. After reaching Good Article status and going through a thorough GOCE copyedit, I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. This is my fourth FA nomination; the first two were for the October 19 TFA Briarcliff Manor, New York, and I nominated this same article a few months ago but had to pick through plenty of problems; all those that were mentioned are now resolved. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ (talk · vbm) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

a minor point, which I'm not even sure on: Is there anything in any MOS anywhere about how to use a wife's maiden name over married surname? ie in the lead instead of "...married to Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard, granddaughter of..." should it be "...married to Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt, granddaughter of..." or even "...married to Margaret Vanderbilt, granddaughter of...". Likewise with the spouse entry in the infobox? cheers, Gecko G (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a good question that I didn't know the answer to at first. The MOS's WP:FULLNAME states "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname." In her case, the most commonly used name is "Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard", as can also be indicated by the fact that that's the title of her Wikipedia article.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
ok, good find, it definately fits for the infobox mention then. But for the lead I'm not fully convinced. Based on the very next section in that MOS under "Changed names":
If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention
so I would take that to mean that it should be "he married [insert wife's name using maiden surname]", but I suppose that in this particular case, since it's ...he was married to... (emphasis added) -ie written in the past tense- it's ok, I guess, If I'm understanding that MOS correctly - It just sounds wierd to my ears when I read it. In any event, a very minor concern- ultimately either way ought to work good enough. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand why you'd think that. The term 'was' is only in the past tense because Shepard is dead. If he was alive right now, I'd use the word 'is'. That's because I'm not trying to list his biographical history in saying he became married to someone; I was simply stating the fact that Shepard's wife was M. Shepard. Therefore it should still work with the MOS. That's also why the next reference to the wife is when he's first presented to her, and thus I don't use the name 'Shepard' as part of her name.
Yet I just looked at quite a few of Wikipedia's US President articles (GAs and FAs) and they all seem to omit the married surname, so I guess I should.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 03:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
ok, I see your reasoning for the way it was and I find it sound. But since you changed it I hope you don't mind I went in and changed them all to piped direct links rather than using redirects. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It's an interesting read. It looks like it meets all criteria. The images used are well-chosen. The lede accurately sums up the article. Coverage seems thorough although the Proceedings of the American Numismatic and Archeological Society seems to differ on his date of birth. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Chris troutman:: Thanks for the comment! I did the research a few months ago, so I can't be as specific as I could then, but I ran into a number of problems with one source providing different information than others. In all such cases I searched for more sources and used the statement backed up by more (or more reliable) sources. In this case the vast majority of sources say 1833, not 1835.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 22:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Just have one minor nitpick:

  • When it shows page numbers, I think it would be more formal to do (p. 254.) instead of (p254)

Otherwise it was a quite interesting read. Nice job, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 18:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tomandjerry211: Thanks! I use {{Rp}} which doesn't have an option for that. I can request it, unless you prefer the template's alternative of displaying like Xyz[1]:23 instead of like Xyz[1](p23).--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for response, and on that point, I would prefer the keep it that way for now, as ":23" at the end of the cite seems unclear. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for your comments and support!--ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

comment I've read through the article, and here are some minor points that can be easily addressed:

  • in the lead, since Woodlea is a structure within Briarcliff Manor, should it be "residence of Woodlea", or something similar?
ɱ: I don't think any extra words are necessary here.
  • In the Civil War Service section- the 2nd sentence, though grammatically correct, seems to end abruptly. Should it be something like "recruiting efforts" or "recruiting soldiers" or something?
ɱ: Added 'volunteers'.
  • In the Career section-
    • the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph (that 650th Fifth Avenue is the current site) is unsourced.
ɱ: I am aware. Every other scrap of information in this article is sourced reliably. This piece should be common sense to anyone who can access Google Maps or similar software or maps, though I do not have a source for it directly. I don't think it's a problem; nowhere on Wikipedia is it stated that every scrap of information needs an inline citation.
Gecko: As I think I stated elsewhere, I'm not familiar with the FAC criteria (this is the only vague thing I could find) but from the lowly B-class assessment guidelines I know that As a rule of thumb, the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation and FAC should be much stricter than B-class, right?
ɱ: That rule isn't meant to be taken as literally as you take it. The guideline wants at least one reference to cite a paragraph. In the small paragraph of this article, there are four references; far more than expected as a minimum in the guideline. Also see this.
Gecko: I've been in the position to make the very same defense as you currently are in B-class assesments and lost- and seen others do the same. Again, unless it is a specific difference between a B-class assessment & a FAC criteria (Any other, more knowledgable and experienced editors, care to weigh in on this point?). And why would it be common sense, to someone not from Manhattan, that 650 Fifth Avenue is at 2 West 52nd Street (or alternatively that 650 Fifth Avenue is the same as the former De Pinna Building)?
ɱ: So? People can easily be wrong, and people misread guidelines and policies all the time. After searching for your 'rule of thumb', I found that it's something written up by WikiProject Military History members. There's nothing that says I have to follow individual WikiProject recommendations here. This article is being weighed up against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as the Featured Article criteria. Also, I wasn't stating that the information is common sense. Just see the linked paragraph, that 'citing everything' is a misconception and is never required.
Gecko: ah, if that is something specific to MilHist then I gladly withdraw the objection. until now MilHist's B-class assesment review had been the limit of my experiences at reviewing articles.
    • The third paragraph (and maybe also the 4th) are out of place chronologically without any apparent reason from the flow of the text, should it be re-ordered to make it more chronological? (The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph - about him becoming a partner - could even be moved to another paragraph if needed to aid this effort)
ɱ: The third paragraph is all about his home in Manhattan. It goes somewhat off on a tangent chronologically, but I don't think it would be better if the information was reorganized fully chronologically; it would likely just be more confusing. Keep in mind that this is not a Timeline of XX history article, and thus prose can refer to earlier or later dates.
Gecko: It's not all about the home- See the first sentence as it is currently stated. Was the house part of the inheritance (or purchased using said money?), or did they acquire the house prior to her inheritence? If the former, then that should be mentioned - thus making the whole paragraph about the house as you apparently intended, but since that paragraph starts out with an event in 1885 it still would make sense to swap the 3rd & 4th paragraphs (which starts out "after his marriage" [>1868]) unless there was some flow to the text that makes a reasoning for doing it as is - which I don't see (ie there's nothing later in that section about the house that follows on to the info or required the information to be previously established as such). If the later, then the 1st sentence is oddly placed but the paragraph as a whole would be fine. Your correct that it's not a Timeline article, but if there is no logic to the order of the subjects discussed per paragraph, then it is either random and/or badly written. That logical order usually either come's from the flow of subtopics or, especially common in biographies, is usually chronological (plus the rest of the article seems chronological - asides from the one point you make below).
ɱ: The thing is, I'm really not sure whether the house was part of the inheritance. I do know that Margaret's father had it built for her and Elliott only started living there because of his marriage to her. I state that decently in the article already. I swapped the paragraphs as you recommended.
Gecko: ok
    • Middle of the 4th paragraph: should it be "As president of the newspaper company until his death, he approved every important decision or policy"?
ɱ: Not needed, but sure.
    • 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence- Does the usage of a period rather than a colon (or something) match the MOS for usage of a title with a subtitle within text? It currently reads like it's meant to be split into 2 sentences, one ending " The Riva", the next starting "New York and Alaska taken..."
ɱ: This is an odd occurrence. The book itself is titled The Riva. New York and Alaska, and thus I write it as such there. I get that there's a slim likelihood for confusion. Here's a link to a photo of the actual book's inside cover: link
Gecko: yes, quite odd, the period is part of the title. But the "New York and Alaska" bit is a subtitle, so the point stands, just slightly modified- I looked around at the MOS but couldn't find anything about subtitles, but based on written forms It seems like it should read " The Riva.: New York and Alaska taken..." (or perhaps with a semicolon instead of a colon, I'm not sure). Can anyone find where the MOS discusses subtitles?
ɱ: I have doubts that it does, and I've never seen anything that mentions it. I would say I am pretty familiar with the MOS; nevertheless I searched it and citation guidelines and found nothing. Anyway, I think the colon or semicolon would be out of place here.
Gecko: If there's nothing in the MOS, then the next authority would be what is proper English. I even dug out an old college copy of Writers INC to try to find the answer, but it only has how to cite a work with a subtitle, nothing about how to use it within the text.  :( Setting aside the specifc period in this case, There's got to be a way to indicate where the title stops and the subtitle starts. for example, if it was In word1 word2 word3 word4 word5 word 6 [author] asserts that... you can't tell if it is a 3 word title and 3 word subtitle, or 2/4 or 4/2, or etc. Adding in that odd period (is it a self-published manuscript from EFS? seems like a publisher would of edited that out) and the reader will be as confused as I was (at first I thought it was some old vandalism that had slipped through). If you think a colon is wrong, Perhaps rework that sentence to something like "He documented a trip from New York to Alaska taken by [list of who all] in The Riva." (leaving out the subtitle) and then cite The Riva (with the full subtitle) as a source for that sentence? Then the period is placed in such a way as to not be confusing.
I see now that it is already cited in footnote #26, but incorrectly without the colon there. It should have such per all the mainstream citation styles I'm aware of (MLA, APA, & CMS are all confirmed in Writers INC, I'm not positive but I'd bet that Harvard format is the same). Which citation format are you using?
ɱ: I always use Wikipedia's Cite web/news/books templates. I'd like if you could point out to me where those citation styles mention colons being added in to join titles and subtitles.
Gecko: As mentioned it's common to all the citation style's I'm familiar with, with multiple examples throughtout Writers INC: A Guide to Writing, Thinking, & Learning (I can provide several page or section numbers from my Third edition - 1992- if you wish), and is commonly seen elsewhere. But you said you use Wikipedia's cite templates- I did find in wikipedia Citation Style 1 Subtitles are typically separated from titles with ": " though " – " is also used.. There are various examples using the colon at Cite book.
ɱ: Okay, I'll put it in. I'll reply to the rest of your responses as soon as I am able.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 12:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Briarcliff Manor developments section-
    • 2nd paragraph, last sentence I think needs a couple of "as" to be added "...with Woodlea as its clubhouse and the J. Butler Wright house as the golf house." Alternatively something like becoming could be used to avoid using as twice in the same sentence if you wish.
ɱ: OK, done
    • Consider swapping the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs around to make it read more chronologically.
ɱ: again, the first two paragraphs talk about the house; I really don't want to intersect that with a paragraph about the church.
Gecko: ok, it makes sense from that standpoint (ie I now see that this part flows logically, unlike above).
  • In the Family and personal life section- I wonder if the 1st 2 paragraphs couldn't be reworked to make one about his children and family and the other about him- as it currently stands it seems to jump back and forth a bit jarringly.
ɱ: Done.
Gecko: The sentence about being a strict father could also be moved to the first paragraph to help balance the two lengthwise and subject wise. If so, then you might want to consider swapping the two sentences about "renting pews" and "was politically ambitious" around so that the sentence about religious support & charitable societies is adjacent to the preceeding sentence about social organizations.
ɱ:Good thinking, done.
  • In the Later life, death, and legacy section-
    • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence- Were the degree's earned or honorary? If they were honorary, that should be mentioned.
ɱ: I have never found a source that stated one way or the other.
Gecko: Unfortunate. It sounds like they are honorary, but without a source it's best to leave it as is.
Gecko: coming back to this point, having now read the source it definately seems they were honorary, but I'm not sure how specifically and explicitly such needs to be mentioned in the source before it can be called such on Wikipedia without being OR. Maybe other editors could weigh in. Here is the relevant sentence from the source: Last year the University of Omaha conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws, and his alma mater the degree of Master of Laws. Honorary degrees are conferred while earned degree's are, well, earned. And why would it be specified that it was his alma mater if he had gone back to school to earn the Master of Laws? Do other editors think that is explicit enough or would it still be the dreaded OR issue?
ɱ: You make a good point, and no, I don't think that would be OR at all.
Gecko: I think so, but I've seen so many things attacked as "being OR" that I'd like to hear from others. Either way though, this point shouldn't hold up the candidacy.
    • And if you move that 1st sentence to another section (likely to the carrer section unless they are honorary degree's, in which case either carrer or personal life could work) then you can simplify the section title to leave out "Later life". Failing that, if you don't want to rename the section, then it is currently rather lacking on "Later life" information, so you would need to move some stuff to here from the career section - seems easyest to make it just a section on "Death and legacy" IMO.
ɱ: This 1892 bit wouldn't fit in the Briarcliff subsection or anywhere above that that's earlier. I still think this is best where it is.
Gecko: ok, in that case then the section needs more about his "later life", that is not about his "death & legacy" to make the section agree with the section heading.
ɱ: It doesn't need more information. It would be nice, but I don't have anything to put there, and it wouldn't make sense to remove the 'later life' part from the heading or move the content anywhere else in the article.
Gecko: Afraid I have to disagree here. If I see on the table of contents a section titled "A & B", and then the section has one sentence which only tangentially touches on "A" and then several paragraphs about "B", and nothing more, then that's not right (assuming of course that "B" is not obviously connected to, or caused by, "A"). As another idea, what about moving that bit to the education section of the infobox (though I'm not sure it is relevant enough to be included there)?
ɱ: I understand that it's not ideal, but there's no policy or guideline that states this as a requirement, and thus I am okay with leaving it as it is.
Gecko: Well, in my view this would make the candidate fail criteria 2b of the FA criteria - as I understand it (as well as more specifically A3 from the A-Class criteria, but I'm not sure if that is relevant here) and I would have to vote "oppose" on the article's candidacy if it remains in it's current form. As I understand it FA status is the best of the best here on wikipedia needing to be practically flawless and meeting the stringest (sp?) of requirements, so apologies but I don't think it meets it at this time. If you don't wish to move it, and don't have any further info to expand the section, then perhaps I can ask: is the sentence even needed? could it be deleted? (especially if they are just honorary awards from second tier {or perhaps lower} organizations - no offence intended to any alumni, but neither one is Ivy league).
Gecko: note: concerns on this point satisfactorily addressed, see below.
    • The last paragraph, last sentence- it's not clear why O'Donoghue's debts to publishing houses combined with news of Shepard's death provoked O'Donoghue's suicide (I presume it's explained why in the linked newsarticle)
ɱ: I know it's not as clear as I'd like it. I can't get anything of use from any sources.
Gecko: ok, I've read the news article's now- it sounds like O'Donoghue's suicide was not connected to news of the death of EFS beyond that he happend to commit the act right as his wife was reading him the obituary and the assumption had been that there was a cause and effect rather than a mere coincidence in timing. So maybe just add something to the end of the last sentence like "...debts to Chicago publishing houses, and not connected to news of Shepard's death[citation]" or some-such wording.
ɱ: I'm not sure if any publication flat-out denied that there was a relation between the two, even if they both suggest other motives. I can't be more specific or reach a closer conclusion than my sources...
Gecko: note that I had said "something like", you don't need to take my off-the-cuff draft too literarly. The source say's "probably", so word it in such a way to effectively (or directly) say "it was probably not connected". That would be in agreement with the source. perhaps something like: "Although his suicide was thought to be an impulsive act upon hearing the news, it was later learned that the likely cause was O'Donoghue's large debts to Chicago publishing houses and probably not connected to Shepard's death." Or something like "Although his suicide was thought to be an implusive act upon hearing the news of Shepard's death, it was later learned that it was probably rather prompted by O'Donoghue's large debts to Chicage publishing houses". again- just a off-the-cuff quick draft's, the specific's can (and should be- if nothing else to polish the wording) be worked around with.
ɱ: This is still much more easily original research than determining that the degrees are honorary or the building is 650 5th Ave. I don't like it.
Gecko: while I disagree, this point is not significant enough that it would cause me to vote "oppose".
Asides from the one unsourced bit, these are all minor (and some might actually be stylistic choices rather than outright oversights). Overall a very interesting read. Gecko G (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Gecko G: Okay, thank you.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The other points which I didn't reply to are either addressed or are styalistic differences of opinion rather than being wrong. cheers, Gecko G (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Could use some other editors to weigh in on a few of the above points. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps that would be helpful.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 10:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Gecko G: I added in later life information. Was that the only remaining issue of the above discussions?--ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I'd say that is just sufficient enough. And yes, that was the last of the above points. Now some minor points on the new bits:

  • It could use explaining why he didn't want it to open on a Sunday, which could be as simple a change as adding "-The Sabbath" or similar to the end of that sentence. And did you mean to end that sentence with a semicolon or is that a typo? The bits before and after seem too long and complex to be clause's - but that's getting well beyond my grammer knowledge so I'm not positive.
ɱ: Okay, I've done these upon your request.
  • The second sentence about the fair seems oddly constructed. Are you trying to say that on Sept. 7, 1891 (nearly 2 years in advance) he paid up front for the 6 months that he planned to attend (which, btw I belive was the entire duration of it)? On my first read-through I thought it was saying that he attended the fair on just the day of Sept 7th but that he paid for 6 months of hotel services. That source won't load for me - probably just my old system - but double check that it's not a dead link - and assuming it's a book there should be a page # or page #'s.
ɱ: Yes he paid up well up front for those six months of stay. The link works, and it's really more of a booklet than a book, and as such, lacks page numbers. Still, it should be easy to use the page's search function for those who can view it. Can you view the download options, seen upon scrolling down, that can allow you to download the text or create a PDF?

and some bits I apparently overlooked earlier:

  • Shepard was being examined for a medical condition by doctors; they gave him ether at 1… Did he become ill and the doctors were trying to find the medical condition making him ill, or was he being examed for a pre-existing condition - for which they gave him ether- which in turn led to his death?
ɱ: I can add in more details recently found. Will do soon.
  • I take it that the source for the times ("at 1", "at 4", "20 minutes") is footnote #2 (his NY Times obituary) cited at the end of the sentence following those two sentences? You know the MOS better than I do, does WP:CITEDENSE, (or some other part of the MOS) apply here (and thus it's ok as-is) or not since it's not at the end of a paragraph?
ɱ: Yes, this is normal and applies to CITEDENSE. The first half of that paragraph is cited to the NYT obituary; the second half is to the NYT resting place transfer article.
  • Is the modern inflated value's really needed three times in one sentence (after 3 of the 4 amounts)? You might want to only use it on the last one, the total (the 1.35 million one).
ɱ: OK.
  • The usage of the term "Religious bodies" seems odd here. The source calls one a Body corporate and the other a Religious corporation... It might be best to just call them religious organizations, or religious institutes, or religious entities, or something.
ɱ: OK, done.

Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Only Girl (In the World)[edit]

Nominator(s):  — ₳aron 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... Rihanna's highly successful (and one of her most in her entire singles discography) singles, "Only Girl (In the World)", which hit either number-one or number-two is nearly every country that it was released it, and achieved platinum or multi-platinum status. Second nomination. I believe that I have addressed concerns in the previous nomination to the best of my capability.  — ₳aron 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

I'll kickstart this and get a checking done first:

As for relevance and captioning, the pics of Mariah, Beyoncé, and Gaga don't exactly benefit the article. It also is overkill to have three images all in the same spot. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks SNUGGUMS. I've removed the triple image. I can't listen to audio files I don't know which part of the song plays.  — ₳aron 17:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The lyrics it contains are "Like I'm the only one that you'll ever love, Like I'm the only one who knows your heart, Only girl in the world, Like I'm the only one that's in command, 'Cause I'm the only one who understands, How to make you feel like a man". Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay I'll remove it.  — ₳aron 17:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. I'll look through this again within a few days for other aspects. Media all checks out fine now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks.  — ₳aron 07:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Main review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Sorry for not getting to this sooner, Calvin, let's review other aspects.....

  • "is a song by Barbadian singer Rihanna included on her fifth studio album, Loud"..... from
    • Not done. Personal preference. (I've done it the same as "S&M" which is FA and went through 10 nominations)  — Calvin999
  • No need to include Crystal Johnson's nationality, and she should link to Crystal Nicole
    • Not done. Personal preference. (I've done it the same as "S&M" which is FA and went through 10 nominations)  — Calvin999
  • Something doesn't feel right about using "lively" in "create lively, up-tempo music"
  • Remove the hyphen from "number-one"
    • Removed all instances of hyphenating number one. (But everything in the See also section has hyphenated article titles?)  — Calvin999
Concept and development
  • See above note for Crystal Johnson linking
    • Not done. The others aren't referred to by their actual name, either.  — Calvin999
      • I meant to have [[Crystal Nicole|Crystal Johnson]]
        • Her bio name must have been changed recently, because it was "Cristyle". But still, she is credited in the loud booklet as Crystal Johnson.  — Calvin999 13:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
        • That's not how she is credited though.
  • "the then untitled project" → "the song"
    • Not done. Not talking about the song, I'm talking about the album.  — Calvin999
  • "Tour" is not part of the title for Last Girl on Earth, and there should be a period after this bit instead of a colon
  • "It lasts for a duration of"..... reads awkwardly
    • I don't think it does.  — Calvin999
      • I would've give with something like "It is *insert duration* long" Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Read like one and the same to me really lol  — Calvin999 13:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "her previous singles,"..... 2007 song
  • Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, ′ should be ', and ″ should be "
    • I did CTRL+F pasting them into the search box and it didn't return anything.  — Calvin999
      • I fixed it here, though will admit it's sometimes hard to detect Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Critical response
  • ""Only Girl (In the World)" garnered a generally positive response from music critics" needs a reference, even if most reviews included are positive.
    • It doesn't, because I go on to include the reviews. Other FAs don't do this.  — Calvin999
      • Given that citations are used for the sort of thing on album articles, I figured it would also apply to song articles, but it could be worth consulting the Songs WikiProject on the matter Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
        • If it was, then I'm sure FAs would have it.  — Calvin999
  • "a 'comeback,' despite noting that it was not a comeback single" isn't really needed; I'd include commentary on specific aspects of the song
    • Not really, because other critics say how it's a departure from her previous album's tone, so him saying it's a comeback and the comparisons to "Don't Stop the Music" is all relevant to this comment.  — Calvin999
      • In that case, it would help to specify that they're referring to the tone Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Something tells me that the "accolades" should be in prose rather than table form, and I would include who it lost nominations to
    • It's acceptable to use a table without prose or prose without a table. I chose to use a table.  — Calvin999
Commercial performance
  • This is going to need to include more than just North America and the UK
    • It will be too long to include Europe, too. Also, the song hit number one in pretty much every European country, and was certified platinum everything, so it would just be repetition.  — Calvin999
      • While you don't necessarily have to go into as much detail as other nations, other nations should at least be mentioned within prose. Otherwise, it seems incomplete, especially since the lead lists nations that aren't included here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I see what you're saying, but the the other countries in the lead is summary of what's in the rest of the article because the table is there. Commercial performance section is essentially the chart table just in prose form, so it's not as if sourced info isn't in the article.  — Calvin999 13:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No need for Cheryl Cole's nationality
Music video
  • CBS shouldn't be italicized
    • Removed italics.
  • Include that Jason Lipshutz is a Billboard reviewer; it doesn't give readers much context on him otherwise
Live performances and covers
  • Again, no need for nationalities
  • It might help to include commentary on the covers
    • Googled it and couldn't find anything.  — Calvin999
  • "Daily News" should read "New York Daily News"
  • "AOL Radio" shouldn't have italics, and isn't really a reliable source to begin with
  • See about note regarding CBS
  • Not sure if "Winter Music Conference" should be italicized
  • Author Mark Edward Nero needs to be included in ref
  • Why doesn't "Broadcast Music" just read Broadcast Music, Inc.?
  • OK! magazine is not reliable, and neither is "Just Jared" (even though that wasn't sourced directly, it's a gossip rag)
    • Why isn't OK! reliable?  — Calvin999
      • It's a gossip magazine with a poor reputation for credibility, and is known to often be inaccurate Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
        • It's still a magazine reporting on something.  — Calvin999 13:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Capital" should read "Capital FM"
  • "Mercury News" should read San Jose Mercury News
  • "" and "Ultratop 50" should read Ultratop
  • "Irish Recording Music Association" should be Irish Recorded Music Association without italics
  • "" should read "Dutch Charts" or Dutch Top 40
  • Daily Mail (aka Mail Online) and Metro are also not reliable
    • Why not? They are newspapers.  — Calvin999
      • Poor journalistic reputations, particularly when compared to other UK papers like The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, and The Times Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I disagree. Still credible and popular newspapers.  — Calvin999 13:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Hitlistan" should read Sverigetopplistan
  • "" should read "Swiss Charts" or Swiss Hitparade
  • "Hitlisten" should read Tracklisten
  • "Ultratop & Hung Medien /" should read Belgian Entertainment Association
  • The "and" should be "&" for Radio & Records
  • Watch for stray text (i.e. one "]" by itself)
    • Done all. Except I can't find the " in the haystack.  — Calvin999 13:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to oppose, sorry. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've addressed Snuggums' issues, but he doesn't want to continue participation in this nomination per his response to my talkback on his talk page.  — Calvin999 13:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby in advertising[edit]

Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Throughout the 1980s in particular, Bill Cosby was one of the most desired advertising pitchmen, representing an intriguing range of products. A few years ago, I noticed this part of his career wasn't mentioned in his main article at all. What I thought would be a large stub turned into a major article.

Article milestones include the promotion to good article status in June 2013, and a substantial cleanup by GOCE Hall of Famer Baffle gab1978. Submissions to peer review have not attracted comment, even before the extensive allegations against Cosby. Given that his career is now pretty much over, it's not a stretch to consider the article complete in coverage.

Thoughts? Where does the article stand? Is it close to featured quality? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments - I'll take a look now and make straightforward tweaks as I go and jot queries below:
    • My apologies for the delay. I was predisposed to expecting no comments on this article, and stopped checking Wikipedia. Once I discovered that you had kindly volunteered to review, @Casliber:, my only opportunities connected to the interview were on a mobile device or at work. I'm at a desktop now, so I'm giving it a go.
In para 2 of Personality section, I'd switch the two observations around - professional first then negative working with bit second
Fixed. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
NB: try and avoid 1-2 sentence paras (lots of these - either combine or retrieve some more material)
Well, there's less than when you reviewed, but multiple still remain. Generally, they're either a milestone that influences the topic (Cosby Show), or an outlying but non-trivial fact about the career (he did a PSA, he did Coke spots before the main bulk of his Coke work). Usually these small paragraphs are landlocked by larger ones that have little relation topically, so it's hard to merge. Where do you stand of the remaining examples. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
the end of the 1970s segment is choppy - try and make it flow with more info (preferable) or just combine the paras
I've moved all commendations in that decade to the end of the section, and combined the two paragraphs about Jello products. I'm not sure I can really find more information on the Jello spots in the 1970s, I've largely exhausted reliable sources. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
In 1981, an article in Black Enterprise, about African Americans who were hired as advertising spokespeople, said there were "very few blacks who can command the fees being paid at the top end of the scale", Cosby being one of them is ungainly. It can be de-quoted and trimmed, something like "In 1981, an article in Black Enterprise reported that Cosby was one of only a very few African Americans who could command the among the highest fees paid for advertising spokespeople."
I've done similar, but also revamped the next sentence. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Cosby's role as an advertising spokesperson was also addressed; - I wouldn't have said "addressed" as the verb here. maybe something like "Recalling Cosby's status in advertising,..."
I've done a larger reformat in this area, how's it read? -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I found it engaging and a nice little article overall. Needs some (but not an insurmountable amount of) work....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC) I think we are closer now. I find that once I've read these through a few times, I tend to miss things. My position now is possible support on comprehensiveness and prose, but will be firmer if another prose-reader comes and take a look. I'll try and ping one or more...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This has been on the FAC 'urgents' list for a week now -- I'm always loathe to archive repeat noms for lack of interest but unless other reviewers show up soon it may come to that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm seeing quite a lot of problems with the prose, e.g. these examples just from the lead:
  • As of 2002, Cosby held the record for being the longest-serving celebrity spokesperson for a product, Jell-O. I'd re-word that as something like "... for a product through his work with Jell-O."
Changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Great.Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Cosby was one of the first black people to appear in the United States as a spokesperson; ... At this stage in the article I really think this and a subsequent instance of "spokesperson" needs qualifying, e.g. as "advertising spokesperson".
That's fair, changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • in the mid-century 20th century What is intended here? Reading the article, I get the feeling that "in the second half of the 20th century" might be better.
Changed. I have no idea when century got doubled up like that, but the mid-century was initially meant to refer to when he started, the point at which white viewers were least willing to accept black pitchmen. The rest of the sentence, as it is now, does need "second half" instead. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In spite of contradicting soft drink pitches and endorsing a disgraced financial company, he was considered very believable. Presumably Cosby wasn't "contradicting soft drink pitches" since he was making them. I'd re-write this as "In spite of making contradictory soft drink pitches and endorsing a disgraced financial company, he continued to be considered very believable", although I'm not at all sure that "very believable" fits here – would something like "highly effective" be an improvement?
Good catch re contradicting/contradictory. I've gone half-way with effective/believable, just simply because believability has been mentioned in many sources, as his key trait. Thoughts? -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Understood about "believable", that looks fine to me now. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • financially wealthy Just "wealthy".
Fixed. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ... public opinion polling places him near the bottom of a list of 3,000 personalities, when rated on trust and effectiveness. When is this? Should it say "as of 2014 public opinion placed him ..." as the article appears to indicate?
I've moved the wording to past tense, but changed the rest differently, to avoid repeating the year. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes that's better. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather support a nomination than just give reasons why I think it should fail, so I could have a go at combing the prose if those suggestions look sensible. I don't know how quick I'd be, though, and I haven't yet looked at the article closely enough to spot problems of different kinds. Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in reviewing, @Nortonius:. I've fixed most of what you've indicated, and appreciate your through review. I wish this article has received attention in earlier processes, but I'm very grateful for input from two contributors here. Many thanks. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Glad you found that helpful, the lead does look much better to me now. I'll try to look at the rest of the article in the same way over the next day or two. Nortonius (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Some more:
  • In the mid-1980s, Cosby's Q Score deemed him the "most familiar" and "most persuasive" endorser.[4] At the peak of his career, Cosby had a Q Score of 70, which meant 70 percent of 1,000 surveyed United States respondents said they thought highly of him.[5] I see several problems here, e.g. "Cosby's Q Score ... Cosby had a Q Score" seems repetitive, and "At the peak of his career" in what? Which career? And, by the way, did the survey have exactly 1,000 respondents? I'm a little surprised by that round figure, but then I haven't seen the source. Anyway I'd suggest running these two sentences together as something like "At the peak of his advertising career in the mid-1980s, Cosby had a Q Score of 70, meaning that 70 percent of those responding to a survey of 1,000 United States residents thought highly of him, thus deeming him the most familiar and persuasive endorser.[put both sources in the same ref here]" If the survey didn't have exactly 1,000 respondents, give the precise figure if you can or just drop "1,000". Nortonius (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Industry publication Advertising Age said Cosby remained the most-trusted celebrity for 14 years and that the "only person" to surpass him during that period was the Pope.[6] When was this said about Cosby? The source speaks of Cosby topping a "public approval index", rather than saying he was "most trusted celebrity". And, as I understand it (though after a quick look I haven't seen where this might be specified), quotations need to be followed immediately by a citation, e.g. "the 'only person'[ref] to surpass him". In this instance though I would again suggest a re-write, something like this: "In 2003, industry publication Advertising Age said that "during [Cosby's] 14-year reign over the ad industry's public approval index [he had only been surpassed by] the Pope."[ref]"
I suppose that Ad Age didn't actually say it was the Q Score, I just extrapolated given the Q Score's prominence and endurance. Changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Actor Tom Hanks was the Q Score leader in 2014, with a score of 39.[5] I would consider putting this in a footnote, although I can see that it illustrates Cosby's score in the mid-1980s. If you want to keep it, then I think it looks a little out of place here, and would suggest tacking it onto the end of the earlier sentence concerning Cosby's mid-1980s score, so that you would have something like (per my earlier suggestion): "... the most familiar and persuasive endorser[refs] – by comparison, in 2014 the actor Tom Hanks led the Q Score with a score of 39.[ref]"
Changed. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • second-most trusted I believe that should be "second most-trusted".
I'll go with it. Googling, the same news story on India in different sources listed it as the "second most trusted", "second-most trusted", and "second most-trusted" country. So really I have no idea what's the best way, so I'll trust you.
I'll come back with some more in a bit, again assuming you find that helpful! Nortonius (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I see that, in a few hours, it'll be a week since the nominator has done anything on WP. When I first wrote of "combing the prose" I was offering to "fix" it as best I could myself. I'm still up for having a go at that if it helps. I suppose this FAC shall be closed imminently if nothing happens. Nortonius (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Xx (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the debut album by English indie pop band the xx. It exceeded expectations in the media and was a sleeper hit in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The album also received widespread acclaim from critics and won the Mercury Prize in 2010. The first FAC did not reach a consensus. The last FAC I withdrew because of a conflict with another editor. A few tweaks and additions since then. Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

Image review: File:Xx album cover.svg seems fine. File:The xx performing at Brighton Komedia in March 2010 11.jpg seems fine. File:The xx - Heart Skipped a Beat sample.ogg is a non-free sound with a good rationale. File:The xx Dec. 2 09.jpg seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Background: Are there no articles for the band members? "rehearsed quietly with Smith and Qureshi in their bedrooms so they would not disturb the rest of the household" seems like gossip or trivia. "The group worked with producers such as Diplo and Kwes...", did they work with several others as well? If not, mention them without the "such as". Cambalachero (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No articles for the band members except Jamie xx, who is linked in the article. Their rehearsal habit ties into the musical aesthetic mentioned throughout the rest of the article, IMO. Yes, the group worked with "a few others" also. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Recording and production: "chose to record" is wordy, just say that they recorded there. "...and were the first act to record there" should be in a new sentence, and have a reference. The "McDonald felt it was important for the singers..." sentence should end with a reference. "He occasionally processed the sampler through an effects unit such as a Roland RE-201", again, is the "such as" appropiate? "Overproduce" is a common word, and should be unlinked. The event of the burglars seems like trivia as well, as nothing came out of it. Cambalachero (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed "chose to record". I revised it, but a new sentence would be too short and inhibit the flow for readers IMO. Frost 2011 is cited at the end of the passage it supports, so there's no need to repeat citations. I reduced the "such as" throughout the article and unlinked "overproduce". I would not have added that line about the burglars if two notable sources on this article's topic hadn't discussed it, so I figured it was notable enough based on its third-party coverage. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Music and lyrics: "Music journalists" is a common term and should be unlinked, unless you talk about some specific journalist. Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I unlinked it. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Promotion: Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Release and reception: Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Touring: Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cambalachero! Anything else needs attention, or do you feel now it should be promoted? Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cambalachero:? Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There was no Quid pro quo. @Cambalachero: (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Dan56 (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jacedc[edit]

  • I have a few comments. He used Logic 8 recording software on his Mac Pro and often worked in a nearby conference room while they recorded in the studio with drafts of his beats. Smith created his beats with an Akai MPC sampler, which had been given to him as a gift on his birthday. He occasionally processed the sampler through a Roland RE-201 and other effects units. Firstly, I don't feel it's entirely necessary to mention exactly which products he used, as such things don't really contribute to the overall sound and atmosphere of the album (at least, not the Logic 8+Mac Pro mention, I'm not sure about the others). Also, I don't think it's entirely necessary to mention that the sampler was given to Smith on his birthday. It's not really relevant to the article. Just some thoughts so far. I haven't read the whole article, but I have read up to here, and other than that it's a pretty decent article. Either more comments or a support vote will come shortly. Jacedc (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
IMO, specifying things like Logic 8 gives context to his producing on a laptop, which not every readers knows how that exactly works. With a link to Logic 8 in the article, it leads readers to more information on how a digital workstation works. As far as mentioning his birthday, I think an aside to some personal detail makes for a more interesting (if not vital) read. If you still feel it inhibits the read enough, however, I can remove it. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You are correct in that both parts provide interesting information, but the question is whether or not such information is appropriate for this article specifically. This article is about the album, so should we really sacrifice brevity and focus for the sake of further reading on an otherwise unrelated topic? Also, I'm not real sure I understand how mentioning the birthday thing is interesting/vital. Similar to the robbery comment; did the fact that it was for his birthday (specifically) effect the outcome of the album? If so, how? If not, I'd say remove it. But again, it's you're area of expertise so maybe I'm not seeing it in a way more involved editors see it. Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant "if not vital", so while it isn't vital, I just feels it adds some color to the text, like the second to last line in In Utero (album)#Recording about extracurricular activities for example; it intersperses prose that's very procedural as far as Smith's steps in producing the album. I would say it might be interesting because if Smith had not been given the sampler as a gift, perhaps it would not have been used on this album altogether. Dan56 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, but same argument applies. While it's valid information, sure, the question is whether or not it's appropriate information. In my opinion I don't think we should sacrifice focus and brevity for color (which I honestly don't see as color, I just see it as a sentence that doesn't need to be there). And I'm sure if a lot of things had not fallen into place correctly then the album wouldn't have been created, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should list them all in the article. Jacedc (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, cool. I removed it. Dan56 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's another one: On one of the many late nights Smith spent at the studio, he walked in on ski-masked burglars who had broken into the building; they were alarmed by his presence and immediately ran away. Is this really relevant? If nothing really happened as a result of the robbery, or if the production of the album didn't really suffer, then I'm not entirely sure this should be there. Then again, as with my last comment, I'm no expert on this so maybe I'm wrong, just my two cents. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I removed it. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Most of xx was recorded from late December to late January before McDonald and Smith began an exhaustive mixing process, which lasted two weeks and was done with Logic 8. I would just shorten this to "Most of xx was recorded from late December to late January before McDonald and Smith began mixing, which lasted two weeks." No need to mention it was "an exhaustive mixing process", and as with my first comment, no real need to mention it was done with Logic 8. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It being "exhaustive" ties into "how long" the production process took IMO, but I removed "done with Logic 8"; no need to mention it twice. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I read through the accompanying source and (as far as I could tell) it didn't say anything about it being "exhaustive", so couldn't that fall under original research? Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I gathered it was thorough and comprehensive from details in the article like "...solidly going through..." and "People have said to me before, 'Oh, it must've been a really easy thing to mix, right?' but actually there was a lot of attention to the details to make everything feel right, and it took a long time." Dan56 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh okay, as long as it's not OR. As it stands is fine, then. Jacedc (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For each song, they mixed one or two tracks of each instrument and used Waves Audio components to equalize the recordings. Similarly, I'm not really sure this is entirely relevant, but again, could be wrong. Just something to think about. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • More of a question than a comment, but I noticed that the dates are formatted like DD MO Year, which I suppose is how it's supposed to be considering they're an English band, but then the article goes on to read "realize", instead of "realise". My question is if this article is supposed to be written in British English? It would appear to be so. If so or if not, I believe it should be consistent either way. Jacedc (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It is written in British English, apart from that word lol. Autotype/correction automatically changed it from "s" to "z" when I wrote it. Thanks for pointing it out. Revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and was impressed by how poised and refined such a young group sounds. This is a POV sentence so I think it would be better off as a quoted sentence. Perhaps quote exactly what Phares said instead of parsing it as raw text? Jacedc (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I added the word "said", as in "...impeccable and said she was impressed by...", so everything after "said" is being attributed to her. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, that works just as well! :) Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support All issues that I raised have been addressed and I now believe this article would make a suitable FA. Good job! Jacedc (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Esprit15d[edit]

I was invited to comment:

  • In the lead, it says "they continued to play as a trio": "they" is a pronoun without an antecedent, so I would replace it with "the remaining members".
Would "the group" in "...dismissed from the group..." qualify as an antecedent since it's before "they", @Esprit15d:? Dan56 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I feel like that usage includes her, but I think it's debatable enough that I won't press the issue.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 21:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In "Background", it says "On late nights": This very well may be a UK turn of phrase, but it sounded odd on my ears. Could it read "During late nights"?
Sure, done. Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Also in "Background", it reads, "The group worked with producers such as Diplo and Kwes to no success before": I would be inclined to put commas around "to no success", since it's an aside.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Under "Recording and Production" it says, "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left": This is incorrect past perfect construction. It should be a single event in relation to another single event. So, it should read, "They would usually record at night when (I prefer "after", though "when" is not wrong) XL's staff had left."
Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Under "Recording and production", it says "more expensive items he had borrowed": Take out "had".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, everything else looks really solid and thorough. I'd be willing to give a support vote.Esprit15d • talkcontribs 12:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

  • Support The prose quality is excellent and it covers all of the necessary subjects with fine sourcing. I think this article has been thoroughly reviewed at this point and meets all the requirements. Shii (tock) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As per above. The prose quality is top-notch and the referencing is on-point. Yeah, seems good to me :) Soulbust (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the two users above me. Great choice for an FA. Aria1561 (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Prose reads well. Sources I can view check out. Right size of article too. It gets my support. Great work to all involved! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As per above, The article is as intricate as possible, and it would make no sense for it not to be a featured article. @Joe Vitale 5: (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I noticed you replaced the comma in the genre parameter with a "flatlist"/bullet. I've noticed this has become a trend lately in music articles, but Template:Infobox album#Genre still says to delineate with a comma. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It thoroughly contains proper images, tracks and charts are well cited and active references are neatly organized. I agree that it should be nominated a a featured article. Good job! Nemesis2473 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Strong article and a excellent FA candidate.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 21:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A Quiet Night In[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"A Quiet Night In", the second episode of dark comedy anthology series Inside No. 9, was half an hour of (almost) dialogue-free comedy. The Times TV critic David Chater called it "the funniest, cleverest, most imaginative and original television I have seen for as long as I can remember - one of those fabulous programmes where time stands still and the world around you disappears", but someone subsequently wrote in to the publication to say they "were horrified" with the episode. That might give you an idea of what to expect. I've plundered a variety of sources, rewatched the episode several times and massaged the prose repeatedly. I would like to thank Grapple X (talk · contribs) for a GA review and Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) for a peer review. I look forward to your comments. This may be a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Prose comments

  • Joyce Veheary and Kayvan Novak also star. - I'd put this somewhere else, as it's in between two sentences related to the plot
  • I generally prefer "Plot" being before "Production", but I guess the MOS doesn't require it.
    • I prefer it my way around as it offers a rough chronology- it was made, it was broadcast, there was a response. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film says "There is no defined order of the sections." I do have sympathy for your way around- I think a certain degree of author's choice is appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yep, agree (hence "I guess the MOS doesn't require it".) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • He looks to the fake painting, - Don't recall a fake painting being mentioned before this.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • "Ray cuts away the canvas and replaces it with kitchen roll." Does this need to be stressed a bit more? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      • My mistake. If others miss this, it might be worth emphasis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Critics generally responded positively to "A Quiet Night In". David Chater, writing for The Times, gave an extremely positive review, - positive/positive — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Media review

Thanks, Chris, for the review. It's appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice article. A commendable job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, however I have one small concern regarding the use of "darker elements" in the lede paragraph. I am sure that those of us raised as native Anglophones will understand this, but will others from other socio-cultural backgrounds necessarily understand it ? Could we use a less ambiguous term perhaps ? If people disagree with me on this, that is fine, but just thought that I'd raise the point as it was popping up in my mind. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I would really recommend that the weblinks here are archived, as for instance I did for the Uncle David article. Otherwise there may be a situation in the future where those links have died, and thus text will have to be removed from the article itself, which might potentially threaten its GA/FA rating. I always think that it's better to stay on the safe side in a scenario such as this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
      • One more thing ! In the reception section, there is a caption stating "Gerald eats his soup Eddie and Ray attempt to enter the house"; this doesn't make much sense as it currently stands so a small revision is probably required. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Midnightblueowl, it's thoroughly appreciated. I've fixed the caption, and will hopefully get to your other comments tomorrow (or, if not, at the weekend- a lot going on). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I've switched "darker" to "more sinister". I think that perhaps loses some of the subtly of the original wording, but I recognise that "dark" is a little euphemistic. I've also archived the majority of URLs. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Ruby2010

This is a great article and I only really have small nitpicks. Please feel free to disagree with any of them!

  • "Written by Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton, it stars the writers as a pair of hapless burglars attempting to break into the large, modernist house of a couple, played by Denis Lawson and Oona Chaplin, to steal a painting." I feel like this could be rewritten to make it flow better. It seems a tad choppy how it is now (I think it's all the commas). Perhaps input an em dash? "...a couple—played by Denis Lawson and Oona Chaplin—to steal a painting".
    • I've added dashes, as suggested. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Did Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith write the episode "David and Maureen"? It's not clear.
    • I've clarified that they co-wrote and starred in both League of Gentlemen (they co-wrote with others, but "co-wrote" does not imply that they were the only writers) and Psychoville. This logically implies that they co-wrote "David and Maureen". Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2015, Shearsmith said that the pair had no intention to do any further silent episodes, as they would not want viewers to think they had run out of ideas". Is this sentence missing a word or did you mean to write it like that? (I could fix it myself but wanted to check first).
    • I've clarified this- good spot. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You include "Both writers agreed it was "great to perform" before establishing that they acted in the episode. Perhaps this belongs in the following paragraph?
    • Good point- I've rejigged the section slightly. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It doesn't sound like Chaplin's casting was "coincidental", since one of the writers said it was "almost an accident but maybe a little nod". "Coincidental" seems too strong a word to describe this but I'm not sure what else to use. Hmmm...
    • I've changed it to "her casting was not a deliberate homage", which I think is a little weaker than calling it "coincidental". Do you think this is better? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The footnote on the characters' names is awkwardly placed. I almost feel that it would be better to include at the end of production section (as prose, not a footnote). Ruby 2010/2013 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • No third-party source thought the point significant enough to mention, so I don't really want it outside of the plot section or in the main body. I have moved it to a less intrusive place; hopefully this is a bit better? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I like that you at least moved the note to the end of the sentence, so it doesn't break up the text as much. Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments! I'll get to these soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks again for the review- it's very much appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    My quibbles have been mostly dealt with, so I'm happy to support this article for promotion. Well done! Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Source Review

  • J. asked me to have a look, so here's a source review.
    • - Assuming is, indeed, run by Bruce Dessau, this strikes me as meeting SPS (commenting on this explicitly in case anyone takes issue later)
    • Is Broadcast italicized or not? You've got it both ways.
    • What does "TVP" stand for in The Herald reference? Is it necessary?
      • I'm guessing it stands for something like television page(s). I wasn't sure if it was a supplement rather than the main paper, but, given that it's a Wednesday paper reviewing Wednesday television, I assume not. I'll remove it. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The Star: page number, if this is an offline reference? URL if it's online?
      • I've added a Highbeam link. It's not how I accessed it, but it's the same article. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd standardize whether or not you archive web references. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
      • The Times and Broadcast are subscription only, but if the URLs go down, the print sources will remain (they're archived in Nexis, for instance). The Internet Archive won't archive the video on the BBC source, which is what I'm really citing, so an archive wouldn't be helpful. Nonetheless, the BBC, The Times and Broadcast should be pretty secure. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Great, looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990[edit]

Nominator(s): Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an Earth-grazing meteoroid that flew over Czechoslovakia and Poland on 13 October 1990 and left into space again. It was the first event of this type, when the meteor was captured from two sites, which enabled geometrical calculations of its orbit. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

Really just a few comments, I'm afraid. I'm still recovering from my broken ankle and don't have the time to conduct a thorough review.

  • Lead image caption:
    • "the light track across the picture going from the south to the north" could perhaps be improved since the track is not very visible and there is no indication of north, south or direction travelled on the image. Since south-to-north is clear in the body of the article, perhaps something like "the faint near-vertical track just to the right of the pole star" would be a better indication.
  • Similar events
    • What does "eccentric trajectories" mean in this context? Needs clarification I think. Perhaps "...a method for computing the grazing trajectories of such bodies, ..." may be clearer.
  • References
    • It looks as if Spurný 1994 requires payment for the full contents. Probably need to add the |subscription=yes parameter to this and any similar citations.

--Mirokado (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Thanks for the suggestions, I made the changes. I did not know about the the subscription parameter before. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Striking. --Mirokado (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:EN131090_with_text.png: what is the source of the data used for this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    For the orbits of the meteoroid before and after, the data are simply those in the table in same section and the data for the orbits of the planets are those in the infoboxes on their articles or any other place where they can be found. Is it really necessary to mention this in the caption? --JorisvS (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Not in the caption, but it should be added to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Right, interesting topic. Reading now....

  • .. left into space again - this sounds odd - maybe "returned to space again"?
  • I'd put its mass in the lead, as otherwise I have no idea what "small" is at this point.
  • If possible, avoid isolated single-sentence paragraphs.
  • The encounter was observed both visually and photographically. - I think I'd remove this sentence and let following sentences speak for themselves.
  • It became visible at a height of 103.7 km south of Zlín, Czechoslovakia, approaching Earth's surface to only 98.67 km northeast of Wrocław, Poland and disappeared from the sight of the cameras at the height of 100.4 km north of Poznań, Poland, although it was probably still visible until the height of 110 km above the south Baltic Sea. - this sentence is really long - I'd split it.
Ok, I've done it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Any more elaboration on fusion crust would be helpful.

Looks ok (I think), though is pretty short. Will think about what else it might need. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: I have copyedited it using your comments and have also found a few things myself that I've changed.[23] I'm currently not sure how to split up that sentence without breaking the flow of the content, do you have any suggestions? As for "fusion crust", would linking it (albeit to a glossary)[24] help? --JorisvS (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Linking it to the glossary is better than nothing. Doesn't need much really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I am a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose as I can't see any other improvements. FAs needn't be long if the topic matter is well-defined. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my following comments:
  • the first recorded by cameras from two distant positions: was it the first captured from two different positions, or the first captured, and that happened to be from two different positions?
  • Both were equipped with all-sky fisheye objectives.: where's the citation for this?
  • who concluded that the body was practically not decelerated along the track: what does "practivally no decelerated" mean?
  • observed on 29 March 2006 above Japan: is this worth a redlink?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: I agree with your copyedits and all your comments. I've redlinked the meteoroid above Japan and cited the piece about the all-sky fisheye objective (it was simply in the same reference as the sentence before it). The 1972 Great Daylight Fireball was also recorded on camera, so it's the former. How do you suggest we rephrase it? As for the deceleration, the source lists all 0 m/s2, except for one data point at the meteoroid's perigee, where it lists 1 m/s2. I find it hard to believe that it would be actually zero all that time and so suddenly jump to 1 and back again, so it must have something to do with the numerical accuracy of the calculation (but there is no comment on this in the source). So, "practically not decelerated" would mean "no deceleration to within the accuracy of the calculation". --JorisvS (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
How about something like "detected no deceleration"? For the two cameras bit, I can't think of an elegant way to handle it at the moment—ideally, it should be reworded, but I don't think it's a parituclarly important ambiguity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It is about a computer simulation, so I don't know how appropriate 'detected' really would be. What about using basically what I already said above, i.e. "who found no deceleration along the meteoroid's track to within the accuracy of the calculation, except for a very short time near perigee, when it was approximately 1 m/s2."? --JorisvS (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As for that bit of ambiguity, what about just removing "by cameras", because "recorded" already more or less implies as much, so "first recorded by cameras from two distant positions"? --JorisvS (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the version without "by cameras" is good. Another possibility might be "...first recorded by cameras that were located at two distant positions" (as opposite to "...first recorded by cameras, which were located at two distant positions"), but it is longer. Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The ambiguity doesn't come from the cameras, it's about what was first: "being recorded" or "being recorded from two locations". The wording could be parsed as the former. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that "first recorded from two distant positions" has no ambiguity. I think it cannot be understood as "first recorded", but I am not a native speaker. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to withhold support over it, but it is indeed ambiguous as I've explained, which is why I had to ask for an explanation—because it wasn't clear to me which reading was correct. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that technically, "first recorded from two distant positions" can only mean the being the first from two different locations, whereas being the first recorded and incidentally also from two different locations would best have to be rephrased someway, but at least should have an additional comma, "first recorded, from two distant positions". However, because such commas are not sufficiently consistently used, I understand why it got you wondering (and, by extension, other readers). It currently reads "[it] was the second one scientifically observed, after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball, and the first recorded by cameras from two distant positions"; couldn't we, because the 1972 GDF was also recorded, rephrase this to "[it] was the second one recorded, after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball, and the first one from two distant positions"? It would eliminate all potential ambiguity/confusion. Or is something more meant by "scientifically observed"? --JorisvS (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that wording would be fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed it, though I still would like to hear @Jan.Kamenicek:'s input. --JorisvS (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not think it is good to replace "second scientifically observed" for "second recorded", because there are some records about Earth-grazing meteoroids preceding the 1972 and 1990 events, such as the 1860 Great Meteor. That is probably why the sources such as Borovička & Ceplecha talk about "scientifically observed" events. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I would rather think it the other way around, then. In the 19th century there were no cameras, so an event like this back then could not have been recorded, at least in its intended meaning, i.e. #2 and the closely related meanings. However, there were already astronomers who could make scientific observations. I'm open to finding a more precise synonym. --JorisvS (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I cannot find a synonym that would express the same as "scientifically observed", which is in my opinion most precise, but I feel that the word "recorded" (whose first meaning is "To make a record of information") brings more disambiguity than there was before, if it is is used also for the first part of the sentence. Therefore I suggest to keep the original version "this was the second one scientifically observed, ..., and the first recorded by cameras from two distant positions". The words "by cameras" can be omitted (though not necessarily) because here it is clear that meaning number two is used ("To make an audio or video recording of"), because meaning number one would not make sense (it cannot be second scientifically observed and first with recorded information at the same time). I agree with the opinion of JorisvS that the meaning "first recorded and incidentally also from two different locations" cannot be assumed from the original wording. Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You can assert it all you want—I did, in fact, read it both ways. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Curly Turkey: I take your point seriously. I understand that you saw the ambiguity in the original version but I believe that can be solved by omitting the words "by cameras", i. e. "this was the second one scientifically observed, ..., and the first recorded from two distant positions". I really cannot find a better wording, but I am not a native speaker. I am open to other suggestions, but the current wording is really bad because it brings more ambiguity than there was before. Therefore I suggest to put it back until better solution is found (if there is any, because I am afraid that every attempt to avoid all possible ambiguities would result in very complicated sentences). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Omitting "by cameras" brings the words "recorded" and "from to distant positions" close to each other and then they seem more to belong together inseparably. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Technically it can only be read one way, but many readers may not read it quite that technically, which is why I prefer to address it anyway. As far as I can tell, both the 1972 and 1990 meteoroids have been recorded on camera and the only significant difference in this respect is that the 1990 meteoroid has been recorded on cameras from two quite distinct positions. Now, "scientifically observed" is less precise than "recorded", but even "recorded" is ambiguous without a qualifier. What about using "recorded on camera" instead? --JorisvS (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I understand. And what about writing both, i. e. "...the second one scientifically observed and recorded on camera (after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball) and the first one recorded from two distant positions". I think it is quite important to point out that it was observed by scientific equipment, unlike many other notable meteors that were only incidentaly recorded e. g. on a tourist camera and then these amateur pictures were given to scientists (such as the Morávka meteorite, though it was not an Earth-grazer). Here the wording "first one recorded from 2 positions" should not be ambiguous thanks to the previous part of the sentence. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, in that case we could rather specify the kind of camera being meant, instead of writing the vague phrase "scientifically observed". --JorisvS (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I can add the type of objective that all the cameras of the European Fireball Network use, but this can probably come later in the text. I am not sure how this fact could be used instead of pointing out that the 1972 and 1990 Earth-grazers were the only two that received direct attention of scientists until that time. But if you still do not agree with writing that, I will not insist on it anymore. It is not so important to spend so much time discussing it. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean type of camera like that. Just as in "camera used for professional astronomy" or something as opposed to one used by the general populace. It would make it something like "this was the second one recorded by astronomical cameras, after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball, and the first one from two distant positions". --JorisvS (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Now I see... The 1972 fireball was not observed by a typical camera, it was done using infrared radiometer tracking onboard a satellite. So maybe we could formulate it like this: "...the second one recorded using scientific astronomical instruments (after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball) and the first one from two distant positions,...". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Didn't know that! Thank you for finding that! Yes, that works. --JorisvS (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support—my comments were all pretty hairsplitting, and they've all been dealt with. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I've read through twice and made a couple of very minor copyedits. Just one minor issue that doesn't affect my support.

  • "It took 78 seconds": I think this means that Kristensen was able to detect the meteor for 78 seconds. If so I'd suggested "It lasted 78 seconds".

A concise and well-written article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

Leaning support: This looks good, with one qualification. Long scientific articles tend to baffle the general reader and cannot be simplified without compromising their brevity and comprehensiveness. Here, we have an opportunity to take something which is intrinsically interesting and make it accessible for the general reader and not have to worry about it being too long. I'm inclined to support this, but would like to see if we can improve it on this score first. Additionally, an article as short as this should be almost perfect as an FA as there is greater opportunity for readers to focus on any issues! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • "The calculations were published by Czech astromers Pavel Spurný, Zdeněk Ceplecha, and Jiří Borovička from Ondřejov Observatory,[5][1][3]..." These refs should be in numerical order.
    I am not sure. I put them in this order on purpuse: it is the order in which they were published. Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure this is in the MoS somewhere, but of course I can't find it at the moment. In any case, it's standard practice at FA level. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pardon me for jumping in with a digression, but I think (I could be wrong) that this is not in the MoS because there are situations where some editors prefer not to do it. I don't have strong feelings about this myself, but the argument is that a main reference should go first in the footnote list, regardless of numerical sequence, and footnotes that only support minor parts of the text should follow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    I can see the merits of that. My main issues would be that a) it looks like an error and b) someone will eventually "fix" it anyway. I wonder if there is a compromise? I don't think I've ever seen a FA that doesn't follow the numerical order. That said, although my preference is for numerical order, I don't care so much that it would affect my support! Sarastro1 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    What about not defining the references inline, but in the reference list, and then order them so that they appear in numerical order? --JorisvS (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As this is quite a short article, I wonder if we could provide some slight context for the non-specialist. For example, the mass was 44kg; is this big? How does it compare to other meteoroids? (Someone clicking on this article might wonder if it was potentially one that could wipe out humanity, and if they don't know how this compares, they might still think it could have done after reading it!) How do the magnitudes compare with, for example, stars or meteors? Can we give context to the heights? Most readers will probably not know the height of the atmosphere off hand.
These are good points we'll have to look into. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I also wonder, given the short length, if we could be kinder to the reader, and maybe explain terms like "a typical meteoritic fusion crust" and "perigee" (such as we have done for aphelion) without needing to follow links?
Done Explained "perigee". --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Another example: "It recorded the bolide's trajectory over approximately 110°, starting 51° above the southern horizon": These numbers would be meaningless to the general reader; they probably just want to know how much of the sky it crossed, so can we explain that in words?
Not sure Do you have a suggestion how we could do that? --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: Supposing that the full arc from the southern horizon to the northern horizon is 180° and the body crossed 110°, we can say that it was visible through 60 % of the sky. Is this what you mean? Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to their report, the event started at 3h 27m 16s ± 3s": Similarly, this will baffle the general reader. Why not give it as a simple time?
    I am not sure if I understand. What do you mean by "simple time"? Something like "half past three"? Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    I think he means as "3:27:16±3"—"3h 27m 16s ± 3s" is an unusual way to give a clock time in English. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    Couldn't have put it better myself! Sarastro1 (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    Done Though using 03:27:16±3, because that looks even better. I am wondering about the "16±3", because it is typical to have spaces before and after a ±, but the space may make it unclear what exactly the uncertainty refers to. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "also detected a radio reflection": Another one that we could explain better?
Done It should, I thought it meant that the bolide was detected using radar, but the source talks about a "radio receiver" and a "pen recorder". I have rephrased it to use these terms to clarify it, though unfortunately there is no article for pen recorder (yet). --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The article is at chart recorder. I have created a redirect for pen recorder. --Mirokado (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --JorisvS (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Lots of sentences begin with "The" or "It". Could we introduce a little more variety?
Not sure I may have fixed some of it, but if you like more, I'd like to hear a suggestion. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "its angular velocity was so low that it got below the resolution of the instrument": I would recommend a more elegant word than "got"; maybe "fell"?
Done Rephrased to avoid a verb altogether. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why do we spell out grams, when all other units are abbreviations? (Maybe I'm missing something)
Done --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "The program gave an apparent magnitude of −5.7 at the moment when it was seen by one of the cameras and −6.3 at perigee. It did not differ significantly from its absolute magnitude at this point. Then, [The]the bolide [subsequentl] got dimmer [dimmed], with an apparent magnitude of −5.4 at the moment when it was last seen by the cameras and a final calculated value of +6.0 at a height of 257 km." Could be improved to remove redundancy and repetition? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Done Certainly. I have kept the phrasing of the two original items of "at the moment when" consistent, using simply "when". The best professional style is to use the same phrasing consistently if that phrasing is correct. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Thank you very much for the points. I do apologize for being very busy this week, but I will try to address them as soon as possible. Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - please don't use {{Done}} and similar graphical templates (see FAC-instructions), they can cause problems with FAC-page processing (I took the liberty and changed them to bold text). Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2015 (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: FAC nominator, Avraham, aware; WP Math, WP Business, WP Statistics, WP Finance
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion from the Unreviewed Featured Articles list that had fallen below standard, but whose FAC nominator Avraham engaged on talk to address issues raised with a substantial rewrite. After significant improvements and updates, I am bringing it to FAR for more eyes; it is my expectation that the article will likely be Kept without FARC, but more feedback is welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Didn't we improve on the quality of references since then? I find the current type of refs be rather distracting, and making the reading o the text awkward. {{relnote}} or something like that should be used instead. Nergaal (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • See WP:WIAFA, inline citation is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I see 1.a and I don't find this type of citations to make the prose "engaging". Nergaal (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • As a matter of opinion, you are more than welcome to prefer one style over the other. There are others who find this style more aesthetically pleasing and engaging than footnotes. De gustibus non est disputandum. However, as a matter of the criteria for FA, both methods are equally acceptable per Wikipedia standards. I would hope that the article's review would not suffer due to aesthetic opinions that are unrelated to our featured article criteria. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Moreover, I believe the prose should be considered as separate and distinct from the citation method; the two are separate criteria. Conflating the two and then deciding based on a personal opinion that is not supported by WP:WIAFA is something I would hope would not occur. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae (film)[edit]

Notified: Zzzzz, Hal Raglan, WP Horror, WP Film
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has fallen below standard. Although Dr. Blofeld and others have put significant work into attempting to restore it to standard, there are still unaddressed concerns raised on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Gas tungsten arc welding[edit]

Notified: Spangineer, WP Metalworking, WP Engineering
URFA nom

This is a 2005 promotion that has maintenance tags, as described on talk in March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Equipartition theorem[edit]

Notified: WillowW, WikiProject Physics

I am nominating this featured article for review because there's a lot uncited text, Promoted more than 8 years ago, talk page noticed 17 days ago. FAC nominator inactive for almost a year, notified.Jarodalien (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The nomination is problematic for at least a couple of reasons:
  • According to Wikipedia:Featured article review, the nominator should raise issues and attempt to resolve them on the talk page first. But the nom did not do this. There is only a section with the cryptic title "possible FAR". Who knows what a FAR is? "FAR" is FA geek jargon that ordinary editors aren't expected to be familiar with. There should have been an explanation of the {{refimprove}} tag being a possible prelude to a featured article review, a list of concrete issues to be solved, and a notice that there may be a time limit to this, after which a formal review may be invoked. None of this was stated, nor even a link provided.
  • No policy-based reason was given for either the {{refimprove}} tag on the article or this nomination. The assertion "a lot uncited text" (sic) is not a valid issue. On the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria admin page, inline citation guidance is given by the essay Wikipedia:When to cite. In that essay, there are no thresholds for citation count or percentage of cited text. Instead there are particular classes of assertions that should always be cited (e.g., BLP stuff, quoted text, etc.) and other assertions that may be cited, if the assertions are non-frivolously challenged as being controversial or wrong. There are also classes of assertions, such as common knowledge in the field, that should not be cited.
Hence, I think it would be best to close this nomination, go back to the article and engage the editors on the talk page with concrete, policy-based issues to help improve the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the nominator did follow instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As always, I warmly welcome constructive feedback on my articles. I left a message on the Talk page offering my assistance in bringing Equipartition theorem up to current standards in FAs and asking for concrete points that need to be referenced. I may need some help from the Physics Wikiproject, my present whereabouts being in Germany and my personal physics library not being with me. Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that we can bring the article up to respectability. P.S. Hi, Sandy! So lovely to see you here. :) Willow (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, WillowW ... the FAR process has the built-in ability to be flexible on timing, so please keep the page posted on your progress. Will you be able to access your library any time in the next month? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Alas, no, because I moved permanently to Germany and 100 boxes of sundry textbooks were too much to send by post. I sent my favorites, but my Stat Mech books didn't make the first cut. So they're resting serenely in a storage unit. Still, I have a pretty good memory of where to find what and I daresay I can find many English sources online. Worst case scenario, I'll just *have* to buy the latest editions, like Br'er Rabbit thrown into the briar patch. ;) I intend to resolve this to Jarodalien's satisfaction, however, within the month. Willow (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell[edit]

Notified: PumpkinSky, Wimvandorst, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, WikiProject Scouting

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been tagged for citation and fringe theories for over 18 months. Section called "Significant family members" is essentially unsourced; prose problems include even sub-headings such as "Related readings" and sentence fragments such as "2l's instructions.". DrKiernan (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The sentence fragment was the result of a partial reversion of some vandalism; I fixed it. I agree about the uncited sections, though, and the writing in the first part, about his family, is a bit confusing.--Coemgenus (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

So, we've been promoting someone's hobby site all these years as a reliable source? When I see a case like this, I so wish we had a speedy delist option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Is it worth comparing the diff of the FA- passed version in 2007 and the current version? Perhaps that comparison can remove the cruft and keep what's still in good shape? Montanabw(talk) 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The promoted version was also based on hobby sites:[25] not only is this article far from FA standard; it doesn't even meet WP:V (and never did). Ealdgyth did not start doing routine sourcing checks at FAC until March 2008. (Sourcing requirements were tightened in March 2009, and copyvio checks started in Nov 2010.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh. Well, I guess if people who take care of the article now want to improve it, I guess it's best that I don't find myself caring more about the article than they do. There was some kind of automatic post at the article's talk page, yes? Montanabw(talk) 03:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Sad to see that years old grudges die so hard. Sandy, "scouting" is not a "hobby". It's a very honorable tradition which instills values to young men and women. But hey, you made your point. I suppose that's all that counts. WP:RS has become much more stringent over the years. Sure - "speedy" do whatever - good on you. — Ched :  ?  03:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, see the instructions at FAR (I responded to more of your concerns on talk, unfortunately under a sub-heading that applies to Ched). Please see personalization of issues on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Meh. I'm done here. I hope the active editors are able to work on the article. Montanabw(talk) 05:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bringing this article to FA standard is going to require some serious time in a library. There is a long list of books that aren't used (in Further reading); the books that were used are often missing page numbers; all of the inferior sources and hobby sites have to be replaced; and there will now be the problem of making sure info that might come from Wikipedia mirrors (since this bio has been in this state for about 10 years) is not cited. Again, this would be a case for a speedy delete if we had such a thing, because the article was never based on adequate scholarship or reliable sources; fixing it at this point would require an effort larger than anything typical for FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Although I would be very pleased to see the B-P article listed as FA, and surely the subject does warrant such status, I quite agree with SandyGeorgia about the current state of the article, and the sheer amount of work it will require to have it up to spec. So, no support for FA promotion now, but a (small) promise to work on it and improve it to a better state than it has become over all those years. Wim van Dorst (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC).

Hi, Wimvandorst-- how nice to "see" you again! In reviewing the significant amount of problem we have on Wikipedia with
  • This list doesn't include all of them, since it misses those that link to
I see we also have a problem at Baden-Powell House (which I explicitly supported at FAC, saying "The article appears to be well referenced... Sandy 02:24, 16 July 2006", so we had a problem back then, which I was part of :) The issues at Baden-Powell House don't look nearly as extensive or hard to clean up, so it would be grand if you could be enticed to work on that one ! It would be hard to fix this article, but that one seems doable. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
In processing through some of the list above of I have found:
  1. Most scouting articles that use it also use multiple non-reliable sources (listservs and other personal websites)
  2. There are some (possibly) reliable uses of (this one for example seems OK, and the site alleges permission to host the page)
  3. And some pages are taken from Wikipedia, which Wikipedia then cites (the mirror problem, using Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia). [26]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd work on this if it weren't for all the looney birds and grudge holders. It's not worth the stress. PumpkinSky talk 21:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Georg Forster[edit]

Notified: Kusma, WP Libraries, WP Germany, WP Plants, WP Journalism, WP Birds
URFA nom.

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standard; it has uncited text and some MOS issues, as mentioned on talk in April 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe in the future you could ping the appropriate projects, rather than just putting a comment on the talk page and hoping someone might notice? We didn't know there was a problem until you pinged us today with news of the review. :P Will see what I can do. MeegsC (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm thrilled to see people descending on the article for improvements, even though the talk page notice was ignored for more than two weeks, indicating that we had another older unwatched FA. Meegs, your suggestion is impractical for many reasons, which we could take up at WT:FAR (so as not to muck up this page) if you are interested. Please keep in mind that one of the main objectives of FAR is to improve articles, and being here is not a "punishment". Also, I hope you've noted from the FAR instructions that we can KEEP without FARC, which is an outcome that delights most of us here ;) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I am a bit busy IRL these days, and do not have much wikitime to dedicate to this right now, especially not without a bit more detail on what is wrong. As I haven't kept track of everything that happened at MOS: could you point me to the major issues that you see? Also, not every sentence is followed by an inline citation, but if you could tell me where you would expect additional citations I am happy to go hunting through my Forster biographies. Sadly, my current university library doesn't seem to have a copy of Saine's biography, but I'll see what I can do. —Kusma (t·c) 13:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes-- happy to see people willing to work here! I will start a list, not yet comprehensive, and add to it as issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your list. I'll try to improve the messiness. Fortunately, there actually are page numbers in most citations to Saine's biography, but they are visible only in the wikitext, not in the displayed result. I do not recall why this is the case and whether they used to be displayed when the article passed FA. On the whole, the article has been quite stable since it became a FA, but I certainly agree it no longer looks like the best we can do. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • spaced WP:EMDASHes ... the article should use either unspaced WP:EMDASHes or spaced WP:ENDASHes.
  • What is the order of the Works section? Alpha, chrono?
  • Book sources need page nos.
  • Citations do not have a consistent style (as but one example, look at the many different ways author names are rendered)
  • Citations are incomplete or incorrently written. All sources need a publisher, all websources need an accessdate, and author and date should be supplied whenever available, also ...
    • [2], English translation at (archived link, 19 July 2008) needs to be cleaned up to a correct citation.
  • Check image captions (for example, The Pinnacle of liberty, A satire by James Gillray)
  • Italics should not be used here, and I'm wondering if this can be reversed (that is, put the English version, with a footnote to the original ???) ("The freedom of the press finally reigns within these walls where the printing press was invented.) See WP:NONENG. That is one sentence: I don't think it needs a pull quote, but Maralia may know better.
  • There's sort of a mess everywhere in terms of WP:ITALICS in relation to words as words, translations, quotes, etc:
    • called "Freunde der Freiheit und Gleichheit" ("Friends of Freedom and Equality")
  • Avoid WP:OVERLINK on common terms known to most English speakers and not needed for understanding of this article (samples, Latin, England, philosophy, there is more) and link on first occurrence.

This is not a complete list, but is enough to get started. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


  • Fixed all dead links, captions and a few overlinks.
  • Improved dash-usage (opted for spaced en-dash), but this will need another look (especially in refs).
  • WP:ITALICS, "page numbers and other ref details", and "sorting of works" in a meaningful way is above my paygrade.
  • I could try to transform references into cite-templates - if nobody is objecting against that citation style. Only a minority of references use cite-templates currently. GermanJoe (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC to keep on progress. Is anyone willing/able to finish this up? There are still inconsistent citations, minor amounts of united text, italics issues (e.g. quotes), and Overlinking, at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    I am still giving this 100% of my wikitime, but that hasn't been much at all (travelling, work, sick kids). I hope I'll get through the citations next week. —Kusma (t·c) 06:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, Kusma; I will be traveling for a few weeks if you don't hear back from me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

George Washington Dixon[edit]

Notified: no active main editor, WP Arts and entertainment, WP Athletics, WP Running, WP Boston, WP Journalism
URFA nom.

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standard, as noted on talk in April 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section mostly concerned referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Economy of the Iroquois[edit]

Notified: Bkwillwm, WP New York, WP Economics, WP Business, WP Indigenous peoples of NA
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standard; it has outdated text and uncited text, as noted on talk since 2013, and again in April 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist: It wouldn't pass FAC today. That said, I think that the outdated section is not horribly egregious and perhaps the article could simply be downgraded to a GA, as it appears to meet that criteria with only a couple minor tweaks (maybe once a couple sentences are chopped.) However, I'm afraid I lack adequate motivation to work on this article, so it will have to sink or swim without my efforts to salvage it. Montanabw(talk) 18:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • <standard FAR note> Montanabw, at FAR, we don't declare Keep or Delist on articles under review; that happens if they are not improved, and move to the FARC phase (at which time, you would have to return to declare). FAR allows time for improvement before decisions are made. Also, GA is a separate process; if articles are delisted at FAR, they are marked as unassessed. FAR cannot assign GA status; articles delisted at FAR have to undergo a separate GA, but I have never seen a case where a delisted FA also meets GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, that's fair enough. I haven't been involved much with FAR. I hope someone else at WP:IPMA has time to work on it because it is an interesting article. But that said, I suspect that even if it got cleaned up, it isn't quite up to FA quality anyway, looking at sources, comprehensiveness and structure. It probably could go GA without too much work, though. Montanabw(talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include datedness and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


Notified: WP Textile Arts, WP Mexico, WP Food and Drink, WP Insects

URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from 16 April. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

3 citation needed tags (now down to 2 1), each of the facts they source seem obviously true. I have a hard time seeing what would be gained by this review.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, but there are plenty of issues beyond the few citation needed tags. There is a good deal of dated info, WP:OVERLINKing, bare URLs, incomplete citations, and I find it hard to believe the article is comprehensive since it only cites Greenfield (2005-- published as this FA was largely being written) twice (I have the book on order).

And then there's the matter of the very first source cited in the article: [27]

And there is a lot of new research since this article was written, as well as controversy on cochineal in food: have a look at google scholar (search on cochineal food) and see articles in Washington Post, Smithsonian magazine and many more on controversies over its use in food.

Next, at PubMed, at minimum: PMID 25691985 PMID 25398168 PMID 25213214 and many more (we say 32 cases documented "to date" --REALTIME issue-- based on a 2009 source, when we have more recent sources).

The article seems to be not only outdated and based on low quality sources, but lacking in comprehensiveness as well. If we had such a thing as a speedy FA delist, this would be a good example of where we might apply it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure. If an FA is supposed to be kept meticulously up to date with new research every couple of years, then there is little point for anyone to dedicate the time to write them - since that is then simply signing up for a never-ending job. I think it would make more sense to have maintenance process instead of a de-listing process. The low quality source you linked to by the way want used for anything - someone just inserted it into the lead probably as a form of advertisement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, issues with comprehensiveness, datedness, and uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include datedness, referencing, and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Rama's Arrow, WP Archaeology, WP India
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion which has not been maintained to standard; see talk page notice from 16 April. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, uncited text, overlinked, image layout issues, exernal jumps in text ... lots of work needed, and no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

History of Michigan State University[edit]

Notified: Pulley12, Jtmichcock, WP Universities, WP Michigan
URFA nom.

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from 16 April. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, not a single edit since listing at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Saravask, WP Plants, WP Food and Drink, WP Herbs and Spices, WP Agriculture, WP Iran

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion with numerous issues noted on talk over a long period of time. These include biomedical claims that need MEDRS-compliant sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

PMID 25072266 could be addressed for comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

PMID 23538079 needs to be examined for MEDRS. Adverse effects per PMID 23472485 should be discussed. PMID 22432635 and PMID 23971874 are not used.

There are numerous harv ref errors, so it's unclear which sources are being used without checking one by one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Dixie (song)[edit]

Notified: Main editors retired, WP American music, WP MT, WP Songs
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has taken on some uncited text, unaddressed since talk notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. I looked briefly at this but the problems go beyond recent uncited text. There are things even from the FAC-passed version that require better sourcing and attention from an interested party. --Laser brain (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section centre on referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

1928 Okeechobee hurricane[edit]

Notified: Jdorje, WP Puerto Rico, WP Caribbean, WP Tropical cyclones
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion with some deficiencies noted on talk last month; they should be easy to deal with, but haven't been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't taken much time to review the article (it almost certainly does need to be brought back up to speed), but from the aforementioned talk page thread:

I'm confused by the very first sentence of the lead which states it "was the second deadliest tropical cyclone in the history of the United States, behind only the 1900 Galveston hurricane" because, later in the article, the (unsourced and possibly outdated) table titled 'Deadliest Atlantic hurricanes' lists Mitch as having surpassed both.

The US isn't the only nation bordering the Atlantic Ocean. Not sure how those two stats could be contradictory in any way. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Juliancolton, I'm having the same problem with this article I'm finding in many older storm articles; data is not cited in the lead, and it isn't always found in the body of the article. I can't find the 4,000 deaths in the body of the article; it would be good to cite data in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hurricanehink is working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There is inconsistent formatting of author names in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, to keep process on target, and Hurricane can indicate if he is able to fix the remaining issues as the FARC unfolds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I was camping, and I'm back. I'll happily address any issues that come up. I'm currently working with @12george1: to fix it up. It's already substantially improved from what it was. I'll work on the referencing today. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing and prose/MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that recent edits between @12george1: and I have remedied the problems. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - My previous concerns all appear to have been addressed; looks great! Maralia (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Chrisieboy, David Underdown, Nortonius, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject East Anglia, WikiProject England

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been regularly updated in the past few years, which means it no longer meets the FA criteria that it did back in 2007, when it was promoted. As noted on the article talk page, demographic statistics in the article were vandalised and not reverted until I spotted this more than a year later, which indicated to me that editors haven't been keeping a close enough watch on the article to ensure the FA standard is maintained (and there may well be other vandalism that has crept in). There are now quite a lot of unsourced or dated claims in the article, and as a result it no longer qualifies as comprehensive or well-researched. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see the instructions at FAR ... eight days between talk page notice and FAR listing is cutting it close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, SandyGeorgia, I didn't see that there was a guideline of two to three weeks for each stage. I'm happy for this to be put on hold, although I also note that not a single editor has posted a response in those eight days (which has reinforced my sense that no one has been actively editing or monitoring the article of late). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Whether to put it on hold is a decision the @WP:FAR coordinators: will make, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, this first part of FAR is preliminary to the FARC proper below, so I don't think we need to stick strictly to pre-preliminary discussion on the talk page. I will ping some other near-locals (Hey @Dweller: and @The Rambling Man:!) as this is their neck of the woods (geographically). A brief perusal show uncited sentences and some prose that could be tightened, so let's leave it here and get more eyes now. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Directed here from WT:UKGEO, I was ready to make some points about the article, but the above comments aren't encouraging. Should editors post here, at the article talk page, or in "FARC proper below" (which doesn't seem to exist yet)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, PaleCloudedWhite, and thanks for coming here to participate. The three steps (talk page, featured article review (FAR) and featured article removal candidate (FARC)) are explained at WP:FAR. At this stage, we're supposed to identify problems with the article and discuss how to improve it. In a few weeks, we'll move on to the FARC stage where people will vote to either keep or remove the FA status. So you don't need to wait until the FARC stage to comment - the only issue as far as I know is that I started the FAR a bit early. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
PaleCloudedWhite just put comments here, where we can see, judge and improve.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. Well, the most immediate impression is that the article structure doesn't follow the guideline at WP:UKTOWNS. I don't know if that has any bearing on FA status, though even if it doesn't, it still seems odd that the geography section is at the bottom of the page, and makes no mention of geology but does cover linguistics. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Chrisieboy has now started to address some of the problems with the article and I will try to help out. Given this, and that I was a bit trigger-happy with moving this to FAR, I hope we can agree to give it a fair bit of time for improvements to be made before moving to the FARC stage. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisieboy: @Cordless Larry:, at ten days now, how is progress? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Some incremental progress is being made, SandyGeorgia, although it's almost all thanks to Chrisieboy so far and help from more editors would no doubt be welcome and also speed up the improvements. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I left just a few sample edits, but the amount of work needed here is quite substantial.

  1. There is dated text throughout, complicated by a lack of "as of" dates. Pls see WP:REALTIME.
  2. Serious WP:OVERLINKing everywhere. We don't need to link common terms that everyone knows and that readers won't click on from this article.
  3. WP:ITALICS, quotes are not italicized.
  4. MOS:LQ, logical quotation.
  5. Citations-- missing information. Every citation needs a publisher, and an author and date when those are available. Websites need access dates.
  6. Bibliography, are all of those used in the article?
  7. Image captions which are full sentences should have final punctuation; sentence fragments should not.
  8. There are WP:REALTIME issues everywhere ... sample:
    In 1994 Peterborough was designated one of four environment cities in the UK and it is now working to become the UK's acknowledged environment capital.
    Now means ... when ?

There is a quite substantial amount of work needed here just to update the text and clean up the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC to keep on track. There has been no substantial work this week, and there is an extreme amount of work still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing, MOS, and datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have tried to address the concerns raised above. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Chrisieboy, thank you for the effort, but there is work to be done, and it is early in the game to be declaring a keep. The article will be at FARC for at least two weeks, and there is still time for the many issues to be addressed.

    Starting with the things that are relatively easy:

    The article does not have complete or consistent citations. All sources need a publisher, websources need an accessdate, and author and date should be provided if available. And then all of that information should be rendered in a consistent format. ALso, see WP:REALTIME ("Today, bus services in the city are operated ..."). "Peterborough is a major stop" ... the world major is frequently overused on Wikipedia ... what does it mean? More WP:REALTIME, "To help cope with this influx the council has put forward plans to construct an average of 1,300 homes each year until 2021" ... The council put forward in year x plans ... so it won't be dated when we read it 10 years from now. And there are still maintenance tags on the article. Also, when sentences start with a number, they should be recast to avoid doing that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No improvements since my last comment-- article still has maintenance tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, there is still considerable uncited text and data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Geology of the Capitol Reef area[edit]

Notified: Mav, WP Earthquakes, WP Utah, WP Geology
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to FA standards; see talk page notice from March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The FAR for History of the Grand Canyon area came at a bad time. But I should have some free time for this one after this weekend. BTW - I don't check my watch list anymore so the most effective way to get my attention is to leave a message on my talk page. --mav (reviews needed) 22:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
ah, ha ... so we can credit URFA for dragging you back in here !! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Something like that. :) --mav (reviews needed) 02:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot of the current citations have this wording added to them already: "For the whole paragraph, except where noted". So it should not be a problem adding more cites as needed once I get all the books in front of me to confirm. --mav (reviews needed) 02:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
mav, please keep the page posted on your timing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No edits yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going through my relevant books now. --mav (reviews needed) 23:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
First pass done. Refs distributed and many overlinks nixed. --mav (reviews needed) 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Mav, you haven't edited since 28 April-- are you waiting for feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Still needing citation. Mav, I'm confused about this article organization:

  • 1.1 Cutler and Kaibab formations (Permian)
  • 1.2 Moenkopi Formation (Triassic)
  • 1.3 Chinle Formation (Triassic)
  • 1.4 Glen Canyon Group (Triassic)
  • 1.5 San Rafael Group (Jurassic)
  • 1.6 Morrison Formation (Jurassic)
  • 1.7 Cedar Mountain and Dakota formations (Cretaceous)
  • 1.8 Mancos Shale and Mesaverde Formation (Cretaceous)

Can that be instead:

  • Permian
    • Cutler and Kaibab formations
  • Triassic
    • Moenkopi Formation
    • Chinle Formation
    • Glen Canyon Group
  • Jurassic
    • San Rafael Group
    • Morrison Formation
  • Cretaceous
    • Cedar Mountain and Dakota formations
    • Mancos Shale and Mesaverde Formation

Move to FARC to keep process on track; work still to be done, no recent work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mav has not edited since April 28. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist, it looks like Mav is gone again, there are still issues, including a good deal of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp[edit]

Notified: Halibutt, WP Correction and Detention Facilities, WP MilHist, WP Austria, WP Germany, WP Poland
URFA nom

Review commentary[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to FA standards; see talk page notice March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for pinging me, I would respond at the talk page if someone notified me of it. Sure, the article did not see any substantial changes in recent years (ever since I wrote most of it), but I believe most of the issues you raise above are easily fixable, there's nothing wrong with the article itself I believe.
As to specific issues, I took the liberty to reply at the article's talk page. In short, out of roughly 10 issues you raised, most are either non-issues (at least I can't see link farms in the see also section, can't see hidden text, can't see any problems with the sections and so on) or were already fixed (en dashes, some 8 in-line citations still using <ref> instead of {{sfn}} and so on). And in the case of the rest you would have to raise specific concerns for me to be able to fix the article - or the matter is up to debate (as in the case of lists you say should be prosified, whereas they were converted from prose to lists specifically per WP:EMBED).
All in all - I'd be happy to fix the article, but would need some help from you in pointing me to what there is to be fixed. Please be specific. //Halibutt 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Responding and addressing issues on talk is good -- thanks!! -- no need to clutter the FAR with back and forth on ongoing improvements. I am off for the day, but will get back to you this pm on article talk with more specifics (I disagree that there is not significant work to be done, but am confident it can be done, and will give you more detail on article talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Preliminary feedback on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment not relevant to WP:WIAFA moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: because the original nominator seems concerned that I may be expressing personal preference, additional commentary from someone other than MOI on issues or deficiencies in this article might be helpful. There is a lengthy section on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look sometime in the next 48 hours. Just popped on for a tic - this will need some reading and digesting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
In January 1945, the camps, directed from the central office in Mauthausen, contained roughly 85,000 inmates. - what does "directed from the central office" mean in this sentence?
since Germany started the war against Poland in September 1939 - since = "after" or since = "because of"?
Prisoners were also "rented out" as slave labour, - don't need quotes here I think
last para of Liberation and post-war heritage needs inline references
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talkcontribs) 01:48, April 21, 2015‎

Move to FARC, at the two-week mark, there has been some improvement, but in spite of walls of text on the talk page outlining the problems with MOS, prose, citations, and comprehensiveness, the substantive issues have not been addressed, and some unwillingness to address those issues is apparent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

The review section largely concerned MOS, referencing, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
An IP edit that needs to be verified by someone who has the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist no siginficant improvement, no ongoing work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • "no significant improvement"? Oh. I guess that was insignificant then! Ferma (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
      • My sincere apologies, Ferma, for the unfortunate word choice. Your copyedit is appreciated, but there are still significant issues relative to WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Aw, shucks, it is nice to be appreciated :) There has been quite a lot of discussion on the talk page, and the article has seen a fair amount of editing in the last couple of months. Could you briefly précis the outstanding problems? I think I have done all I can, but others might be willing to deal with them. Ferma (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • Have removed all the overlinking, and fixed a few dash errors. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Have tagged all paras needing citations. From my brief look at the article and skim of the talk page, I believe that this article should be delisted. If someone fixes all the issues, it can be re-nominated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Australia[edit]

Notified: WP Heraldry and vexillology, WP Australian noticeboard, original nominator and most active editors long gone
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from Feb 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, some edits, but little improvements in issues of uncited text and MOS breaches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section centre on MOS, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've done some work, but am surprised that no one from the Australia project can be enticed to clean up the article. There are problems with hyphens, citations needed, the citations need to be cleaned up for consistency, lists need consistent format and punctuation, image layout needs to be improved so flags don't scroll off the screen, external jumps in text corrected, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist. Unsourced statements include "despite the counter argument that this isn't uncommon", "have been used only", and "Although common RGB approximations of Pantone colours may make the flag appear more natural on screen, the officially specified RGB colours should be used." Listy prose; single sentence paragraphs; off-topic digressions, such as Toowoomba, Queensland. DrKiernan (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Relunctant delist, this should not be hard to fix up, but no one seems to care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    It clearly needs some work. How much time do we have? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    Hawkeye7 If someone will work on it, the coords always wait. (I will be traveling in case you fix it up and I'm not here to strike my !vote.) Just be sure to keep this page posted, so the Coords now you're on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    Hawkeye7 are you planning on working on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    It's outside my area of expertise, but I'll give it a try. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Hell, Hawkeye, if I can blunder my way through improving articles about cricket and guided busways, I have every confidence you can manage this one! Happy to wait and see what you can do with it. Maralia (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - The prose is very choppy and lacking in flow thanks to numerous 1- and 2- sentence paragraphs; there are grammar problems, MOS issues, and out of date statements (2004) and conversions (2009). Most concerning is that the citations need major work. Even the most heavily used sources are insufficiently identified. Australian Flags is cited 30 times but never given an author, publisher, or year. Likewise there are 15 cites to 'Kwan' before a Kwan work is ever identified—and then a few cites later a Kwan work of a different year is (inadequately) cited, so the nearly 30 cites to Kwan are all unclear: is it two different works entirely, or a book and a revised edition? And how are we to determine which work is cited from cites that simply say "Kwan"? This needs a ton of work to meet the FAC criteria. Maralia (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway[edit]

Notified: Michael (original nominator, retired), Jj98, WP Buses, Australia noticeboard
URFA nom
Talk page notice Jan 2015

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has been tagged for a year as outdated. There are other issues, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

The review section concerned the article's datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Needs updating and copy-editing. Unaddressed concerns with sourcing and comprehensiveness on the talk page: Talk:O-Bahn Busway#FA Concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - This needs a fair amount of work. In addition to other text previously tagged as outdated, the fares are out of date. The claim "The O-bahn design is unique among public transport systems..." seems to have been invalidated by the 2011 debut of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Some attention is needed to representations of money: Australian dollar is not linked until the sixth section of the article; some figures are given as A$ while others are simply $; and no conversions are given at all. The See also and External links sections need pruning. The citations need work: there's a bare url, a dead link, missing accessdates, and an undefined source (UBD Adelaide?). Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hold, improving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I am going to be traveling and may not have internet access (don't know yet); once Maralia is satisfied, I'm satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A couple of us have put some work in to returning it to standard, but none of us are FA experts, so are really only responding to specific concerns, not the general principles. Any additional advice and assistance would be welcome, although it may be too late now. --Scott Davis Talk 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I will be out all day, but will look in this weekend. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Too much happening in this image caption, it took me a long time to figure out what it was trying to say: "Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied Mercedes-Benz O305 on the O-Bahn guide-way".
  • Is this hyphen an Austrlian or English thing? "city's rapidly expanding north-eastern suburbs".
  • Per WP:V, how would one go about verifying sources like these ?
    • Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson
    • Busway Information, Paper Three: Operational Strategy, South Australian Department of Transport (1983)
      • Are these published documents or some sort of in-house thing?
  • Where is this information from the lead cited in the article?
    • The Adelaide O-bahn was the first bus rapid transit system in Australia and among the first to operate in the world.
  • Is there any problem with the simpler language of:
    • The population of Adelaide more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • instead of:
    • Adelaide has had significant population growth since the industrial expansion following World War II, with the population having more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • In addition to the growing population, there was an explosion in the number of new motor vehicle registrations, a 43-fold increase in the period from 1944–65. This was fuelled by nation-wide full employment, annual economic growth close to 10%, and the discontinuation of government fuel rationing after World War II.
    • More unnecessary verbiage which sounds like a political promotion.
  • There have been a number of proposals to extend ...
    • is sourced to 1983, suggesting the article still needs updating (what happened with that)?
  • On a quick skim, I didn't find current usage/ridership/whatever data.
  • Sentences should not start with numbers.
  • Convoluted bodied bodied bodies ... I don't know what it's saying:
    • Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied 41 rigid and 51 articulated bodied buses, their cost included in the original $98 million budget.
  • These along with a single Mercedes-Benz O405NH make up today's fleet.
    • No as of date, no idea what "today" refers to, and an incomplete citation, with no date as a clue.
  • Biodiesel fuel was trialled between July 2005 and May 2006.
    • And ???

In summary, there are prose issues, but more significantly, I am still concerned about needed updates, and quite a few of the citations are incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: are you still following? More than a week has passed ... I am still at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks, sorry, I thought I had! @ScottDavis: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry @SandyGeorgia: - I had seen your more detailed notes but not had time to look at them and the article properly since you posted them. Thank you, I'll try to address some in the next few days. I hope that @BarossaV: might drop back in to help too, but he/she might be away as they haven't edited for over a week. --Scott Davis Talk 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Review response

Thank you for the detailed review. I have attempted to address most of your points, and perhaps a few others I saw for myself.

  • I think I have trimmed and simplified the captions
  • Yes. north-east is spelled with a hyphen in Australian English (ref: Macquarie Dictionary online)
  • I have not found those documents online, not sure if that shows I didn't look hard enough, or if they are only available in hard copy somewhere due to their age. a comment on the Railpage forum confirms that one of them exists and can be found from that reference.
  • I deleted the sentence about first BRT - I think it is probably true, but I have never heard it called that, so unlikely to find a reference that it was first, other than a complete list with start dates, if such exists.
  • Thank you for the suggested simpler language. I think I went further in a few other places too.
  • No extensions have eventuated, so references are simply to a selection of proposals. Something might come of the current proposal to add a tunnel or lanes closer to the city, but the consultation is not complete yet, so it probably won't look exactly like the concept drawings. If anything, I'd like to shorten that section to avoid undue weight, but I think it needs to remain in some form.

Thank you for the help on this article. I don't know if I've done enough to save its FA status, but I'm certain it has improved through the review process from where it was when it was nominated for review. --Scott Davis Talk 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for continuing, ScottDavis, and for the improvements; I can give it another pass to see where we stand, if you indicate that you are committed to restoring it to standard. If not, I'm unsure if I should invest the time, so please let me know of your availability to continue work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes @SandyGeorgia:, I am prepared to continue working on it. Thank you for helping. I don't have easy access to resources that are not online though, so I can't verify or expand the citations for things that are cited to documents without URLs from the 1980s. --Scott Davis Talk 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. The WP:LEAD is short and doesn't adequately summarize the article, but the work of finishing the lead is usually best left to last, after content in the body is nailed down.
  2. In the "See also" section, I suspect that Bus rapid transit could be linked somewhere in the article and removed from See also, but I'm unsure where to link it.
  3. Citation consistency, some have author first, some have author at end, some have author last name first, some have author first name first ... pick on :)
    • (author is last here). Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson ... and this is missing publisher ... where does one locate this document?
    • First name last name. Susan Marsden. "Hindmarsh – a short history". Professional Historians Association (SA). p. 23. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
    • Last name, first name. Donovan, Peter (1991). Highways: A History of the South Australian Highways Department. Griffin Press Limited. ISBN 0-7308-1930-2. (Books need page numbers)
    • tom name ? Pengelley, Jill; Zed, tom (16 October 2009). "South Road Superway to connect Regency Rd, Port River Expressway". The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  4. More citation consistency, some of the citations are rendered by manual (rather than template), and there is no consistent punctuation ... for example,
    Hunt for O-Bahn fleet Adelaide Advertiser 29 September 2007
    has no punctuation whatsoever, while other citations have periods after title and publisher. All of the citations should use the same format ... preferably with punctuation :)
  5. Missing accessdates ... these things change ... Route 500 timetable Adelaide Metro ... and again, no punctuation ... you all might discuss whether you would rather use citation templates for consistency.
  6. It is not clear that all of the External links are necessary ...
Prose (this is not a comprehensive list ... skipping around for samples)
  1. "developed with American assistance" ... US ? Venezuelan? Argentine? All are America ... unclear what is meant here, government, private enterprise ? Vague.
  2. The same as problem as before ... excess wordiness ... why not instead of:
    • A transport blueprint, developed with American assistance, was presented to the government in 1968: the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS).
    • A transport blueprint, the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS), was developed with assistance from (??) in 1968.
  3. Isn't "abandonment" kind of a one-time thing? How do successive governments abandon something? The plan was abandoned by successive governments, ...
  4. alluvial soil could probably be wikilinked ...
  5. comma ? On some sections 115 km/h (71 mph) was achieved in tests.

This article is definitely improving, and you're on the right track, but I suggest that @Tony1: might help on the prose matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Maralia:, @DrKiernan:, fresh eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, getting better. I removed three external links (one was about transport in Adelaide generally; another was a personal website that had only 3 images; and the last literally did not mention the O-Bahn). I also took care of the rest of the citation formatting. Agree that some prose work is still needed, but this is getting close. I've struck my delist comment above. Thanks for your work, ScottDavis; just a little more tightening for clarity, along the lines of SG's "Prose" list immediately above. Maralia (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: Thanks for taking care of the specific issues mentioned above. This is getting close to ready, but the prose isn't quite there yet. I undertook a major rewrite of the Planning section in an attempt to demonstrate a more logical flow. I still think this article would benefit from a full copyedit. Maralia (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Maralia: I have read through and tweaked a few phrases, but I suspect I've reached the limit of my ability. The "Expansion proposals" section feels very long and somewhat incidental. It also seems to assume a fair bit of knowledge of Adelaide landmarks and geography. To someone reading from further away, does the article lose anything significant by deleting the heading and first three paragraphs of that section? --Scott Davis Talk 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski[edit]

Notified: WP BIO, WP Cryptography, WP Poland, Nihil novi

A 2006 promotion lacking in citations and needing review; FAC nominator gone since 2011. Talk page notifed Dec 20; no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

Comment: It would be a shame to lose this, because at a casual glance it doesn't look like it's missing a lot of citations. @Nihil novi: I noted that you have been editing the article and that you asked about citations on the article talk page. Generally, for an article to be FA-quality, all text needs to be cited. There are some uncited statements and paragraphs in this article. How much work do you think it would be, and do you have the requisite knowledge to add citations as needed? --Laser brain (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that most if not all the unsourced text has been added since the article achieved FA status. Much of it appears to be drawn from Polish-language publications of recent years and to be of negligible importance, e.g., that Rejewski's father was a tobacco merchant. One solution would be to just delete such unsourced trivia. Perhaps someone else would like to try his hand? Nihil novi (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nihil novi: I'm willing to give it a try. If there are any disagreements about removing the information, I'll start a discussion. --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to FARC, only to keep process on track, and because although some work has been done, there is still quite a bit of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to FARC. Apart from the uncited text, I would also argue that the prose is formatted too much like a list. Many of the paragraphs are very short -- one or two sentences only. DrKiernan (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised above include missing citations (please tag these) and choppy prose/short paragraphs. Maralia (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look through the end sections and noted the following:

References: I see two bare urls, other incomplete citations, and an extremely long piecemeal quotation that needs better handling. Ref formatting needs some work: I see two different page number styles (234–235 vs 205–6) and punctuation inconsistency (some end with full stops).
Bibliography: There are at least eight listed works (Budiansky, Christensen, Gannon, Hinsley, Kahn 1991, Kubiatowski, Miller, Wrixon) that are not actually cited. "Lawrence, 2005" is cited once, but two 2005 Lawrence works are listed; the cite may be intended to refer to both, but it's unclear. There is a lengthy exposition on the Jakóbczyk book for no apparent reason.
External links: This needs cleanup. The St. Andrews biography doesn't really offer anything additional, and all three of the linked photographs are dead links.

It is also rather difficult to associate the citations with the Bibliography because the citations are in "lastname, year" format but the Bibliography is "firstname lastname title location publisher year". Maralia (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on it, albeit slowly. Reference formatting and the Bib will probably be the last things I hit. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to Glrx and Laser brain for cleaning up the references, bibliography, and external links—the article is looking much better. I still see a few wonky cites ( {{harvnb|Lawrence|2005}} and {{harvnb|Kozaczuk|Straszak|2004|p=74}}) that need work, and a couple of quotes (Piskor, Woytak) and other exposition (sequence of rotors; French radio intelligence) that would be better off in the Notes section rather than citations. Maralia (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several footnotes that need to be resolved and/or cleaned up; the wonky cites are there for that reason. I haven't seen an actual copy of A Conversation with M R recently (the university library's copy is missing), but I think its author is Woytak rather M. R. & Woytak; however, some outside-of-WP citations use both as authors; I'm tempted to just make it Woytak1984b; that applies to a half-dozen citations.
There are still five references that have not been templated because I'm not sure how I should reference a comment/commenter to a journal article: it's a subcontribution by a different author that is part of the same journal article/digital object.
I revamped the hard-numbered Notes to use an automated mechanism, so moving a footnote to a note is just changing <ref></ref> to a {{refn}} with group=Note.
Glrx (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Which "A Conversation with Marian Rejewski" are you referring to? The same extracts from Richard Woytak's conversation with Rejewski, plus citations from letters by Rejewski to Woytak, together under that joint title, appear first in Cryptologia, vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1982), pp. 50–60, then (as Appendix B) in Władysław Kozaczuk, Enigma: How the German Machine Cipher Was Broken, and How It Was Read by the Allies in World War Two, edited and translated by Christopher Kasparek, Frederick, Maryland, University Publications of America, 1984, pp. 229–39. The two versions are identical and, except for 8 brief questions posed by Woytak, consist entirely of Rejewski's words. Nihil novi (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice progress, but lots to be done still. There are red harv ref errors all over the place, and in this version, the first two citations ... are not citations or reliable sources. I didn't check further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've provided references to Rejewski's awards cited in the infobox. Regretably, the U.K. Ministry of Defence page "cannot be found" any longer; maybe someone can locate an active reference for Rejewski's War Medal 1939–1945. Nihil novi (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

At FARC for three weeks now, and no one has finished restoring the article. There are numerous sources in the References that are no longer used: how do we know the article is comprehensive, and represents a thorough survey of the literature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist. Sorry, but despite the extensive bibliography there are still uncited parts. I'm also concerned that one third of his life is summed up in two sentences, indicating a lack of comprehensiveness. There's been alot of work around formatting, but the fundamental issues remain unaddressed. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. There are layers upon layers of issues here. Cleaning up the references was a step in the right direction, but it served only to reveal other problems. I don't have the subject matter knowledge to think about addressing the comprehensiveness and source problems. --Laser brain (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Temporarily striking my declaration until I can review the latest progress. Seems like there are enough interested parties for a potential save. --Laser brain (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Thanks so much for the effort, Laser brain-- at least the article was left in better shape! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. A lot of work has been done, and only three paragraphs are unreferenced. I am still somewhat concerned on whether end-of-para citations are always covering all the info in a given para. I found the dead link in the IA, will fix it now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
fact claims can be resolved with
Glrx (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I see they've been fixed. I am changing my vote to Keep; references seem to be satisfactory now. Also, I've checked his bio entry in Polish online encyclopedias ([28], [29]), first one has a similar focus on his later life, and while the second one is more balanced, we do mention all of the facts from it as well. I don't have his PSB bio (if it exists), but I think the entry is reasonably comprehensive; most sources about his life focus on his Enigma-solving period, not what happened before or after. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Still not there. Notes are still all over the map, with a mix of inline citation, cite ref citation, and no citation. I'm not convinced all of the External links belong, and they are poorly described (Bauer??). Are the unused sources listed in Further reading useful, if so, why are they not used, if not, why are we retaining them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "Further reading": It seems to me that that why-retain-it argument could be made in respect to any article's "Further reading" section. And yet these sections do exist—for the same reasons as here. Nihil novi (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
My question was, are they useful (in terms of comprehensiveness), and if not, why are they there (that is, what are they adding)? Also, they are now used with the template citation, which is causing a big red ref error, since they aren't sources.

And, we still have a mixed citation style. The Notes are using inline citations, while everything else uses cite ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Re the "External links": Jan Bury's (is that your "Bauer"?) "The Enigma Code Breach" provides photos of French, Polish and Spanish personnel, drawn from various publications, which regrettably appear nowhere on Wikipedia. Tony Sale's "The Breaking of Enigma by the Polish Mathematicians" shows a diagram of the Polish cryptological bomb that was needlessly purged from Wikipedia a few years ago by an over-zealous copyright cop. "How Mathematicians Helped Win WWII", by the National Security Agency", includes a photo of "Adolf Hitler receiving the salute of German troops in Warsaw following their conquest of Poland", which actually shows him riding in his 6-wheel Mercedes before the Polish General Staff Building where the German Enigma had first been broken nearly 7 years earlier (!!); this poignant photo (taken from Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984), too, was purged—from the Wikipedia "Biuro Szyfrów" (Polish Cipher Bureau) article. "Enigma documents" provides reproductions of many source documents, including ones by Marian Rejewski. "Marian Rejewski and the First Break into Enigma", published this year (2015) by the American Mathematical Society, gives another view of Rejewski's mathematics, for those willing to challenge themselves. Nihil novi (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Bauer was already fixed in External links, and my other question was about "Further reading", not "External links" (you answered a different question-- please re-read the discussion above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I quote you from the discussion above: "I'm not convinced all of the External links belong..." What am I misunderstanding? Nihil novi (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
After that :) I asked: "Are the unused sources listed in Further reading useful, if so, why are they not used, if not, why are we retaining them?" Please see your post from 04:50 4 March and my response to that from 14:56 4 March. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As indicated in Laserbrain's Delist above, there are layers of problems with both prose and comprehensiveness everyone one looks in this article, and there are other concerns intimated by Piotr. The three Delists stand, and it doesn't appear that, after almost a month at FAR, this will be salvageable. The prose is rough, and one is left with questions in numerous places (indicated in two examples below with unaddressed inline comments). These are samples only:

  • Convoluted prose sample. On 21 November 1946, Rejewski, having been on 15 November discharged from the Polish Army in Britain, returned to Poland to be reunited with his wife, Irena Maria Rejewska (née Lewandowska, whom Rejewski had married on 20 June 1934) and their son Andrzej (Andrew, born 1936) and daughter Janina (Jeanne, born 1939, who would later follow in her father's footsteps to become a mathematician).
  • That is followed by an overlong quote, and ...
  • Prose and comprehensive issue combined ... in 1950 they demanded that he be fired from his employment !--why? please expand-- as an inline comment ... fired from his employment?
  • Repetitive and unclear prose. What little was published attracted little attention.
  • Would follow after 1974? Still, this was closer to the truth than many British and American accounts that would follow after 1974.
  • Another unaddressed inline comment: On 9 January 1942, Różycki, the youngest of the three mathematicians, died in the sinking of a French passenger ship as he was returning from a stint in Algeria to Cadix in southern France.< --why did the ship sink? how did it affect Rejewski? >

There are short choppy paragraphs throughout. The three Delists stand; the article has been improved, but it is not close to FA quality and it seems unlikely to make it there without a significant rewrite. I remain at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

About Różycki's death (from Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984, p. 128):
"For security and personal safety, the Poles seldom participated in c