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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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



2008 UEFA Champions League Final[edit]

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This nomination is a continuation of the previous one, which was closed prematurely due to my inability to respond to comments as I had been blocked for two weeks. Hopefully that will not be a problem this time. I still believe the article passes all the FA criteria, despite comments at the previous FAC discussion. I was able to respond to all of User:Brianboulton's concerns last time, although he didn't do a full review of the article, and User:EddieHugh's comments were largely based on his opinion of what constitutes "too much detail". I believe the article contains just the right amount of detail on every aspect of the subject; some might say this is too much, but everything included in the article is likely to be something that at least someone reading the article would be looking to find out. Furthermore, everything is adequately sourced, satisfying criterion 1c. – PeeJay 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments[edit]

I'm inclined to oppose at this stage, sorry. Brianboulton's review the first time around said "further copyediting is needed" but this broader copyediting doesn't appear to have taken place. I sampled three sections myself: pre-match, team selection and post-match. There were some prose glitches, which are fixable quickly. But there are some more endemic problems such as inaccurate representation of sources (see the Ferguson and Giggs quotes below), use of sources of dubious reliability (Daily Mail, UEFA), and possible original research (eg "This went against the predictions of some pundits"). The article is certainly a very good one and undoubtedly GA quality. But I think it is falling short of the FA bar and needs a good solid line-by-line review before it is ready. My sample comments:

  • "There were originally concerns over the players' safety on the new field" - were these concerns legitimate enough to warrant a mention in the article? Is the Daily Mail a reliable source for this purpose?
    • The Daily Mail is a notoriously unreliable newspaper, except when it comes to football. Their sport coverage is remarkably good for a newspaper that routinely comes up with sensationalist headlines. In this case, the quote about the field being unsafe came originally from Sky Sports News, but since I wasn't able to find an archived video of Steve McMahon saying those words on television, I felt the Daily Mail source was adequate. The quote they sourced themselves was from the head groundsman, who merely said there "might be a bit of a bobble". – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "based their decision on a number of factors, including stadium capacity, safety and security facilities, and accessibility - might be worth mentioning, as the source does, that "commercial potential" was also a factor. I wonder, too, if sourcing this to UEFA is appropriate. They are hardly likely to admit to any political factors being relevant to its decision...
    • That's true, but I wasn't able to find any sources criticising UEFA's choice either. Most of the sources were pretty routine in that they simply said "Moscow will host the 2008 final and these are the reasons UEFA gave in their press release". – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In recent years, each Champions League final has been given an identity of its own with a unique logo, design concept, and overall theme inspired by the cultural and historical heritage of the host city." - This is copy-pasted from the source.
    • Weird, I thought I'd fixed that earlier. Must have been something I meant to do but forgot about. Regardless, it's fixed now. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "As has taken place for every Champions League final since 1997, a ceremonial handover of the UEFA Champions League trophy took place" - Grating repetition of "took place"
    • Good spot. Thanks. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "former player and current technical operations director Leonardo" - current is confusing. Does it mean as of 2008 or as of now? Also, this is a massive sentence.
    • Done. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ""Midday Champions League Ticket Sales" (Chelsea) is a dead link for me.
    • Crap. I only added that link in January and it was hard enough to find a source for Chelsea's ticket allocation policy as it was. What can I do? – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Among the celebrities who did not travel..." - the relevance of this sentence escapes me.
    • They're famous fans of the two clubs, and in Coe's case, he had a notable reason for missing the final. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Any non-UEFA sources available about the match ball? I'm sure Adidas paid UEFA handsomely to have their ball used, so the use of UEFA sources in this section troubles me a bit.
    • I'll see what I can find, but most sites that talk about the ball are blogs or photo galleries. I think the small amount of info in this article, plus the fact that I haven't made any claim to the technical qualities of the ball, make it OK to source the info about its design to UEFA. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "As per tradition" - the source doesn't mention this as a tradition. Is it a tradition, a preferred practice, or a rule? Is it necessary to say in the article?
    • I don't know if it's rule or just coincidence, but every European Cup final has had linesmen/assistant referees from the same country as the lead referee. Either way, I've removed the "as per tradition" bit. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "his only real decision being" - source? I don't think the Guardian article supports this.
    • Reworded. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "This went against the predictions of some pundits" - the only source is Pleat, who would not be "some pundits".
    • Fixed. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ferguson predicted that his substitutes might have a big impact on the match" - but his actual quote is "The substitutes you make have got to have an impact, which is why I have to give a lot of consideration to the type of player I want on the bench. If I have to use them I hope they make an impact". This sounds more hopeful than predictive.
    • Fixed. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ryan Giggs' pre-match prediction that he would not make the starting line-up". As above, the actual quote falls some way short of a prediction: "I can't be sure I'll play"
    • Fixed. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "reportedly deciding over Grant's job within four days after the final" - is this just Daily Mail gossip?
    • I don't think so. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Grant was officially sacked three days after the match." - what is the point, then of the statement that his job was being "decided over" within four days of the match?
    • Because it's saying they were going to decide within four days and then they decided on the third day. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "watch the game on outdoors" ?
    • Thanks. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Five police were also said to have been injured" - said by whom?
    • Fixed. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): User:Rationalobserver and ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Irataba, one of the last independent Mohave head chiefs. Renowned for his size and presence among European Americans, he did much to bridge the divide between whites and native Indians in the mid 19th century. While visiting Washington DC and other major cities in 1864 he was given a silver-headed cane from Abraham Lincoln and was bestowed with all sorts of gifts for his important role in American history, yet lived his later years in relative disgrace among his tribe. Despite this, following his death in 1874 the Mohaves burned their entire village rather than the customary chief's hut as a mark of great respect and honor.

This has had an extraordinarily detailed peer review by many different people. It needed quite a lot of work. I saw potential at an earlier stage and helped prepare this, the subject I found very interesting indeed as I hope you do. I ransacked most of my resources and believe it is a very comprehensive account of a man who doesn't have a great deal of biographical information available. Following the input of the reviewers and the extensive efforts of Rationalobserver and other editors in improving what was already a good article I feel this is now ready. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22[edit]

Support When I first read the article, it seemed to me comprehensive based on what little is available about such historical figures who were born in more primitive times. However, a considerable amount of information has now been collected by the authors, and it looks much better than its first incarnation. Although I've supported, I do have a few points which may be addressed:

  • I would mention in the body of the article that Irataba was born in Alta California, New Spain. It mentions that the location is modern-day Arizona, but it only says in the infobox what it was called at the time.
It's not really sourced; it's OR, so I guess I should remove it. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You don't have any source that says "Irataba was born in Alta California, New Spain (modern-day Arizona)", but maybe you two sources, one that says "Irataba was born in some place" and another that says "some place used to be called Alta California." Do you think that would be possible? I'd prefer to leave in the information if it is indeed accurate, assuming there's some way to verify it.-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
All the sources say Irataba was born in present-day Arizona, which at the time was Alta California, New Spain, but none of them that I have seen mention what that area was in 1814. I added it because it's certainly accurate, but I have no way of verifying it in the Wikipedia sense. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, if I were you, I'd find a source that says Arizona was then Alta California, New Spain, which shouldn't be terribly difficult. The source doesn't have to say that Irataba was born there, since you already have that cited from other sources. In fact, I think the name of his birthplace should be included both in the infobox and in the article itself.-RHM22 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to Fulsom Charles Scrivner, author of Mohave People (1970), Irataba was born to an influential family, and his father was either a chief or was closely related to an important person." I would add a citation after this sentence, since it's really just a paraphrased quote.
  • I'd probably link European American in the lede.
  • "According to anthropologist Albert B. Elsasser, Irataba "was surely among the first named likenesses of California Indians ever published"." Were the italics used by the original author?
Yes. The italics are in the original source. Should I note that? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't worry about that. I'd only make note of it if they were your italics.-RHM22 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe this has been brought up elsewhere, but shouldn't Rose-Baley Party used an en dash rather than a hyphen? A hyphen would usually be used for people with hyphenated names, but since Rose-Baley seems to refer to two people, it seems to me that it should use an en dash.
  • On my initial reading, I thought that Hoffman dispatched 50 dragons. Words cannot describe how disappointed I was to see that second 'o'.
Thanks for that! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a little cumbersome: "After Cairook's death, Irataba became the Mohave's head chief, and he attained the title of Aha macave yaltanack or hochoch, which designated him as the leader elected by the people, as opposed to the head chieftain whose position was hereditary and carried primarily moral responsibility." How would you feel about splitting it thusly: "After Cairook's death, Irataba became the Mohave's head chief, and he attained the title of Aha macave yaltanack or hochoch. This designated him as the leader elected by the people, as opposed to the head chieftain whose position was hereditary and carried primarily moral responsibility."

That's all I can point out. The article being sufficiently comprehensive and well-written, these are just minor points. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I got them all ([1]). Thanks for your support! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support had my say at the peer review and my suggestions seem to have been mostly implemented. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou Wehwalt and RHM for your earlier input and support here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

Support. I have also already reviewed the article. It has been extended during the excellent peer review and is now a much more coherent narrative with background filled out from further sources (for example the reference to dreams is now justified). I have read it through again, and have just a couple of further comments:

  • Contact with emigrants and explorers
    • was featured in Ives's 1861 congressional report. I would have written "...Ives' 1861 congressional..." here, we already have "United States' military might" later on.
      I'm not sure I follow. Can you please explain? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
      It's another matter of style really. We "always" say "United States' military might" for a plural possessive and I would say "Ives' whatever" rather than "Ives's whatever" for the possessive of someone ending with an "s". Checking various web pages it seems that either is correct for a posessive. Looking at grammar.ccc.commnet they prefer apostrophe-s but suggest that something like "Mrs Chambers's estate" is clunky and I would say that the same applies to Ives. If you prefer the apostrophe-s, just say so!
      Okay, I see now! That went over my head. I tend to agree with you, so I've fixed it ([2])! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    • later noting his enthusiastic handshake with Irataba: I had to read this twice since first time I thought "his" referred back to Ives. Perhaps we can add one word to make this easier to read through: "later noting his own enthusiastic handshake with Irataba, lamenting that their only form of communication was sign language."
      It was Irataba that shook Möllhausen's hand enthusiastically. Is this better: ([3]). Rationalobserver (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
      That is much better, thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • External links

--Mirokado (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. Thanks for your always prompt responses. From this, I learnt how to access JSTOR (earler comments) and saw an encouraging example of a really good peer review. --Mirokado (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, Mirokado! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, cheers Mirokado.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Irataba.jpg: where are you getting that authorship possibility from?
In 1864 Irataba went on a tour of the eastern cities and was frequently surrounded by military officers of the American Civil War. He'd have had formal photographs taken by the army I think. Of course we can't be certain but it is very likely. Either way the photo is clearly public domain.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Mohave_Indians_by_Mollhansen.jpg: what are the authors' dates of death?
File noted with death information, author of book and publication date at Commons. We hope (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Amiel_Weeks_Whipple.jpg needs a US PD tag and a source - this has to have come from somewhere
Found the source and noted it on the Commons file. NARA does not provide a year for the photo. He died in 1863. We hope (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, it would help if the date parameters reflected creation or publication rather than upload dates
  • File:Homesteader_NE_1866.png needs a US PD tag
Changed to PD-US. We hope (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Fort_Mohave_sketch.gif: source credits this to the state archives rather than the army - where is that attribution from?
  • File:Washington,_D.C.,_April_1865_34773v.jpg: source is a search page, can we link directly to the image description?
Added this to the Commons template information--it's from LOC. We hope (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Montanabw[edit]

  • Oppose in present form but Reviewing: I am here as one member of WP:Indigenous People of North America (I am white, if that's an issue for anyone) and also a member of WP:Old West. On one hand, I am glad to see an article about a Native American leader be brought to FAC, but I see a lot here that needs work. Some initial comments follow below. I see substantial room for improvement. It will take me a couple days to go over it in detail and be more specific. With changes, it is possible this article could gain my support. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • On a cursory glance, I am a little concerned with the tone and approach of this article, there is a too-frequent "me Tonto you Kemosabi" attitude in some places which paints Irataba as a "primitive" person. Some of this tone is due to an overreliance on direct quotations, I think.
Examples? Perhaps some of the early life background you're referring to? I agree to an extent if that's what you mean.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is too vague to be acted upon, but anything in quote marks shows the attitude of the speaker at the time of the quote, and we shouldn't white wash or censor attitudes. Having said that, if you provide some specific examples we would be able to address the concern. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The phrase "according to" appears 19 times in this article, followed by some expert's name, then usually (though not always) a long quotation. This is really poor writing style; the material is footnoted, the filler about "According to Expert foo" is not needed, one can read the citation if it's important. I'd like to see way fewer of these.
Yes I agree, in fact I removed half a dozen of them when I earlier edited this. At an earlier stage a few of the reviewers asked RO to attribute everything I believe. I don't agree with it either. "According to" should really only be used where the information given is disputable or potentially inaccurate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I just went through the article, and "according to" is only used now to introduce direct quotes. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am concerned about some potentially outdated source material; material from the 1950s and 1960s is apt to have been superceded by better research since, even if it was pretty well done in its time. More recent sources are in the article, but are underutilized.
Such as? I looked extensively through google books and couldn't find anything in further detail on him, certainly not recent material, although I live in the UK and can't access some online resources. If you're going to claim this I want full evidence of the sources which are accessible and are "underutilized".♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
apt to have been superceded by better research since As far as I can tell, the most recent piece written specifically about Irataba was Woodward's 1953 bio. Sherer (1966) and Scrivner (1970) offer some specific insights about him, but were written about the Mohave in general. If there is a more recent piece of research about Irataba neither me nor Dr. Blofeld, and we've had help from We hope and others in this regard, have been able to find it. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw Can you mention some sources you want used here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Though I understand it is the main biography on Irataba and written by a respected historian, there is some overreliance on Woodward 1953.
Disagreed. There's a wide range of sources used and it's normal for the most reputable biography of somebody to be used more than other sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I also disagree, as Woodward wrote one of only two biographers of Irataba. I count 15 cites out of 85 to him, which is less than 18%. On the other hand, at Donner Party, 39% of all cites are to the Rarick source. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Phrasing such as "head chief" is potentially archaic wording; unless the Mohave people today are specifically OK with "chief," is is generally unwise to use it unless absolutely necessary (such as when quoting someone or to show the views of white people at the time). Overuse may be viewed as inappropriate and even rather condescending.
In your opinion perhaps. We go by what the sources use. I think it is important to go with what he was commonly referred to at the time and what the sources mainly call him and leave modern political correctness out of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The terms chief, head chief, and great chieftain have specific meanings, but they are all leaders. If we remove "chief" for leader, these distinctions will be lost. Also, this Google NGRAM ([4]) shows that "Indian chief" is significantly more common than "Indian leader". Rationalobserver (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the case of Irataba, more modern sources that presumably have consulted with the modern tribe example use the term "leader"; other sources specific to Irataba use "head man" or related words. The word "chief" appears 43 times in the article, at best a thesaurus could be applied.
Yes, head man could be used alternately for variation. I've added nearly half a dozen instead of chief I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
There are currently only 8 instances of "head chief" in the article, and "chief" occurs 25 times in 3,900 words. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Chief Cairook" is one example, per WP:HONORIFIC, it definitely isn't appropriate in that context. "Cairook" is better.
Either are acceptable., in fact even modern sources often refer to him as Chief Cairook [5], [6]. I removed Chief in the first instance of linking though as desired.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
There aren't any instances of Chief Cairook in the article as of this writing, but one wonders why Lieutenant Ives is appropriate but Chief Cairook is not. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure we even need an infobox period, but I'll respect the views of the others on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is a particularly minor point, but I've swapped the type as suggested and added several more fields. If you think we should add more parameters please suggest specific ones. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel the article is also burdened by unneeded random images, such as the one of the Nebraska homesteaders (not even the right part of the west) or the two random Mohave men in loincloths (where there are already several images of Irataba, one in a loincloth), and I question why the material on the Rose-Batey party is in there, as Irataba appears to have had nothing to do with that incident.
Yes I thought that originally too, I agree, I've removed a few of them you mentioned. The Rose Batey party info I believe is very relevant to Mohave history and his background. I cut it earlier to have more focus and to appear more relevant in context.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be odd to go from the Ives Expedition right to Hoffman and his army of 500 soldiers without explaining why the US War Department decided to establish a military fort at Beale's Crossing. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
But FTR, there are currently three sentences of Rose–Baley Party background ([7]). Rationalobserver (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, why do we need all the background on the Mohave people? Stuff like "The Mohave caught fish in the Colorado and hunted game, such as rabbits and beaver, using bow and arrow or traps..." should be in the Mohave people article; focus just on what is relevant to Irataba; the hereditary leadership stuff, the role of head leader, the warrior culture in which he was raised.
I removed a fair bit of background material when improving this. I believe I've retained mostly what is relevant to him and his background. There isn't that much specific biographical material for Irataba. I think there's a fair balance currently, but others at the PR were wanting more background info than we evne have and I said I think there's more than enough as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I also think we currently have a nice balance of background and specifics, but as Br. B said, as recent as two days ago people were calling for more background detail. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • More to come later, but at this point, I cannot support this FAC until the above issues are fixed. Happy to answer any questions or clarify my concerns. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Montanabw. Except for the concern about the tone of some quoted material, I believe all these above concerns are fixed. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "According to" now down to 15 uses, better but still too much reliance on direct quotations and excessive "expert foo" phrasing. I have taught history at the college level, a freshman term paper handed in looking like this would be about a B- paper, maybe a B at best. A featured Article needs to be "A" quality. Here are some specifics — a few now, more to follow> Montanabw(talk) 22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm also an educator. How did you do on your GRE? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Anthropologist Lorraine M. Sherer described Mohave leadership traditions as relayed to her by tribal elder, Gwegwi nuor: "The governmental 'set up' ... consisted of a system of hereditary tribal leaders or chiefs, a head chief or head man of 'all the people', and a chief for each sub-group. The head man was also the hereditary leader of one group. The Matha lyanthum and the Kavi lyanthum had one chief each, but the more populous Huttoh pah had five."[5]" This could be rephrased as "Mohave leadership consisted of a system of hereditary tribal leaders with a head man of 'all the people', and a chief for each sub-group. [5]." The rest is largely irrelevant, we just need to establish how Irataba became a leader and move on. Montanabw(talk) 22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with this one. Done ([8]). Rationalobserver (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • " "The Mohave must dream that he will be a leader and gradually work toward this end."[6] According to anthropologist Alfred L. Kroeber, dreams, or visions, are "the foundation of Mohave life ... there is no people whose activities are more shaped by this psychic state."[7] In Mohave culture: "it is dreams that are the cause of everything that happens."[8]" Why is this even there? There is nothing else in the article about Irataba himself having dreams or his actions being dictated by dreams; this is content for the article about the Mohave people. Montanabw(talk) 22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It's important background that should stay, as it relates to becoming a Mohave chief, but FTR, material regarding dreams was specifically requested at PR just two days ago (that last quote was specifically chosen by a Peer Review participant), and Maunus has indicated his approval of the topic's current treatment in the article. I agree with him on this point and pretty much all others. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): IJReid (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 16:49, 28 Marsh 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the best known sauropods, often known as Brontosaurus in popular culture. Four species are known, and this genus has undergone major revisions in the past. The article was expanded by myself and LittleJerry, and recently passed a GA review. The appearance of this dinosaur has stayed relatively stable, with only the head changing greatly since it was described. Many images can be found of two of the species, while the others are only known from one or two skeletons. IJReid discuss 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments: This is my first time reviewing a Featured Article, so take everything with a grain of salt:
  • The "Paleobiology" section is the largest section of the article, but the lead is dominated by a summary of the "Description" section. Also, the lead section does not discuss the "In popular culture" section. (except perhaps the brief phrase saying it was once classified as Brontosaurus ).
I believe there is reasoning for this. The popular culture section is actually the least important section (in my opinion no articles should have them) and most mentions in it are of the common occurrences of "Brontosaurus" in popular books and movies. Most pop-culture info is not truly accurate, and therefore does not need mention in the lead. I will add more paleobiology info, just know that paleobiology is all assumptions based on description, which is why the latter is more important. IJReid discuss 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Added paleobiology info to lead. IJReid discuss 23:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The following statements are confusing:
  • "Among the species is A. excelsus, long considered to be separate under the genus Brontosaurus" I know it is saying that it was considered to be part of a separate genus, named Brontosaurus, but it was hard to process at first.
Reworded. IJReid discuss 23:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "An alternative method, using limb length and body mass, found Apatosaurus to stop growing at 70 years of age, growing 520 kg (1,150 lb) per year." it almost sounds like this is saying that it grows 520kg/year after stopping growing, which doesn't make sense. In context of the previous sentences, this makes more sense, but perhaps it should be more clear that it is growing 520kg/year on average until 70.
  • Which is the reference for the origin of A. louisae's name? The nearby references are not freely available, and their titles do not suggest they would contain this information.
Holland 1916 ( Not the full reference, which I cannot find online. The best one is probably Gilmore (1936), which is cited in the article and is on A. louisae. The etymology is found in Parsons (199-), cited in the article. IJReid discuss 23:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Importance of Morrison formation is not described. From the writing, it could be one place where Apatosaurus has been found, or the only place.
I am confused. In the first paragraph of Discovery it mentions it was the formation of the Bone Wars, and the wording in the lead seems to be clear. IJReid discuss 23:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Spot checks on reference style and image attribution seemed fine for criteria 2,3.
  • Besides above comments, all of criteria 1 (well-written, well-researched, etc.) and 4 (length) seem satisfied.

Brirush (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for this, just let it be known that the article is not completely done with corrections and changes. IJReid discuss 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Susan B. Anthony dollar, one of the least popular coins ever struck for American circulation. In response to the Eisenhower dollar, another unpopular coin, the U.S. Mint began issuing a smaller dollar in 1979. It quickly became apparent that it would also not be accepted by the public, partly due to confusion caused by the similarity in size between it and the quarter dollar. Numismatists drew comparisons between the Anthony dollar and the twenty-cent piece, another failed coin which also caused confusion in commerce. I believe this article meets the criteria for featured status. Thanks to Wehwalt and Godot13 for supplying me with invaluable material, without which this article would have been impossible to write to its fullest potential. Thanks in advance for viewing and reviewing!-RHM22 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the IR, Nikkimaria!-RHM22 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I did some copyediting last night and emailed RHM22 some suggestions which he has implemented. Well done!--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, copyedit and comments!-RHM22 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaning support. This all looks very good. One omission I noticed was that you never mention the coin's derisive nickname, the "Carter quarter". Do you think it's worth including? There are some sources, just based on my quick Google search. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Coemgenus! I was initially hesitant to include that, because I was concerned that it might be too much negative wording, but I think you're correct; it was a common expression at the time. I've included it, along with some other information, in the 'Reception' section. By the way, another humorous moniker for the SBA dollar was the "J.C. Penny".-RHM22 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Rationalobserver[edit]

This is an excellent article that, IMO, easily meets the Feature Article criteria. So I can enthusiastically support its promotion. All I could find are a few meaningless nit-picks, but here are a couple suggestions. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Several proposals were proffered
It's a nit-pick, but those words are a bit difficult for me to read in such close procession.
  • areas in which gambling was common.
Do you mean common or legal?
  • A provision was added requiring the coin to depict recently deceased President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the obverse and a design "emblematic of the symbolic eagle of Apollo 11 landing on the moon" on the reverse,[a] and President Richard Nixon signed the bill into law on December 31, 1970.[11]
I would put a full-stop after reverse, as this is a bit of a long sentence that might be trying to do a tad too much.
  • Both the obverse and reverse designs were executed by Frank Gasparro,
Maybe it's just me, but execute seems odd here. How about, "Both the obverse and reverse artwork was designed by Frank Gasparro", assuming the proper meaning is retained.
  • and very few circulated in everyday commerce
"Everyday commerce" seems a bit odd; maybe: "and very few were circulated for commercial use".
Liberty design
  • The Mint began preparation
"began preparation" → "prepared"?

As I said, I can't find anything but minor nit-picks. Well done, RHM22! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Story of the Three Bears[edit]

Nominator(s): SeeSpot Run (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a tale written and published by the poet and essayist Robert Southey. It appears to be the first time the tale was put into print for the mass market. The story is one of the most popular and best known tales in the English language. SeeSpot Run (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments looking good - had a read-through and the prose reads nicely and looks pretty thorough. Some issues:
  • Second para of Literary elements needs citations (should be easy to find)
  • As does parts of Film and television and Other
  • I'd convert other into a paragraph, not bulleted points.

I have a sneaking suspicion there might be some other analysis to add but I might be wrong. Back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Elements of the article have been reviewed and have been deleted as inappropriate.SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Goldilocks_Batten_1890.jpg needs to be reviewed - if this is PD why does it have a fair-use rationale? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Image removed as of WP policy. Needs permission.SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

The comment between parentheses in the plot is too long, and perhaps should be rewritten. Most of the paragraphs are very short, and should be merged or expanded. For example, the first two paragraphs of "Origin" talk about the same, and have no reason to be set apart. Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Since the first review in September 2014, the article underwent a copyediting treatment and recently received a peer review. I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. Thank you. Earthh (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support meets FA standards now Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. After a few small edits, I can once again affirm my confidence in this article's suitability for FA status. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

George Pickingill[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an alleged "cunning man", or vocational folk magician, who lived in the Eastern English county of Essex during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A curious figure, local folk tales grew up around him and his alleged magical powers, which included the ability to command both animals and imps to do his bidding. The article has been massively expanded by myself over the past year or so, and has successfully passed GAN and also received a peer review. Those editors with an interest in the eccentric and the odd might enjoy reading this one, as will those with a more specific interest in the history of magic, witchcraft, and esotericism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • If it's obvious from the caption who is pictured, you don't need to actually say "pictured"
  • File:George_Pickingill,_Cunning_Man.jpg: use {{non-free biog-pic}} instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Support (with a caveat). I had my say at PR, and, having just read through the article again, I can say with confidence that it is of a very high quality. Midnightblueowl should be commended. I have made some final tweaks, and there are a last few comments below.

  • "by threatening to set white mice on them, a rodent which in local folklore were associated with misfortune" As written, the "rodent" being described is the "them" (that is, the victim of the mouse attack). This needs to be reworked a little, but I'm not sure I can see any easy way to do it.
    • I've changed this to "threatening to set upon them white mice, a rodent which in local folklore were associated with misfortune". It is not necessarily ideal, so if any other editors had further suggestions, then they would be welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ward suggested that many of the stories regarding Pickingill's magical activities were adopted from those of a genuine Essex cunning man, James Murrell." Do you mean adapted or adopted, here?
    • Both fit in there actually, although I think that adapted probably works a little better, so I'll change it there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In this, his claims fitted within the historical framework of the witch-cult hypothesis as propagated in the works of Margaret Murray." Is it worth noting that the witch-cult hypothesis is discredited?

My one remaining concern is with the reliability of a particular source, but I am willing to defer if others do not share my concerns. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Romance (Luis Miguel album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In 1991, Mexican singer Luis Miguel released an album called Romance, a collection of 12 classic boleros. This peculiar recording singlehandedly brought back popularity for the bolero in the 1990s. Miguel was just known as a teen idol before this recording and not only did he get the younger audience into boleros, but he also gained a following with an older crowd. It was so successful, that he recorded three more bolero albums in his career and Romance is one of the bestselling albums of all time in Mexico. I previously worked on Romances (Luis Miguel album) (the third album in the Romance series) and it became the first article about a Spanish-language album to be FA. Since the last FAC, the article has gone through another copyedit and peer review.

Note to the spotchecker Most of the articles are in Spanish and articles from El Informador can be searched here. I currently do not know how to link articles from that site as they only appear in PDF files. Erick (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, I already went through the article and gave my review on the talk page. Good work Erick, jona(talk) 23:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you AJona1992. Erick (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

Image review:

  • File:Romance.jpg is a non-free image, with an appropiate rationale. Seems Ok.
  • File:Armando Manzanero2010.jpg has a good license, but it may be useful to add a description in English to it.
  • File:Luis Miguel No Se Tu.ogg is a non-free sound file, with an appropiate rationale. Seems Ok.
  • File:Luismigueltour.jpg seems to have a good license, but the description should be improved, with something else than just "Luis Miguel". Also, the date "October" should be improved to 13 October 2008 (the date of uploading) or just October 2008 (if there is doubt if the photo was taken the same day than it was uploaded).

More to come. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added an English description for Manzanero's picture per your request. In regards to the last file however, I'm having doubts whether the uploader truly did have rights to upload that photo. In fact, Crisco 1492 told the reason none of the photos were used when Romances became TFA was because he had doubts any of the photos uploaded on Commons were truly free. So I went to Flickr and uploaded a file that has proper licensing which is now used in this article. Erick (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Brirush (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most basic subjects in human life, addition. This article is exceptionally well thought-out, and easily passed a Good Article nomination. One of the goals of any WikiProject is for its top-importance articles to reach Featured Article status, and I believe that this WikiProject Mathematics article meets all of the FA criteria. If all goes well, this would be the first of a number of mathematics articles to be improved and then nominated for FA.Brirush (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Addition01.svg is tagged as missing a description
  • Why not use File:Addition_chart.svg?
  • File:AdditionLineAlgebraic.svg is tagged as missing a description, same with File:AdditionLineUnary.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria I have added descriptions to the three images and replace the png with an svg. Another editor has fixed the caption. Let me know if there are any other image-related issues I should know about. Thanks! Brirush (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


  • Addition chart.svg is extremely hard to read without cllicking on it. perhaps increase the font size.
  • why is 17 italicized in AdditionVertical.svg?
  • there should be a ref right after terms, the addends or the summands. I personally haven't heard of these names.
  • augend needs citation
  • " it was once common to add upward" when?
  • is the terminology any different in other languages, especially not indo-euroepan ones?
I found this:, but it didn't reveal anything insightful. Perhaps I could add Wiktionary links to the article?Brirush (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • where is the character "+" from? when did it first appear? greeks didn't use any symbols
  • how is the "+" defined in ASCII? are there special rules for its shape?
  • "Extending a length" has no citations, same for Successor and Units
  • I believe some dolphins/orcas and parrots have been able to to addition
Found and added a ref for Asian elephants. No images yet, though. I think images of animals performing addition are very rare, but finding an image of a rhesus macaque or Asian elephant doing something else would be say.Brirush (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "This is known as carrying" should have a citation
  • Abacus should be mentioned
  • when do students typically learn addition in school? kindergarden or only 1st grade?
? Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I added a reference about first graders using math worldwide. Because Kindergarten is not universal, I'm not sure what to put about it. I think I might find a reference saying that addition is typically taught before first grade.
Actually, just found a good reference. It is usually taught before school, but countries differ. I' r added it to the article as well.
  • I can't seem to find anywhere mention of what happens in computing when the addition goes beyond the memory limit. I.e. Y2k.
  • didn't ancient merchants have some sort of calculators? not sure if "Blaise Pascal invented the mechanical calculator in 1642" is correct
  • "the poset N2" what is this?
  • why not discuss complex numbers addition?

Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I am not sure I like the bulleted style. Any reason not to use ": [...] " instead? Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Good idea; not sure why I didn't do it originally.
  • I would love and image like the one here.
Good idea! I'll see what I can do.

Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to Nergaal

  • I have removed this image, as I don't think it is helpful at this stage of the article, or perhaps any stage.
  • The 17 is italicized as it represents an answer 'pencilled in' after the original problem was given. Usually, there is more italic work shown (such as carrying and such); an example can be seen in subtraction. I think the italicization should remain for continuity with the other articles.
Try adding this in the description where the image is located to remove possible confusion. Nergaal (talk)
  • I've added references for "term", "addend", and "summand". I had a reference for all three at once, but it may have been based on this article itself, so I didn't use it.
  • I expanded the description of adding upwards
  • The terminology is similar in other languages; for instance, in Chinese, the addends are called 加數, literally "addition numbers". In persian, they are called جَمع‌وَند, where جَمع‌ means "sum". I can add this to the article, but with so many language families, all with essentially the same terms, I don't know if it would be helpful.
  • I added a description of the plus sign's history.
Didn't + come about with Arab numerals?
I thought so too, but several online sources say it is fairly recent. Apparently the symbol itself is old, but had unrelated meanings (for instance, it was a minus sign when added after a number in Hindu).
  • I have seen no evidence of special rules for +'s shape. I have added ASCII code.
et should be italicized? Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
rm the white space before that sentence pls. Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Finished both.
  • Added refs in the "extending a length" section. Also the successors and units sections.
  • I have only found one claim for adding parrots: Alex (parrot) is described in a short Duke University blurb as recognizing 2+2=4. However, none of the numerous sources on his page seem to back up this claim. For dolphins and orcas, the best claims I can find say that they can count up to six, but I have not yet found an addition reference.
"Alex could even add, to a limited extent, correctly giving the number of similar objects on a tray" and has a book ref. First goofle seach I found [9]. Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added a reference for carrying.
  • I have added material on abacus, taken and adapted from the corresponding article.

I'll finish the last few later today.Brirush (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps add something like "similar errors were expected to happen with y2k" to make this temr . Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to suggest more improvements here; as a new section, it may need more work than the rest.
  • The Antikythera mechanism was a mechanical calculator of sorts, but it did not seem to perform arbitrary additions. I think, given the references we have, we should stick with Pascal.

Let me know if you have any other concerns, or if you disagree with any of my corrections.Brirush (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Drive by comments on referencing[edit]

  • Lipschutz Lipson is not in references
  • Need first names:
    • Bunt, Jones, and Bedient
    • Davison, Landau, McCracken, and Thompson
    • Baroody and Tiilikainen
    • Fosnot and Dolk
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed with first or last name first
  • Only list sources that are cited (others in Further reading):
    • Bunt, Jones, and Bedient not cited
    • Kaplan not cited
    • Williams not cited
    • Davison not cited
    • Baroody and Tiilikainen not cited
    • Weaver not cited (and would need publisher)
    • Poonen not cited
  • Book titles should be in title case
  • (3e ed.) -> (3rd ed.) (why the "e" - French?)
  • Marguin (1994) - why is the book listed twice when short cites are used?
  • Wynn, Karen has a title=
  • Books should include the publisher:
    • Wynn, Karen needs publisher
    • Baroody and Tiilikainen needs publisher

Aa77zz (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have completed all of these tasks, as well as a few similar things (a few of the mathematical refs had name problems). Let me know if my new further reading section works. The 3e thing seems to come from someone writing "edition=3e", intending it to come out as "3e" and not "3e Ed".Brirush (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Bill Denny (Australian politician)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Bill Denny, a South Australian Labor politician and former Attorney-General who enlisted to fight in World War I at the age of 43. He served on the Western Front and was awarded the Military Cross for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. Denny became Attorney-General in two more Labor Governments after the war, and served in the South Australian Parliament from 1900 to 1905 and 1906 to 1933. It has been brought through GA and Milhist A-Class since it was created on 17 January 2015. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 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) 05:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments[edit]

My most substantive point is that the article is short on detail about what Denny actually did as a Government Minister: the policies he pursued; his successes; his failures. This is especially the case for his second and third stints as a Minister, about which the reader learns very little at all. Other comments:

  • The lead suggests that the whole of his parliamentary career was as a ULP/ALP member, which doesn't seem to be correct. He seems to have also had stints as an independent and PLP member.
  • "He was again Attorney-General in the Labor governments led by John Gunn (1924–26) and Lionel Hill (1930–33)" - Missing Robert Richards.
  • There seems to be conflict between the ADB and the 1919 Sunday Times article about when he started to work for the newspaper. The former says 1896; the latter says 1893. Any reason why the former is preferred?
  • "When a by-election was held for West Adelaide on 17 March 1900..." - I think this sentence tries to do too much. Split?
  • "In the 1902 state election the electoral district of West Adelaide was abolished" - do you abolish a seat in an election?
  • "In 1903, he began studying law at the University of Adelaide, and was defeated at the 1905 state election, gaining only 9.9 per cent of the votes" - the and implies a relationship between the two clauses of the sentence, but there is none. Perhaps take the law studies and the 1908 admission out of where they are and put them as a separate sentence, admittedly out of chronological order, at the end of the paragraph? As it is, it gets in the way of the political stuff.
  • Is there any story behind why he started as a ULP candidate, then became an independent, and then rejoined the ULP?
  • "Australian Government" - as an Oz lawyer, I prefer "Commonwealth Government" but happy if you ignore this.
  • "These included the Advances for Homes Act 1910, and in his speeches he highlighted that many workers were faced with high rents and poor conditions. It allowed for 80 per cent of the value of a property to be advanced to a worker at 4.5 per cent interest over 36.5 years" - These two sentences seem out of order. Shouldn't we understand what the Act did before learning about what Denny said in his speeches?
  • "long, spindly legs" - who said this? There are two footnotes so the reader really has no idea.
  • I think we need a geographical location for the wounding in the body of the article, not just the lead. In the body, Egypt is the last location mentioned, which confuses the reader because, of course, it happened in France.
  • "He was subsequently invested with the Military Cross" - this is a long sentence and starts in the passive voice, so is quite difficult to digest.
  • "with a similar proportion of the vote" - "similar proportions"?
  • "During this period he carried several significant legislative changes." - this seems to be a very significant period in Denny's career; I think we need to know what these legislative changes were. It makes the next para, which talks about opening war memorials, seem trivial.
  • "address was punctuated with applause" - it would be good to know who said this without needing to follow the footnote. Although... is this sentence needed at all? It is just about one memorial.
  • Is there any explanation for his unusually strong performance at the 1930 election?
  • "Appointed Attorney-General for the third time in the Labor government of Lionel Hill" - this doesn't seem right; the reader initially thinks it was his third stint as A-G in the Hill government.
  • "Lang Labor Party" - I'd suggest just "Lang Labor" as there was no such thing as the "Lang Labor Party".
  • Any explanation for why he lost his seat in 1933, after such a long run of electoral success? Again, this seems to be one of those significant career moments that would warrant more detail.
  • "Denny wrote a further autobiographical book, A Digger at Home and Abroad which was published in 1941" - missing the close to a set of parenthetical commas? [I'd change it myself but I wasn't completely sure]
  • "Mr. Ephriam "Brownie" Tripp" - any reason why he gets a "Mr."?
  • Nice ending to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review and comments. This is my first FAC on a politician, I'm mainly a Milhist guy, so bear with me. I'll start working though your comments and raise any queries as I go. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Two quibbles with the above: there absolutely was a (formal) Lang Labor Party in South Australia, and they swept out all the incumbents in Denny's three-member seat in 1933, which is why that sentence says as much as can be said. I felt that the reason Denny lost in 1933 was implied there - the PLP was obliterated and nearly all its members were defeated - but that's one point that could probably be fixed by making it explicit in one sentence. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that. Lang Labor doesn't mention the SA version of the party, which makes it a slightly problematic wikilink. Maybe we could add something brief to that article? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
          • There should at least be some mention in Lang Labor (though it's not something I feel like I can slip in easily: it's a narrative article entirely structured around Lang's shenanigans in NSW), but I should really getting around to writing Lang Labor Party (South Australia): it's a significant part of telling the story of 1930s-era South Australian politics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Perhaps I should redlink it for now? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
              • That sounds fine to me. Redirecting that title to Lang Labor would be the other option but that article says nothing about the SA party. Incidentally, there is a 1969 article "Lang Labor in South Australia" by Don Hopgood in the journal "Labour History" (vol 17), which seems to be available through JSTOR. Not relevant to the FAC but thought it worth noting somewhere as it would seem to be useful for filling in the red link. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
                • If it needs to be bluelinked for this to pass (I am an old biddie in Wikipedia terms and can't keep up with changing criteria) I'll see what I can do about digging that JSTOR article up and making it happen in the next couple days. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
                • No, it doesn't need to be blue-linked to pass. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've had FAs promoted with red links in the past. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Tiny quibbles re the lede and the most recent edit:

  • Why the scare quotes around Parliamentary Labor Party?
    • My understanding was that it wasn't really a party, per se, with grassroots members, more a grouping of members of Parliament. But if that is incorrect, happy to remove them from the lead and body.
      • They were a bloc of members of parliament, and considering they contained what had previously the entire Cabinet had to have significant grassroots support in e.g. campaigning in 1933. I think they're definitely a party (they certainly contested the 1933 election as one). The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead doesn't state when he joined the Labor Party, and essentially suggests that it could have been anytime between 1900 and 1917 (this is important because he was only briefly an Ind. Liberal)
    • Actually, he was a member of the ULP when he ran unsuccessfully in 1899, then he ran as an independent liberal in 1900 and again in 1902 and 1905. I wouldn't say he was "briefly" an independent liberal, he won two elections and lost another as an independent liberal. Assuming that they were strict about party members not running against other party members, he must have resigned from the ULP after the 1899 election and before the 1900 by-election. He must have rejoined the ULP after the 1905 election and before the 1906 election, but I haven't found a source for the actual date.
      • Is there a way this could be explained better in the lede? I feel it's a little vague prior to 1917, and his earliest affiliations I don't think are in the infobox? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Have tried to make it clearer. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Looks good. Only further suggestion I'd have is clarifying the infobox re: his parties (it doesn't mention years or his PLP stint). The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Denny's expulsion had very little to do with him personally; he was expelled because the entire ministry was expelled for supporting the Premiers' Plan, and I think the sentence about him being ejected from the ALP could better reflect that The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 27 March 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)


Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Unas, the ninth and last ruler of the 5th Dynasty of Egypt, ruling in the mid-24th century BC. Although not much is known of his activities during his 15 to 30 years long reign, Unas is best known to us as the earliest king to have the Pyramid Texts inscribed on the walls of his pyramid, one of the oldest religious text still in existence. This could explain why Unas' article receives c. 40,000 views / year, about twice as much as a typical Old Kingdom pharaoh. Article passed GA on the 23rd of March and is part of a series of GA and FA articles on the 5th Dynasty (see Shepseskare, Sahure, Pyramid of Userkaf). Iry-Hor (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed for GAN, and the few points I identified then as needing to be tweaked before FAC have been dealt with. The article reads well, is widely and thoroughly cited, and as far as I can see is comprehensive. With FACs for articles on topics of which I am ignorant (it is remarkable how many there are) I try to find online equivalents, both free and subscription, for comparison. I had to dig hard to find anything about Unas (or any of his alternative spellings). This Wikipedia page is much the best encyclopaedia article I can find on the topic. A fine job. Tim riley talk 16:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • For some reason the first image in the Pyramid section is displaying its alt text as the caption
I've fixed these two problems myself (and am working on a source review). A. Parrot (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Iry-Hor (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Unas_Pyramidentexte.jpg needs a US PD tag, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I am sorry, I do not know what is a US PD tag? The Brooklyn museum database, from which this photo originates, states that it has "no known copyright restrictions" see here, furthermore the wikicommons page states that the author died more than 70 years ago. I do not know who the author is, since it is not listed on the Brooklyn museum database. Iry-Hor (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I got it, I added the necessary tag based on the "no known copyright restrictions" statement from the Brooklyn museum. Let me know if this ok. Iry-Hor (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot[edit]

Source check

  • Is it necessary to cite Naydler? He is not an Egyptologist and his book is uncomfortably close to fringe territory (see this discussion on my talk page and, if you can access it, [ this review]). I know the book is used to cite something that doesn't need deep interpretation, but you already cite an RS to support the same statement.
You are right, I only put up this book because it was the only one I could find with an accessible drawing of Unas' Sed festival relief. I hesitated at the time over wether to keep the citation or not and I should have removed it. Done now! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The Oxford Encyclopedia articles are listed as separate works in the bibliography, but Allen et al. 1999 is listed as one work even though you cite two articles from it. Both works should be treated the same way. I'd prefer to combine the Oxford Encyclopedia entries, as the bibliography is pretty long.
The problem is I do not know how to do that because the various entries from the Oxford Encyclopedia which I quote were written by different authors and come from Volume 2 and Volume 3. At the opposite, the references from Allen's Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids which I use were all written by C. Ziegler so I could easily combine them in the bibliography using the "chapter" option of the cite book template and a harvid option so that the reference reads "C. Ziegler in Allen et al.". I do not know of to make several such harvid showing up differently but pointing to the same bibliography item. Thus I do not know how to meaningfully combine these references. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There are two citations (5 and 15) to Malek in Shaw 2000. The second one refers to page 102, which is correct in my copy. The first refers to page 112, which seems to be a typo for 102 (page 112 is in Seidlmayer's chapter on the First Intermediate Period).
You are right it is a mistake, now corrected. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I know there are already a lot of citations to Lehner 1997 p. 154 and 155, so it might not make sense to combine them all into one. The part about the Pyramid Texts, though, runs across those two pages, so it's probably advisable to change the PT-related citations (currently 98g and 98h) to pp.154–155.
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Lehner 142–144 says Sahure's temple has palmiform columns, but it doesn't seem to say that that was the first known time they were used. Do you have another source that says that?
You are right it is not in Lehner, I am sure I read it somewhere but can't find the source anymore. I changed the statement to " A palmiform column is a column whose capital has the form of palm leaves. This style is for example present in the mortuary complex of king Sahure" and will put it back when/if I can figure out where I read this. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Citation 119 should be changed to p. 250–251.
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Other points

  • There are a couple of problems with the word "bedouins". For one thing, "bedouin" is an Arabic plural and doesn't need an -s. More importantly, it may not even be the right word here. I know the word is sometimes used in Egyptology, including in your source, to refer to transient people on the fringes of Egyptian territory. But our article bedouin regards the term as applying only to Arabs, who wouldn't have been in the Egyptian deserts in Unas' time. Maybe a broader term like "nomad" would be better.
Done, "nomad" is a good suggestion. I also used the term "desert dweller" which I have seen in some sources. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not to italicize the Cannibal Hymn or Memphite Theology. They're much shorter works than the major funerary texts, and in my experience, Egyptologists don't italicize either name. There might be grounds to put the Cannibal Hymn in quotation marks, as it's part of a larger work and, unlike other spells in the major funerary texts, it's known by a name and not just a number. However, most Egyptological sources don't even use quotation marks (e.g., [10]).
Ok done. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Nearly all scholars today believe the Memphite Theology was composed well after the Old Kingdom; this study mentions only one recent dissenting source (see p. 107), and it apparently doesn't argue the question in detail. The major dispute now seems to be whether the text comes from the Ramesside period or Shabaka's own time. The old claim that the Memphite Theology was composed under Unas might still be worth mentioning in this article, but only if it's made clear that it's an outdated view.
Ok bit on the Memphite Theology moved to a footnote, Ockinga reference added for the datation of the text. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Egyptological sources often claim that the Pyramid Texts are the oldest religious texts in the world, but I increasingly doubt that claim. Sumerians began assembling elaborate lists of gods in the Early Dynastic I period. A list might not seem as complex a composition as a hymn, let alone the PT, but my source says "lists of gods remained one of the most productive theological genres throughout the entire life span of Mesopotamian civilization" (Paul-Alain Beaulieu, "Histories: Mesopotamia", in Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide, edited by Sarah Iles Johnston, 2004, p. 166). And yes, the PT existed long before Unas' time, but we have no way of knowing how long. To claim that the PT are the oldest anything, we'd need a source that examines other religious texts up to that time, from Egypt and Mesopotamia, and says exactly what was new about the PT. I don't think anybody has actually done that.
Well I agree that it is a bit contentious so I removed the bit on the Kesh temple hymn and left simply "[...] one of the oldest religious text in Egypt having survived to this day". Iry-Hor (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@A. Parrot: Let me know if these edits are fine for you. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I have a bunch of real-life obligations today. I'll examine these changes and get back to you within the next 12 hours. A. Parrot (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries! Take all the time you need. Iry-Hor (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

LIM-49 Nike Zeus[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the US's first concerted effort to build and deploy an anti-ballistic missile system. It faced enormous hurdles as the nature of the ICBM threat changed more rapidly than it could be developed. By the time it entered final testing in 1962, it was clear the system was essentially useless.

The missile is interesting, but the overarching story is even more interesting. While researching the article, I came across formerly secret documents discussing the effectiveness of the Zeus system. Lacking Zeus, they predicted that the Soviets would kill 95% of the US population in a full-scale exchange. Zeus would reduce that to only 75%. They concluded it simply wasn't worth building - why bother spending $10 to $12 billion saving a few million civilians?

Zeus eventually died, and was replaced by a way more complex system, Nike-X. Nike-X entered into a race with even more ICBMs. Rinse, repeat - Sentinel, Safeguard, Sentry, SDI... I find the Zeus story to be a wonderful microcosm of the entire Cold War era debate about megadeaths and guns and butter.

Plus it has some super-cool color pictures of missile launches.

Relisting after closure. All issues raised in the last FAC were addressed when it was closed, but I have made some tweaks since then. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

2003 Sri Lanka cyclone[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a damaging and deadly flood in Sri Lanka, a small island southeast of India. That is the main focus, but the storm also had larger reaching effects, such as potentially contributing to a deadly heat wave that killed 1,900 people. It serves as a great source for flooding damage in a tropical island country, and I am sure it meets all of the FA criteria. It had a previous FAC, where an editor did a useful copyedit (as well as provide some comments that I addressed). This is also an article for a basin that only has two other featured articles, so it would be useful as far as diversity goes to have another FA there, especially in such a deadly basin. Hope you enjoy! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments[edit]

The "Aftermath" section bothers me a bit in the way in which it pieces together news sources rather than from sources that are reliable after-the-fact overviews. This could be causing accuracy problems. The article says: "Collectively, the governments of Norway, United Kingdom, United States, and Australia pledged or donated $1.46 million to Sri Lanka." You've arrived at that figure by adding up four different figures in this source. Is the figure in US dollars? And surely it wasn't done collectively; the article makes it quite clear the four governments operated separately. Later, we are told that "Both Canada and Australia sent about $100,000 to the local Red Cross in their respective currencies". The Australian aspect of the sentence is sourced to here. Are we sure this is not the same $100,000 (AUS) as the $65,000 (US?) mentioned earlier? If so, why the repetition? The press release says that the $100,000 was "immediate flood relief" so I suspect it is the same money. But I don't know. The problem is piecing sources together; we need an overview source. Then, in the following phrase, "and the latter country [Australia] worked to rebuild the damaged schools". That's an understatement. The country didn't "work"; according to the source, it gave A$400,000. Without mentioning that figure, the earlier figures of $100,000/$65,000 look stingy. the source also says the money was for "rebuilding of basic social services, including schools", so it was not at all limited to schools. Anyway, this is all to illustrate a broader point: that I'm not sure the use of sources is appropriate and it is liable to lead to inaccuracies. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Eek. Regarding the adding them together, is "cumulatively" better? Regarding the dual usages of Australia, I apologize, I mistakenly included them twice, thanks. I found a better source that had all of the donations in the end, so I used that instead. Good call forcing me to get that :) I clarified that Australia sent money to UNICEF to service. Hopefully you think the aftermath is in better shape now. I don't believe there are any more inaccuracies in the aftermath. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the sporadic way in which I'm making mycomments. The overall view to which I'm inclined at the moment is as follows: that the section on the cyclone is quite strong, but the sections on its impacts are less so. As the following comments suggest, which concern only the section on the flooding in Sri Lanka, I think there are problems with accurate representation of sources as well as some prose glitches. Prose we can fix in a week or so across the article; the sourcing I'm less confident about, especially given that I'm just sampling sections at this stage:

  • "After the floods largely subsided, the World Socialist Web Site criticized the Sri Lankan government for not having better disaster management in place, as well as noting that deforestation and gem mining contributed to the landslides." - what makes the World Socialist Web Site a source worthy of inclusion in this article? I would have thought the views of the Red Cross, which are already there, are reliable and sufficient.
  • The National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting anticipated the flood event three days in advance, and the first flood warnings were issued on May 17." This sentence, with its second clause in the passive voice, implies that the NCMRWF issued the flood warnings, which is surely not true. It might also help to note in the sentence that the NCMRWF is an Indian organisation; if the reader doesn't follow the wikilink they will assume it is Sri Lankan.
  • "Schools and public buildings were used as emergency shelters, and about 8,000 people evacuated on May 18." - the and just doesn't work here.
  • The source for the death figures in Ratnapura is contemporaneous and very much subject-to-change ("The death toll so far is 256," said Karu Jayasuriya, head the government's disaster management team). I don't think we can rely on it to give solid and unqualified figures ("125 people died in Ratnapura.")
  • "representing an estimated 20–30% loss for the year." - The source says that the loss is in low-grown tea crops. Dilmah tells us that low-grown tea is only one of Sri Lanka's three types of tea crop. So I don't think we can say there was a 20-30% loss of tea crop generally.
  • "Farmers in the region also lost some of their rice paddies to the high waters, although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged" - what is "the region"? The 3% figure is fairly meaningless without knowing.
  • "Overall, the floods destroyed 24,750 homes and damaged 32,426 others" - see above for comment on using a contemporaneous and contingent source ([11])
  • "The World Meteorological Organization later described the flooding as proof of an increase in more violent weather events" - the source says symptom, not proof (or similar). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Three-cent silver[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... The three-cent silver filled a need when issued, and when it was no longer needed, dragged on for some years and eventually was abolished. A companion piece to three-cent nickel which recently ran on the main page. It's had a GA review and shows off some of the high-quality images we are starting to get for the coin articles after years of crappy ones or with dodgy copyrights. The ugly Spanish colonial two bit is not one of them, it is from my collection, by the way.Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. That was easy, thanks. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for that; :)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments[edit]

Support. I found the article to be a tough read in its more technical/numismatic parts, but I blame that on my lack of knowledge rather than the way the article is written. I certainly wouldn't advocate dumbing it down. Subject to the qualification that I don't know my reverse from my obverse, the article appears to meet the FA criteria: comprehensive, appropriately sourced, well-written and of an appropriate length. Only minor nitpicks:

  • "Early that year, Congress authorized a gold dollar" - Too much had passed for me to remember what "that year" was.
  • "Spanish silver coins were the bulk..." - This mega-sentence seems to be crying out to be split into two.
  • I take it there is no wikilink available for the Spanish real?
The Spanish colonial real is linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The small size of the coins was less popular [than what?]"
  • "Despite the statutes, in 1853 and 1854, Snowden had the Mint purchase large quantities of silver bullion at a fixed price" - did he actually break the law (as "Despite the statutes..." implies), or did he just find a way around it?
He broke the law. No question about it. Ignored it anyway. Not that he was making a secret of it!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of the "Further reading" section? It only lists one publication, which is already in the bibliography.

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I"ve caught anything. If I haven't replied, it means I've simply done what was necessary. Thank you. I'll look over the prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sturmvogel_66 comments[edit]

  • Support
  • No DABs, external links are good.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • Add a |lastauthoramp=1 to Flynn and Zack in the bibliography to match usage in the cites.
  • Spotcheck not done, but sourcing is fine.
  • No issues with prose, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, and for looking at the imaging and sourcing. I've made that adjustment--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Crisco 1492[edit]

  • Lead feels like it repeats a little bit of information
I've deleted the repeat of 1873. I dance around the points in the lede paragraph later in the lede but I don't repeat much I think.
  • Not listed is the 1851 proof three-cent silver, of which only one is known, which was last sold in 1996 as part of the Louis Eliasberg collection - how much did this sell for? Or, if no price listed individually, the collection itself?
Seems they sold it again. I've corrected that.
  • the latter would prove the only mintage of three-cent pieces outside Philadelphia. - why?
My sources do not say. Mint records about a lot of things are not complete.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (later restored in 1878) - worth noting if it was just the silver dollar? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I conventionally do because otherwise people may be confused about the silver dollar being abolished, after all, Grandpa used to have one.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

61 Cygni[edit]

Nominator(s): -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a visual binary system in the constellation Cygnus. The article seems to meet all the criteria for a FA and I have made still more updation and minor fixes so as to meet the criteria. The article is currently a GA and the article have undergone major expansion after that. Top editors aren't active now and RJHall retired a little while ago. Still, I have done much to make it meet to the criteria. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Review – The article is in decent shape, although perhaps a little short. Here are a few observations:

  • The 'absolute magnitude' values in the infobox need a proper citation; just computing them isn't enough. (Kervella et al. (2008) give the absolute bolometric magnitudes for the two stars; it might be better to use that field instead.)
  • Done. A better cite of stellar-database is now used. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah, well you've replaced what was a perfectly suitable citation for the apparent magnitude with a different citation. The absolute magnitude values are not cited. :-) I would again suggest just using the Kervalla et al. (2008) citation and the absolute bolometric magnitude field of the template. Praemonitus (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • stellardatabase doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Fixed it for you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The article needs to explain the meaning of the name '61 Cygni'. For example, where did it originate?
  • The meaning of 'K5 V' and 'K7 V' needs to be clarified, as the reader might not be familiar with the MK notation and its connection to the statement "K class (orange) main sequence stars".
  • The Observation history section should use consistent units for the parallax and be consistent about labeling parallax measurements.
  • The final two sentences of the Observation history section needs a citation.
  • The term 'old-disk stars' needs to be explained.
  • Piped it again..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It means it is a star belonging to the old disk population; not an old star belonging to the galactic disk.[12] This should probably be covered on the Milky Way article. Praemonitus (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Done now..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could use this reference to note whether an infrared excess has (or has not) been found.
(Move the comments to the correct bullet. Praemonitus (talk))
I read it but it seems to me like there aren't any IR excess as they say much about GJ 581, GJ 667C, and GJ 876 M-dwarfs. GJ 820 has its name only in the table. So should I include in the article that there aren't any IR excess? Plus, I couldn't deduce from them that there are any habitable zones either. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the absence of a detectable IR excess is still of interest because it tells the reader something about the state of the system. The reference for the habitability radii is in a separate bullet above. Praemonitus (talk)
I think the same is explained in Refining planetary boundaries section. Right? -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears to me as that 1998 result is contradicted by the more recent data. Perhaps there's another source that will discuss it? Praemonitus (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I've addressed this point. Praemonitus (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You could also use Table 7 in this reference to speak to the stellar habitable zones around the two stars.
Still couldn't get it. Please link it to the page itself...-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It is part of a PDF document. Have you tried reading the arXiv article and scrolling down to near the end? Praemonitus (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Checking through the references, I found "" is being used in several cases. It is not clear that this a reliable source—the site is maintained by a Science Fiction writer—and so I think it should be replaced. Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Praemonitus, Replace all? I have replaced two of them with simbad, which is already used many-a-times. Two to go..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The entire "Distance" section is a huge eyesore and frankly unimportant. Readers aren't going to care about every single distance estimate published, and are only going to care about the most accurate one, which is already present in the infobox. I'd remove the whole section.
  • I could see that each values makes the approximation more clear and shows the readers how they have tried to get the approximation of distance through parallax method. The whole section, similar to that of pi can make it count. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the table helps show how the parallax method works. There's two things wrong with that: I don't see how the table conveys that at all, and such info would not be appropriate for this article but rather for the parallax article. The approximations of pi is different, since the increasing approximations of pi has been a subject of intense study itself, and well, pi is much more important to everyday life than this single star. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
But is the removal of the section necessary to result in further shortening of the article? -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the section isn't needed because all it conveys is the fact that the instrumentation is growing more accurate as time passes. It doesn't tell the reader anything new about the stars. If you absolutely have to retain it, I'd suggest moving it to the end of the article (as an appendix) so that it doesn't disrupt the flow. Praemonitus (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Both stars in the system are rather typical variable stars (BY Dra and flare). However, I'm not seeing magnitude ranges anywhere in this article for either star, which are absolutely necessary.
Now included..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Overall though, this article is pretty good. It is admittedly somewhat short, but that's not a problem; it's better to have only clear, concise, and relevant information and it covers its topic well.

StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Question. In which book/document did Giuseppe Piazzi first demonstrate its large proper motion. Shouldn't that be somewhere in the reference? I couldn't find any reference to it. --Siddhant (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I felt it very first. Still searching.....-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Great! Since a complete scan of the book is available on Google Books, shouldn't that be linked to (while of course mentioning that the text is in Italian)? Do we know the page number on which 61 Cygni is mentioned (though I agree, that it might be too much to ask for)? --Siddhant (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What is exozodiacal? Nergaal (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    • That was my fault, so I fixed it. Praemonitus (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Camas pocket gopher[edit]

Nominator(s): Gaff (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... the Camas pocket gopher, a rodent, the largest in its genus, endemic to a small valley in the US state of Oregon. The article went through a thorough GA review by FunkMonk, with copy-editing done by Miniapolis. An essential diagram was provided by Philg88. This is the second nomination to FA. The first was archived primarily due to lack of interest. Some helpful comments provided by Ucucha during that review have been addressed. In the interim, the taxonomy section has been expanded to include a cladogram (provided by User:IJReid), based on some recent phylogenetic studies. --Gaff (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Review by Mkativerata[edit]

[Support as my comments below have been substantially addressed. The only qualification to my support is that I'm no expert in the subject area, so I can't fully gauge comprehensiveness and accuracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)]

  • This is not too far off, in my view, subject to the qualification that I'm no expert in the field. The sourcing looks good (I did spot checks), as does the comprehensiveness. Just small issues, which I think will be fixable:
  • "However, contemporary naturalist H. M. Wight disagreed." With which of the two parts of the preceding sentence did he disagree? And why did he disagree with it?
  • fixed: I added a reference to Wight's exact statement in 1918 and why he made it, based on observations that they ate mostly dandelion greens. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Who is John Richardson? Without a wikilink, we need to know.
  • fixed. This got dropped in copyediting. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Can a subgenus be established? (The answer may well be yes; just asking)
  • The source (Verts/Carraway Mammalian Species article, very first part of article in Context section) says it was "erected". Difference? Could also say "created"? I'm not particular. Thoughts? --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No biggie - mainly an existential question about whether subgenuses could be "established" as opposed to "discovered". --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You cite primary sources for saying that the 9th edition of the Britannica and the 1879 American Cyclopædia were "echoing confusion". I'd only make this claim with a secondary source. Or is Allen, 1893 the source?
  • I'll double check Allen. This may just be my observation, that these specific texts "echoed" the confusion. I'm not sure Allen listed specifics. We can change wording.--Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • maybe fixed? So the Allen reference, page 56, second paragraph reads that Richardson's "determination was accepted by Coues and generally adopted by subsequent writers.". This is a confusing piece of history and Allen's account is the most lucid that I have found. It is a short paragraph and having a second set of eyes look at it would be helpful.--Gaff (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It just seems to me that linking the "confusion" to the 9th edition of the Britannica and the 1879 American Cyclopædia might be OR without a source that says that those two publications were victims of the confusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble with this. The sentence currently reads, "This confusion was echoed by subsequent authors;(Allen, 1893) the article on gophers in the 1879 edition of the American Cyclopædia has an illustration captioned "California Gopher (Thomomys bulbivorus)", and the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (published during the late 19th century) mistakenly reports Thomomys bulbivorus as abundant along the central California coast." All 3 of these facts are sourced. Allen wrote that confusion was echoed (or rather the false determination was "adopted"). I agree that we cannot assume that he was referring to these two publications specifically, but both of them published wrong information. If we drop the semicolon in favor of periods, does that break up any implied connection enough? Something like, "Allen said some folks got it wrong.(cite) Publication A said wrong thing X.(cite) Publication B said wring thing Y.(cite)" --Gaff (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I reckon that's good enough. I think we can be afforded latitude to get away with that. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed This 21st century encyclopedia built by a bunch of hacks is getting it right... --Gaff (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2008, multilocus phylogenetic analysis results of the genus were published." By whom? This seems to be a critical moment in the gopher's history. Suggest active voice, as well.
  • fixed I can add more or less detail (names of reseachers, name of journal, UC Berkely, Harvard, etc). Don't want to overdo it since article is long already. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Carraway & Kennedy, currently footnote 27, has no page-number cites.
  • fixed
  • Thanks for the review! I can certainly take care of all of these concerns. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Very minor suggestion - in "Description" you're plugging a lot of dense information into the first and third paragraphs. I'd suggest breaking it up a bit more -subheadings, even? - but that's just a personal inclination.
  • I'll keep tinkering with this. Agree, some minor tweaks will help it flow better. I did learn how to do this with the teeth, which is kind of cool. --Gaff (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed.
  • The bit of information about the gray-tailed vole squatting in the Camas' tunnel seems a bit out of place - wouldn't it be better in the final para of the section, which deals with other mammals that share range and tunnels?
  • fixed agree. Since that is another of "my" GA articles, maybe I was placing it too much in the foreground. Sadly, most of the images that I had found for that article got deleted. Long story...
  • "reportedly twittering" - any need for reportedly?
  • fixed
  • "Due to the economic impacts of crop damage and destruction of grazing surfaces". Do we need a sentence before this, establishing that the Camas damages crops and grazing surfaces before moving on to what the consequences of that are? As it is, the section on "Human interactions" just seems to jump right in about a sentence ahead of itself. More generally, the first four sentences of the section each involve the passive voice, which makes it quite difficult to follow.
  • I'll work on this. It would be good to quantify the cost of economic damage.
  • fixed I added some economic data as well. --Gaff (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What is an "overall degree of threat impact"? This seems like a bit of jargon from somewhere else that might need to be put into plain English.
  • fixed
  • The final para shifts from the IUCN to Natureserve and then back to the IUCN. In between there is a sentence about "area of species distribution" directed to an unknown purpose. Maybe think about a restructure? Two paras? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed

Image review

  • "Ten day old" -> "Ten-day-old" in caption; otherwise all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
fixed thank you for the review --Gaff (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
* FYI: Additional image added File:Camassia quamash 6374.JPG. Source is good and it is a valued image on commons. --Gaff (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

This looks to be a well-written, reasonably comprehensive article. A few points I noticed:

  • "... smooth-toothed" or "Western pocket" gophers." - Why capitalise the "Western"?
  • fixed Some call T. mazama the western pocket gopher. The source on this is unclear and colloquial names for the entire genus are not essential to this species' article. So...drop the "western". --Gaff (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The word "Camas" is capitalised throughout the article. Why? It is not capitalised in the Camassia article.
  • Interesting. It is capitalized most everywhere that I have seen it. Richardson's original text (which the article links to) calls it the Camas Rat. I would prefer to call it Thomomys bulbivorus. I'll do some more research. Camas the city is across the Columbia, in Washington, not in the gophers territory. --Gaff (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed The definitive text on this animal in my opinion is Verts & Carraway Land Mammals of Oregon. I own a (signed) copy. On pages 224 and 231 they refer to it as the camas pocket gopher. Other sources are variable and in my opinion less trusted. So, I have changed it in the article.--Gaff (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "During the mid-1800s James Audubon called to the species the "Camas rat" - The meaning of this sentence is unclear.
  • Fair enough. I need to do a bit to clarify and it will take a day or two. Its all there in The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America. They basically reject Richardson's assessment and reassign what was then a synonymous animal. --Gaff (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed I rewrote this paragraph. --Gaff (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The species' genetic diversity is similar to that other pocket gophers occupying a larger geographic range and diversity of habitat." - Missing word?
  • fixed
  • "The fur is a flat, dull brown with a dark, lead-gray underside." - What precisely does this mean?
  • Fixed It means that the sentence needed help. --Gaff (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of "Description" starts off talking about a single individual but moves into the plural half way through.
  • fixed
  • In some places where there are two citations covering one fact, they are not arranged in numerical order.
  • fixed by a gnome. I wonder if we could have a bot made to do that for us? I'll ask around.--Gaff (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "... pull the pouches towards the opening" - It is not clear what opening is referred to here. Perhaps you could use "forward".
  • fixed
  • "Although the gopher's front claws are too weak to dig through the clay ... , its large incisors and strongly procumbent orientation are well-adapted for this purpose." - Some clarification needed here as to what is procumbent.
  • Agreed. It is used all over the place in the literature, but seems idiosynratic. Protuberant likely captures the same meaning and that is the word I had used. Procumbent may mean tht they stick out more directly forward. I'm going with protuberant for now. --Gaff (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed.
  • "Androlaelaps fahrenholzi was reported is some studies" - This sentence needs attention.
  • fixed
  • That's all for now, while I consider whether the article is sufficiently comprehensive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for reviewing this & I'll get to work. The article will benefit from the attention of somebody with so much experience on rodent articles.--Gaff (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The alterations made to the article since I first studied it seem satisfactory and I now support this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Pete[edit]

Good points.
Capitalization: My understanding of relate MOS principles would say "western" should not be capitalized. "Camas" is the name of a city in the area the gopher inhabits; this suggests to me why it may have been capitalized to begin with. I'm not sure where the name originates, and whether or not it should be capitalized in this context.
I don't think the numerical order of references is something that should impede FA ratification. If this is important to you, I'd suggest you just fix it.
I suspect Gaff will be in a better position than I to address the remaining points. I have not worked on species-related FAs, and have yet to read this article closely, so I don't have a strong opinion about this; but in general, I am impressed with the quality, and am inclined to think it's ready for FA (with a little attention to some of these details). -Pete (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • All good Thanks for the support & the fixes. --Gaff (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by bluerasberry[edit]

photo donated by an expert

  • As I recall, Gaff wrote to a gopher expert and asked if they would donate images to use in this Wikipedia article. This person was so generous and gave one of the best pictures I have seen anywhere on Wikipedia.

I wonder if we should contact this expert and ask for the further favor that they might read this article and comment on the extent to which it meets their own quality expectations. Gaff, would you feel comfortable doing this? I support the request being made, if it seems right to ask. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The photographer was more of a botanist working on the restoration site. We corresponded briefly and he was more interested in seeing what I came up with on this animal, so at this point it seems I am more the expert. And me a simple country doctor... ;) --Gaff (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Right then, looking pretty good. Couple of minor flow issues.....

::They are born toothless, blind and hairless; growing rapidly, the young are weaned at about six weeks of age. - might work better as "Born toothless, blind and hairless, the young grow rapidly before being weaned at about six weeks of age." ::: fixed elegant.

Link genera in body of text (I meant think the word "genera" but no biggie)
Already there, first sentence Taxonomy section: "There are six genera of North American pocket gophers: Cratogeomys, Geomys, Orthogeomys, Pappogeomys, Thomomys, and Zygogeomys."

support Otherwise I think we're there on comprehensiveness and prose. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review and support! --Gaff (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

HMS Nairana (1917)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 & Ian Rose

This vessel was designed as a passenger ship but was commandeered in mid-construction by the Royal Navy for service in World War I as an aircraft carrier. It subsequently saw action during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. After that it reverted to its originally intended role and served for three decades as a Bass Strait ferry in Australia. Its civil career included its fair share of excitement, when it came closer to sinking than at any time during its military service. There was also an amusing incident with a Tasmanian devil, which evoked visions of the classic Looney Tunes character for us. This article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and should meet all of the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 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) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article has been improved further since its ACR, and I've made some small tweaks which I hope are OK. I also have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "Nairana was returned to her former owners in 1921 to be refitted in her original planned configuration" - this is a little bit awkward - "Nairana was returned to her former owners in 1921, and was refitted to her original planned configuration" or similar perhaps?
  • "Nairana was not requisitioned for military service in the Second World War" - given that this is in the lead, perhaps note that she was the only Bass Strait ferry not to be requisitioned
  • "The launch had been delayed nine months, after the British Government ordered that all construction workers be pulled from non-military vessels" - perhaps note why here? (eg, the outbreak of war)
  • "The ship was nearly complete when requisitioned, although her propelling machinery was not yet installed, and only limited internal modifications, notably the addition of three large workshops, could be made" - I suspect that this would work better as two sentences (eg, "The ship was nearly complete when requisitioned, although her propelling machinery was not yet installed. As a result, only limited internal modifications - notably the addition of three large workshops - could be made")
  • "They were powered" - what the "they" refers to here isn't clear as the previous sentence mentions both the turbines and propellers
  • "A Tasmanian devil being transported to Melbourne Zoo in a wooden crate placed in one of the ship's four horse stalls escaped by chewing a hole through its box, and was never seen again" - do we know when this was?
  • "The ship underwent repairs at Williamstown, Victoria, after running aground in the Tamar River in 1943" - did another ship replace her on the Bass Strait run during this period? Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Nick, tks for stopping by. Don't have time to action tonight but the first four suggestions sound okay to me, the "They were powered" bit I might leave to Sturm, and the last two I'll double-check next time I'm in the Mitchell. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I've incorporated your suggestions, Nick, although I'm honestly not sure that readers need to be told exactly why workers were pulled off civilian construction given that the lede mentions that construction was suspended after the start of WWI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
        • It's obvious to you and I, but not necessarily to people who don't know the dates World War I took place between or what this involved for the shipbuilding industry ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Hi again Nick, no date with (I mean for!) the devil, and nothing about another boat taking over while Nairana was repaired in 1943 but it wasn't for very long so I've clarified that at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks Ian. I also had a look in Trove for stories about the Tasmanian devil, with no luck (though I did find an entertaining range of stories about other Tasmanian devils breaking free from cages over the years!). I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Damn, sorry, I should've mentioned I also looked in Trove before going to the Mitchell to check the book -- at least the search was entertaining, and tks for the support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Support just a few comments.
  • "and floatplanes" unless the wheeled aircraft were deployed from the floatplanes, I think this should be "as well as floatplanes"
  • But doesn't the "mix of" earlier in the sentence negate the need for this?
  • "Northern Dvina River in Russia" the "in Russia" hangs off the back of this sentence unnecessarily. I think it should be deleted.
  • " Kem, Russia. "similarly I see no need for the Russia. The reader was told where she was going, to North Russia, and there are references to her leaving Russia.
  • "after the war to be rebuilt ..." We're 2 1/2 years on from that. Perhaps say after her service in Russia.
Interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Good ideas, and we should have caught the redundant "in Russia" bits earlier. Not that I'm beating myself up about it or anything, but they just seem so obvious in retrospect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Tks Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Air Mata Iboe[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm back after about four months off, with Air Mata Iboe. This Fifi Young vehicle follows the tragic story of a mother who is left to find her own way after one of her adult sons is jailed and the other two do not support her. As usual for Indonesian films from this period, it's likely lost. The article isn't all that long, and with a little help from SchroCat the prose looks absolutely peachy — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, the edits all look good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a note: from the 20th to 25th I'll be in Purwokerto and may not have access to the internet. I'll reply to any comments when I return. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment, leaning support. Sounds like a real tearjerker. Just a few things.
  • "who raises her children attentively " this seems like faint praise for a mother who is plainly being portrayed positively. Perhaps "tenderly" or even, God forbid, "lovingly"?
  • I dare not damn anyone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "This possibly lost film was reviewed positively at the time, though later the director Tan Tjoei Hock claimed credit for finishing it." I don't understand the "though". The two items seem unrelated.
  • Consider mentioning that Young was both in this and in the remake.
  • "As the children grow, they marry and move away. Eventually only Soemadi is left." the short sentences make the prose choppy. Can the two sentences be combined?
  • "strikes up" it seems slangy and I wonder if it means the same thing in all EngVars.
  • " and find her own way, depending on the kindness of strangers. Years pass, and Soemadi returns from exile. Seeing his mother living in poverty" It sounds like she is hitting the road, yet when Soemadi sees her, it sounds more like she is at a fixed abode, otherwise I'd expect a word like "encounters"
  • "directed and written" "written and directed" feels more natural to me.
  • " Further roles" perhaps "Other roles"
  • "The film, which used make-up to make Fifi Young age into an old woman over the course of the film," suggest the films be merged.
Otherwise seems very well done as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you right kindly. I believe I've gotten everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Support well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review, Wehwalt! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Support - As per the nom above, I did an informal PR (no jacketsor ties were worn). I can see the further work hasstrengthened the article since then, and I'm happy to support this nom. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • No article/link for Majestic Film Company? Looks as if this would benefit from a few new stubs to link to.
    • Linked. I think I've got enough sources for a 3000-character article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Might want to add a footnote giving a brief description of Eid al-Fitr, unfamiliar to most western readers I've sure.
  • Disagree, as we've got an entire article for them to read if they're curious, and Eid is considerably better known than the other two topics below.
  • (no relation to Fred), Rd Ismail, Ali Sarosa, and Ali Joego.[5] Other roles were held by established singers of keroncong (traditional music with Portuguese influences) -I'd put both in brackets as footnotes.
  • Disagree on the Young note (the shared family name may cause confusion, and most readers gloss over the footnotes). Previous FAs have not footnoted the description keroncong, so I'm not really keen on doing that.
  • keroncong should be linked in the first instance not second.
  • Link Surabaya ?
  • Rd Ismail -is rd really his name or is it meant to be R. D.?
    • Rd is an abbreviation for Raden (a priyayi title), as in Rd Mochtar and Rd Ariffien. If I get around to writing an article on him (I think I have the sources) that would eliminate any confusion, but a footnote / gloss strikes me as overboard. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Footnote C I think might be in a section on music, but if it's just a list I guess not.
    • Yeah, just a list, hence why I didn't include it in the main body. Very much specialist information, and fairly listcrufty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for reviewing, Dr. B. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Given that it's on a "probably" lost film and not a terrific amount of material on it I think it's about as comprehensive as it's going to get. Not the strongest film article I've ever read but given the period and country it is impressive enough that you managed to write that. Good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dr. B. Sadly the period is very underdocumented, though (fortunately for Wikipedia) my RL work often relates to it. For instance, once this working paper is accepted for journal publication, we'll probably have enough to bring Saeroen to GA and maybe FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Tower House[edit]

Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC), KJP1, Gareth E Kegg

This article is about a Grade I listed French Gothic Revival style turreted house in Kensington, London, which was built by William Burges, a master Victorian architect. Built between 1875 and 1881, it was the residence of Burges before his death, and he hosted numerous parties at the house. After a period of neglect in the 1960s, it was restored and was purchased in 1972 by Jimmy Page, who has owned it ever since. The house was a real labour of love for Burges and some of the intricate detail he put into it was a fine example of his prowess and talent, not only as an architect, but as a furniture maker and jewel craftsman. Page himself has commented that he's still finding new things in the design work even today, such is the attention to detail. This has been extensively researched by myself, KJP and Gareth and we believe we've written a highly comprehensive article on the subject which does it justice. After a very thorough peer review we feel this is now ready. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

Not Done. Need help, Dr.
If you set them at default they'll be out of proportion. I think they're fine as they are.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
But out of proportion for whom? What looks fine on your screen can look terrible (or better) on others'—one reason not to micromanage image sizes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Burges described the house as a "model residence of the thirteenth century" and the architectural historian J. Mordaunt Crook considered it to be "the most complete example of a medieval secular interior produced by the Gothic Revival and the last". More recently, James Stourton describes it as "the most singular of London houses, even including the Soane Museum".: This reads more like ad copy than an overview of the subject. I would expect a description of the house before this sort of thing, anyways.
I'm uncertain. I can certainly take some/all of them out but I think they are supported by the main text. As importantly, they try to explain why the house is so notable and more "singular" than Soane's is quite a claim. Shall we see what others think.
I said yesterday that I think it's best to avoid three quotes in the lede and somebody might pick up on it. I'll try to alter it now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to explain—it's not a matter of whether the text supports it, but whether it's helpful at this scope in orienting the reader to the subject. It seemed to me that a lot of text was getting in the way of getting to the point, which is describing what the house was. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Two of the three distracting quotes have now been removed. I should have removed them myself earlier when the Dr. suggested it. Hope the lede works now. KJP1 (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hoping the lede is now acceptable to all. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • More recently, James Stourton describes: how recent is "recently"?
  • Although he continued to finalise earlier projects, William Burges received no further major commissions after 1875.: this is so abrupt as to be disorienting. Who is Burges? what happened in 1875? "major commissions" refers to what? I realize some of these details are in the lead, but the lead is supposed to summarize the body—and these details are not in the body.
Done - I hope.
  • The house provided a suitable backdrop for his gregarious nature.; his beloved dogs: I wouldn't oppose over this, but I'm not sure this is encyclopaedic wording
Done and Done.
  • Does some of which refer to Dandie, Bogie and Pinkie specifically, or to his beloved dogs in general?
  • in the tomb he had designed for his mother: was he buried with his mother?
Done - by removal. Crook doesn't say. His mother is obscure, I can't even find her name.
  • describing his purchase as the "biggest gift I've ever given myself": this kind of wording grates against my ears: he called it "biggest gift I've ever given myself". I'd reword either to make it explicit that the quote is a quote, or paraphrase it.
Done - by paraphrasing.
  • The same with that "It was a strange building and had eerie murals painted on the ceiling ... I sensed evil". and commented that he "wanted Burges to be proud of us"—"that" introduces it as a subordinate clause, not as a quotation, so the switch in pronouns is unexpected and disorienting.
Done - by removal.
  • a little beetle on the wall or something like that, it's Burges's attention to detail that is so fascinating: that's a comma splice, which I think is safe to fix even in a quotation.
Not Done. Sorry, don't understand "comma splice". Can you clarify.
I fixed this by swapping out the comma for a semi-colon, which I think is allowable under the doctrine of minimal change. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
So Done.
  • the structure and fabric: what does "the fabric" mean in this context?
Done - by removal.
  • 50 ft by 50 feet (15 m) square, (2500 square feet): no {{convert}} for the 2500 square feet?
DoneDr. Blofeld 18:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • wearing a tunic powdered with letters: I'm having trouble visualizing this
Not Done. Can't bloody find it. Ah, Mercury. It'll be a pun on his being "messenger of the gods". Can I leave.
Well, I wouldn't oppose over it, but it's not the most helpful description. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Now DONE. By removal. It's not essential and if it confuses, it's better out.
  • with walls lined with bookcases: the library, or the depiction of the Tower of Babel?
  • "parts of speech, noun, verb, preposition"; "systems of theology and law": quotes require attribution—but why is these quoted? It seems reading further that these aren't quoting someone, but are representing the themes themselves—but they read as quotations. Perhaps put them in italics instead?
  • "most celebrated of all Burges's jokes": the joke went over my head
It's a "dropped" h - 'urricanes 'ardly 'appen
Can the joke be explained in a footnote or something at least? The rebels and colonials are less likely to get it without 'elp. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Take the point - I shall get advice on a footnote.
Well, the footnote leaves my head scratching. The link's great—but the quote defending it's use? and seemingly atributing it to Cockney? I'd also like to see it more explicit—something like "In Burges's time a "dropped aitch" — as in 'Enry 'Iggins for Henry Higgins — was socially taboo." Although I'm not sure if even "socially taboo" is necessary—I might go with something like "This refers to the "dropped aitch" — as in 'Enry 'Iggins for Henry Higgins — in many British English dialects." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hoping this is ok?
Not really—the quote in particular seems out of nowhere. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The Dr. has removed the quote - are we good now? KJP1 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "tall stories [being] part of the dining room rite": attribution required
  • while the ceiling is of "sheet-metal": not literally sheet metal? Why is this quoted?
Done'ish. - it is apparently sheet metal. But you're right, it doesn't need quotes.
  • supposedly to appease Betjeman's wife Penelope: who did the "supposing"? Is it disputed?
  • James Stourton describing its early twentieth-century history as "a paradigm of the reputation of the Gothic Revival": I don't understand—is this quote telling us how the house was ignored?
Yes - he's saying the neglect and decline of the house mirrored the decline in the reputation of Victorian Gothic architecture. OK to leave?
Well, I wasn't asking for it to be removed—but the way it' sintroduced it comes off almost as a non sequitur. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Done, I hope. GA also found it confusing and I think I'd made it so by trying to link Burges's reputation with the fate of the house. I hope it is clearer now.
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I notice someone changed {{convert|0.3|mi}} to {{convert|0.48|km}}. It pretty much defeats the purpose of the template to hand-covert miles to km and then use the template to convert back to miles. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about this. Will take advice.
If the intention was to switch the order of the distances, this can be achieved with {{convert|0.3|mi|order=flip}}. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this is done now. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it's still the same. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey:, what section are we talking about here? Or do you want all distances with flip in it?
Sorry, I misunderstood—I didn't realize the source was Google Maps. I thought it was an Imperial number from a text source that you guys had converted to metric and then put in a {{convert}} to convert back to Imperial. Sorry for the confusion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • - to dinner with the wine served from decanters of "barbarous opulence" to his own designs,: I think something went wrong here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Done - I hope.
  • There's a harv error with Callan 2003—is it supposed to have been used somewhere? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorted. I think it's from the time when "The biggest present I've ever given to myself" was a direct quote. KJP1 (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Curly for your input!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • I'm no fan of citations in a lead, but I think the direct quotations from Burges, Crook and Stourton need them here, even the Crook one which is repeated and cited in the main text. See WP:CITELEAD.
There's a debate on the lede quotations. Would you prefer them out?
I added the cite to Crook. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Done now, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "suffered significant vandalism" – what did the vandalism signify?
The most significant loss was the figure of Fame from the Dining Room chimneypiece. The statue of a boy with a hawk also went. Should I put a detail in?
Done. Added a mention of the loss of Fame.
Oh, I see what you mean. Done by removal.
  • Location and setting
    • "no fewer than six Royal Academicians" – a touch of WP:EDITORIAL?
  • Design, construction and craftsmanship
    • not sure we need link "marble".
  • Betjeman to Turnbull – 1962 to 1969
    • "Country Life" – meaning, I take it, the magazine found in dentists' waiting rooms. If so it should be italicised and linked.
  • "Lady Turnbull undertook a program of restoration" – two points here. "Lady Turnbull" is wrong. It is exactly like calling Prince Charles's first wife "Lady Spencer". The daughter of an earl is Lady Forename Surname. I suggest "She" at second mention and "Turnbull" at third. The second point is that you have misspelled programme. In the Queen's English the American spelling is reserved for computer-speak (though I have a horrible foreboding that the infection will spread to other uses of the word.)
Done and Done.
  • Drawing room
    • "Charles Handley-Read, the first scholar of the twentieth century ..." – both the link and the description would be better in the previous section, at the first mention of his name.
  • First floor
    • Is the sub-header strictly accurate? The text covers not only the first floor but also the garret.
  • Plan
    • A most impressive addition since I last read the article. One tiny point: the key says "Guest's bedroom", which would probably be better as either "Guests' bedroom" (there were two washstands, after all) or just "Guest room" as in the text above.
Done - as "guest room". The plan is good, isn't it. Hchc2009 did the honours.
  • Architectural coverage
  • "Country Life" – needs italics, and the title of the article arguably should be in quotes rather than italicised.
Done and Done.
  • "subject of a master's thesis by Helen Adkins" – there isn't really any evidence from a WP:RS that this thesis exists. Giving its title as a footnote doesn't get us anywhere with WP:VERIFIABLE.
      • Appreciate the point. But following an approach from Gerda, I've had a long message on my talkpage from the author which does contain a lot of useful information. I'm just not sure how to get it in.
        • If there is a lot of good stuff inadmissible under WP:VER and WP:OR it can usefully go on the article talk page, where readers can have the benefit while heeding the health warning. I looked in at your talk page and took my hat off to Ms Adkins – what a star! Tim riley talk 20:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Addressed in relation to the article. Will deal with the Talkpage later. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "London 3: North West" – could do with a citation and page numbers.
  • References need a bit of polishing:
    • the Callan book lacks hyphens for the ISBN (978-1-86105-766-2)
  • Export of Objects of Cultural Interest 2010/11 – the author is not HMSO, but The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest (see here)
  • the Handley-Read refs are in a cite book template, which isn't ideal for magazine articles: it mucks up the italicisation of article title vis-à-vis publication title.
Not Done. Don't know how to address this.
I think I fixed this by citing to journal and adding italics for the magazine title. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
So, Done.
  • Osband – I don't see the point of giving an access date for a book with its own full publication date
  • Stamp & Amery lack an ISBN altogether. (978-0-85139-500-5 is what you want)

That's all from me. The article has come on apace since the peer review and I look forward to adding my support for its promotion once the minor points, above, are attended to. – Tim riley talk 10:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I believe the points have all been addressed now, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Support with great pleasure. A most enjoyable article. Tim riley talk 09:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Tim - really glad you liked it and hugely appreciate your Support - particularly as I know that, deep down, you're with the critic who wrote; "the over ornate homes (with) fantastic ornamentation that made the hideous Victorian Gothic buildings of the period even more hideous...." Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, many thanks Tim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Excellent collaborative work! Only minor observations:

Gerda - very much appreciate your Support and your interest in the article. KJP1 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead
"Designed in the French Gothic Revival style, it was designated a Grade I listed building in 1949." This combines two things which seem unrelated to me. Follow three "considered", before the reader gets more facts, - consider that also, please.
I have no idea what you mean! If you're unfamiliar read Gothic Revival and Listed building! What does "Follow three "considered", before the reader gets more facts" mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Trying harder:
I think the designation as a Grade I building has nothing to do with the style, therefore I would not combine the two things in one sentence.
I agree, so the version I last edited the other day. I'd rather state Grade I listed at the beginning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Done - I hope this works for everyone.
The other point was fixed since I saw it first. New:
"particularly the McConnochie House in Cardiff and Castell Coch and Cardiff Castle." - Is the double "and" intended?
Done. No it wasn't. Removed.
"The house was inherited by his brother-in-law, Richard Popplewell Pullan, who had married Burges's sister, Mary." - seems a bit redundant to say that someone who married the sister is a brother-in-law.
  • Location ...
Strange to have one distance in metric but not the other.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"Art colony" to lead?
Sorry - not sure what is meant here. Can you clarify.
Short for: is it worth mentioning in the lead that there was this art colony, - for perspective?
Can't quite see how to fit this in the lead. OK to leave it? KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Design ...
"The pair also ..." seems strange after the previous sentence talked about their single achievements.
  • Burges and after – 1878 to 1962
I don't like the header, sorry, don't know what "and after" is supposed to say.
Me neither, it's been changed around a lot lately. KJP?
Done. Any better?
I don't think we need the hint of Main article Burges, - people had chances to find that.
"Elsewhere he kept his large collections ..." - elsewhere?
  • Exterior
In the quote box: if we have to say who "he" is, it should be on the first occurrence.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"In contrast to the typical style of houses on the Holland Estate, the cultural historian Caroline Dakers writes ..." - I don't think her writing is in contrast, rather that she writes about the contrast.
"At the Tower House the staircase is consigned", - if we really need to repeat the name, a comma might help.
Surprised to see the designation here, - history?
Madonna and child? Madonna and Child?
  • First floor ...
"the Red Bed (his own)" - a bit strange
  • Architectural ...
"The house, and its creator, were then largely ignored, James Stourton describing the house's early twentieth-century history as "a paradigm of the reputation of the Gothic Revival"" - had to read three times and still not sure what it means.
Done, I hope. You weren't the first to struggle over this sentence!

Thank you all for good reading, good luck with it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Gerda, very many thanks for your very helpful comments. Much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Rationalobserver, whilst you mean well, I really do think you should leave the fixing to the nominators. Cheers. CassiantoTalk 23:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It's OK Cass, there's so much to get through below that anybody helping is most welcome from my perspective anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hear, hear! KJP1 (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for many improvements! I Suggest to include the floorplan, rather at the beginning of Interior.
Dare not moved this as I'll mess up the layout. Will leave to others if the consensus is to move it. KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Clarify: I don't mean move, I mean bring the floor plan of only the ground floor early. Some people prefer prose, others plans and structured information. I would like to see a floor plan early in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That's the very best I can do. Trying to split the plan into sections is waaaaaaaaaaaay beyond my capabilities. That said, I do think it looks better there. Others may not. KJP1 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I like that better than before, but it wasn't quite what I meant, English is difficult. If you click on the link to floorplan above, you find a different, more detailed one, and I would imagine THAT where it fits best, with the description of the ground floor, while the complete set could stay more in the back, for the enthusiasts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Repeating: is there a good reason not to use the detailed floor plan (linked above) for the ground floor in the context of the ground floor, leaving the complete set for later as is was before? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The most complete example of a medieval secular interior produced by the Gothic Revival, and the last." This is in a quote box, which is in layout conflict with images, + I don't think it's a good quote, - how can revival produce medieval? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't comment on the layout but I think it is quite a good quote. What he is saying is - the Gothic Revival produced a lot of "imitations/copies/fakes/recreations" of medieval interiors and, of all of them, the Tower House was the best and the last. It goes to the notability of the Tower House, as does the Stourton quote about it being the most "singular" house in London, even including the Soane Museum. I'd rather it remained but very willing, of course, to see what others think. KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If people agree it's a good quote I think it should go to a different section, not "First floor and garret". I could see it in "Architectural coverage", while I think the image there might appear sooner, showing Burges as the inspiration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, reluctant to move it myself. Can someone else if it's agreed it should move. KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Would you be willing to support if the quote was removed from the lede? I do see a problem with the repetition of Gothic Revival currently actually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This is fine, I see that it was moved from the quote box in a floor section to the lede, which is better, because it's a general remark, not floor-related, and it's understandable in context. - One point above, though,

@Gerda Arendt: I've placed the ground floor plan in a see also in the main plan, couldn't find a place to display it without it looking cluttered. OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean by "see also in the main plan". I still think to have the plan of four levels (main plan?) would be better later, but the detailed one, hinting at the complex ceiling structure (and not yet in the article or I didn't find it), better where the floor is described, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Clearly you have no intention of supporting this so I think we'd best leave it at that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Please strike intention-reading ;) - I am asking (for a while now) why a floor plan which shows the complexity of the building better than the simple Main plan is not taken? Perhaps one of the other nominators can answer that rather simple question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The Plan section features a plan of all the floors and a key, which in my opinion is a superior image as it covers all of the floors. The ground floor plan would look too cluttered if we also added it and not as good as the other if we replaced it. I've added See also Ground floor plan image in that section so readers can have the best of both worlds with a labeled plan of the ground floor too. Is this not good enough for you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
English is a difficult language. I said "I don't see what you mean by "see also in the main plan"." - You start mind reading ;) - instead of saying that you added it in the caption of the other plan. NOW I found it, hope future readers will see it more easily, - I missed it without explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

When you said "I don't see what you mean by "see also in the main plan" I didn't know quite what to make of it as I thought you'd be watching the article and would have seen it! OK, thanks for your support anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

  • Any reason you've chosen to make the shortened footnote read "Handley-Read – Burlington." rather than "Handley-Read 1963."? After all, the two Handley-Read sources are publication-year distinguishable, and you cite the other one conventionally. While we're at it, since these look like periodicals, any chance of pagination information for either or both?
Changed to Handley-Read 1963, but I'm not sure about the pagination. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Done - page numbers added for both the Burlington and Country Life articles.
Ideally, the actual bibliographic entry for articles in periodicals includes the full page-range of that article, but I'm not going to consider that actionable; what you've got here is good enough if someone really wants to track these down. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If I'm reading it correctly, that Arts Council document has an author and a (publication?) date: Frances Collard and 19 May 2010, respectively. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that Arts Council should instead be Arts Council England, and ... I have no idea what this document is. This feels like the sort of thing that might have been part of something longer in its print format, or at least be assigned some sort of bureaucratic document number. But I guess we work with what we have?
  • I have absolutely no idea what note 64 (the "Accession number" entry) is, but I have to assume this isn't a complete bibliographical entry for it.
Done, by removal. KJP1 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems that the reference currently at #69 is a thesis paper? Frankly, I'm not sure that an unpublished Master's thesis is worth mentioning at all. Elsewhere in the project, doctoral theses are sometimes viewed as acceptable source material, depending on the context, with lesser papers not so much so. If you are determined to keep this, the citation must be formatted better than this. Perhaps explore the murky world of {{cite thesis}}? It looks to be in German, so make sure that's noted.
Done. I've removed this as advised that, being unpublished, it can't be verifiable. But on the article's Talkpage, I shall post the very valuable information kindly provided by the author of the thesis as it would be a great pity not to make it available. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I am a huge anti-fan of "Further Reading" sections in general, but I would not object in the least to its inclusion in one here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Noted - thanks.
  • Page number for the Davies citation?
A problem. I don't have this book. I'll see what I can find. KJP1 (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm stumped here as I don't have it and can't find it. I could remove it as it isn't essential, but it is quite helpful, I think, for the sources on the house to be as comprehensive as possible. Can you live without page numbers? KJP1 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is a problem at this point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "the names of the individuals and firms who undertook work at the house": This is the third undertaken/undertook in the article. Perhaps just "who worked at the house" (or possibly "on the house"), although you'll then need to reword the next sentence to avoid redundancy?
I've reworded one differently to both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Problem persists. First one is in the lead ("construction undertaken by the Ashby Brothers"), then the previous paragraph ("were undertaken in July 1875"), then this one ("firms who undertook work"). There are two more later in. There are generally a lot of synonymous ways to make these statements, and it's the sort of word that stands out (at least to this American reader) when used repeatedly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
We are talking about the first section of history right? I see absolutely no problem with what's given and it doesn't read repetitively to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It occurs to me that this might be an ENGVAR issue. You use undertake in some form five times in the article as a whole. Now, that's a perfectly good word, but not one I'd expect to see at that density. Is it simply more commonly used for "getting things started" in the UK? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Done - I hope, by changing three "undertake/undertook"s. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Catching a chill while overseeing work at Cardiff, Burges returned, half paralysed, to the Tower House where he lay dying for some three weeks.": As the Internet says, "That escalated quickly." Also, as its acting as a single adjective here, "half-paralysed". And, finally, there's an errant extra space between the closing period and the reference.
I rearranged the sentences to preserve chronological order. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Chronology is fixed; other problems are not, including that extra space after "weeks." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Removed the extra space ([13]). Rationalobserver (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the Ilchester Estate mentioned by Handley-Read the same "agents" discussed by Betjeman and Green? If not, then the Handley-Read setenced needs to be reworded, because currently it implies that these various people are just ascribing different motivations to the same group. For that matter, if the house was constructed on the lands of the Earl of Ilchester, is that something germane to the Location and setting section, way earlier in the article?
  • Upon second look, I see that the Earl is indeed mentioned in the History section, so to some extent the last part of this objection is satisfied (although I'm still tempted to say it would provide a historical context for the Location bit). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Have tried to tighten this up. Really need to know when the JB letter was written but don't. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cork Cathedral is a duplicate link, as it is a piped link to Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral, first used in the History section. Also, the piping is confusing here. Since this cathedral was first introduced by another name, a casual reader cannot know that Burges's first major comission is the one being referred to here.
Removed the duplicate link. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I still think there needs to be a way to let a reader known that this is the same building talked about earlier, either by calling it "also known as Cork Cathedral" on the first appearance (or something like that) or by calling it by its formal name here. I really didn't realize it was the same thing until I investigated why my duplicate link detector was pinging. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, so I've added the suggested clarifier ([14]), but that now makes two "Corks" close to each other. I hope that's okay. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I've also cited it. I think C.H-R was referring to both doors. The exact quote reads "The bronze doors in the hall, for instance, are similar to doors at Cork Cathedral." KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Back up at the top of History, where Saint Fin Barre's is glossed as Cork Cathedral, might I suggest this slight rewording to move the Corks a little further apart: "The architect William Burges gained his first major commission in 1863 at the age of 35, Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral in Cork, also known as Cork Cathedral."? Or something along those lines, I don't pretend this to be perfect either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That's much better. Done ([15]). Rationalobserver (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Are the "founders of systems of theology and law" metaphorical, or are these depictions of historical personnages? If the later, I think the phrase shouldn't be italicized, as it would be literal (and, if available, it'd be nice to know who).
Done - I hope. I've given the exact Crook naming of the figures.
I don't think the list needs to be in quotation marks, as it conveys no opinion; regardless of who said it, those are the figures. But it's not hurting anything this way, either, I suppose. I might have "lawyers and theologians" but I suspect ENGVAR is at work there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I really don't think the Crook quote being used as a pullquote here is significant or exciting enough to earn that position. I'd relegate it to prose in the Architectural coverage section, were it up to me.
Care to tell me which quote and what section specifically Squeamish Ossifrage?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
"The most complete example...", the same one as in the lead. It's not that I think it's a bad quote, or anything! I'd use it, too, were I writing this. I'm just unsure about it's placement as 1) a pullquote and 2) where it is in the article. Isn't this pretty much the definition of architectural coverage? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Text squish is a reason for my concern. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The rate and quality of improvement being made to this article has been impressive and worthy of my sincere admiration. The reference issues and inconsistent furniture descriptions are the most serious remaining problems, I think, and the ones that are most directly actionable shortcomings with regard to non-"brilliant prose" criteria. At this point, I'm withdrawing my objection to promotion, but I'd like to see especially those addressed (or at least examined, if otherwise impossible) before I can consider formal support. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. I have gone through the article capitalizing the names of pieces of furniture where they are specific items, e.g. the Zodiac Settle. Where they are non-specific, e.g. bronze table, I haven't. This follows the style of both Crook and Handley-Read, the most authoritative writers on Burges's furniture. I hope this works for you and shall go back and do a further check to make sure I've caught them all. Then I will look at the citations. I've hope I've also addressed your two outstanding concerns re. the decoration in the Library - see above. KJP1 (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been an admittedly hard judge here, and I'd like to thank Dr. Blofeld, KJP1, and Rationalobserver for humoring (wait, ENGVAR!) humouring my concerns. I would like to see something done with the "Accession number" reference, because it's really not a proper citation as it stands (I still don't know what it is). Otherwise, although I believe there's still a little bit of polish to be done, I am happy to support promotion. It is well-earned. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Squeamish for your input and support, we got there eventually!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As the Dr. says, really appreciate your efforts and your support. I intend to remove what is now Reference 67, the "Accession number" reference. We can't identify it and, as importantly, it's not necessary as Reference 62 confirms that the table in question is located at the Birmingham City Art Gallery. I think this addresses your remaining concern. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Indopug[edit]

  • The "Piece, date and location" column should be split into three or four columns, and each furniture item should have its own row (use rowspan). The table currently looks cluttered with too much going on in one column (defeating the purpose of using a table in the first place).
Done - by someone far more adept with the tools than I, and very good it looks. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think Architectural coverage should have the subsection Footnotes? (though you could just drop the subsection altogether by incorporating the footnote into the main text in a parenthesis)
Perfectly appropriate, and I believe in response to another viewer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem here isn't that you have a Footnotes section, it's that it is currently a === subsection under "Architectural coverage", when it should be a ==-level section like Notes and References (especially given that it's not a footnote to the section it's currently nested under). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Mea culpa on that one: sorry! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
How terrible! All sorted now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Image placement and sizing could be better. Far too often the text is sandwiched between images (or quote boxes/templates). Below Exterior and design there's a huge white space on my screen.
Can't help with the layout, unfortunately. Beyond my paygrade. But the article's had some rearranging. Does it look ok now? KJP1 (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do the coordinates need to appear twice? (infobox + top of the article)
Yes, because that's the way the infobox is programmed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The prose could be simplified. The house provided a suitable backdrop for entertaining his "range of friends run[ning] the whole gamut of Pre-Raphaelite London" – to dinner with the wine served from decanters of "barbarous opulence", or to tea in the garden, with the tea poured from pots shaped like a pomegranate or a fish is a mouthful. So is the article's very first sentence.
Trimmed as it's in the history.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Some sentences are very confusing. The book contains a large number of photographs of the interior of the house by Francis Beford made me think "what Frank Bedford house?". The next sentence is ungrammatical too; it should be changed to "The house was then largely ignored; James Stourton described the house's its..."
Yes, I don't agree Indopug.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The sentence could easily be changed to The book contains a large number of photographs by Francis Beford of the house's interior so that even somebody with my admittedly suspect literacy wouldn't be confused.
Have tried to simplify it. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"The house was then largely ignored, James Stourton describing the house's..." is correct grammar, really? Even if so it reads awkwardly (especially with the repetitive "house") and would be better the way I changed it above.

indopug (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, have tried to simplify. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary "the": the popstar David Bowie, The cultural historian Caroline Dakers, the American entertainer Liberace and so on.
    • This is anything but unnecessary in good English. The anarthrous nominal premodifier (a.k.a. the false title) is, we know, accepted in American usage, but scrupulous English writers eschew it and leave it as the domain of tabloid newspapers. Tim riley talk 19:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Excessive use of "Burges" and "house" (often several times within a single sentence) can be reduced by replacing with pronouns.
    • Having read indopug's comments I should say this is the one in which he/she raises a point worth following up. I admit I didn't spot repeated nouns that could be pronouns, but one does (or at least I do) sometimes miss the chance to improve the flow of one's prose on those lines, and I'll run an eye over this article again with that in mind. Tim riley talk 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • After a fourth reading(!) Perhaps "another of Burges's passions: a fondness for opium", "Burges's inspirations were French Gothic" and "The frontages come from the other townhouse Burges designed" could benefit from replacing the surname with a pronoun. "House" crops up passim but I can find only one borderline case where "it" might be preferable, and I'd leave the noun unmolested. Tim riley talk 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"fourth reading(!)"—I dare say that right there is the problem Tim. You've grown far too close and attached to the text. You're easily able to find errors in my quickly made comments, but don't see the repetitive words in "Burges's brother-in-law, Richard Popplewell Pullan, extensively described the house in the second of two works he wrote about Burges, The House of William Burges, A.R.A" or "The house was then largely ignored, James Stourton describing the house's early twentieth-century decline", or the obvious ambiguity of "The book contains a large number of photographs of the interior of the house by Francis Beford".—indopug (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll remove a few.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I've also sought to prune the "Burges" and "house" repetitions. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't fault the research, but even from a glance it's clear that the prose and visual presentation of the article needs improvement.—indopug (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

With the greatest possible respect, I should be cautious about heeding strictures on matters of prose from anyone who thinks two nouns take a singular verb as in "the prose and visual presentation of the article needs…" Verbum sat. Tim riley talk 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
And with the greatest possible respect, I would suggest that what this article needs is an through copyedit from somebody looking at it with fresh eyes, not a backs-to-the-wall defence against the hordes of the great unwashed.—indopug (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The article was thoroughly read, reviewed and copyedited by some of the most productive featured articles contributors on wikipedia Indopug, including Tim, Brianboulton, Wehwalt, Cassianto, SchroCat and a few others who have over 100 FAs between them. If there were serious problems with the prose they'd have said so during the peer review. Sure, I welcome anybody to further read and edit it and comment, but your "needs fresh eyes" as if nobody competent has read it and only the article writers have edited it is not true. It's already had at least 10 pairs of "fresh eyes" looking at it, how many do you want? The only issue with the prose I can see is in places perhaps where quoting by the likes of Crook is given and might be paraphrased or reworded to improve the flow a little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I can, quite fairly, be accused of being too close to the text and I'm grateful to you, and to Squeamish Ossifrage, for your detailed comments. I think, however, that they can be satisfactorily addressed and I shall attempt to do so by the weekend. Best regards, KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope your concerns regarding the prose have been satisfactorily addressed and I greatly appreciate the help that has been given. I'm absolutely no expert on image sizing or placement within Wikipedia but others appear to think they are ok now. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofield, the extensive copyediting the article has received after I made my comments vindicates my stand. It is indeed much better now, and I have no objections to its becoming FA.—indopug (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. I was indeed too close to the text to note the many repetitions of "Burges" and "Tower House". KJP1 (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There are far too many "The Tower House"s when "the house" or even "it" would suffice otherwise it is very interesting. (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Very glad the article is of interest.KJP1 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Have pruned more "Burges" and "The Tower House" mentions.KJP1 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou SchroCat and for your comments during the peer review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Anything missed?

Dr. Blofeld - I've gone back through all the comments and, beyond some differing views regarding general layout, the positioning of a quotebox, and the size of images, I can't see anything that hasn't been addressed. So, what have I missed? KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Can't see anything, but Squeamish is better equipped to comment on that!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you head back over to The Ritz and I'll hang around here. I've forgotten - do we request "image" and "citation" checks or do the FAC people arrange this? KJP1 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm out of things to pick on. As I've checked several of the sources against the text along the way, the delegates may consider my contributions to have also included a source check. I am explicitly not an expert at the intricacies of image licensing, but I saw no problems in a quick image check either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I've looked carefully through the article and found it well presented with all pertinent details of the building and its owners. It makes interesting reading and highlights one of London's most striking private residences.--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou Ipigott, glad you found it interesting!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support -- on PR fixes and resolved comments here. An interesting article on an important building. CassiantoTalk 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Cheers Cass for the support and input.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Leaning to support. I was one of several reviewers who made copious comments at the PR stage. The article has changed considerably since then, because of the large amount of work done at this FAC stage, mostly to its benefit. One of the downsides of so many reviewers is the number of issues, frequently trivial, often contradictory, that confront the nominators, who have to satisfy a range of opinions. I congratulate the nominators for the equable and responsive way they have handled the avalanche of suggestions handed to them here, with hardly a hint of impatience. I have made a few minor edits to the article, and have a few outstanding points for consideration:

  • The quotation in the lead: "the most complete example of a medieval secular interior produced by the Gothic Revival and the last" is clearly missing a comma after "revival", otherwise it makes no sense. Perhaps it was missing in the original; even so, it should be inserted here. We are not obliged to repeat the mistakes of our sources, and this is not worth the bother of a "sic".
Done. The error was mine, not the esteemed Professor Crook's and is now corrected. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Conversions: the conversion of metres to feet is fine when dealing with measurements – of a room, say – but looks very odd when applied to distances, especially for as long as 1,600 feet. We just don't "do" this sort of distance in feet. I'm not sure what the answer is here; if you remove the feet conversion, some busybody is bound to insist it be restored. My suggestion is to rewrite the sentence, getting rid of the 100 metres conversion entirely, and using a different conversion template for the 500m. Thus: "The Tower House is on a corner of Melbury Road, just north of Kensington High Street and some 500 metres (0.31 mi) due northeast of Kensington (Olympia) station..." etc.
Done. I've just taken the measurements out. I don't think they will actually be of use to anyone and they, and the conversions, did clutter things up. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Image use: There are lots of images in the article, to the point where there is significant clutter. Looking at the image in the "Exterior and design" section, this is so similar to the lead image as to be almost indistinguishable. Its placement opposite a long quote box leads to considerable text squeezing. I'd recommend losing the image, or the box, though in this case the box is more useful than the image.
Done - by losing the image. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In this same section, the house is described both as "massive" and "not large", which is confusing to readers. But what is meant by "not large"? What is the standard being applied – Buckingham Palace? We are told that the floor plan provides approximately 2,500 feet of floor space – but there are two principal floors, a basement and an attic. I make that at least 8,500 in all, which is ENORMOUS for a private house in this country, the equivalent of about 8 pre-war suburban semis. So I strongly advise you lose the subjective "not large", and say something like: "With a floor plan of about 50 ft by 50 feet (15 m) square,[34] 2,500 square feet (230 m2) on three floors, Burges went about its construction on a grand scale."
Done. I see what you mean. I actually think "massive" is used here in the sense of "having bulk (mass)", rather than big, but it was confusing. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Again for clutter-avoidance reasons, I recommend you lose the quote box in the "First floor" section. It isn't worth overcrowding the main text for this.
Done. By losing the quote box - which incidentally did have the comma. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to receiving your responses, and to moving to full support thereafter. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Really appreciate your further suggestions and continued interest in the article. I very much agree that the FAC has improved it, as the PR did before. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
That's all fine. I will nonetheless wait a little longer before my declaration, as I see that points and suggestions are still coming in (below) It's unlikely they will change my overall view, but I want to be sure. Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Support: I see no further issues raised that justify witholding of full support from this article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Brian. Thanks for your excellent comments during the review and edits too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Simon Burchell[edit]

Just reading through now, will make comments as I go. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • In the lead, Golden Bed in linked and Red Bed is not. Since Golden Bed appears noteworthy, I assume that Red Bed would be equally noteworthy, so it is worth redlinking. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have an article that's why!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Which is precisely why it should be redlinked... Simon Burchell (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done - as a blue link. KJP1 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well done! Simon Burchell (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a miserable Stub but we can work it up when we're done with FAC comments on this! KJP1 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The article describes Danny La Rue as British, but his article describes him as Irish, born in Cork. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done - by removal. I don't think his nationality is critical. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done - I think. Thank heavens someone else appears to have fixed it - I'm a menace when let loose on those conversion tables. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Afraid not - 2nd paragraph... Simon Burchell (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Now Done, I truly hope. KJP1 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done - indeed, they could have been stethoscopes or scalpels. KJP1 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "him as Architect standing" - any particular reason why Architect is in italics? It looks weird. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Done - perhaps? What it is trying to say is that Burges, as Architect, is the A from the Alphabet frieze which decorates the room. Is this any better? KJP1 (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Not really, I would say it needs the explanation you have just given here, or something similar. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this works better. KJP1 (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The hyperlinks from the references could really do with archiveurl/archivedate parameters to prevent WP:Linkrot. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Afraid I just don't know how to do this, but the good Dr. will. KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry about this too much, I'm working through it now. It seems all the links are to Google Books, which I would hope is a stable website - still, you never know. For future reference, plug a web address into Wayback Machine here, and if the page has been archived it will give you the option of a saved version. As it happens, nothing I've done so far was pre-archived, so I'm archiving it as I go. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I shall save these and try to remember them for future reference. But, as the Dr. knows only too well, I have a bad habit of forget wikipedia editing tips and tools. KJP1 (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, since these are all book sources, I think I will just remove the archiveurls I put in - everything is in print anyway; the tool is better for dynamic sources on the web. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Thanks for your patience and perseverance, and your rapid responses, - it's a fine article, and the building sounds fascinating. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Really appreciate your comments and Support. It is a fascinating building and merits FA status. Thank you very much for moving it on. KJP1 (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thankyou Simon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from We hope and on images[edit]

Support I first became aware of this wonderful property after I was asked to help with interior photos. I was fascinated by it and by the man who "dreamed" and built it. A lot of work has gone into it and I think this is a first-quality effort by one and all. We hope (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers We hope, and thanks for the images! A pity we don't have an abundance of colour interior photos of every room though, some days perhaps Jimmy Page will kindly upload some!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you help with the Stourton book? Or with the Matthew Williams? I don't know any other recent photographic excusions into Mr Page's elusive but enchanting house. I should love to see inside, but doubt I will. Am most grateful for your support for the article. KJP1 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I helped find non-watermarked photos from the Pulian book and ran across a larger copy of the exterior illustration from The Building News. I'd also love to see the inside but like you, I don't think I'll be able to either. We need to cultivate some new friends like Jimmy Page! :-) Recently I saw that the US Library of Congress does have a copy of the Pulian book but sadly, it hasn't been scanned to be online. They offer some photos of pages and scans of them but by the time you get done paying their fees, you'd be better off either trying to buy a copy or taking a trip to a library that has scanned it. Copies of non-scanned items are US$30 per page wanted. We hope (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is impossible. After a very long search, I got a very good quality A3 copy of The Architectural Designs of William Burges from the British Library store in Wetherby. And now I am waiting for the V&A to finalise their digitalisation of The House of William Burges which is imminent and, on completion, they will send me a copy. But neither would beat being mates with Jimmy Page and getting an invite! KJP1 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe the encyclopedic value of having detailed coverage of interior images in colour would be immense. In the commons we should have a category for each room and closeups of the detail on lots of the furnishings. Jimmy Page seems to be a Burges fan and is also enthusiastic about his work. I think he'd be interested in photographing it and sharing it, but then again he might want to keep it private. If he wants to show off the genius of Burges though I can't think of a better way to do so. Does he have a twitter account? Perhaps somebody here on Twitter could try to get hold of him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone in his position can afford not to be on Twitter and Facebook. We hope (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Not on either so cannot possibly comment. KJP1 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I've emailed his site, I really hope they'll see the potential in this, fingers crossed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Support Had my say at the peer review. Gilding the lily I fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Most grateful for your support and for the many improvements you suggested at PR. KJP1 (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks Wehwalt.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Coord note -- hmm, we'd had so much discussion of images above I thought one of our experts might have verified licensing already but perhaps not, so will list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Image check and some random comments from Crisco
    • What's with Architect? Why the bold?
Yes, it is a little confusing. What I'm trying to indicate is that Burges, as Architect, was the capital A for the architectural alphabet frieze which decorated the Library. The same frieze also includes the "dropped H" joke. Would it be better without the bold? KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    • FN 21 (Gelson) has a Harv error. Looks like you're missing the year (x3)
Will have a look at this. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Done - by removal. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Now re-instated. My mistake, didn't notice the earlier use. KJP1 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
After a bit of messing up, I think this is now ok? KJP1 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
This is awkward. Checking Crook, to try and find a better source, I find I wrongly attributed it to Godwin back when doing WB's page. Now corrected at Commons, and given a source. Hope it works now. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Evidence that Poynter did this? The source (this) goes directly to the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Crook, p=75, has the image, and the attribution, along with a description of Burges as "short-sighted, pug-nosed, more than a little camp." I should have used that. But that doesn't get us any closer to an attribution on-line. Thoughts?
  • I'd just note this on the file information page (something like "Author identified in {{citation}}). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I think "Burges in profile" is now right. I'm hoping the PD templates are correct, the attribution to Poynter through Crook is ok, and the source properly links to the V&A page which records the detail around Poynter and Burges. But now I need to look at "Burges as Architect" as the trawling I've done now makes me suspect it's actually by Weekes not Poynter! KJP1 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fun. For now this is alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, don't know how to do this. Perhaps the Dr. could help. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Now sourced here [16]. Do we have a problem with this, and the drawing above as Poynter died in 1919? Would PD-70 work in both cases? KJP1 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
PD-70 is given on both images. But in the hidden categories both have [17]. I do not know how to remove these but they shouldn't be there, I think. KJP1 (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The template in the PD-art template is using PD-old-100, hence the problem (there's two templates on the file; you should be using PD-70 and PD-1923, not PD-100). This would presumably apply to both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll see if I can fix both but may need help. KJP1 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
And now I'm certain the artist was Weekes, not Poynter. The incorrect attributions are very regrettable and I apologise for them. Burges employed so many artists to decorate his furniture, fourteen on the Great Bookcase alone, it can sometimes be hard to work out exactly who did what. Nevertheless, they were wrong originally, but are correct now. For which, many thanks to Crisco 1492 for his very thorough image review. I've also tried to address the licencing and source issues in relation to both, and hope they are also right now.
When did Weekes die? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
1920, although this and the Christie's source indicate 1893.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Right. This source (at least, according to what's visible to me) says that he was still active in 1918... cutting it a bit close. 1920 (assuming that's correct; my new source suggests it's possible) would be enough for PD-70 and PD-1996.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like KJP agrees with 1920. Then PD-70 and PD-1996 is best. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This [18] gives 1920. I've done a stub. He had two other artist brothers, Herbert and Henry Jr., so there could be confusion between them. KJP1 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Which I think concludes the responses to the image review? KJP1 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure how to achieve the link you want. Dr.? KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither do I. Don't doubt it's free though. Guess that's fine. Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for a review as thorough as that you gave to WB himself and which picked up two embarrassing errors of my own making. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Always glad to help, and we got a new article out of it too. :D — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Spot check needed still. Would it be better though for somebody with access to some of the books to check? I believe Tim riley did with the original Burges article, he's on a break right now though I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I have, almost, all the books but don't think I could be trusted to do a spot-check. KJP1 (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Image & Source review by Gaff[edit]

  • Looks like I missed the boat on this, but nobody took down the request for a review from FAC talk page. Image licensing looks good, although I wonder about the map. I am not familiar with using the soruce provided and cannot tell where the map inset came from. It looks like it was put up by a trusted and experienced reviewer and was commented on already above, so it all looks good to me. --Gaff (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I checked the license on the source page; it appears correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gaff: You're welcome to do a spot check on the accessible sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Source " HMSO 2011." Currently reference number 17. Why not give page numbers? Looks like the relevant pages are 25-27?
I'm a bit confused but it looks like the HMSO paper is about the settle and reads "The settle was placed opposite the windows in the drawing room in Tower House and remained there, descending in the family of R.P. Pullan, Burges’s brother-in-law, and was later owned by Col. T.H. Minshall, Col. E.R. B. Graham, and John Betjeman who removed it and gave it to Evelyn Waugh." That suggests that Pullan, Minshall, et al leased only the settle?
  • The Betjeman/Green letter p. 289 (ref#23 currently). I can only get a snippet view. Looks like it was a letter to Evelyn (presumably Waugh) and mentions some "dilapidations to the Ilchester estate" and "smooth operators". That fits with how the source is used in the article, except I'm not sure if Betjeman, Green, or both signed the letter.
  • Richard Harris: a sporting life -- also only snippet view available, but the page is about Liberace, so looks okay, with AGF in effect. This work is cited 4 times; the first three could be bundled per WP:CITE (obviously not a critical change).
  • "The ceiling is divided into coffered compartments by square beams, and features symbols of the Sun, the planets and the signs of the Zodiac." Is the paraphrasing from the source a bit tight here?
It's PD source I think anyway, not sure how we can really avoid word similarity here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. The reference is PD. If necessary, consider Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying_material_from_free_sources as a resource, which has some guidance on adding attribution templates for sentences or words taken verbatim from PD but not placed in quotations. I'm not expert enough to say anything definitive here. --Gaff (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
If this is acceptable as a re-work, someone please copy to the article. "Highly decorated square beams divided the ceiling into compartments. The ceiling was covered with enameled iron which was decorated with Zodiac symbols and the Sun and its planets." We hope (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "made of ivory, with sapphires for eyes; it was later stolen.[22][53]" Reference 53 does not mention the theft (unless I missed it), but the layout of the citations suggests that it does. Should the 53 go just after the semicolon? I'm a relative newbie at FAC and don't know how tight the sourcing needs to be. --Gaff (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We hope I think helped with providing that source, can you see anything WH?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Journal is from 1916; as a result, it's Public domain in the US since it dates before 1923 and full view of the magazine is allowed at HathiTrust--provided you're in the US.
As the description notes, the figure was meant to have wings which were both gilded and enameled. Apparently the "Fame" figure was not complete at the time of Burges' death. The source goes on to say that the figure was easily removable as it was on a hook. It looks like this might have made it easier to steal--the extra detail might be welcome here. We hope (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Unless we have a source linking the hook to the theft, it is WP:OR.--Gaff (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
OK-someone's found it in the 1966 Country Life article on page 404 and added the page number to the ref. We hope (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The country life article has snippet views. Using creative google searches I did manage to confirm the 3 refs to page 604 and 2-3 other spot checks on this one. There are six citations to this text without page numbers assigned (ref #37 currently).
I think I've found and entered the other pages in question. We hope (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • More to come. As others have mentioned, it would be good to have some spot checks from the offline text sources. --Gaff (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)--Gaff (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Corona Borealis[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I had some problems buffing this article early on but it has come together nicely I feel - it has had input from a professional astronomer (Mike Peel (talk · contribs)) whose queries I have addressed apart from some header classification that would need larger discussion as all the other constellation FAs are like this one. But anyway, I found this one interesting to put together, so come take a look and tell me what needs further tweaking...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Not sure it is necessary to mention Corona Australis in the lead, as it is only tangentially related, apart from the name.
Hmm, I'll reserve judgement on that preference would be to leave it in (but not strongly) and will remove if a consensus builds here to do so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, definitely not a big thing at all. I could still support with the mention still there. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we really need to mention how the exoplanets were detected in the lead? I think it would be nice to mention maybe ADS 9731 instead, as one of the few sextuple stars known.
Good point - tweaked lead now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For the HCB Great Wall, is the redshift of 1.6–2.1 a range over its length or is it an uncertainty?
aaah good catch - the GRBs mapped clustered at redshifts 1.6–2.1, however the second paper concludes the the redshift is ~2. Tweaked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I definitely think MS 1603.6+2600 (UW CrB) is worth mentioning somewhere; an X-ray binary away from the Milky Way is always quite interesting, especially one such as this with somewhat strange properties.
made the stub - just tryng to write get my head around the papers and it up now added it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 3C 332 is probably worth a mention as well, as a well-studied active galaxy.
I'm having trouble locating a recent reference that discusses it in detail - SIMBAD has 202 refs but most are about lots of galaxies.... :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This isn't really a big thing either. I only think it's worth a mention because of the dearth of interesting deep-sky objects in this constellation, but it's not required.

...and I think that's it! StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

SupportOverall it looks good and I think it's just about ready for FA status. I found a few minor issues, which I attempted to fix. Here are my unresolved concerns:

My concerns were addressed. Thank you Praemonitus (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "with a luminosity approximately 102831 times": this value doesn't look approximate since it has 6 digits of precision.
oops - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Corona Borealis contains no bright deep-sky objects." What is "bright" in this context? Visible to the naked eye?
source doesn't specify - very few deep-sky objects are visible to the naked eye though so sentence not very helpful. But is nice to have some sort of introductiry sentence here. Will see how to tweak Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the references, 'Ian Ridpath' is not in the same form as the other authors (last name, first name).
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, and the Mirror caption is missing a closing parenthesis. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
got 'em both Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC) its main stars form a semicircular arc. Instead of "main stars", could you say "brightest stars"? --Siddhant (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

yes though they are not strictly the seven brightest stars they are almost, and it is more understandable than "main stars" so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

QuestionAbell 2162 is present in Corona Borealis but that's not mentioned anywhere in the article. Since it is not a significant galaxy cluster, should there be a "List of galaxy clusters in Corona Borealis" like we have a List of stars in Corona Borealis? A related question is, where can I find a list of all Abell object if given a constellation? Is there such a table available on the Internet somewhere? Should such a list be copied onto Wikipedia? Oh, and List of Abell clusters is incomplete with regards to this. --Siddhant (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Some stars don't get into the article either. The page can't be exaustive. Feel free to expandList of Abell clusters! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a radioactive chemical element. It has been one step away from this process since 2012, when its prose was heavily improved by a GOCE member. It became a GA a long time ago, and now, after recent edits, it's a sure great article. After additions in 2012 and 2015, it is definitely comprehensive (but still not featuring too much), and it should be interesting enough for those familiar with chemistry; however, some effort has been applied to make an article on a technical topic like this one readable even for those who are not. R8R (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • What is the source of the data for the decay chain? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I added one.--R8R (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@R8R Gtrs: could you please double check the half-lives? There appear to be some half-life discrepancies between those shown in the image and this source (p. 64). The image may need to be amended to match this source, if the original source cannot be located. Sandbh (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It's good that you noticed it. My first idea was to check the NUBASE database, it's a huge source for nuclei stuff here on Wiki, but the link didn't work, and cached versions didn't appear as well. However, I just did some search and I found it; it matches the data we present. I updated the reference and the link therein for both the article and the picture description.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Sound choice. I checked each decay path and found a discrepancy for At-217; image shows 32 s; NUBASE shows 0.032 s. There are some other minor discrepancies: Np-237: 2.14e+06 y v 2.144e+06 y; Pa-233: 27 d v 26.967 d; Ra-225: 15 d v 14.9 d; Bi-213 46 m v 45.59 m; Pb-209 3.25 m v 3.253 m; Tl-209 2.2 m v 2.161 m. Since At-217 will need to be amended I presume the other minor discrepancies should be done? NUBASE carefully explains (pp. 9–10) how they have arrived at their half-lives, given differences in the literature. Sandbh (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I assumed those roundings were fine and I indeed missed the fact the astatine and lead half-lives were measured in time units different than those the picture showed. But it would definitely not hurt to match the source more closely. I double-checked it and corrected it; I think it should be fine now.--R8R (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm still seeing the old image in the article. In the picture history the corrected version is listed below the old graphic---should be the other way round? In the corrected version I believe Fr should read 4.9 m and Pb 3.253 h.
I see things the way the are supposed to be. It may have to do with that the server does not always immediately react to such changes. In some time, it should fix itself or maybe it already did.--R8R (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
All good now. Was a cache issue at my end. Sandbh (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


  • I cannot support it as long as the infobox contains: "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ AS-tə-teen or AS-tə-tin". I know this is a wider issue but we really do not need the respell renderings as well as IPA. --John (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Since the IPA links to Help:IPA for English#Key, and the mouseover for each segment of the IPA gives its meaning, I think we can safely get rid of the respelling for all elements. (In the case of cobalt it's downright harmful; the second syllable isn't pronounced like the word bolt!) Double sharp (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I must admit, it's not really a question I ever considered. It's at very least a Project Elements-wide thing and I don't usually get into such things. I have given it a deep thought nonetheless.
    For most elements, the pronunciation is simple. Why not abandon it altogether? There are some names pronounced not the way you'd expect them to be pronounced. Dubnium (doob-), darmstadtium (-shtahdt-), etc. But those are relatively new and follow the original pronunciations in Russian and German, correspondingly. There are also those synthetic unun- names (oon-oon-). I bet those need pronunciation keys. But we're talking about astatine now.
    From a perspective of an English learner, it's not really so easy. For example, why is "-tine" in "astatine" pronounced not as "tine," but as either "teen" or "tin"? I took my time to find an answer in the Internet, but I failed to do so. (I don't really consider myself a learner, even though some learning would never make things worse, and could be actually helpful for me, but, as I said, I'd given it a deep thought.) Why, really? To my language experience, which is certainly not perfect (since I'm not a native speaker and don't even currently live in an English-dominant country), but, I believe, extensive enough, it feels right to pronounce the syllable as "tin," but I can't really tell why. This does raise a question whether we should include the pronunciation key.
    You can argue the whole English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a student's book (which is indeed true), and thus it shouldn't teach you how to pronounce things, since it's aimed at native speakers or their equals, as any regular encyclopedia; there's even a Simple English Wikipedia. On the other hand, I think I'd use it. If it helps to resolve possible ambiguity, why not. Won't really hurt us, since pronunciation is a very basic property of a title of any article, doesn't take a significant cut of an article, and might actually resolve some questions (after all, it's not a typical English word, but a very technical one with no related word in common English vocabulary; for comparison, not wanting to transcribe "nuclear fission" is certainly fine). In either case, it's really a part of a wider question that should be decided on elsewhere.--R8R (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    I accept that this needs a wider discussion. My point is that one pronunciation guide may be needed on some elements, many would be fine with none (gold, tin, silver, oxygen) but there are none that need two separate systems side by side like most elements currently have. --John (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
re John (and Double sharp, R8R Gtrs). I have met John in this issue some weeks ago here. That discussion did not evolve beyond step one (opening paragraph + my reply), and so did not conclude in a new consensus. As for this FAC post: I see John puts up two critiques: (1) remove the {{Respell}} pronunciation altogether (from all elements) and (2) IPA is not needed in e.g. tin, in the later reply.
About (2) remove IPA and respell completely from some other element pages (element infoboxes): is not on-topic here, it is not about astatine.
About (1): remove {{Respell}}. The one argument mentioned here: "we do not need respell renderings as well as IPA": This is a wider issue and not astatine specific (which in itself could be a closing conclusion, but alas). In general and in this article, IPA and respell are about the same, but they themselves are not the same, so this is not a redundancy. Then, the presence of {Respell} is based on WP:MOS/Pronunciation, which says in its lede:

For English, the Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA.

I can not add much to this. Since adding {Respell} follows MOS, this can not be a FA blocker. As I read it, John asks for a MOS change. I want to keep {Respell} in. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I am fine to continue the general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, though I tend to agree with your last statement here as well. Just to be utterly clear, my oppose very much still counts for this nomination as long as it has the ugly and redundant material I highlighted above. --John (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you clarify how your concern agrees with the WP:FACR? The pronunciation as written agrees with WP:PRON, so the source of your conflict would appear to be a personal preference only. Praemonitus (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
1a. --John (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Prose means the grammatical structure. I'm not seeing the connection. Since it is an informational table, I'd expect the main concern to be 1c. Is the information presented incorrect? Praemonitus (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Is "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ AS-tə-teen or AS-tə-tin" your idea of brilliant prose? It looks clunky to me. Hence my oppose. --John (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
John, it's not prose. -DePiep (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It certainly isn't good prose. Neither is is informational. So why is it there? --John (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Given that the information is compliant with the MoS, how would you propose it be reworded? (Keeping in mind that this is a table.) Praemonitus (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I would propose that it would be better to reword this table cell to "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/". --John (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not prose, so there is not even a possibility to qualify that non-prose. I note that the argument now is full circle. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears you do not have a valid concern since all you did is remove information that is allowed under WP:PRON. "For English, the Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA." Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Allowed /= optimal. FAC is the realm of the optimal. Having four pronunciation guides on an article is not optimal. I hold that this fails 1a, as I said above. You are welcome to your opinion on whether my concern is or is not valid. I suppose it will be up to the FAC delegate to decide that, not you. --John (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, as you now merely state the obvious and your preference seems entirely personal and resolute, further discussion seems pointless. Yes I'm sure the FAC delegate will make a suitable adjudication of your concern. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I am glad you think it is obvious. I think it is obvious too. My concern is not entirely personal as it is shared by Double sharp and R8R. --John (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Good day. Praemonitus (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
May I respectfully ask @DePiep: and @Praemonitus: are there are any reasons for retaining the second pronunciation guide? Since it isn't mandated by WP:MOS, and in the interests if progressing this nomination, I'm currently inclined to remove the second guide. If this is a broader question that extends across the inclusion of second pronunciation guides for other elements then it would be better to have that discussion in WP:ELEM, and subsequently revisit astatine if needs be, rather than compromise a support. I agree with John that the pronunciation cell plus its accompanying entry cell constitutes prose (i.e. written or spoken language other than poetry). Sandbh (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
First response: "and in the interests if progressing this nomination": as the presence of respelling is explicitly within MOS (link cited above), this is not a FAC treshold.
I don't think the subthread above (last contribution 19:37 by Praemonitus) has lead to an other conclusion (i.e., no changes to follow), unless someone can point to a sound reasoning in there we must have missed. And I don't agree with your opinion that the data row constitutes prose. That was introduced only to wiggle in a WP:FACR argument (after which no substance followed). Since you, Sandbh, note that the label "pronunciation" is part of the prose: that makes it even less likely prose. The whole data row is not spoken as it is written, and it is not intended to be so. It is not a sentence, not even a non-verb one. There is no prose in context either. It is not prose (which is mainly described in opposition to poetry only anyway), it is a list item. (Let me add this pun - skip it if you're not in for fun today: the pronunciation is poetry, its rhyming!). Also, please check your argument against this: why would the respell be bad prose, and the IPA be OK? For the record I want to note that IMO John's contributions in this topic above introduce word play, and in other places about this same topic the tone turned less constructive (1, 2). This about the frame of arguments, my actual reasons to keep it in may follow (but are already present in the discussions). -DePiep (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
re Sandbh's Remove Respelling pronunciation guide "in the interests if progressing this nomination": I think we have established from the MOS that the addition (keeping Respell) is not a contra-indicator for FA. And since IPA is not a Latin alphabet, WP:accessability is a serious reason to add pronunciation respelled. -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – overall it looks to be in good shape. I just see a few minor issues: My concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • 'cationic salts' and 'radiocolloid' are technical terms that should be linked.
    "cationic salts" could do better with a rewording, which I tried to make. "Radiocolloid" means "radioactive colloid" (quite obvious, isn't it). The word "colloid" was linked before, and it occurred when we were talking about chemistry, for which radioactivity does not matter. In medicine, radioactivity is important (it's why astatine is used in medicine at all), and it is commonly shown by that "radio-" prefix in this context. I'm not really sure if we should link it again to colloid (we could link it to the radiocolloid article if we had one).
    As I only vaguely know what a colloid is, no it wasn't obvious to me. :-) Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "J., T. P. (2010).": For consistency, the 'J.' should be expanded.
    Definitely :) Fixed it.
  • "R., Kalervo (1956)." Is this correct? (Last name first?)
    I just checked, the person is Kalervo Rankama (this is a Finnsh name, surnames follow given names, as in all European names), so the correct version would be "Rankama, K." I corrected it.

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. This is much appreciated.--R8R (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. An unusually comprehensive treatment given the relatively obscure subject matter. I worked on it but the foundations had already been laid by User:R8R Gtrs and User:Allens by the time I came on board. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see, including some nice images. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this article. Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. Per sources I have added "Jr." to author name Aten Jr., A. H. W., but I'm not sure if it should go in |last=Aden Jr.. Three times. Documentation Template:Citation#Authors is not clear to me. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Solved: reread documentation, I understand should be entered as |first=A. H. W., Jr.. Edited. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments, basically nitpicks:

  • From the lead: "Elemental astatine has never been viewed..." and then "may have a dark or lustrous appearance". I think you need a conditional or something for the second sentence. How can you describe the appearance of something that can't physically exist? "would likely have...", maybe.
Thank you, I've adapted your suggestion and changed the second sentence so that it starts, "Astatine is likely to have a dark…" Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • From the compounds section: "addition of silver(I) then precipitates astatine, only partially as silver(I) astatide (AgAt) (or not at all)". Not sure how to interpret the last parenthetical. If some or all of the precipitate isn't silver astatide, any idea what it is?
I've copy edited this to try and make it clearer. If there is no precipitate I gather the astatine remains in solution as At0 or At+. Sandbh (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of red links in the compounds section. Are these articles likely to be created?
I refreshed my red link fu and have removed these as they're unlikely to be created soon, nor as anything better than stubs. 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Mendeleev's table isn't clickable.
@DePiep: would you be able make the table clickable please? Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Done by setting |base_link=Periodic_table#Second_version_and_further_development. (Best target for topic of predicted eka's I could think of). -DePiep (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the uses section: "this is long enough to permit multistep labeling strategies." - This seems to be the only occurrence of the word 'labeling' in the article, so it's not clear what this refers to.
I've now linked this to radioactive tracer. Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There's an entire paragraph about astatine's advantages in treating the thyroid, but thyroid treatment isn't in the table, and the paragraph never does actually come out and say that astatine is used this way. The 'preferable in diagnosis' claim is cited to a source from 1970. Can you be a bit clearer on this point?
    A good catch. I will think if anything else should be done on this, and will fix it soon.--R8R (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    @R8R Gtrs: I have a proposed fix which I'll post in a few hours shortly. Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    I removed the reference to thyroid treatment as, while it is mentioned in the older literature i.e. Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov (1970) this particular line of research doesn't appear to have gone anywhere in the more recent literature judging by here and e.g. PubMed. Does my edit look OK? Sandbh (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    I believe so. I had a similar edit in mind, because I wasn't able to find any recent reference to that being actually used, but at any moment of time I thought I could be missing something and more search was needed. Now I am quite confident, this issue has been taken care of properly, thank you.--R8R (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For completeness' sake: no objections to the use of the respell template. This seems like a style issue best resolved elsewhere.
  • Overall, great job! This is very readable and thorough. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


  • I find the second para to be a bit too long/detailed. I would drop some of the "believed to be" stuff.
    Are we talking about the lead? If so (or even if not), what exactly do you find superfluous? I think we have just enough, we don't go into details, those are very basic things (color, appearance, conductivity in very general, mp in very general), just for the lead.
put "are consistent with it behaving as a halogen (the group of elements including chlorine and fluorine), specifically as a heavier analog of iodine" then change "It will probably have a higher melting point than iodine, comparable to those of bismuth and polonium. Chemically, astatine can behave as a halogen (the group of elements including chlorine and fluorine), and could be expected to form ionic astatides with alkali or alkaline earth metals; it is known to form covalent compounds with nonmetals, including other halogens. It can also behave as a metal, with a cationic chemistry that distinguishes it from the lighter halogens. " to "Astatine is likely to have a dark or lustrous appearance and be either a semiconductor or a metal, and it will probably have a higher melting point than iodine. Chemically, astatine can behave similar to other halogens, as it expected to form ionic astatides with alkali or alkaline earth metals and known to form covalent compounds with nonmetals, including other halogens. However, it can also behave as a metal, with a cationic chemistry that distinguishes it from the lighter halogens." Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "chlorine is green" it is NOT
    Changed to "yellow-green"
  • "described as being a black solid" => as probably being a
    Fair enough.
  • "half of a given quantity of astatine will vaporize in an hour" this is incredibly vague. the time will be heavily dependent on the sample size and shape. I find this sentence a bit overly-simplified, if not possibly wrong
    Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov say, "The vaporization from clean glass surfaces can be approximately described by an exponential curve with a half-vaporization period of about 1 hr." I added the qualifier "approximately" to the wiki article text.
Works well now. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • solid astatine => it only talks about At2. anybody mentioned polymeric, ?metallic? At?
    Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
looks good
  • "complexes" I am not sure this is a real verb
    It is a real verb you can find in a dictionary, but it's a very technical one. Changed it to "forms complexes."
  • "The chemistry of astatine is "clouded b" => maybe move this as a first sentence in the section?
    Good suggestion, done. Sandbh (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pauling scale needs wikilinking
  • "are normally tested" I think this should be in past tense
    I checked Ullmann, they use past tense for a similar statement, so I changed it.
retweaked it Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "astatine hydride instead." instead of what?
    We had "usually referred to as hydrogen astatide" in the previous sentence. It should be clear enough, I think :)
missed it. the text was cloudy before so I missed it but it looks clear now. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • palladium and thallium might need wikilinking
  • "triastatinate]"
  • in the chemical section please mention that "compounds with oxidations states from -1 to +7 have been characterized"
    I gave it a brief mention. Should be good enough, I think, but feel free to comment.
I was thinking the chem prop section but what you added works well too. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The old naming of isotopes is archaic enough that even chemists these days might not understand them. Linking the archaic names the the respective history section of the radioactive elements works well for those needing clarification. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • wikilink cyclotron
  • Karlik and Bernert => which of the chains; also which 2 of the other 3 chains?
    Their first suggestion was that astatine-218 occurred and was an alpha emitter (confirmed, uranium series), and it was suggested that so did and were At-216 (not confirmed) and -215 (confirmed, actinium series). And later still, we got the neptunium series. I rewrote it that way, except I left out the unconfirmed isotope part because this seemed to be an unnecessary detail (but it could be argued it is important. It should be fine either way).
  • is "the four natural decay chains" an accepted term? if yes, maybe wikilink?
    Not a real term, just a thing of prose. We also had "astatine was found as a product of naturally occurring decay chains" just before this. I don't think anyone will be confused.
Looks fine now, but perhaps mention something along the lines of "it is not found in the last of the four actinide decay chains, the thorium series". Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point for the mass excess for daughter nuclei; also the first columns in the table don't seem to sort well
    Sorting seems to be fine by me; what is the problem? Mass excesses are aimed for those who are not too good with the whole nuclei topic, so they (some of them who can approximate subtraction without writing it down) understand where this would come from, thus better understanding of the article in general (and courage to understand other parts). We're not limited with space, and we don't have an awfully long article here so we have to cut all details we could.
sorting seems fine now but I still think the table is just too much. yes we have space (especially in the isotopes list) but currently the numbers look daunting. Are the numbers in column 3 and 4 saying anything interesting to the reader? If yes, then put them in a graph, but don't put them in the main text of a wikipedia FA. Most people are intimidated by numbers, especially of tables with 5 sig-figs. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "alpha hl" => "alpha decay hl"
    Did it in a note. Don't really want to do it in the table because shortened column titles are usually fine and this is explained in a note.
Not sure what you did, but I was referring to the last column header in the table. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • the meta-stable isotopes discussion should be trimmed and moved at the end of the section
    While moving it down certainly can be argued for (I followed), I don't see the point in trimming. While you and I understand, what this all is about, not everyone does. We don't have a super large article here. It certainly won't kill us to make this more understandable for those who are unfamiliar with the whole nuclei thing.
Seems fine now. Nergaal (talk)
  • "Earth's crust" => Earth's entire crust
    Fair enough for "with the total amount in the Earth's entire crust estimated to be less than one gram at any given time." However, I didn't add the word for "although it is the least abundant of the non-transuranic elements in the Earth's crust," because it would seem redundant here.
The first instance was the vague one. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "-217, -218, and -219" => should the dashes be here?
    Could you quote a rationale on such punctuation? A quick look didn't help me with this. I'll try again a bit later, but if you know it, please, let me know.
Unless there is a grammatical rule that rules, I'd prefer the hyphen to stay. The more complete construct is like "astatine-216, -217 and -218". The hyphen indicates the omission of "astatine" in the listing, from the name pattern. Without prefixed hyphen "217" suggests a stand-alone word (noun), which it is not. Plain "217" is not the way "astatine-217" is written in sources. -DePiep (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Even if it is the correct punctuation, I still find it to look weird (maybe because it involves numbers). For enumerations I would prefer to either say "isotope x through y", or use the "^xAt, ^yAt, etc" notation. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • move the Np series pic a bit up
    Moved just a bit up.

Nice work! Nergaal (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your words and for your time. I checked issues that seemed to be the easiest to fix. I will think about others on Wednesday or Thursday.--R8R (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks from me too Nergaal, for your insights. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending fixing the last of my comments. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Mind Meld[edit]

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a 2001 documentary film in which William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy discuss Star Trek and its effects on their lives. The article has undergone a copyedit by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, and has passed a good article nomination. I have searched through several journal databases to ensure that the sourcing of this article is comprehensive. It is unfortunate that Shatner's alleged flatulence is the most commonly discussed element of this film in the literature, but we must be true to the sources. Neelix (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

I'll mainly focus on prose issues although I might check some of the references if there are any problems with them. I'm certain somebody else will check the more technical points to this article but for now I'll list what I see here... I reviewed this GAN when Leonard Nimoy was still alive :'( Jaguar 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • "that Nimoy first publicly revealed that he had struggled with alcoholism while he was acting in Star Trek: The Original Series" - I think that Star Trek could be safely cut to avoid repitition of "Star Trek: The Original Series" in the lead, what do you think? I'm not too sure on this...
I have shortened the phrase to The Original Series. This solution retains the specificity while avoiding the wordiness. What do you think? Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It works well, thanks! Jaguar 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph in the lead could open on what overall critics thought about the film. For example something like "Mind Meld was recieved mixed/negative reviews from critics and fans..." etc?
Done. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Furthermore the reception paragraph in the lead mentions nothing on how the video quality was praised and the criticicms on the DVD functionality and features (which is mentioned in the reception section)
I have swapped this sentence with the one about Blame It on the Dog, thereby also de-emphasizing the flatulence topic. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "They only mention one of these cast members by name: Nichelle Nichols, who portrayed Nyota Uhura" - is this refering to the Original Series cast or any of the six films?
I have reworded the previous sentence so the Original Series cast is specified. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Nimoy had expressed concern about Kidd's alcoholism and warned Shatner about marrying her. Shatner says that he is conscious of his own mortality" - did he say this after Nimoy warned him of his wife? This sounds like a direct reply
I have reordered these sentences so the mortality comment doesn't sound like a reply to Nimoy's warning. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "which offers such features as the Shatner and Friends fanclub's quarterly newsletter" - should this be "such as the" or is it comparing Shatner's website to the quarterly newsletter? Or is that newsletter part of Shatner's website? I'm confused!
I have reworded this sentence to make it clear that the newsletter is one of the features offered on the webite. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "even though Nimoy is only four days older than Shatner" - but Shatner is older than Nimoy?
Thank you for catching this mistake! I have corrected it. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the film, Shatner referred to Star Trek: The Original Series as "cartoonish" - is this part of Mind Meld itself or Wil Wheaton's EarnestBorg9?
I have moved the sentence about EarnestBorg9 elsewhere to avoid the confusion. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions, Jaguar! If you have any more, I would be glad to receive them. Neelix (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing them all Neelix! I think I was going to leave some more comments last night but having looked through the article again now (as well as seeing the improvements made) I think that those are most (if not all) of the glaring prose issues out of the way. Some of them were minor. I'm happy with the prose side of things, so I will support this transition from GA to FA. It's a good article, and I think it has a real chance of passing this FAC. I checked the references during the GAR and they all appeared to be formatted correctly. No doubt somebody else will check them over again, but in the mean time good luck! Jaguar 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian feedback[edit]

  • "in the 1960s science fiction television series Star Trek: The Original Series" seems a little repetitive. Perhaps "on television in Star Trek: The Original Series in the 1960s, and in the subsequent film franchise." As an aside—when did TOS start to be referred to as such? Was it not originally just called Star Trek?
  • "several of the other cast members in the series who disliked Shatner" perhaps "the several fellow cast members who disliked Shatner"? Also, is it widely accepted that these people did not like Shatner, or is it Shatner's own perception (or someone else's) that they did not like him?
  • We use the wording "struggled with alcoholism" twice in three lines, verbatim. I suggest mixing it up a little.
  • "a mind meld being a telepathic link" why not wikilink mind meld here?
  • Why do we use the word "flatulate" instead of simply saying Shatner (allegedly) farted? Seems overly delicate to me.
  • "Shatner denied this allegation." perhaps "Shatner has denied this allegation in multiple interviews."
  • "people who heard that the film includes the sound of Shatner flatulating" perhaps "people attracted by the alleged fart from Shatner"
  • Is the DVD cover shown the original DVD cover in the US, or what? I think "DVD cover" is a bit too vague a description myself.
  • Why not list the four producers on different lines? This would be in my opinion easier to read.
  • "The film focuses on the effects that the media franchise had on Shatner's and Nimoy's lives" What's a "media franchise"? We mean Star Trek as a whole?
  • "when Shatner is talking about the other Star Trek actors' dislike of him" again as above, is this just his opinion?
  • "including his fears regarding the legitimacy of consistently portraying an extraterrestrial and other struggles with his acting career at the time" we mean Nimoy, right? (Kirk is human?)
  • "after divorcing Zober in 1987 and marrying actress Susan Bay in 1988" perhaps "since" rather than "after"
  • "Shatner says that Star Trek was the reason for his divorce from Gloria Rand, his first wife" why?
  • "some of whom were Star Trek actresses" presumably he doesn't name names?
  • "He also talks about the death of his father, Joseph Shatner,[2] and of his third wife, Nerine Kidd, who accidentally drowned in a pool[6] in 1999[11] after struggling with alcoholism.[4]" why is this sentence chopped up with references like this? why not just put them all at the end, or combine them?
  • Why is sexual partner linked? Who doesn't know what that is?
  • In the first image caption, perhaps make clear that this picture is from the time of the original series. Also I'm not sure the wording "romantically involved" is appropriate as the prose refers to a "succession of sexual partners", which somewhat dissipates the romantic aspect of it in my mind. Perhaps "Leonard Nimoy (left) and William Shatner as Spock and Kirk in a 1968 photograph. In Mind Meld, Nimoy reveals that he struggled with alcoholism while filming The Original Series, and Shatner claims to have had sexual liaisons with several Star Trek actresses."
  • We say "The entire runtime of the film is taken up by Shatner's and Nimoy's conversation", but also describe Billy West providing narration. What narration does he provide?
  • We say a mind meld is "a telepathic link that Spock, a Vulcan, is able to create with other organisms" but if I recall correctly—it's been a long time since I watched Star Trek and I only really watched The Next Generation—isn't a mind meld something all Vulcans can do, as opposed to just Spock? (and isn't Spock only half Vulcan?)
  • "In an interview with the New York Post" when?
  • "You're the captain! You outrank him! It's your responsibility!" needs an inline citation directly after as it's a direct quote
  • Perhaps mention that Wil Wheaton played Wesley Crusher (curse him!) on The Next Generation
  • "That April" which April?
  • I would rearrange the "Reception" section a little. It seems odd to end on the note that the trailer was, we are told, hilarious.
  • No source is given for the film being 75 minutes long or for the cinematographer (Biggs) or editor (Pank).

Thanks for the read. Hope this helps —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, John! I believe that I have implemented most of your suggestions. The exceptions are listed below, along with responses to the questions you asked:
  • I don't know exactly when the retronym Star Trek: The Original Series came into use; it may have been during the animated series years, or possibly not until Next Generation. Either way, I understand your point that this name is a retronym and I have removed it from the lead but have kept it in the body, where it is more difficult to remove due to the ambiguities that would arise as a result. Do you object to the use of this retronym in the body?
  • It is widely accepted that several of Shatner's fellow cast members did not like him. Do you feel that a footnote would be justified in order to identify the relevant individuals known to dislike him?
  • I would prefer to use the term "flatulate" in this article because "fart" seems to me to be unnecessarily vulgar, and not in the tone of an encyclopedia; the Flatulence article is not called Farting, which is, I assume, for this same reason. Nonetheless, if you feel strongly on the issue, I will switch the relevant words to "fart" and its derivatives.
  • In the sentence, "The film focuses on the effects that the media franchise had on Shatner's and Nimoy's lives," the reference is to Star Trek as a whole: the 1960s television series and the subsequent films in which they acted, but also the Star Trek conventions that arose and the sheer popularity of the Star Trek universe and its cultural impact.
  • I watched the film through again today, and Shatner does not name any of the Star Trek actresses with whom he had sexual liaisons.
  • I don't have a source for Biggs or Panik being the cinematographer and editor respectively, although they are listed in the credits of the film as having worked in those capacities. If that isn't sufficient, I can simply remove their names from the infobox.
I hope I have responded satisfactorily to your concerns. I appreciate your comments and would be glad to discuss any of these issues further. Neelix (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello again David. I have copyedited the article a bit more and rearranged a bit; I hope this is all to your liking.
  • Regarding the retronym, how you have put it in the lead is fine. I have attempted a different solution in the body which I think works—"the 1960s television series (later retitled Star Trek: The Original Series)". I hope you are okay with this.
  • Regarding them not liking him, I think it is enough just to say they say in Mind Meld that others didn't like him. I've put that they "attest to other members of the Original Series cast disliking Shatner".
  • For Biggs and Panik, why not just source to the film credits themselves? Use Template:Cite AV media and put the time their names and roles are visible on screen.
  • Regarding "flatulate", I will call in another opinion from User:Dank, who I consider something of an authority on this kind of thing. I will defer to his judgement.
  • Here's the Google ngram for flatulence and flatulate. Clearly, you want flatulence ... well, you know what I mean! - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Dan. The issue remains, however, what should we use for the verbal form? —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, Dan says we should stick to noun usages only and just use "flatulence". He also says "flatulence and flatulate are used more than they're needed in the lead, to the point where they become a distraction, and the incident is attributed to someone else's opinion in the lead, but not attributed in the text below the lead. (I'd probably do without the attribution, if you're careful with what you're asserting.)" —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you David for your quick and friendly responses. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Your copy edits look great, John. I have added the citation for Biggs and Panik. I have also reduced the number of instances of the word "flatulence" throughout the article and removed all instances of the verb forms of that word. The word "flatulence" now appears only twice in the lead and six times in the body. Please let me know if you would recommend any further changes. Neelix (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. I've just noticed my point for Biggs and Panik also applies for the four producers. Also I see the language of the film is given as "English". Are you really telling me not one word of Klingon is uttered in over an hour? ;) —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer to see locations for the references. How is one to know "The Press" is a New Zealand paper and "The Province" is British Columbia? —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you requested the locations for the references, John; I don't think I had realized before how many different countries these sources are coming from. The locations have been added, as has the citation for the producers. And yes, sadly, no Klingon. :) Neelix (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

2000 Belgian Grand Prix[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (Talk to me!) 21:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a Formula One World Championship race held on 27 August 2000. The 2000 Belgian Grand Prix was won by McLaren's Mika Häkkinen after a breathtaking passing manoeuvre on Ferrari's Michael Schumacher while lapping BAR driver Ricardo Zonta. This was also the second race in F1 history to start behind the safety car as the track was too wet for a stationary start. The article has undergone a peer review where the concerns raised were dealt with. One note to add, this article is part of my objective to get the 2000 Formula One season to featured topic status. I hope that reviewers will enjoy reading this article and I welcome all feedback whether positive or negative. Z105space (Talk to me!) 21:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Procedural note: Per FAC instructions, when a nomination of yours has been archived you're required to wait two weeks before again nominating any article, unless given leave to do so by a coordinator. As you're only a few days short and didn't receive too much commentary last time we'll make an exception, but please follow the instructions in future. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Thank you and I shall take this into account in the future, Apologies for the late reply Z105space (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Negro Motorist Green Book[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for consideration as a Featured Article. It's already a Good Article and has had a good response from readers. The subject is an interesting one, and it may be a good candidate for the Main Page for the next Martin Luther King Day. It has already been through a FA review but unfortunately didn't attract enough interest from reviewers first time round, so this is a second try. Prioryman (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor comment

  • The article mixes "African-American" and "African American". P. S. Burton (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, in my read through, that's the only other thing that jumped out. It's about 60%/40% split currently. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia seems to prefer African American, so I've standardised on that. Prioryman (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
        • 'African American' is supposed to be used as the noun, but hyphenated as 'African-American' when used as an adjective, as in African-American doctor.Parkwells (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This is a very interesting, if depressing, article. I have the following comments:

  • "Black Americans employed as salesmen, entertainers, and athletes also found themselves traveling more often for work purposes" - "found themselves" is needlessly passive, and " more often" is unclear (more often than whom?). I'd suggest tweaking this to "Many Black Americans employed as salesmen, entertainers, and athletes also frequently travelled by car" or similar
  • It looks like this has already been changed. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Traveling while black" section would benefit from material explaining the extent to which the incidence of barriers varied across the country: it's stated that it was problematic everywhere, and implied that it was particularly bad in the south - can this be plainly stated?
  • I've added more info about discrimination in the North which I hope makes it clearer. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That looks good Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Green Book was conceived in 1932 and first published in 1936 by Victor H. Green" - did he self-publish it as this implies?
  • As far as I can tell, yes. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • How did Green research/develop the guide? (especially the early editions?)
  • This isn't spelled out in the sources, unfortunately, but it seems likely to have been word of mouth research. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Published continuously from 1936 to 1940" - should this be "Published annually..."? ("continuously" suggests it was frequently updated)
  • Good point, I've changed this. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Not to needlessly complicate things, but do we know for sure that it was only published annually? I know some books have multiple distinct print runs in a year, without revisions. Perhaps specify that new editions were published annually? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I've reworded this to "With new editions published annually..." Prioryman (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see why the 'Legacy' section needs to be written as dot points - I'd suggest tweaking this into paragraphs
  • Looks like someone else did that. I've restored the original paragraph format. Prioryman (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Searching Google Scholar produces some interesting-looking results [19] which haven't been used as references - were you able to consult these? Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestion, I've not seen some of those sources before. I've got some useful material from one of them and will see if there's anything worth using in the others. Prioryman (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you please ping me when you've finished drawing on the sources? I'm strongly leaning towards support, and will do so once the expansion process is complete. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: OK, I think I'm about done. Prioryman (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Concern about presentation of Mallard lynching in GA[edit]

Hi, you've done a terrific job on this, and expanding what I remember of the article from an earlier time. I share the concern expressed by Carrite in 2013 about how the Mallard lynching in GA is presented, and really don't think it belongs in this topic. I think saying it is part of the general risk of DWB is an overstatement. The mob knew where Mallard was for the evening and where they could intercept him. It was a local lynching expressing local tensions. Yes, they attacked him in his car, but I don't think it makes the case for general risk of lynching when blacks were traveling by car. Sadly, blacks in the South faced the risk of lynchings at all times; and studies had earlier shown that many lynchings came out of competition and envy - social control. The article Carrite referred to is well documented and shows how the events were part of local issues.Parkwells (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still looking into this; the way it's presented in the article corresponds with how it's treated by one of the sources on the Green Book. If there's a clash between sources then I'll need to work out how to deal with that. Prioryman (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Parkwells: OK, having had a look at this I think I'll leave it out. The sources do seem to contradict each other and without any indication of which is the more accurate, it's best to omit it. Prioryman (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Support An utterly fascinating topic. I found it interesting how the entire basis of race relations can be so clearly illustrated through a book about motoring. My only concern, and it's a minor one, is that there are a lot of long paragraphs. These can be hard to read, and you might want to consider breaking some of them up. I did one such edit, check it and see if you think it improves things. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Support, since most concerns above seem to have been addressed. As Maury points out, it's an amazing microcausm of larger race issues. I'd personally keep the Mallard reference, but then I don't think the article would be deficient without it. That's just my peripherally informed opinion. (I don't personally find any of the paragraphs long for an encyclopedia.) -- Zanimum (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I'm not sure why I didn't support after my concerns were addressed last time, but I do now. A couple of things, though:
    • I still think "minefield" is unencyclopaedic vocabulary.
      • I think it's perfectly defensible as a description - it highlights the arbitrary and unpredictable nature of the problems which black travelers faced. Prioryman (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe "Black" is normally capitalized when it refers to race
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there consensus to pass? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think so, but do we also need a source review? Prioryman (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Space Seed[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC), Miyagawa (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

One of Star Trek: The Original Series most influential episodes, and the origin of Khan Noonien Singh, one of Star Trek '​s most well-known villains. Article has been through a GA and had a copyedit by Laser Brain. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Not familiar to movie articles, but could the "Legacy" section be expanded? It seems rather bare to me compared to the coverage of earlier sections. Gug01 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Miya and I have looked, and I don't believe there's much missing from that section. The episode had a big impact on subsequent Star Trek episodes, but the enduring legacy of the Khan character and to the franchise mostly comes from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support On prose. Easy to read, engaging, just the right number of pictures. Really great article, Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The images... some are not PD/et al, so is this an issue? If it is not, perhaps we could include a shot from the episode as well? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • All of the images currently in the article are either freely licensed or PD, although a case could be made for a fair-use image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Take a look here. The image is clearly commercially made. The uploader put a no-copyright claim due to a missing copyright notice. Many of the others in the article appear to be similar. Now if the claim is correct, and images before 1989 do require a copyright notice, then practically every image I've ever used falls into that category (yay!). But I don't think it's right. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
As the tag indicates, images before 1977 first published in the US required a copyright notice in order to still be copyrighted in the US now. Other countries/circumstances have other requirements, but that's correct for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating! Ok, well I need to go re-label about 100 images... Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments More specific image review:

  • I alwayss have my eyes open for PD Star Trek related photos-maybe now that you mention it, one will turn up ;-) We hope (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • File:Ricardo Montalbán-Fay Spain.jpg - Unless the reverse is also available, we cannot confirm that this is, indeed, PD. Although generally such stills were released without copyright notices, there still were many with such notices. Unless the lack of a notice can be confirmed, this image shouldn't be used.
User:Crisco 1492, I see the photo came from a blog that attributes it to The Greatest Show on Earth (TV series). It aired from 1963-1964 on ABC (US) and the production company was Desilu, who was also the original production company for Star Trek. When I went through original registrations for Star Trek, I found that Desilu had registered nothing but the film Yours, Mine, and Ours from 1966-1969; no registrations but this one in film-nothing in artwork. If this would fix things, I can look through original registrations in film and artwork for 1963 and 1964 for both Desilu and ABC (US). It's doubtful that there are any, but can look. We hope (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if there was no registration, that would be enough confirmation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Bad news-I got as far as original film registrations for 1963-Here's the registration for the program. This is said to have come from The Hanging Man with an airdate in November 1963. We do have at least one PD photo from the program File:Lucille Ball Jack Palance Greatest Show on Earth 1964.JPG, but it has an uncropped front and back with an ABC release. Guess this needs to go for PD. We hope (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed that image from the article. We hope, can I leave it to you to flag this up at Commons? I just realised I don't have a clue how to flag PD issues there! Miyagawa (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • DAB links: John Winston and Juan Ortiz  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't need to list the broadcast date twice in the lead
  • Reworked to remove the second appearance. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • references to it appear in episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise - I'd expect that this is a reference to the background (Eugenics Wars, which was also referenced in DS9 with Bashir, BTW; I recall something about how genetic engineering had been outlawed following the Eugenics wars, when Bashir is first found to be genetically enhanced; also, TAS "The Infinite Vulcan" references the Wars) and not "Space Seed" itself, as the episode is set after Enterprise.
  • I've added references to the DS9 episode - I've split the Legacy section into two subsections, one dealing with Khan specifically and so contains TWOK and Into Darkness related material, and the other dealing specifically with the Eugenics Wars. I still need to add "The Infinite Vulcan" related material. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've now added "The Infinite Vulcan" - admittedly not much, as the source I have which mentions it only has a plot description for that episode of TAS and no background information. Miyagawa (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Kirk selects McGivers because she specializes in late 20th-century history and culture. - Feels kinda out of sync with the flow of the paragraph. Might want to rework
  • I've reworked the 20th century mention into the following paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Specialism or specialty? Or field of interest (minus historical, of course)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed it to field of interest - I think that sounds best. Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • rest of his supermen - superpeople?
  • Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One element introduced in the second draft that remained in the final version was Kirk marooning Khan and his crew on a new planet. - The character wasn't Khan yet
  • You use "writer" a bit too much in the last paragraph of Writing
  • I've removed a couple, and also trimmed a bit of "credit/credited" out as well. Miyagawa (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • has never seen "Space Seed" - as of?
  • Added "as of 1993" as that was the date for the source material. Miyagawa (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Contemporary reviews? 70s? The reception section is way too FUTON biased.
  • I've made a request for access, which might turn up something. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That would be nice, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well good news, I'm just waiting for my new account to be upgraded to full access. I took a preliminary search and I've already found The Indiana Gazette calling "Space Seed" "a solid piece of science fiction" on February 16, 1967. So this looks like that issue should get solved in the next couple of days. Miyagawa (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I now have access - in fact it wasn't solid, it was good according to the review. I've managed to add two reviews. There were others, but they were identical to the two I've added word for word, or only gave a plot overview. Miyagawa (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • her review for Trek Nation. - or her review for TrekNation? One's a documentary, one's a website
    • Fixed - is now linked to TrekNation. Also, I thought I should explain why this particular fansite has been included. Currently it is one of only four fan sites to be linked to from the main Star Trek website, but in fact in the past it had much closer ties. From going back to previous versions of the ST website, they used to use TrekNation as one of their main news pages. So much so that when you clicked on "More News" on a couple of previous designs, it actually took you straight to TrekNation. Miyagawa (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • with the exception of the DVD containing "Turnabout Intruder". This featured two versions of the original Star Trek pilot, "The Cage". - that second sentence is probably better as a footnote
  • Changed to a footnote as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No mention of the Blish text adaptation? Airing of the remastered version (i.e. non-DVD)?
  • I've added the Blish adaptation under Home Media Release (technically it was the first version of the episode available for home use). Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I did enjoy reading it. (Any thoughts on the broadcast version of the remastered edition? Might be hard to get a secondary source on that) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Possibly. I'll keep looking though. Miyagawa (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Found it! I hit across the idea of check for zap2it on, but when that didn't pan out, I checked the archived official Star Trek website from 2007 and found both the air dates for the remastered versions but also a description about the station releases. I'd figured that UPN had shown it, but apparently they went straight into syndication with the new versions. Miyagawa (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The whole Chekov thing is not included (don't have to include the joke about Khan remembering Chekov in II because he held up the bathroom, but still... it's been discussed quite a bit)
    • The Pavel Chekov article has some references, though I can't vouch for the quality of all of them. I only mention this because it's been termed "the apparent gaffe notorious throughout Star Trek fandom" (i.e. probably worth a sentence, or at least a footnote). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we found the same source! I've added a couple of lines to the legacy section. Miyagawa (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Have you checked the Memory Alpha article (link) for referenced information that is both useful and verifiable? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Examples of unused possible sources include Star Trek: The Magazine issue 120 ("Space Seed" flashback), The Star Trek Compendium, Star Trek Concordance, and Star Trek Chronology. Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology may possibly have near-contemporary reviews etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • The Magazine flashback doesn't have anything usable in terms of contemporary reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Checked the Spaceflight Chronology, doesn't have anything of use other than some non-canon information about the DY-100 ship class. Miyagawa (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Checked the compendium (openlibrary had a borrowable copy) and found a couple of snippets about things being reused later, but otherwise everything else is covered. I was hoping to find something about the Chekov thing in there but it had relatively little to say about TWOK at all. Miyagawa (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Openlibrary also had a copy of the Chronology, so I've used that as a source towards the start of the Eugenics Wars section but otherwise there's nothing extra to add. Miyagawa (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a note: from the 20th to 25th I'll be in Purwokerto and may not have access to the internet. I'll continue reviewing when I return. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and images. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Avianca Flight 52[edit]

Nominator(s): Veggies (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a passenger flight that crashed in New York due to fuel starvation in January 1990. I believe it has reached FA-quality after an extensive research and editing process by myself over the past few weeks that greatly expanded on the history, dynamics, and effects of the crash. Veggies (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I see a few paragraphs with unreferenced information at the end. That will cause trouble during the FAC. One rule of thumb is to make sure everything is referenced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
If you mean the media portrayals, I'm not sure how to cite those. It's a weird situation where I can show you that these things exist:
but I can't cite them. Suggestions? -- Veggies (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a reason we have {{Cite video}}. There are also minor points which should still be referenced, like "The flight had previously been given two delay estimates that had passed." and "The TRACON controller..." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I used the cite vid template as you suggested. As for citations, those sentences refer back to the citations immediately prior. Everything is cited, but I don't put inline-citations after every sentence. My rule of thumb is one inline-citation per three sentences, so long as all three sentences are in the citation just before. -- Veggies (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Except WP:MINREF requires citations after direct quotations etc., and in general the references go after the cited material, not before. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I see. I put the relevant citations in front of the quotes. -- Veggies (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: If I've satisfied your concerns, would you consider supporting the article for FA? -- Veggies (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Mine was but a drive-by comment. Best of luck, though! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nimbus227[edit]

  • Just had a skip read through and the prose looks quite good. Some things I've noticed, variant info in the lead is too much detail (707-321B), just plain Boeing 707 would do. JFK abbreviation is unlinked (how it should be) but 'NTSB' is blue (consistency of format). What time of day did this accident happen?
I can see no metric conversions for units. The plural of 'lb' is lb. Some of the footnotes are uncited. I may have some book sources on this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking it over. I made changes to the detail, linked abbreviation, time of day, and units of measurement. -- Veggies (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I notice a lot of text being added or re-arranged, the article needs to be stable (WP:WIAFA 1e) otherwise reviewers can get very confused (unreviewed text with problems could be added after a 'support' comment for instance). I'm not sure if the exact time and the UTC link is needed in the lead, it is generally assumed that times are local, probably a guideline on it somewhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, I just finished renovations yesterday and submitted it to FAC right after that. Maybe I should have let it breathe for a day, but there's no one editing this article presently but myself—no edit wars or contentious issues. As for time of day, I followed the example on WP:TIMEZONE. -- Veggies (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've posted some other thoughts on the article talk page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nimbus227: If I've satisfied your concerns, would you consider supporting the article for FA? -- Veggies (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Driveby comment from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Is the topic of this article the flight or the crash? It opens "Avianca Flight 52 was a regularly scheduled flight from Bogotá to New York, via Medellín." but the rest of the lead is entirely about the crash. If the article is about the crash, I suggest retitling and rewriting the opening sentence to make it clear the article is about the crash. If the article is indeed supposed to be about the flight itself, then the lead will have to be rewritten to give an overview of the flight itself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The topic is about the flight on Jan 25, 1990, that ended in a crash, as well as the subsequent effects and the investigation that followed. I can definitely incorporate more details from the flight itself before the crash into the lede. It's a good point. Thank you. -- Veggies (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Appears to me that the standard is to name articles after the flight. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Alright, but notice how thye open differently: "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370/MAS370) was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 ...". The opening sentence of this one gives the impression that the article is going to be about a regularly scheduled flight. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Never mind, it appears Veggies already reworded it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @Curly Turkey: If I've satisfied your concerns, would you consider supporting the article for FA? -- Veggies (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but I've only barely glanced at the article. To give it my support I would first have to give it a thorough review. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest increasing the size of the map slightly. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: The image itself or the thumbnail in the article? -- Veggies (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The thumbnail in the article - since it uses upright it should be scalable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I upscaled it a bit. -- Veggies (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: If I've satisfied your concerns, would you consider supporting the article for FA? -- Veggies (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Veggies: A satisfactory image review is generally just that, it won't result in "support" because it is just one aspect of the overall review, which also takes in prose, structure, sourcing and comprehensiveness. In any case, please do not solicit support from reviewers, as here and above -- they can make their own decisions and are quite at liberty to neither support nor oppose outright if they so choose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas[edit]

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC) and • Astynax talk

Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the key figures in South American history, probably the most well-known 19th century dictator in that region (after Francisco Solano López). For a brief moment he was almost able to turn Argentina into the main power in South America, and almost conquered nearby countries. He became so powerful that the Empire of Brazil under Emperor Pedro II forged an alliance to crush him. This article used dozens of well-known sources in academia, although is mostly based on John Lynch's biography, regarded as the best one in any language. Lecen (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Driveby comment from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I'm curious about the nicknamed "Restorer of the Laws" bit:
    • It appears nowhere in the body (it appears three times in the Spanish FA).
    • Should there not be a definite article there? The Spanish FA gives El Restaurador de las Leyes.
    • Seems odd that a nickname important enough to appear in the opening line would not be given in Spanish, even though Conquistador del desierto is.
    • Was he really "nicknamed" so? As in, did people address him as "Rstorer of the Laws"? The Spanish article calls it a título.
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for your comments. --Lecen (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Honorific titles in English can use the article or not. For instance, English texts use "Restorer of the World" (rather than "the Restorer of the World") for the Latin Restitutor Orbis. Even for titles of nobility, one sees articles both used and dropped (e.g., one would use "Horatio Walpole, Earl of Orford" or "was created Earl of Orford", but as "the Earl of Orford" when the title is used in place of a proper name). • Astynax talk 04:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas_as_a_child_(transparent).png needs a US PD tag
  • File:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas_1829.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • File:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas_1845.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:La_Residencia_de_Rosas_en_Palermo.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas_exiled.JPG needs a US PD tag
  • File:Estatua_a_Rosas_en_Palermo.JPG: since Argentina does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, we need to account for the copyright status of the work itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I added the US PD tags. I couldn't find birth and death dates for "Arthur Onslow", who is described both as British and French painter in Argentine sources. I'm going to take a look at the university library on Monday to see if I can find something. What would you suggest that we should do regarding the sculpture photo? --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
      • See if you can establish the artist and/or the date of creation, to determine whether it is now in the public domain. If it is not, or if you cannot determine conclusively that it is, we'll need to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
        • The sculpture was created in 1999. It certainly doesn't belong to the artist, since it's a public sculpture. The government also doesn't charge for it, which means that it has no intention in getting profit out of it. I can't imagine the Argentine government suing people for using photos of public sculptures in public spaces. But I don't know if that would be enough by Wikipedia standards. --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately I don't think so - our standard isn't whether we're likely to get sued but whether we can show the work is appropriately licensed. Is the copyright still held by the artist, or is it held by the government? Also, any luck with Onslow? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
            • It should be enough for Onslow that it can be shown that he was an established artist by 1830[21] without actual date of death. • Astynax talk 17:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating has revolutionized archaeology, and the invention of the method earned Willard F. Libby a Nobel Prize. I've been working on the article for over a year, and I think it's now ready to be nominated here. It's benefitted from a peer review, where several editors helped improve the article; I would particularly like to thank Aa77zz and CorinneSD. Since then it's been copyedited by Eric Corbett. Three professional archaeologists have looked over the article, including one who specializes in the topic, and their comments have been addressed. The article is a departure from my previous nominations, which have all been in the humanities; I would like to make it clear that I have no special expertise in this area and wrote it as a layman. I hope you find the topic as interesting as I do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Support As Mike mentions above, I took part in the peer review. This is an important article and Mike has done a fine job in bringing it up to the FA standard. Aa77zz (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

Done. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The licensing for the lead picture is a little all over the place. Basically, we need to work out whether, as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, the image is PD or non-free. If it's PD, it's going to need a careful explanation of the fact (along with the removal of the non-free tags); if it's non-free, its use in this article fairly clearly fails NFCC#8. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not expert on images, but I've removed it on based on your comment and this conversation on commons. It seems that nobody has been able to show they're PD in the US. I just looked at the NFCC conditions and I agree it fails 8. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry I missed the peer review. On a quick look, I think the article gets too scientific too quickly, and some of the sections at the bottom should precede the formulae etc, which will just lose a high % of readers, In particular, the explanation of how radiocarbon dates should be reported should be much higher up, before all the various factors are gone into. People who won't want to read about the physics want to know what the complicated notation of reported dates means. The full length of the lead is not used, and there maybe a case for a summary section after that. A clear statement of the current understanding and practice early on would be good. At the moment much of the article recapitulates the theory as it has developed. It's a bit late now I realize, sorry. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm open to changing the organization, and even withdrawing the FAC if necessary, to get it right, but for a big change like this I'd like to see consensus that it's necessary, and with two supports, and Eric's comment below, I'd be hesitant to act on your comment just yet. Though it's probably worth noting that both Eric and AA77zz have technical backgrounds (or so I understand). Perhaps other editors with a humanities background will weigh in. Re the lead: anything in particular you feel is missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I just saw that one of the paras was pretty short. I don't think all the article sections are summarized yet. I also notice that it is not clearly stated at the start that it can only be used for organic materials - easy to fix. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I added a sentence about sample form to the shortest lead paragraph. I thought about mentioning the fact that there are separate marine and southern hemisphere calibration curves, but it's hard to do that without any explanation. I think every section is at least represented in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I also added a sentence to the lead explaining the BP notation, and mentioned that the objects to be dated have to be organic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't agree with Johnbod's comments above, the structure of the article seems just fine to me. Eric Corbett 15:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Overall this is a remarkably readable discussion of a fairly technical topic. Nice job! I made a small number of text edits. I have a few picky comments/questions:
  • In the Principles section, last paragraph: you say these "have not been calibrated", but presumably that just means using Libby's value for the half-life and doesn't refer to the calibrations for variations in historical 14C/12C ratio discussed below?
    It does mean that it has not been calibrated using the historical variation in ratio. Note 2 is intended to clarify this - part (e) is equivalent to saying that there is no calibration. I put it in a note because the definition is a little long to be placed parenthetically, but perhaps I should move it up to a box? As I understand it, the reason to include fractionation in radiocarbon years but not calibration is that calibration curves can vary, and if you want to apply a different calibration curve (e.g. a later INTCAL curve) to data in a paper you're reading, you want the uncalibrated age to apply the curve to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, I missed note 2 entirely. Readers who are interested in the details are probably more observant than me, though! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If the PDB standard has an anomalous carbon ratio, how/why did it become the standard of comparison?
    I haven't seen this covered anywhere. I imagine it could be found by chasing a trail of paper references, but Taylor and Bar-Yosef, which is by far the most detailed history, don't even provide a cite for it. I've done some searching (I have JSTOR access) but couldn't find anything. Is this needed for the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    No, just curious if there was a story behind it :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    I found this which indicates that Urey developed the PDB standard as part of his palaeotemperature work on oxygen isotope ratios. Presumably the PDB standard was then adopted for radiocarbon dating because the isotope ratios of the formation were well known. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You mention the apparent ~400yr age for marine life twice and give an average of 440yrs once, with different citations each time.
    I changed these all to 440, which is much the most recent source, on the assumption that that would be the most accurate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The deepest parts of the ocean mix very slowly with the surface waters, and the mixing is known to be uneven." - I'm usually against the "I never go outside, so I challenge your claim that the sky is blue" types of arguments, but when you use the phrase "known to be" that seems to merit a cite at the end of the sentence (or just delete the phrase).
    I deleted "known to be"; the source definitely supports uneven mixing, so I think that fixes it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In measuring the freshwater effect, you write that one usually just measures a modern sample. Does that mean changes in groundwater flow patterns that vary exposure to old-carbon rocks are rare enough to be negligible?
    That's certainly the implication. I looked at a more recent source and was able to find a discussion of this; it's apparent that testing a modern sample is not best practice, so I changed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hydroxyproline was thought to a reliable indicator of what? I don't quite follow this - it's a major constituent of collagen, but if you have a sample that you know contains collagen, what do you need hydroxyproline to indicate? Is this referring to identifying a sample as collagen-containing in the first place?
    There are problems with dating degraded collagen because it's possible that it could have been contaminated by more recent organic material. One way to confirm that the material you're looking at is original is to verify that the ratios of amino acids are correct; that tells you that you're looking at a sample that is essentially the same composition as the original bone. If hydroxyproline is only found in bone, then separating it and testing only that would be safe because it would eliminate contaminants. I'm thinking that perhaps this should just be cut; since it's been found in groundwater it's no longer that important, and it may be too detailed an issue for this article, which is a summary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, I see, the modern contaminant is presumably not collagen. "A reliable indicator of purity" or "indicating the absence of modern contamination" or similar would make this clearer, though if it's not a current technique removing it is probably better. (I would not have guessed you'd find hydroxyproline in groundwater, but following the links suggests the type deposited in silica is chemically distinct from the hydroxyproline in animal collagen; this is totally off-topic, but I wonder if they can be distinguished to avoid this problem?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    I mentioned this to my archaeologist brother-in-law and he wasn't aware of work along those lines. Might be a research project for someone .... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • HOxII is oxalic acid, right? Any reason not to wikilink this?
    I didn't because it's really the name for the standard, and I thought it might be slightly misleading. I could avoid this by slightly expanding the sentence if you think it's worth it -- e.g. "The most common standard sample material is oxalic acid, such as the HOxII standard..." if you think it's worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    IMO the expanded version would be useful. I didn't know what it was, so I googled it and found all kinds of stuff about a particular hox gene.
    That did make me think of another question, though - why oxalic acid as a standard when the test materials are converted to benzene, graphite, etc? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    I can't find out why oxalic acid was chosen. Taylor and Bar-Yosef say that the original standard was prepared in 1956 at the request of James Arnold, so it was specifically for radiocarbon. I did find this discussion, which mentions that oxalic acid has some disadvantages. I can't find any publications from the NIST (or NBS as it was then) that explain it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Opabinia regalis: FYI, I contacted R.E. Taylor, one of the authors of the most recent specialist book on the history of radiocarbon dating, and he said that he believed it was because there's a high oxalic acid content in beet leaves compared to other plants, and Arnold knew the year of growth of the batch of beets that would be tested. Taylor also said he understood the extraction of oxalic acid is straightforward, though he also has heard that the extraction had to be redone because of some errors. Anyway, he's planning to check on these questions the next time he's at UC San Diego and can look at James Arnold's papers. That won't give me a source, of course, but if he puts it in a note I can use that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    Interesting! I guess they had decided on oxalic acid and then went with beets instead of having a convenient pile of beets and going with the easiest chemical. You are going way above and beyond on the investigations here :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "one archaeologist" - any reason not to name this person? This reads strangely with Taylor prominently mentioned in the same paragraph and quoted in the one before.
    Agreed; I've added his name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • On the structure question mentioned above: I think the current order of presentation works well, especially since the TOC headings are clear and can direct the reader past the details if they don't want to read everything. My only (subjective, not really actionable) comment here is that the article seems to end abruptly. The last two paragraphs of the Impact section don't seem to connect well to the preceding discussion. I think an example or two of real archaeological data - not pop fluff like the Shroud of Turin - would help bring things together. Maybe the last paragraph could be split into its own subsection.
  • The article is unusually image-depleted, especially with the loss of the Libby portrait. Any thoughts on a replacement lead image? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; I should have time this evening to work on these points. One quick note about images: I haven't come up with anything for a lead image; I would love to get a free picture of Libby for the lead, but can't find one. It's not a subject that lends itself well to photographic illustration. If I add a discussion of an archaeological use of radiocarbon dating, as you suggest (and I agree that's a good idea) then perhaps a picture of the dig or location would work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added a few comments above but am out of time this morning. I should have a little more time tonight and will do more. I'm away from my sources for a week starting tomorrow, and will probably have very limited access to the internet, so I may not be able to do much more until about 3/22. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: I've responded to all but your final point, and in regards to that I think it would be worth giving a more detailed example of a significant real use of the technique in archaeology. Taylor & Bar-Yosef give lots of examples and I'll pick something they highlight. However, I won't be able to do much on this for a week as I'll be skiing in Colorado. I'll have an iPad, but limited internet and none of my references. More when I return. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good - I'll support with an example. No ipads on vacation! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
No iPad? You've been talking to my wife. :o) I had time this morning to add one notable application, and I'll do at least one more when I get back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I got packed early and have snuck in one more under the wire. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting examples! A question on the first one: I read skimmed both Pleistocene and Holocene and I'm still unclear as to how the boundary was defined in the first place, other than that ice locations are involved - which makes the matter of identifying the date somewhat opaque. Is this possible to clarify briefly?
I don't know about briefly! Here's the explanation -- tell me if this is something you'd like to see in the article. The boundary is defined by tracking the δ18O ratio; that is, the ratio of 16
to 18
. Higher temperatures put more 18
in the atmosphere (from evaporation) and so precipitation in warmer times has higher δ18O. Ice cores from Greenland can be used like tree rings to produce a graph of δ18O over time. If you look at page 4 of this book you'll see a graph showing an unmistakable sharp change in climate at 11,650 ± 99 cal BP. That's the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, that is a lot of info - is it too oversimplified to just say this boundary marks a dramatic change in climate and leave it at that? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I went with "Establishing the date of this boundary − which is defined by sharp climatic warming − as accurately as possible has been a goal of geologists for much of the 20th century." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
And a question on the second one: the Dead Sea Scrolls article says they're the second-oldest Bible manuscripts, but also has sections tagged as outdated. Is there a subset of the Dead Sea Scrolls that have previous versions, or is the other article wrong? I'd be tempted to trim the last couple of sentences of the dead sea scrolls paragraph ("some scholars" vs "most scholars" etc...) - it sounds like there's more controversy than can be stuffed into a couple of sentences without losing detail.
I cut the last sentence. That part of the controversy is essentially theological, or at least ideological, and is not really a scientific debate; I put it in as an indication that these measurements don't always settle the issues in everyone's eyes, but I don't think that's really necessary. People can follow the links (or go read the Shroud of Turin article) if they want more details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This could go either way but I think the examples would fit more naturally after the general "impact" section, with maybe the last paragraph split off into a separate section ("other dating methods" or similar?). Not a strong preference though. Have a good vacation! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to leave the examples where they are, unless you feel strongly about this. I think one benefit of the examples is that they set up the reader for a better understanding of how dramatic an impact radiocarbon dating can have on an archaeological debate, so having the impact section follow the examples seems right to me. @Opabinia regalis: I think I've now replied to all your comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, read it over again and support, nice work! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


  • I am more familiar with the term carbon-14 dating, which is the title of the Britannica article ("Carbon-14 dating, also called radiocarbon dating"). I would suggest adding this alternative name.
    Agreed; done. Both are already redirects. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the half-life is so crucial that a sentence about it ought to be in the lead.
    Done, in the context of the maximum datable age. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the main text you explain half-life twice. I would merge them.
    I eliminated the second explanation; does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "For more than a decade after Libby's initial work, the accepted value of the half-life for 14 C was 5,568 years; this was improved in the early 1960s to 5,730 years." I think revised (or corrected) would be a better word than improved.
    I went with "revised". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is possible to incorporate a correction for the half-life value into the calibration curve, and so it has become standard practice to quote measured radiocarbon dates in "radiocarbon years", meaning that the dates are calculated using Libby's half-life value and have not been calibrated." I had to read this several times but I think I now understand it. So "radiocarbon years" does not correct for different levels of C14 in the atmosphere at different periods and also adopts the wrong figure for the half-life which was current in the 1950s? Would not the statement that the use of radiocarbon years is standard only apply in technical papers on C14 dating? The only time I remember coming across it was in a case I recently raised with you. BTW I once complained to an expert that I find the mixture of calibrated and uncalibrated years in the Wiki articles on the Dryas ice ages confusing, and he replied that it is worse than that as in some papers it is not clear whether they are giving calibrated or uncalibrated figures.
    Yes, you have it exactly right. I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean by "technical papers on C14 dating" -- do you mean any scholarly paper that mentions radiocarbon dates, or specifically papers about the mechanics of dating? The former is true, as far as I can see -- the journal Radiocarbon's recommendations are intended to apply to any paper that reports radiocarbon dates. Not that eveyone follows the recommendations, as your friend pointed out. The reason the recommendation is always to give uncalibrated (i.e. radiocarbon) dates is that a reader can then apply a different (e.g. later and presumably more accurate) calibration curve and derive a calendar date from an old paper. Does that answer your question? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    There are two points here. 1. As I said, I had to read the sentence several times before I was clear what it meant. I think it could be more clearly expressed. 2. When I referred to "technical papers" I meant that only experts understand "radiocarbon dates" and would be able to adjust them according to their own views. The vast majority of people would take the term to mean a true date determined by C14 dating. For example, Pettit and White's The British Palaeolithic is a summary of the state of knowledge for professionals in the field, but it uses calibrated dates throughout - as it is directed at archaeologists, many of whom would presumably not understand radiocarbon dates and take them as true dates BP. Your statement that the recommendation is to always use radiocarbon dates can only apply to papers directed to experts who understand them, not to the wider community of archaeologists who use them in their work without understanding the technicalities, let alone the wider interested public. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    To your first point, how about " It is possible to incorporate a correction for the half-life value into the calibration curve, and so measured radiocarbon dates can be quoted in "radiocarbon years", meaning that the dates are calculated using Libby's half-life value and have not been calibrated. As a result, when a date is quoted, the reader should be aware that if it is an uncalibrated date it may differ substantially from the best estimate of teh actual calendar date." The second sentence, I hope, clarifies things; I also changed "standard practice" to "can be quoted" to address the fact that Radiocarbon's recommendations are not universally followed. Re point 2: Pettit & White say on page 9 "Reimer et al. suggest that where calibrated dates are used original radiocarbon measurements on which they are based should also be cited. We do this where we think it is necessary, but in the interests of space do not make a habit of it. We cite references to the publications in which the original radiocarbon measurements were presented and thus, where we do not present original measurements in tables or text, readers, should they wish, may follow a trail back to original sources and check the accuracy of our calibration". I think this can be taken to indicate that you're right that it's at the discretion of the author. Spot checking elsewhere suggests to me that articles that give original research on dating or which provide the first dates for samples are more likely to give uncalibrated dates, but where the author is using someone else's data he only gives the uncalibrated date when there's a reason to do so. Does the change I propose above address your concerns? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    "It is possible to incorporate a correction for the half-life value into the calibration curve, and so measured radiocarbon dates can be quoted in "radiocarbon years", meaning that the dates are calculated using Libby's half-life value and have not been calibrated." I still find this puzzling. I am not sure you ever fully explain "calibration curve", but I take it that it is a line on a graph of years against C14 values derived from a sample of known age - eg from tree rings. "a correction for the half-life value" presumably means adjusting the date to agree with the wrong 1950s half-life, but it seems an odd way of putting it. How about something like "Dates can be given which are calculated using Libby's incorrect 1950s value for the half-life of C14, and also without calibrating for changes in the proportion of C14 in the atmosphere at different periods. This allows experts to apply their own views about the correct values for calibrating C14 dates. These are called "radiocarbon dates" or "uncalibrated dates", whereas true calendar dates are "calibrated dates"." BTW you seem to have forgotten to change "standard practice" to "can be quoted".
    I hadn't made the full edit I thought I did; sorry. I've done so now. I'll think some more about your suggested wording; I don't like "true" as an adjective, but I see what you're getting at. Does the calibration section of the article give sufficient detail? I deferred the explanation of the curves to that section, thinking it would be too complicated at this point in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    I still find this sentence confusing, although I agree that your "best estimate of the actual calendar date" is better than my wording (which in any case you can no doubt improve). Also it is not clear when you refer to radiocarbon years and uncalibrated dates that they are synomyms. (I assume they are - until I read this article I assumed that uncalibrated just meant not calibrated for changes in C14 levels, not a wrong figure for the half-life.) Note 2 is against the best estimate of the actual date, and so it is not clear what "also" refers to. A further point is that I think that as a general principle an article should always explain a technical term like calibration curve the first time it is used, as otherwise the reader cannot be expected to know what you mean. Basically I think that you are explaining a key point here which needs to be explained in simple language for the non-expert. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    I agree this needs to be clear, and I'm happy to keep working on it; I can see it's a confusing point. I've expanded the discussion; let me know what you think. If this is not enough, then perhaps it would be best to just cut the whole paragraph -- which I think I originally intended to be an aside to the reader, to let them know complications were coming -- and defer the discussion of radiocarbon ages to the calibration section instead. That way the information comes at a point where it is natural to explain it a little more slowly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "sea organisms have a mass of less than 1% of those on land" - no change needed but I find this amazing.
    Me too. I checked the source (it's viewable in Google Books if you're curious) and confirmed it; it shows marine biota at 3 billion tonnes of carbon, and land vegetation at 615 billion tonnes. I guess there are large areas of the deep sea that are effectively deserts, whereas most of the land has vegetation of some kind or another. And sea vegetation never reaches the mass that trees do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    I did a double-take at this too. But whales! But... oh, trees. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "To verify the accuracy of the method, several artefacts that were datable by other techniques were tested; the results of the testing were in reasonable agreement with the true ages of the objects. In 1958, Hessel de Vries was able to demonstrate that the 14 C/12 C ratio had changed over time" This is unclear. Did early tests suggest that C14 does not vary, which were disproved by de Vries? If so this should be clarified. (I once read that doubts were first raised due to discrepancies between the known dates of ancient Egyptian artefacts and C14 dates, but maybe this is a myth.)
    This got me digging and I discovered that the sentences you quote include some material that predates my involvement with the article. I was evidently not very careful when I switched citations; the citations I give support a date in the 1960s, not 1958. The 1958 date comes from "Münnich KO, Östlund HG, de Vries H (1958). "Carbon-14 Activity during the past 5,000 Years". Nature 182 (4647): 1432–3. Bibcode:1958Natur.182.1432M. doi:10.1038/1821432a0" which I haven't seen and don't have access to. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy and get back to you on this. However, to answer your question, the initial investigations did not use objects of precisely known age, and since the error bars were fairly broad on the early dates, it wasn't clear there was a problem. De Vries and others worked on getting 14
    dates from tree rings since it was clear that would validate the results; and in addition, as you say, discrepancies were becoming apparent with Egyptian chronologies. Assuming that the Nature article cited supports what's stated in the article, I'll add it as a citation, and then for clarification how about this: "To verify the accuracy of the method, several artefacts that were datable by other techniques were tested; the results of the testing were in reasonable agreement with the true ages of the objects. Over time, however, discrepancies began to appear between the known chronology for the oldest Egyptian dynasties and the radiocarbon dates of Egyptian artefacts. Neither the pre-existing Egyptian chronology nor the new radiocarbon dating method could be assumed to be accurate, but a third possibility was that the 14
    ratio had changed over time, and this was demonstrated in 1958 by Hessel de Vries." Though I'm not sure why later sources only talk about de Vries and don't mention his co-authors. Anyway, I'll get back to you on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    I have now seen the Nature article and it definitely does not support de Vries as the person who verified that the ratio had varied historically, so I've modified that section to go with the other sources I have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • So tree rings provide a check on the level of atmospheric carbon back c 14,000 years. How do they check it in earlier periods? Ice cores?
    The INTCAL13 article lists plant macrofossils, speleothems, corals, and foraminifera as data sources, in addition to tree rings. I could add something to this but I was thinking this sort of detail would go better in the subarticle on calibration. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    I think it is worth a sentence.
    Done; added in the calibration section, where the discussion of the INTCAL13 curve is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Why mention the C3 and C4 pathways when you do not say there is any difference in their C14 uptake.
    C4 plants have higher (less negative) δ13C values. I think the details were originally in the article and were moved to the subarticle on dating considerations. Do you think I should remove the reference to C3 and C4 completely, or mention that there's a difference? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    It depends how significant you think it is. I think you need to go into more detail or delete.
    I deleted it; I think it would take longer to explain than is appropriate for this level of detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologies if I am showing my ignorance, but in the Isotopic fractionation equation, does not multiplied by 1000 parts per thousand mean multiplied by 1?
    I assume you mean the \times 1000\ ^{o}\!/\!_{oo} in the equation? It was meant to indicate "multiply by 1,000" with the ‰ sign giving the unit notation. Or are you referring to something else? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    I think I see now. I was thinking 5x100%=5, so why does not 5x1000 parts per thousand=5, but you mean times 1000 with the answer in parts per thousand.
    Yes, that's the intent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry I've been so slow to respond; I was on vacation for a week and have had a filthy cold since I got back. I hope to get back to Aethelwulf shortly too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Dudley Miles: I've now responded to everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    I am away for the weekend and will look at the rest of the article next week. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


  • intro should mention that Libby got a Nobel explicitly for this work
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • do all living organisms exchange their carbon well? for example a 6000-yr old tree has the same C14/C12 ratio as its reservoir?
    Yes, all living organisms exchange their carbon in a way that captures the then-current ratio, but a tree only exchanges carbon for the tree ring it is currently growing. So a 6,000-year-old tree has 5,999 rings that are not exchanging carbon, and one ring that is exchanging carbon. That's the basis of using the dendrochronology to establish the calibration curve -- each tree ring captures the 14
    ratio of the year it grew in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps mention this after "once it dies" in Principles (could be a footnote). Non-experts would have a hard time getting this. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Done; I put this in the atmospheric variation section, which is where the use of tree rings for calibration is discussed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • this is a bit confusing: "the radiocarbon age of marine life is typically about 440 years." this means if a fish is tested he appears to have died at the same time with a land-mammal dying 440 years ago?
    That's correct. The calibrated age doesn't show this, because marine life is calibrated with a different curve, to allow for exactly this problem. But if you catch a fish today, and test it as if it was a land animal, you'll get an apparent age of over 400 years. This actually came up in today's featured article, on the exhumation of Richard III -- he ate enough sea-food that the lab that tested his bones had to apply the marine correction to their results. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add this clarification somewhere in the text. I hat to think really hard to get that this is what the sentence was saying. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Done, inside the footnote that was already there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Dates are often reported in years "before present", or BP; this refers to a baseline of 1950 AD, so that a date of 500 BP means 1450 AD." is a bit confusing, since present is not 1950. Maybe remove this from the intro?
    I actually added it at someone else's request; see above -- the suggestion was that people would want to know what a reported date means, and the BP terminology is very widely used, so I figured I should include it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
then change "this refers" to "however, this actually refers". Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Done -- I just used "actually"; I don't think we need "however" as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • maybe the intro can mention that the nuclear tests and fossil-fuel burning has had a noticeable effect on the C14 distribution in the atmosphere?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nergaal: Sorry about the slow replies; I've responded to all your comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The article seems a bit dry now, how about spicing it up with File:Carbon_14_formation_and_decay.svg, File:Willard_Libby.jpg, File:Prometheus_tree1.jpg, File:Shroudofturin1.jpg and some pic of an old geiger counter? Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    I agree it could use more images. I had to remove the Libby picture because it's non-free, sadly. The equation used to be in the article; I took it out partly because I didn't need the third part of the equation, but mostly because it was better to be able to place text in between the two equations as part of the explanatory flow. The bristlecone pine picture is good, but unfortunately the two places in the article where it could go already have graphic images and there's not really room to add it. I'm not keen on putting the Shroud of Turin in; I think it's a somewhat controversial topic and I would rather find an image of one of the other archaeological examples. I found an image of the Great Isaiah Scroll and added that to the discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I also agree that a picture of some of the measurement equipment would be good, but although I have access to some pictures of Libby's early equipment, they are copyrighted, and I don't think I can justify use. I'm open to other ideas -- it would be great to add more pictures.
    @Nergaal: I've responded to all your points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Put the tree after Intcal_13_calibration_curve.png. Maybe use File:Scintillation counter as a spectrometer.jpg or File:Scintillation Counter.jpg. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I put the tree at the top of that section and moved the graph down, and trimmed the caption slightly (it was repeating material from the main text). Rather than a scintillation counter I went with an accelerator mass spectrometer, since AMS is now the most important measurement technology. How does it look now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One final thing: wherever you use BP, please also add the BCE date. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    Done. In the Two Creeks discussion, I only added it to the final number, because I think it would get very messy to include parenthetical BC dates for each of the other six BP dates in that paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I went through this article several times in the past year and I think it is of a very good quality. It is slightly over'y technical at times, but I have a hard time seeing how it can be improved even further considering the subject itself is very technical. If you have some time I would appreciate any comments at the FLC of List of nearest exoplanets. Nergaal (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review and support. I'll be glad to look at the FLC, but it might take me a day or two to get there; I have a couple of other commitments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

  • Firstly just a disclaimer, my knowledge of the scientific world ends with the C average I got across a dozen odd science based units in my undergraduate degree, and that was several years ago, so this review will be largely non-technical.
  • Consider wikilinking Before present; even though there is an explanation of the basics here there is a decent article on the subject.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason the third and fourth use of half-life are wikilinked, but the first isn't? Also despite the explanation a wikilink probably wouldn't hurt in the lead.
    Fixed; it was just an oversight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Liquid scintillation counting is wikilinked, and in the below section "beta counting" is also linked to that page. The term "beta counting" does not appear at the 'Liquid scintillation counting' page; i'm confused.
    I've removed the second link. Liquid scintillation counting can be used to count either alpha particles of beta particles. I don't think a link from beta counting is necessary, though, since as you say it's linked earlier. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Higham and co-workers (2014) have suggested..." Is it customary to format the date of the paper like this? Shouldn't it just read "In 2014, Hingham and co-workers suggested..."
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The very last sentence contains 3 duplicate links. Are they all necessary?
    Can you clarify? I clicked through all of them and unless the drugs I'm on are stronger than I think they are they all go to different articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I made a few minor fixes.
  • I'd agree that for an article on an extremely technical subject, the readability here is good.
  • If you'd like me to comment on any thing in particular, just point it out. I'll support on prose once the issues above that require responses are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Freikorp: Thank you very much for the review. Since you don't have a science background, there is one thing I'd like you to comment on, if you wouldn't mind; Johnbod mentioned at the start of this FAC that he thinks the article structure gets into the science too quickly. Could you have a look at his comments and see what you think? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

God of War: Ascension[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 18:45, 4 March 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 recently promoted FA, God of War III, though of course there are differences. JDC808 18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Image comments by David Fuchs[edit]

  • I'm not sure about the NFCC rationales for File:GOWAscension MP.jpg, File:GoWAscension Kratos vs Charybdis.jpg, and File:God-of-War-Ascension-Collectors-Edition-Kratos-Statue-002.jpg. The Ascension map seems mostly to be background dressing; it doesn't demonstrate gameplay, and doesn't seem necessary to explain multiplayer or critics' response to it. The Kratos statue is really just illustrative, and the Charybdis image doesn't seem essential either, especially as you're illustrating a part of the game that didn't make it to the finished product. I would suggest removing the above images and looking for a gameplay image that touches on the specific aspects called out in the gameplay and reception sections (also noting: the reviewers mention a color-coding system that doesn't seem to be discussed in the gameplay section.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Replaced the MP image with one that shows the color-coding system, and added its information to the section. Replaced the Charybdis one with concept art of the sequence. Does the statue one need removed? --JDC808 16:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
      • The gameplay image seems better, but I'm still not sold on the statue or now the concept art image. The sequence was cut from the game; why is our understanding of the topic significantly hurt by not having visualizations of a cut sequence discussed in a paragraph? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)
        • For one, it gives more visual appeal. Two, which is more important, it gives insight into what could have happened, as for someone who is interested in the history of the development of the game, that's intriguing to be able to see that. A good example would be a character. Not all characters appear in a game as they were originally designed. Having concept art of the original design and having a screenshot of how the character actually appeared in the game is really nice to have from a developmental stand point. --JDC808 15:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry for the delay, but the points you're arguing don't jive with WP:NFCC. Obviously it's nice to have images, but when they're non-free that's not a standard we follow. Removing images of a portion of the game that didn't actually end up in the final product isn't significantly harming reader understanding of the topic, hence it's not defensible per the criterion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by PresN[edit]

  • It's "SCE Santa Monica Studio", or "Sony Santa Monica", not just "Santa Monica Studio"
    It can be stated without "SCE" or "Sony".
  • "In the lead up to the game's release on" - the game was released on Or just the graphic novel? Also, there's no hyphen in "graphic-novel". The whole sentence is feeling a bit unwieldy with the long aside as well- try something like "A graphic novel prequel to the single and multiplayer modes, featuring social challenges to unlock bonus content, was launched as Rise of the Warrior on in the lead up to the game's release."
  • Tense shift- the graphics "are true" to prior games, but the story "was not" as compelling as prior games
  • GOCE copy-editor mistake.
  • Why do the publisher, director, and multiplayer mode get a special citation callout in the infobox?
    It's from back when the article was first being developed and citations were put where confirmed. I never removed them from there because I never saw it as an issue.
  • odd and unintentional redirects kicking off the gameplay section- the see also link, multiplayer, third-person, gorgons, harpies, centaurs. Also, why does Gorgon get a capital letter, but not Sirens, Cerberus, or Talos, which are also specific, named creatures usually capitalized?
    What's wrong with the "see also" link and the others in general? They link to where they're supposed to. As for capitalization, I admittedly missed the capitalization of Sirens, but the rest are how each one's respective Wikipedia article treats them in regards to capitalization (they don't). The only exception is "cerberuses". The "cerberuses" in these games are not the one-and-only Cerberus of Greek mythology. In the God of War universe, there are many cerberuses.
  • A wiktionary link to wraith? I'm not sure I would even regular link that, much less external link it.
    Covered in response two points down.
  • "The game features a variety of puzzles, some simple while other may be more complex." - not only should it be "others", but this sentence hedges itself- "may be". Just say "The game features a variety of puzzles, ranging from simple to complex."
  • This whole paragraph is a bit off, actually. Why list every monster in the game? "The game features several creatures from Greek mythology as enemies, such as A, B, C." There's no need to list a dozen monsters to pad out the paragraph. Your first paragraph to God of War III is more readable.
    God of War III also lists all of the mythological monsters that appear in it. Looking at it from a perspective of someone who has no knowledge about this series, I would find that interesting to know what mythological monsters are actually in these games. I cut back on the game specific monsters.
  • "wrapped around the character's wrists" - just say "his wrists", no need to use a longer term for a specific character.
  • "A new weapons mechanic" - mention that it's new to the series, not just "new"
    Is it not understood that it's new to the series?
  • "These include a sword" - These are a sword- include implies that your only listing some, not the whole list
  • "Kratos may punch or kick foes as part of the new combat system." - drop "as part of the new combat system", this whole section is about the combat system.
    Yes, this whole section is about the combat system, but this is a new mechanic to the combat system.
  • "because several components of the game are based in this environment" - wordy, "because several sections of the game are submerged."
    I didn't really like that rewording, but I changed it to "a necessary ability as substantial time is spent here."
  • What fills the Rage meter?
    Accidentally cut that part when I did some condensing.
  • "A broken bridge can be constructed or deconstructed depending on the goal" - can you only do one or the other, based on what's going on? Or can you construct a bridge, then deconstruct it again even if that's not helpful? Either way, I don't think "depending on the goal" is a useful addition to the sentence.
  • "The Oath Stone of Orkos gives Kratos the ability to be bi-located, creating a "shadow" version" -> "The Oath Stone of Orkos gives Kratos the ability to create a "shadow" duplicate"
    Some of these are what the GOCE copy-editor did and "bi-located" is one example.
  • "player takes control of the warrior and aligns with one of the four deities" - does it really take 6 different citations to handle this sentence, or are some of these meant for the earlier parts of the paragraph?
    The citations following each name are trailers demonstrating some of each god's abilities for choosing them. The last is a reference to the instruction manual. I don't remember the reason for the other one without checking the link, but I removed it.
  • Spartan and Trojan are both linking to disambiguation pages
    Fixed, though the very first part of those pages explained the terms' usage here.
  • Okay, I'm going to stop here. This whole section is just... way too long. It's a combination of two things- you go into too much detail in explaining exactly how every mechanic works instead of just saying "there is an X mechanic that lets Kratos do Y", and your writing style is really wordy. There's a lot of roundabout sentence construction, add-on phrases that don't add anything substantive to the sentence, etc. God of War III got the idea across in 5 paragraphs (4.5, really), while this takes 9 big ones- even the addition of multiplayer shouldn't have doubled the length. It's just a bit much; I get tired just getting through the section, and I see that the rest of the article is going to keep up that pace- that 11-paragraph release section is making my eye twitch just looking at it, as it's long enough to be its own sub-article. You really need to substantially cut down on the length of this article. I'll return to review the rest of the article soon.
  • --PresN 19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    I highly disagree with needing to substantially cut down the length. God of War III's gameplay section was actually two or three paragraphs longer when it passed FAC. After it passed FAC, I decided to cut out a lot of the similar gameplay elements and just put a link that covers all of that (I actually decided that was something I wanted to do during the FAC review, but didn't do it during the review process as to not mess up anything for the reviewers). You're leaving out that there are subsections, which are there so that it's not an 11-paragraph release section that you're making it out to be (By that, I mean it's not 11 straight paragraphs, there are subsections that break that up. It's like reading a book; if the main section is the book, the subsections are the chapters.). --JDC808 21:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by hahnchen[edit]

I've not really reviewed the article, just bits of it. I probably won't have time to do a deep a dive as I did for GOW3, but here are some thoughts nonetheless.

    • I thought the cyclops multiplayer image was better because it gave you a sense of scale and showed a unique environmental danger that you wouldn't find in other games.
      Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs didn't seem to like it which is why I changed it. I'll change it back because you're right.
    • I would still include a gameplay image showing standard single player gameplay.
      Will look for one. Put one in the Plot section. --JDC808 15:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      I'd just pick a straight gameplay image with Kratos swinging his blades about - that's typical gameplay, rather than the QTE that you've picked out. - hahnchen 22:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      Okay, I'll see what I can find.
    • I'd prefer the sales data in the reception section rather than the release section. This is where it's most expected.
      I've always put it there in release.
    • "free for players who obtained the Season Pass from the Collector's Edition." It isn't free if you've already paid for it.
      Fixed. I guess I was thinking with like PS Plus or XBL where you get "free" games every month.
    • Your Gamerankings scores do not line up, consider whether you need it at all given the audience find Metacritic sufficient to show the consensus.
      Fixed. I forgot to change the one in the prose when I updated the score about a week ago.
    • I'm not sure that Bros before Hos needs mention at all, it seems weird having its own little subsection.
      Okay, I'll think about what to do with it.
    • Consider your use of quotes carefully. You pick out a lot of tiny quotes such as 'Edge also said the fixed camera system is an "asset"', this reads to me as though the word "asset" is in scare quotes which gives the opposite meaning. It also looks clumsy and throws off the readers' inner voice.
      Okay, I'll look at it.
    • "In 2014, Ascension received nominations from two prestigious annual awards." Remove this, you don't need a summary sentence for two nominations, and "prestigious" is fluff.
      Okay. --JDC808 23:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You need a better development section. A lot of it isn't even development, but just meaningless marketing milestones.
    • The rumours of the game (some of which are wrong) are trivial and unencyclopedic.
      • Removed and just put a one liner saying a bunch of sources claimed a 2012 release.
    • I don't need David Jaffe to tell me Asmussen is doing "cool stuff". Just say Papy is the director and Asmussen did not work on the game.
      • Removed the "cool stuff"; replaced with "working on another project".
    • "Sony stated the game would offer" - you go on to reprint a meaningless marketing nothing. Consider cutting this down, this is not an exhaustive list.
      • Ended up cutting the whole paragraph.
    • When Papy revealed plot points is irrelevant. Readers have just read through your plot.
      • Goes with above point.
    • When Simon revealed circle button changes is irrelevant. Readers have just read through your gameplay.
      • Cut this down.
    • I don't know see how Jaffe's hypothetical game has any bearing on the actual game.
      • Since he created this series and was the first game's director, I find it interesting to see what his perspective is and I thought other readers might as well.
    • Why are you citing Game Rant when it just quotes the significantly more reliable IGN?
      • It was the article I had read.
    • More trivial stuff in the Multiplayer section, such as what PAX attendees get.
      • Trimmed some.
    • Yet you miss a development postmortem at Gamasutra which dives into the difficulties Santa Monica had working on their first ever multiplayer game.[22]
      • hahnchen 22:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
        Will read. May not get to implementing until Monday. --JDC808 02:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
        Implemented with a request to have the new paragraph copy-edited. --JDC808 21:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
        "5. Early MP Testing Forced Us to Think of the Game as an Evolving Service" is really important to the multiplayer beta and you've ignored it. - hahnchen 20:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
        I didn't really ignore it. When I first read it, I didn't see much that it would add to the article. Rereading it and thinking more about it, there's a couple of points that could be useful. --JDC808 21:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
        Done. --JDC808 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp[edit]

  • It wouldn't hurt to specify which country the cover art in the infobox is from, and the image needs ALT text.
    • It did state North America, but someone said it was not only North America's.
  • Ref 138 is dead. Check links also finds a fair few redirects.
    • Couldn't find a working link, so removed.
  • It's nice to see many of your sources are archived, but there are plenty that are not. It's not required for FAC, but in my experience the more online references you archive the less likely this article is to appear at FAR. Otherwise your references formatting is consistent and up to standards.
    • I usually archive them, I've just been lazy on doing it recently.
      • All that would archive have been archived. --JDC808 15:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "A broken bridge can be constructed or deconstructed." I don't understand how something that is already broken can be 'deconstructed'. Can you explain to me what this means in game? Accordingly consider providing a better explanation to the reader.
    • During the construction, you can also reverse what you've done if needed. Will try to explain better.
  • "The Prison of the Damned is a massive prison built upon the imprisoned Hecatonchires Aegaeon..." "Aegaeon" hasn't been introduced at this stage. Googling allowed me to familiarise myself with the term, but it may be worth briefly explaining exactly what this is to the reader; I don't think it would make sense to people not familiar with the game or mythology as is.
    • Linked his name.
  • "He is attacked by all three Furies and severs Megaera's arm". It's already been established in the plot that Megaera has been killed. How is she alive again?
    • It's in the past. The narrative of this game shifts between the present and past (stated in the Setting section). The preceding paragraph states that it's 3 weeks before the present time, and this paragraph is a week after the previous paragraphs events.
      • Oh right, my bad. Freikorp (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One instance of "Charybdis"does not have a capital.
    • That was actually done on purpose. Charybdis is the name of a sea monster in Greek mythology. In the Plot section where it states that Alecto transforms into a charybdis, I'm using "charybdis" to mean a type of sea monster rather than the sea monster named Charybdis. That may not have been the best way to do it. I'm going to make this easy and just replace "charybdis" in the Plot with sea monster.
  • Nine instances of "he said" in the reception section gets a bit painful.
    • Cut it back to four.
  • Lead states that it won no awards, but the accolades section does not explicitly state this. As the lead should summarise the article, consider either removing this information from the lead or adding it to the accolades section.
    • Fixed.

Overall a very well written article. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you. --JDC808 06:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

2011 White House shooting[edit]

Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk), Freikorp (talk 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

On on November 11, 2011, bullets struck the second floor near the first family's formal living room of the White House, but It took four days for the Secret Service to realize it. "The shit really hit the fan" when President Barack Obama returned from his travels five days later, and by October 2014, the services of two directors of the United States Secret Service were no longer required. Please enjoy reading this Social sciences and society good article, which we believe is ready to be a featured article. Please let us know your thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Feel free to revert, but I separated the images of Sullivan and Pierson. I don't think they need to be attached and the one of Sullivan is of much poorer quality and should be reduced in size from the previous revision (imo). ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I undid my edit per a request on my talk page by one of the nominators. I don't feel strongly either way, which I expressed here and on my talk page, so I am fine to undo and respect the author's preference. Carry on! ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki. Prhartcom (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry. I don't think this is at FA quality, and that's not so much a criticism of the writing as a reflection of the fact that for a topic of this kind, getting it to FA is pretty much impossible due the absence of strong (non-news) sources and the inherent "newsiness" of it all. Also, the prose would need a good do-over:
  • "President Obama, his wife Michelle, and their oldest daughter Malia were not home at the time of the shooting, although their younger daughter Sasha"
  • I'm not picking up what you're putting down here. What's the problem? Freikorp (talk)
  • Agents who thought the building had been fired upon "were largely ignored" - where is this quote from?
  • Why are gang-fight and gun-shop hyphenated?
  • "The first lady was said to be furious" - said by whom?
  • "during which she was reported to have raised her voice so loudly she could be heard through the closed door" - reported by whom?
  • "President Obama was also said to be furious over the flawed response" - said by whom?
  • "A former agent stated that the Secret Service needed to change its ways in order to prevent "complacency" and stop future attacks" - is this unnamed further agent a credible critic?
  • I don't see why not, but feel free to ask for other opinions. Freikorp (talk)
  • Pierson "got an earful" from Committee Chairman Darrell Issa - whose quotes are these?
  • "a release date of October 24, 2033". Is this definite? Any possibility of parole?
  • I don't know. I can't find any coverage on him after he was sentenced. That date is just from the Federal Bureau of Prisons website. Freikorp (talk)
I think a lot of the above examples are indicative of the journalistic approach to reporting creeping into the Wikipedia article, which is perhaps close to unavoidable in an article of this kind, but isn't consistent with FA standards. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. It's the first one so i'll have to wait for more to get a consensus regarding the article not being suitable for FA. In the meantime i've attempted to address the specific concerns raised. Freikorp (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Mkativerata, can you be more specific about how the "newsiness" of this article is problematic and/or in violation of FA criteria? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It manifests itself in two ways, so far as the FA criteria go. First, the article universally uses contemporaneous news sources or primary sources (FBI). That doesn't amount to the high-quality sourcing required by 1c. Second, the over-reliance on news sources has crept into the prose of the article, examples of which are above. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm certainly not suggesting that you are wrong, I just didn't know 'contemporaneous news sources' = low quality... Thanks for responding and I look forward to seeing what other reviewers also say. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If this incident has been extensively covered by scholarly books or peer-reviewed journals, then yes, newspapers are relatively low quality. (and you should preferentially use the scholarly sources) If that isn't the case, you make do with what you get—newspapers, especially NYT, WaPo etc, as is the case here, are fine.—indopug (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Also the WaPo piece that forms the backbone of this article is a detailed investigative article, written three years after the event. It is much more authoritative than a mere "contemporaneous news source".—indopug (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you clarify that because I certainly agree with that statement. Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Telopea oreades[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) & Melburnian

This article is about a nice flower from cool and wet forests in southeastern Australia. Started reading as I was planning on trying to grow some...and so began buffing the article. There are two of us nominating so we should be able to address issues pretty quickly. I have scoured just about everywhere I can think of for info. Have at it, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Can you possibly expand this article more? The last paragraph in the "Distribution and Habitat" section should be either expanded or merged (I highly suggest expansion). Also, I think the "Ecology" section should be expanded, because compared to the "Cultivation" section, it is inadequately small. If there's no more information, then it should stay as A-class; not big enough to be a FA, but better than a GA. Also, if known, shouldn't there be the status of the species (Least Concern, Near Threatened, Threatened, Endangered, Critically Endangered or Extinct) in the taxobox? For these reasons, I think it does not meet all the FA criteria (unless it can be expanded) and should be A-class. Gug01 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Support See comments below Article should meet all criteria. Gug01 (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

what specific ecology information do you think it is missing that should be added? Size is not a criterion for FA status but comprehensiveness is. I am looking for something on its status, which is tricky as it is a default "not threatened" but need somewhere that states it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The species has not yet been assessed for the IUCN Red List, so we can't use an IUCN conservation status in the taxobox. I have added the species conservation status for Australia and Victoria (NSW previously mentioned) in the text.--Melburnian (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I've confused you, but I meant comprehensiveness. I've seen that you've nailed down the "Distribution and Habitat" section. Apparently you two have added both photos and information to the "Ecology" section, or maybe my eyes are just tricking me. At any rate, I'll make another post supporting the article, because I really believe its ready for FA status now. Gug01 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and support.--Melburnian (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Image license review by --Gaff (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

formatted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
not sure what to do about that - best to ask at commons and either exonerate or nuke the parent file I guess....if nuked I will draw another one. Will ask over there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you or I could make a nicer looking map in SVG format. I'd be honored to assist, though suspect you can handle it. --Gaff (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright then, yer on - offer of help greatly appreciated and taken up. send me an email and I'll send you an image of the range from the book I have. I am not good with different file types...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Moving the discussion to User:Gaff/Map_request#Telopea_oreades to not muddy up this FAC discussion (and give me a chance to geek out that I have a map making project). --Gaff (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • New map is up here File:Telopea_oreades_distribution_map.svg. The source map and data set are referenced on the file and should be good to go, but since I created it, maybe somebody else, such as @Nikkimaria: can review this image? To clarify, the prior map has been upgraded d/t source and quality concerns. New map needs review. Thank you. --Gaff (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Licensing is fine on new map, but I'm interested in the data: since the source is a heat map, how did you derive the distinct shape for distribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I will take that web-linked source down, since it is not the best source. See discussion here on better sourcing. If you email either me or Cas Liber, we can send you a scan from the textbook source, which is considered definitive. --Gaff (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sourcing has been clarified on the file. Casliber has the book and sent me a copy of the figure, which we can email to anyone interested. That should be sufficient verification. Gaff (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
har har... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments by Sasata

Some prose/MoS niggles and linking suggestions. More later. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • lead:
  • links: acidic soil; subspecies; hybridizes; cultivar
  • "(0.59–2.4 in)" first number looks a little too precise for this purpose (in description too)
all tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Description:
  • links: buttressed; lenticel; habit; obovate; spathulate
  • "easily seen vein which runs" which->that
  • crescent shaped nectary” hyphen needed
  • "It can be difficult to distinguish from T. mongaensis though the leaves of the latter species" I think "latter" should be used only when two or more things have been clearly identified in the sentence, so perhaps "It can be difficult to distinguish T. oreades from T. mongaensis’’ …"
all tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Taxonomy:
  • links: described; species name; disjunct; Monga valley (link earlier); Pleistocene; threatened; sclerophyll
all linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • could you either bluelink Nungatta Creek, or indicate generally where is is?
done --Melburnian (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "southeastern Australia which make up the genus" which->that
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • non-break spaces are needed for short form binomials throughout article
  added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Still missing many nbsps ... (sorry, I should have indicated that these are needed throughout the entire article) Sasata (talk)
forgot about the names - added a bunch more now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Distribution and habitat
  • what is a tableland escarpment?
just an escarpment of a tableland, have linked escarpment now. Not sure about two bluelinks next to each other (i.e. if we're gonna link tableland) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • However, there are unconfirmed reports”
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • links: bushfire; plantsmen
  • "slower growing plants" needs hyphen
all done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cultivation and uses
  • links: clay, frost; pruned; cutting; T. speciosissima; Dandenongs
  • "white flowered cultivars" hyphen
  • "Plantsmen have also developed several hybrids with T. oreades, looking to combine the hardiness of this species with the showier flowerheads of the latter." Confused as to what “this” and “the latter” species are here.
  • "larger shrub which may reach" which->that
  • "It is durable, yet can be readily polished and worked with," Is durable wood known to be harder to polish and work with? If not, perhaps replace "yet" with "and"
all done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • there's no redirect for the common name "mountain waratah"
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • this source states that "tree waratah" is another common name
can't see page that from Aus - looking for another ref to source the name added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sasata: any other tweaks? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Children of Mana[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Children of Mana was an attempt by Square Enix to revitalize a series of video games that had produced what many felt were some of the best RPGs ever made for the SNES- Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3. Turns out, attaching a weak plot to a complete shift in gameplay style didn't have the effect they'd hoped for, and this first of three successive titles in the Mana series got only middling reviews. As a part of my drive to get all of the Mana articles up to GA+, I've recently gotten this to GA, and a month ago tried to send this through FAC. The general response was... crickets, so two weeks later I'm trying again. Hopefully two times is the charm! Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment originally released in Japan as Seiken Densetsu DS: Children of Mana (Japanese: 聖剣伝説DS CHILDREN of MANA Hepburn: Seiken Densetsu DS: Chirudoren obu Mana?, lit. "Legend of the Sacred Sword DS: Children of Mana") is way too long an interruption to the first sentence. The lay person shouldn't have to read two lines of alternatives, translations and transliterations of the title before he finds out that this article is about a video game. You should either trim it or relegate it to a footnote. I wonder if the DS should be introduced as a handheld console?—indopug (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Indopug: That unwieldy template is standard for Japanese video games, even FAs, but I've now moved it to a footnote and I think it does work better that way. I've also added that the DS is a handheld game console. --PresN 19:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; looks to have been maintained fine since the previous FAC and a great article besides. Tezero (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to FAC delegates- Tezero reviewed this at the last FAC, and supported there; this support is just a carry-through of that one. --PresN 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by JDC808[edit]

I've gone through the article and made some copy-edits where I saw necessary. Have just a few points before I'm willing to support:

  • In the Gameplay section, it says "The player controls the unnamed main character, chosen from one of four options." However, in the Setting and characters subsection, it says "The four major characters of Children of Mana are Ferrik, Tamber, Poppen, and Wanderer." Are those not their names?
  • Story subsection, "a mysterious man garbed in black appears and attempts to take the Holy Sword, which is still stuck in the ground, but finds that it is protected by a barrier. The man disappears, and the hero takes the Holy Sword,..." How did the hero get through the barrier? Did the barrier disappear when the man did?
  • "When the Mana Lord is about to kill the hero, a group of gems appear around him to prevent his attack." I was going to copy-edit this, but need some clarification. Do the gems appear around the hero or the Mana Lord?
  • "At the end of the Path, the hero finds the Mana Lord waiting. Upon his defeat, the Mana Lord..." I assume the hero and the Mana Lord battled here, but that's completely left out. --JDC808 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Corrected (removed unnamed)
  • The barrier only appears to block the man when he grabs for the sword; no such barrier appears to block the hero. Reworded.
  • Changed to "the hero"; it shouldn't have been gender-specific anyways
  • Added that they fought.
@JDC808: Responded below your comments, tried to fix all four issues. --PresN 20:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Made a few more copy-edits. All of my issues have been addressed. I Support this article's promotion. --JDC808 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

I have found something.

  • In the lead, the coding for the cover art uses of brackets and resolution for the cover art instead of using the image directly doesn't appear to be the current form. I suppose changing it is optional, but it would look both consistent and tidy.
  • I don't think the "Role-playing video games introduced in 2006" and "2006 video games" should be used together.

Those are the only things that jumped out. Sorry it's not any longer, but I seriously can't think of anything else that hasn't been mentioned above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @ProtoDrake: Adjusted both (also got rid of the Nintendo DS category in favor of the Nintendo DS RPG category, by the same logic. --PresN 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One last thing I've noticed: The RPGamer reference is lacking its publisher. The publisher is CraveOnline, I think. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @PresN:, in that case, I think I can now Support this with a clearer mind. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Texas Revolution[edit]

Nominator(s): Maile and Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This article covers the war in 1835-1836 that led to Texas independence from Mexico. In one corner, we have a grandiose dictator, convinced his honor depends on wiping out American vermin, who tolerated no argument with his increasingly short-sighted decisions. In the other, a group of ill-disciplined volunteers - some of whom had been in Texas only five minutes - who couldn't agree on what they were fighting for or whether the orders their commanders issued really needed to be followed after all. The fact that today (March 2, 2015) we're celebrating the 179th anniversary of Texas independence is, quite frankly, a miracle.

We began work on this article after a WMF representative passed on a request by The History Channel for this article to be on the main page at the end of May, when their new miniseries Texas Rising premieres. While the History Channel's miniseries are known for their, ahem, loose relationship to actual events, we hope this article can clear up any misconceptions that viewers might have. Neither Maile nor I have had any contact with The History Channel reps - this is a topic we've long been interested in, and the request was simply a push for us to actually jump in.

Much thanks to iridescent, who provided significant feedback on the article before the rewrite, and to our peer reviewers/copyeditors Mike Christie and Dank. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I was impressed with this at peer review, and everything I noted there has been fixed. It's good to see higher-level history articles getting brought to featured level. Very nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the edits since the peer review. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Very quick driveby comment (delegate, don't take this as a support or oppose); the Legacy section talks about English-speaking and Tejano perspectives on it, but doesn't mention how Mexican historians view it. (Per my comments a couple of months ago, the featured es:Independencia de Texas gives a very different weight to various parts of the story, most noticeably to the US eye only giving a couple of sentences to the Alamo, and this presumably reflects their sources). When I get the chance, I'll do a proper read-through and review of this finished version. – iridescent 13:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been unable to find sources in English that discuss current Mexican perspectives on the war, although there is one note that Spanish-language sources also compare the Alamo to the Battle of Thermopolaye. I've found a few translations of Spanish essays by Josefina Vazquez (a university professor in Mexico), and they seem to approach the topic very similarly to the English-language sources. I'll keep looking for more coverage of that perspective in the English-language sources, but there's not much I can do if it isn't in English. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Spanish version of the article is featured; might be worth looking at that in Google translate to see if the perspective is different. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I see Iridescent already linked that. That'll teach me to post without reading the comments properly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Karanacs, Iridescent, Mike Christie, I just ran the WP Spanish through Google translator. The translation is located here: Talk:Texas Revolution/Google translation from WP Spanish version. — Maile (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There was a talk page invitation at the WP Mexico, asking for input from that project when we knew this was coming up. You can find that post at this link. As far as I remember, nobody responded. — Maile (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, on the article's talk page, back in January we did solicit Mexico's viewpoint from a WP editor who lives in Mexico and is part of WP Project Mexico. His response is Here. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Now having read through the (imperfect) Google translation, I think the basic story is the same. Some differences. Like our own article before Karanacs reworked it, Tejano participation in the revolution is missing. There is more emphasis on slavery being the cause of the revolution, and an emphasized POV that the revolution was instigated by interlopers from the USA. The Runaway Scrape is mentioned only in that Houston's motive was to pick his own terrain for the battle, and to disrupt the Mexican army's supply sources. They have Santa Anna burning Gonzales, when it was Houston who actually did that. And if Google Translate got it right, the Spanish language version says the Texian army went against Houston's authority to pursue Santa Anna. Their aftermath is not much, but doesn't contradict with what we have. I think the article we submit here with FA is a much more detailed, fleshed-out account of the same story. — Maile (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Arrggghhh! I have an ongoing first-hand experience of what you speak. In my case, it's Audie Murphy, everybody's an expert on that which they have not researched. Karanacs has touched on this misconception issue in the last paragraph of Legacy. Her writing is far above mine, so I'm not going to muck with her prose. And I'm not going to second-guess how she did any of it. But I can tell you first-hand that one of my earliest memories in life was being taken to the Cenotaph and being told about Bowie, Crockett and Travis, at least the version that never mentioned anyone of color. Any movie I saw, any book I read, only told a slightly different version of what Disney and John Wayne told us. Almost two centuries since the revolution of some fact interspersed with fiction, enough for a stand-alone article and then some. This is Karanacs' call if she wants to delve further into it in the article. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I've already added Historiography of the Texas Revolution to my to-do list. I'm hoping Legacy of the Battle of the Alamo, already linked in this article, will be enough to point people towards for now. The majority of the past pop culture coverage has focused on the Alamo, and not on the Texas Revolution as a whole, so we'll steer people over there. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

P. S. Burton[edit]


  • I believe the page number for footnote 41 "Davis (2006), pp. 206, 2011." is incorrect as the book only runs to about 370 pages. Should it perhaps be 201, 210 or 211 instead of 2011?
  • Schoelwer, Susan Prendergast (1985) listed in the references appears not to be used in the article.
  • "Stuart (2007), p. 84." should probably be changed to either Stuart (2008) or Reid (2007).

P. S. Burton (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

P. S. Burton, I've fixed these three. Thank you so much for doing the final gnome-work on this article. I had checked it several times and embarrassed I missed to many of those details. Karanacs (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome Karanacs. I guess it takes more than one pair of eyes to catch them all. On that note, there might still be something wrong with the Stuart ref. You now have two separate refs pointing to Stuart (2008), p. 84. But one of them have the ref name "stuart87". Perhaps either the page number is wrong or the two refs can be combined. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Fixed that one too :) Karanacs (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The article mixes "Mexican Army" and "Mexican army", as well as "Texian Army" and "Texian army".P. S. Burton (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • While almost all page numbers in the ref name parameter matches the cites pages rages, these do not, which makes me suspect some errors might have crept in: <ref name=lack45and57>Lack (1992), pp. 56–7.</ref>, <ref name="winders57">Winders (2004), p. 54.</ref>, <ref name=lack45and57>Lack (1992), pp. 56–7.</ref>, <ref name=hardin129>Hardin (1994), p. 128.</ref>, and <ref name=hardin192and3>Hardin (1994), pp. 190–3.</ref> Might be worth looking in to.
  • The map in the background section appears to be correct, but there is no source for the information given in File:Mexico 1835-1846 administrative map-en-2.svg. Perhaps something could be added to the file description.

I think this is a excellent and very accessible account of the revoultion, however, as a European with hardly no prior knowledge of these events I have a few questions after reading trough the article.

  • It might be worth noting if any other sources supports or disproves Reid's theory that Grant was a British secret agent.
  • In this paragraph "Temperatures reached record lows, and by February 13 an estimated 15–16 inches (38–41 cm) of snow had fallen. A large number of the new recruits were from the tropical climate of the Yucatán, and some of them died of hypothermia." it is not immediately clear to the reader why specifically the recruits from the tropical climate died from hypothermia. Were they for example ill-dressed compared to the other troops?
  • The second-to-last paragraph in the section "Goliad campaign" concerning the Texians' surrender is a bit hard to follow. First I thought all of them surrendered on March 20, but then the text talks about a second surrender two days later. Was it only Fannin who surrendered on March 20? If so perhaps that could be made more clear. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
In regards to who surrendered when, I added "with Fannin" after the Texians who surrendered on the 20th. It says earlier in that section that Ward's men were conducting raids on ranches, and Fannin had no word from them. Two different surrenders, Fannin and his men on the 20th, and Ward etal. on the 22nd.— Maile (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Those refs you pointed out are okay; I changed them recently and neglected to change the names.
  • As for Grant and his purported British roots - Reid's work is fairly new (2007). Previous historians had not examined the British archives. The only more recent major look at the Matamoros Expedition, by Craig Roell in 2013, mentions Reid's conclusion, specifically attributing it to Reid, without passing judgment on whether or not the conclusion has merit. The Texas State Historical Association did hire Reid to write the Handbook of Texas online entry for Grant. Should I mention that in a note? Karanacs (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A believe a short note would be good. Either that or a mention of Reid's theory in Grant's article. –P. S. Burton (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Grant's article is actually on my list to rewrite. I've only gotten partway through that one. I added a note in this article that says "As of March 2015, no other historian has examined Reid's theory in detail. The Texas State Historical Association's article on Grant was written by Reid and includes mention of this theory." Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The sources frequently mention the people from the Yucatan dying of hypothermia, but it never gives any more details than that. I assume they mean that those men were more susceptible to cold because they hadn't experienced much of it before, but that's just an assumption.
  • RE the map: I don't know where the original creator got the data, but this is pretty standard stuff, so I added some example works. Karanacs (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the Yucatan recruits and hypothermia, I've added a few words and another source that explains that. They were unable to adjust to the freezing harsh winter. — Maile (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The article mixes "Battle of Xxx" and "battle of Xxx".
Fixed - this only happened with the Battle of San Jacinto in the lead. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I double-checked; Battle is used only with titles of articles (or paintings) now. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The capitalisation of "constitution" appears to be inconsistent, for example "After adopting the constitution on March 17" and "In response, Burnet called for elections to ratify the Constitution and elect a Congress".P. S. Burton (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
When Constitution is capitalized, it is the specific name of the legal document, such as: "Constitution of 1824" and "1824 Constitution" used the same as "Constitution of the United States" and "United States Constitution". Otherwise, it is not proper to capitalize it. The capitalized example you state above has been changed to lower case. But I think the others are correct. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)



  • External links OK, no DABs.
  • Images appropriately licensed. More Later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


  • File:Santaanna1.JPG needs an author and a US PD tag
  • File:SHouston.jpg needs a UD PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I added a PD-US tag to Houston, if that's the one you meant. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria, I've replaced the image of Santa Anna with File:Antonio_Lopez_de_Santa_Anna_1852.jpg Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
And just to cover all bases, I added the PD-US tag on it. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A Texas Historian[edit]

Support. After volunteering to help and forgetting to do so at every step in the process of making this article, I'm glad to offer my support for its promotion. Too bad this article didn't exist a couple years ago when I had to write a 2,000-4,000 word paper on the revolution. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 00:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential image comment from Maile[edit]

  • Image find FYI - Karanacs I have no experience at downloading on Commons, or whether or not you would want this. From the Library Congress, a depiction of Santa Anna and Cos surrendering to Houston. Published by Henry R. Robinson in 1836. Interesting, but biased. LOC item 2008661295 - Houston, Santa Anna and Cos. — Maile (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


Support. I think this article is a fine achievement and am very glad that I took the time to read it. I only have a handful of near-pointless minor quibbles:

  • "Santa Anna soon revealed himself to be a centralist, transitioning the Mexican government to a centralized government." - the dual "centralis*" grates a bit.
  • "Santa Anna ordered his brother-in-law, General Martín Perfecto de Cos to lead 500 soldiers" - a missing parenthetical comma?
  • Barr and Hardin are described within the same sentence as "historians" - is there a more interesting or informative way to do it? I wouldn't quibble with the description other than it is twice in the same sentence and thus a little ugly.
  • "In this time period, captured pirates were executed immediately" - "time period" seems tautological, and it is not clear from the preceding sentence what this time period is.
  • "to personally oversee". Even if we could turn a blind eye to the split infinitive, in the context of what the sentence as a whole tells us about Santa Anna's plans, "personally" seems redundant. [BTW there's another split infinitive later - "to eventually compensate"]
  • When did Houston get shot? In, or after, the Battle of San Jacinto? If it was in the battle, it seems odd not to mention it in the section on the battle, which talks about Houston.
  • The "Foreign relations" section is a bit choppy in the way that it refers to countries: The United States becomes the U.S. and then the United States again; the Republic of Texas becomes "the fledgling republic" but then back to The Republic of Texas in the following sentence; then we have "British policy", "Great Britain" (which doesn't really work with "themselves") and "Britain". I'd just suggest making sure the section flows with its use of short-hand expressions. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


I stumbled here from my own FAC and wanted to give it a read :)

  • "Despite a decade of political and cultural clashes between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas, when hostilities erupted, Texians (English-speaking settlers) disagreed on whether the ultimate goal was independence or a return to the Mexican Constitution of 1824." - for the second sentence of the article, I think this could be simpler. For example - "After a decade of political and cultural clashes between the Mexican government and the increasingly large population of American settlers in Texas, hostilities began due to [X]. However, Texians (English-speaking settlers) disagreed on whether the ultimate goal was independence or a return to the Mexican Constitution of 1824."
  • " As delegates at the Consultation (provisional government) debated the war's motives" - the word "as" can be ambiguous. When I started reading the sentence, it was unclear whether it meant "because" or "while", so you should clarify and make it the latter.
Changed to "While". — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Texians and a flood of volunteers" - I think that is a bit too colloquial. Why not "group"?
IMO, it was an onslaught from more than one geographical area. In many ways, it was the "cause of the moment" phenomenon that inspired a lot of volunteers. Kentucky-Ohio alone trained volunteers and had two cannons specially made to donate to the cause. "group" makes it sound like a small handful of one unit. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This could be dumb, but perhaps mention that Texas became a U.S. state in the last sentence of the lead? That was the ultimate outcome of this revolution, after all. Ending with the US-Mexican war seems unnecessarily suspenseful IMO.
That last sentence "The annexation of Texas by the United States in 1845 led directly to the Mexican–American War." means that. But I added in both the body and the last sentence of the lead "as the 28th state". — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "After months of grumbling by Tejanos..." - again, this could use stronger wording. Why not - "After months of dissatisfaction by Tejanos..."?
  • "which made it extremely vulnerable to attacks by native tribes and by American filibusters" - get rid of the second "by"
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Most of the immigrants came from the southern United States" - perhaps it should be southeastern United States? Your call though. It was just an immediate thought that "southern" is ambiguous and currently goes from California to Florida.
Southern United States does not traditionally include anything west of Texas. And during that time period, California, New Mexico and Arizona were part of Mexico. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "further from the influence of the Mexican army" - this should be "farther", as it refers to distance. Ditto later with "The further the army retreated,"
  • Not sure who made it, but File:Mexico 1835-1846 administrative map-en-2.svg has a grammar error. When it mentions Yucatan being independent, it should say "from 1841..."
  • "Several years before" - poor way to start an entire section. You should say "Several years before the revolution" or something.
  • "commander of all Mexican troops in Texas, sent a small detachment of troops" - any way you could avoid having "troops" twice? Could the first one be "military"?
Changed the first one to "military forces". — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Grant and between 26 and 53 others roamed in the area between the Nueces River and Matamoros" - I would put "...and 26–53 others roamed the area", cutting "in" and making it a dash. That would make it easier to read IMO.
  • "Just after 11 p.m. on March 13" - local time?
History of time in the United States, time was all a local matter before 1883— Maile (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

All in all, a really good read! I was pleasantly surprised by the history of the revolution. The prose was concise and logical. I'll happily support with a bit more work. Cheers, ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes, but left the rest up to Karanacs. I prefer not to second-guess her reasoning. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes! They work for me. Karanacs, lemme know when you reply to the other things. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Portrait of Monsieur Bertin[edit]

Nominator(s): Modernist, Ceoil, Kafka Liz, Ewulp

Bertin presents as somewhat firesome, but was a charming conversationalist, an arts patron with deep pockets, and had a cheerful -perhalps motherly- disposition. Ingres portrait is rightfully seen as one of the most innovative and importaint 19th c paintings by any artist. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The image should use {{Infobox artwork}}, and the size of the lead image is very big. It has 410 px, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size suggest no more than 300 (and the image does not seem to be included among the possible exceptions). The article includes as well several cases where the text gets "sandwiched" between images. Cambalachero (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point, reduced image - done...Modernist (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a look at text squash. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Good suggestion re word scrunch, but to say infoboxes are not mandatory, and not always useful. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Ingres_Study_for_Monsieur_Bertin_Louvre.JPEG needs a US PD tag and should use creation rather than upload date
    • Fixed I think; please advise if it's still wrong. Ewulp (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Journal_des_débats.gif needs a US PD tag and a more specific source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not finding anything on Journal_des_débats.gif, might have to loose it. Ceoil (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Only looking at references and reference formatting at this time:

  • The use of abbreviated page ranges is not consistent; I believe note 4 is the odd one out.
    • Fixed #4. Ewulp (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason that one journal source (Lubar, from The Art Bulletin) is given solely in the footnotes but another (Burroughs, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin) has an entry in the Bibliography?
  • Lubar uses "nr."; Burroughs uses "no.".
  • Journal citations (Lubar, Burroughs) and chapter citations (Rosenblum 1999, Shelton 1999) should have page numbers, where available.
  • On the other hand, you probably don't need the page number in the bibliography entry for the Newman et al. reference, as it's provided in the footnote (and, as best as I can tell, there's not a specifically-title subsection of the work located at that page reference).
  • Is there a reason that the Boime source is not given in title-case?
  • Ideally, ISBNs should all be properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. Luckily, conversion is very easy.
  • You use two-letter state abbreviations in general, but "Conn." for the Mongan source.
  • Is an OCLC number available for the Pach reference?
  • The Pomarède entry has a presumably spurious space before the colon in its title.
  • I suspect that the Toussaint entry is not properly formatted. This is a book-format work, yes? If so, it should be italicized. Also, you've given publication locations for all the other books in the Bibliography, so this one needs it, also. Additionally, this appears to be in French; foreign-language sources should have their language indicated.
  • The publisher location and language issues also apply to some of the Further Reading entries.
  • Naef needs an identifier of some sort (ISBN or OCLC). I believe this is ISBN 978-3-7165-0250-1, but cannot be certain on my own.
  • I suspect that the volume number should directly follow the title here.

The decision to eschew citation templates is, of course, a matter of editor's discretion (although I think they would have been helpful for avoiding some of these problems). Neutral regarding promotion, as I have not evaluated the prose; in any case, nothing in my referencing quibbles should be taken as fatal to this candidacy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, these are very helpful. I think I have most, all covered at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from VE[edit]

This is looking good; I've watched it grow since its beginning. I've made a few edits, gave the Baronne her own para (I miss that pic!), and another para break for the section about Bertin's hands, but don't worry about reverting if anyone disagrees. Third para in "Preparation and execution" lost its cite, so I noted that inline. I'm seeing a small bit of text squash too and in preview mode played around with moving the preparatory sketches to a gallery at the bottom of the "Preparation and execution". It didn't look too bad, so am putting that out as an idea. There'd probably be room to add another sketch too. It's interesting the see the process Ingres went through to get the right pose.
Support because these are minor issues. Nice job everyone and an interesting read - I haven't read it in about two or three years until tonight. Victoria (tk) 01:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Am toying with reducing text squash / reintruducing Rothschild. Not easy! Looking at the cite gap, but seems a matter of re-introducing.
regigged, with a gallery for the sketches and Rothschild returned. Thanks for the edits and comments, as always appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Falcon's Fury[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction currently in operation at the Busch Gardens Tampa Bay amusement park. This is the fourth nomination; the other three were closed due to a lack of responses/feedback; so please review! The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cptnono

  • The lead seems short. It loos to be a good summary of the article, though. Consider adding a few lines if possible. (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)
I know it seems short but I feel like it gives the perfect preview of the topic without going into too much detail. However, I would be happy to add on to it if you would like me to. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It might seem contrary to the above, but the lead bogs down in specific dates regarding the delay in opening. Would such details be better in the body with more general phrasing in the lead? (Summer of 2014, delayed x weeks/months, or similar)? (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)
All the dates in the lead can be considered "important" dates which is why I made sure I specified the exact date (dates of when an attraction opens is considered important).--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The quote "interesting soil conditions" is lacking. I found my self checking the ref just to get something more specific. Can it be reworded? A quick paraphrase without the quote would work.
The article never states what the exact conditions were so I fail to see what your are reading as more specific (do you mind explaining please? :D )
  • I assume the FAA is mentioned due to the height. A line explaining this would be useful.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "At the end of February" and "A week later": I think these need commas.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with a previous reviewer that the quote box needs to go. It pinches the text with the image of the tower on the right.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Falcon's Fury's tower" image seems too large. I think a simple thumb with the "upright" parameter would be sufficient
I'm not exactly sure how you want the imaged re-sized but I just reduced the size to 200px.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel like the reader is bombarded with the term "queue" in the first paragraph of the "Ride experience" section. Can this be adjusted? (possible action needed but will consider supporting without)
I personally feel like its fine, but I took out some of the "queue"'s.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is "tonne" the correct measurement to use before conversion? I'm under the impression that it is a "metric ton" in the US so it threw me off. I could be wrong, though.
I live in Canada so I have no idea! I was just going of what I used/was asked for during GA reviews for some of the other articles I have written. I could easily be wrong.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Robert Niles of Theme Park Insider..."is awkward. I think "tolerances" should be used instead of "limitations" (as the source did) and would consider removing the quoted line altogether by replacing it with a clearer paraphrasing of the idea.
Done.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The reliability of two of the Youtube videos jumps out as a possible concern. Are those reputable publishers in the industry?
I love it when I'm asked this question (I'm always asked it)! Theme Park Review is a widely recognized amusement related website. The same goes with In the Loop (also known as Coaster Crew). A simple Google search should show you. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is ref 16 a viable link? It redirects but there is a paywall it could be behind. You can use the permit without a link, though.
Are you sure your talking about ref 16. I think you meant 15. The website naturally forces a redirect but I provided the link so anyway wanting to check it out could go to the link, input the info mentioned in the ref title, and be done with it.

This was a fine article overall and is is a bummer that the previous reviews have stagnated. Most of my concerns are minor and I hope previous reviewers pop by to reassert their support if they still feel the sane way.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cptnono: Thanks for the review! I have addressed all your comments above.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments This article has the most elaborate references I've ever seen. Do we really need three dates in every ref? (The archival and retrieval dates are surely unnecessary when you provide an archive link?) It's also overkill to mention "Government of the United States of America" or "The Washington Post Company" (right next to The Washington Post).—indopug (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Indopug: I know it may look weird but I'm just following the rules/guidelines of citations. From what I know, when an archive link is provided, you still need to provide the archival and original retrieval dates.--Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Reviewed this article at the last nomination and my only concern was met. I'd hate to see this archived again due to a lack of response, so I'll certainly give my support again. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Prose checks out, and refs look satisfactory. It looks like all concerns were addressed in previous reviews, so there should be no reason why this article can't pass this time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious (87)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious was the first British armoured carrier and served throughout WWII. Her aircraft sank one Italian battleship and damaged two others at Taranto in 1940 before she was badly damaged by German dive bombers in early 1941. She saw service against the Vichy French and Japanese later in the war before the accumulated effects of battle damage forced her to return home in mid-1945. After the war she served as the Home Fleet's trials and training carrier for most of her subsequent career before being scrapped in 1956. As always I'm interested in cleaning up my prose, catching any lingering AmEnglish spellings and any unexplained jargon. The article passed a MilHist A-class review back in December and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I reviewed this for prose at A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support your very well-done article. I can hardly find anything to mention, but I did find these points:

  • Subsequent operations in the Mediterranean: "Illustrious was not struck during these attacks but was near-missed several times and the resulting shock waves from their detonations, dislodged enough hull plating to cause an immediate 5-degree list, crack the cast-iron foundations of her port turbine, and damage other machinery." It seems to switch between tenses and is a bit confusing to me.
    • You're right about the tenses.
  • In the Indian Ocean: "...between India and the UK and the British were worried that French would accede to occupation of the island..." This seems like it should be "the French" or "France."
    • Indeed.
  • Also, as a minor critique, I noticed that there is some inconsistency regarding numbers. For example, I found both "8" and "eight" used at various points in the article (besides names, dates and quotes).

That's all for me. Besides those points, I couldn't really find anything to point out.-RHM22 (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

    • The MOS demands the same treatment of numbers when dealing with similar things which can run afoul of the rule to spell out numbers smaller than 10. Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Everything looks good to me. I'm not familiar with the MOS requirements for nautical things, so I'll take your word on that. Nicely done! This is one of the more informative ship articles I've read on here.-RHM22 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Support I only have a few quibbles.

  • The list of honours and awards includes three Napoleonic War ones.
  • By the RN's reckoning, battle honours belong to the name of the ship, not any particular ship of that name.
  • "were probably added as well at this time" "at this time" seems redundant.
  • Given that none of my sources tell when the outriggers were added, this is my best guess, so I'd be more inclined to drop the "as well" here rather than the other phrase. See how it reads now.
  • "Her complement was sharply reduced by her change in role and she retained her aft 4.5-inch guns." The conjunction "and" bothers me for some reason, feeling a "but" or "though" is needed somehow.
  • "Though" could work, but I don't think a "but" would because it's not contradicting anything in the sentence. All in all, I still think I prefer "and" because the clause is referring to something a couple of sentences earlier.
  • "had to be ordered from Vítkovice Mining and Iron Corporation in Czechoslovakia." I'd move this earlier in the paragraph and date it. Just because Czechoslovakia wasn't selling much to the UK beginning in 1939 ...
  • The armour for one of her sisters (Indomitable?) also had to be purchased from the Czechs in early 1939 and they had the devil of a time getting it into Britain without the Germans seizing it, IIRC.
  • "She conducted preliminary flying trials" last vessel mentioned was Poolgarth.
  • Good catch
  • " her Fulmars" last vessel mentioned was Corallo
  • And again.
  • "could accommodate" perhaps "could launch"?
  • Good idea.
  • "Norfolk Navy Yard on 12 May for permanent repairs" I would mention that this is in the United States
  • "Rear Admiral Aircraft Carriers, Eastern Fleet, Rear Admiral Denis Boyd" can the double dose of "Rear Admiral" be avoided?
  • It does seem a bit much.
  • "She arrived on 10 February and her damage was repaired when she entered the Captain Cook Dock in the Garden Island Dockyard the next day ..." it sounds almost like the damage was repaired on 11 February.
  • It does, doesn't it. Fixed. Many thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
All shipshape. Looks good.Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hermeneutic style[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the elaborate style of Latin in Anglo-Saxon England. It has received a peer review and passed GA. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support, with a couple of suggestions.

  • I don't really like the end of the first section (the bit about the different meaning of the phrase). Besides being self-referential, it seems somewhat out of place at the end of a section, after hermeneutic style has already been established by the preceding text to have a certain meaning. Do you think it could be added as a footnote in the lede? If not, maybe you could put it at the beginning of that section instead of at the end.
  • I have put it as a note to the end of the definition section. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks just right this way, I think.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As a minor point, could you please change one or two uses of "the Continent" to "continental Europe" to help readers who might not be familiar with the other usage (just in case)?
  • In England: "According to Scott Thompson Smith, "Æthelstan A"s charters..." The way the quotes are used here makes it a bit confusing and unclear whether or not it's meant to be possessive. I suggest "According to Scott Thompson Smith, the charters of "Æthelstan A" are..." to avoid confusion and quotation mark strangeness.

Other than those minor points, I can't find anything to criticize. You've done a great job on this topic, which I confess to having never heard of until reading your article.-RHM22 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will follow up your suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, everything looks good now. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • All images are PD-old or PD-art/PD-old and have sufficient source information - OK.
  • File:Apuleuis.jpg - added some background information to image summary. - OK as illustration. His depiction differs vastly within Commons:Category:Apuleius, but this depiction has some source information to clarify the situation. GermanJoe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much.


  • fixed some MOS:ENDASH issues in references, I have not checked in-text dashes and hyphens though.
  • "Lapidge 1993" - I'd put the reprint information within the full citation, it's a bit distracting in the reflist. Template:cite book has |orig-year= for such details (see template documentation for usage info). GermanJoe (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how to deal with this. The book is a reprint of essays, and where I cite his view in the article as held in 1975 it is relevant that the essay was originally published then, but I also cite other essays not from 1975. I cannot see a field in the cite book template for a note saying that one chapter was originally published earlier. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's just a suggestion, but I would personally just use the 1993 citation, since you mention explicitly both times it's cited that the opinions are from Lapidge's 1975 essay. Alternatively, if you have the 1975 work, add it separately to the bibliography. GermanJoe may have a better suggestion; I'm not known as an expert formatter by any means.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe @Nikkimaria: has a good idea. I can't remember a case in the past, where "old" reprints and new research were cited from the same book. Noting the original article title (somewhere in the citation) might help to reduce this confusion, not sure. GermanJoe (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • So each essay in the book is from a different time? If so, I see your options as follows: you cite the essay directly as originally published, or you include full bibliographic details for each essay - using either orig-year as GermanJoe suggests, or this method - or you combine the two and go with something of the form (original details. Reprinted in current details). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To be clear, is this an entire essay being reprinted or just someone quoting from an older essay?-RHM22 (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Never mind; I found it on Google Books. See here. Everything is reprinted from other sources. Nikkimaria, can Dudley Miles use the same citations that are used in the acknowledgements section, to make it a bit simpler?-RHM22 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for everyone's helpful comments. I have been looking at whether I have access to the original 1975 article in the journal Anglo-Saxon England, and so far as I can tell I do not, although I have only just got access to JSTOR and I am not yet familiar with it. I cite extensively from the paper, but I only mention the 1975 date twice where it is relevant. I have thought of putting an efn note with name= against each mention of the 1975 date with an explanation of the date discrepancy. Another alternative is to go to a library which has the original paper and photocopy it. Further comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like this specific article is not in JSTOR (but feel free to double-check) :/. The only journal entry for him in 1975 is "Some Remnants of Bede's Lost Liber Epigrammatum". GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • After some testing this ref works for the situation: "<ref>{{harvnb|Lapidge|1993|p=105}} reprinted from {{harvnb|Lapidge|1975|p=orig. page number}}</ref>". Having this short ref, you can define a separate citation for the Lapidge 1975 article with all "old" biblio info (note: "sfnm" would work too, but doesn't allow flexible additional text between the 2 templates). GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Joe. Sorry about putting you to trouble but I think I have found a better solution. I have arranged for the original article to be emailed to me so that I can cite that directly. I can add a note to the 1975 source that it is reprinted in the 1993 book. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can cite the 1975 source directly, you don't need to mention the reprint (the original source is actually the "better", more authentic source for referencing). And no worries, I actually enjoy such technical challenges :). GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Refs now changed to 1975 source. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed the article for GAN, and commented at the time that it seemed to me of FA standard. I still think so, and the additional images are an excellent bonus. Meets all FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. I read this through a couple of times when it was first nominated, and couldn't find anything to comment on then. I've now read it through again and came up empty-handed again. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Note -- correct me if I missed it but I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review - all OK

  • Consistent citations (fixed a few more MOS:ENDASH issues), full bibliographic details provided - OK.
  • Can't comment about content reliability in details, but the used sources are all recent academic books and journals from historians and other topic experts - OK.
  • Approx. half the sources are based on Lapidge, but considering the article's scope and his apparent influence on this specific area of research this is to be expected - OK.

Some minor cleanup points:

  • Adams - publisher location is discouraged (somewhere deep in the MOS), when the city is part of the publisher's name (check throughout)
  • I cannot see anything about this in WP:CITE and I think it is better to be consistent on what details are shown. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks a bit odd (Cambridge, Cambridge) close together, but if nobody has strong feelings about it, it should be OK as is. But I had to mention it in the review :). GJ
  • Anglo-Saxon England - is used several times, but with 3 different formats for publisher info.
  • GermanJoe I do not understand what you mean. The formats all look the same to me. Can you clarify? Note: Anglo-Saxon England is a journal, the title of Stenton's book and part of the title of the Wiley encyclopedia. They are all shown the same as far as I can see. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I meant the journal with ISSN 0263-6751 (assuming it is the same). It is used 5 times with different issues: twice without any publisher info and once without publisher location. You should use the same format for all 5 instances. GermanJoe (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopaedia - lists all main editors (4) on the cover. "et al." is probably not wrong, but I wonder if listing all 4 wouldn't be more appropriate? (optional)

GermanJoe (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks Joe. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • All OK now (status updated), thanks for the quick fixes. GermanJoe (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose thanks for your edit. On changing "a considerable number of foreigners" to "many foreigners" at Æthelstan's court, I think this may exaggerate the number. As it is not known how many there were I have deleted the considerable number and changed it to "foreign scholars". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a successful Argentine telenovela. It has been selected as a good article, and improved even further since then. Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

  • If Graduados is in Spanish, that means The Graduates is the English term, and the language in brackets from the opening sentence needs to be corrected.
  • The introduction seems concise, reads understandable and contains information from all sections.
  • I understood the plot from first reading. I know we can not expect references for the plot of the entire series, but I wonder does the FA tolerate sections with no refs. I've seen book-related articles being nominated at FARC because their plot is not sourced.
  • Can you describe Showmatch more precisely? "Blockbuster series" instead of "blockbuster program" could be a better fit. And it was moved an hour earlier to compete with Graduados, right?
  • I guess you're referring to "ballads" as "soft songs" in the 'Other media'?
Done. Yes, ballads are soft songs. As far as I know, references are not required on the plot section, because the reference is the plot of the work itself; references may be required if the section goes beyond a mere plot summary. Cambalachero (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think "working title" would be more suitable instead of the original title of El paseaperros. The term original means that the series was released under the first title, while "working" means that the title was during the development of the storyline.
  • Done reading the prose, you've got my support on this criteria.--Retrohead (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Erick[edit]

Very interesting article, I'm taking a look right now.

  • The checklinks tool spotted one non-functioning url.
  • The disambiguation tool picked one internal link that needs to be disambiguated
  • You're missing an alt for the infobox image (the parameter is image_alt).
  • " The plot concerns a group of 1989 high-school graduates who reunite twenty years later." 2012 is more than twenty years later from 1989. I'd suggest either "more than twenty years later" or "twenty-three years later"
  • "An episode included a flashback to San Carlos de Bariloche" I think "One episode included a flashback to San Carlos de Bariloche" sounds more appropriate.
  • Is the Gran Rex Theater referring to the Teatro Gran Rex? If so, you should wikilink it.
  • Is there a reason why you mention the telenovela wining Program of the Year twice? How about "Graduados received 12 Tato Awards (including Television Program of the Year) from 20 nominations on November 17, 2012." or something similar?
  • "The producers of Graduados released an album of music used in the series." Should specify whether it's a compilation album or soundtrack even you already linked to compilation album.
  • "The first CD went gold" Please mention which country the album was certified gold at. I presume it's in Argentina, but it should be mentioned nonetheless.
  • "As the series wound down Telefe considered a theatrical version for the 2013 summer season, similar to a 2010 version by the producers of Valientes, but the cast had other commitments." There should be a comma after "down". You can put a parenthesis between "similar" and "Valientes" if there are too many commas in the sentence.
  • Some of the news sources in the references section should be linked such as La Nacion (only link the first instance).
  • -More coming. Erick (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. The disambiguation link, however, is correct as it is: it is the Graduados (disambiguation) hatnote at the top of the article. --Cambalachero (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah okay, that makes sense. Well just address of the issues and I'll be glad to give my support. Erick (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done, except for the link in the references. I was told in a previous FAC of another article that references should have a similar style, which means that I should link all the names of sources, or none. Not all sources have specific articles, so this may generate a lot of red links. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. Anyways, you've addressed everything else which is enough for me to support this article. Good job! Erick (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Marie (2014)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Marie in 2014 was the among the strongest Eastern Pacific hurricanes on record, attaining Category 5 status on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. A large system, it had substantial effects along the coastlines of Mexico and California despite its center remaining hundreds of miles away. Six people lost their lives due to the storm and damage in California was especially severe. A breakwater off the coast of Long Beach suffered extensive damage amounting to roughly $10 million. Hopefully you enjoy reading this as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, with the disclaimer that I did a pre-FAC review before CB nominated it to help clean up prose and such. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Marie_Aug_24_2014_1830Z.png: do you have a link to confirm author? Not seeing it in given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The satellite image in question is a modified version, by @Supportstorm:, of one of the Geostationary satellite images (labeled as GEO on the source) for Marie. The particular satellite used in that image is GOES-15 which is operated by NOAA. Original image can be seen here. Hopefully that clears it up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed one blatant double link, but I feel the piped links for the "Category # hurricane" are useful. I don't feel that strongly either way, though, so if they're an issue I'll remove the other extra links. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Surely the Category 5 one could go to List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Good idea.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Support:Good enough for me.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Mark Oliphant[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Mark Oliphant, an Australian scientist who played a key role in the development of radar and nuclear weapons during World War II. He is credited with the discovery or co-discovery of deuterium, tritium, helium-3 and nuclear fusion. Regrettably, he is not as well known as he should be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN1: I know this is the format that NLA gives, but it's redundant
  • FN2, 37: title should use endash
  • Find-A-Grave is not a reliable source
  • FN74: ABC is not a work, it's a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by the second point. They seem to already use the endash. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • They're both displaying as hyphens for me (the latter is now FN36) - I would fix myself but they're both {{cite DOI}} so I'm not sure how to get at the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, they probably shouldn't be using {{cite DOI}}, given the message at the top of its documentation page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • A gnome went around creating {{cite DOI}} templates at one point. I wasn't happy, because they caused formatting problems, particularly with the author links. Replaced both with {{cite journal}}. And corrected the endashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. All my comments below have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • "heading a group at the University of Birmingham that included John Randall and Harry Boot, who created a radical new design": shouldn't that be "which", not "who", since it refers to a group? Or perhaps rephrase.
    I was thinking that the sentence is too long, and split it in twain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest giving the date of the MAUD Committee report in the lead.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "and as such opposed to eating meat": I think this would be more natural as either "and as such were opposed to eating meat" or "and as such opposed eating meat".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The two paper titles listed in "Early life" differ in their capitalization conventions. I assume you're following the sources here, but I think it would be harmless to regularize them (and any later paper titles) to whichever version is standard on WP.
    Regularised to title case. Caused by different styles among journals. MOS:CT is the standard in the MOS, which is just monstrous. And calls for title case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    Looks like you regularized it in the citations but not the body of the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    Missed one. Done now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • On my screen the "coincidental" quote is not apparently indented because the image of the Cavendish Laboratory is to the left. How about moving Rutherford's lab image to the left, the Cavendish to the right, and the Poynting building to the left?
    Swapped the images around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "He managed to not only convince the Americans that an atomic bomb was feasible, but inspired Lawrence to": I think "not only" requires an "also" later in the sentence.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    I tweaked it a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The establishment of a world-class nuclear physics research capacity in Australia was intimately linked with the government's plans to develop nuclear weapons. Oliphant was a staunch advocate of such research, declaring that Britain needed to develop its own nuclear weapons": can you clarify how a research institute in Australia supported plans for Britain's development of nuclear weapons? Were the two countries so closely linked constitutionally at that time that research for one was automatically to the advantage of the other?
    To answer the last question first: no, they were not so closely linked constitutionally at that time, and were drifting ever further apart. While Britain postured that development of its own nuclear weapons was part of retaining its status as a Great Power, there was fear that the United States would show up late for the next war, as it had in 1914 and 1939. For Australia, the fear was of a repeat of the Pacific War, when an Asian power came bearing down on Australia and its South East Asian neighbours. So the two thought they were on the same page, but weren't. But they did need each other. The United States had cut off Britain's access to uranium from Africa and Canada, but Australia could supply its needs. It could also provide a nuclear test range. Australia hoped that Britain would supply it with the nuclear weapons that were developed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    That clarifies it for me, but I think some indication of this should be in the article -- I've lived in both countries, and I didn't follow this, so I think most readers won't. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "he selected one of the capital's most striking designs, and oversaw its construction": it doesn't become one of the capital's most striking designs until completed, so perhaps "he made the final selection, and oversaw the construction of the capital's most striking designs"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    Tweaked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure we need two separate pictures of the same monument at the end of the article.

The article is in great shape; I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: FYI, the only thing I'm waiting on to support is a clarification in the article of the relationship between the UK's and Asutralia's nuclear policy -- as it's currently phrased I think it's confusing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have rewritten the paragraph. Hope it is clearer now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That does it for me. I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "today": There's a potential fight here over WP:DATED. Not my area of expertise.
    They are all generated with the {{Inflation}} template, so will never become out of date, but to avoid giving the impression that they will, I tweaked the template so they now all say "equivalent to AUD$75,000 in 2015" (or whatever the sum is). The year is generated by the inflation template, and will always be the current year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    I think that's an improvement ... but I consider it above my pay grade to make that call. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm agreed on Mike's remaining points.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Gaff (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Permissions on the three gallery shots at the bottom of page: "My camera, my software and I created this work entirely by ourselves.)" This is an odd claim to have on photos of a sculpture and some plaques. That's a trivial concern. However, are these problematic images in therms of freedom of panorama?
    Yes, we have Freedom of Panorama in Australia. Any 3-D public artwork may be photographed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • the images released by the museum as cc by sa 2.0 are presumably owned by the museum, but not clear who actually took them.
    A museum employee as part of their duties, so the Science Museum asserts copyright. It was released to us under the GLAM program. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • otherwise looks good to me.

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of the following comments:
    None necessary, but I tweaked the grammar at a couple of points. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hairsplitting, and I won't make an issue of it, but is "Atheist" a religion? (In the infobox)
    "There is no God, and Dirac is His prophet." I think what happened was that someone removed the religion card from the template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The article makes heavy use of inflation adjustments for salaries, etc. As the template's documentation points out, its use should be restricted—money "means" different things at different times and in different situations, and a simple conversion based on the CPI can give a distorted sense of what these numbers "meant" in their times (for example, calculations based on CPI and on PPP can give widely different results).
    It works okay for everyday items. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    Salaries and government outlays are not everyday items. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • he worked on it with his friend Ernest Lawrence at the Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California, on electromagnetic isotope separation: I assumed "it" meant the bomb, but then we have "on electromagnetic isotope separation"—I don't understand what this means
    Changed "on electromagnetic isotope separation" to "developing electromagnetic isotope separation". Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • She was called by her second name, Edith.: I'm not sure this is relevant, as she's never mentioned again, and an entire sentence on what she was called puts perhaps undue weight on what she was called.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • and Laurence Oliphant, the British traveller and mystic: any relation?
    Possibly a distant one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • the killing of pigs on a farm: if this means their slaughter, perhaps that would be a more appropriate term (as opposed to joykilling, say)
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oliphant later recalled that Burdon "taught me the extraordinary exhilaration: this reads as "Oliphant taught me"—either the quote should be introduced explicitly as a quote, or "[him]" should be interpolated for "me".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • per annum: again, I won't make an issue of it, but is there any reason to prefer "annum" to "year"?
    It sounds very awkward, probably because "per" is Latin, so "per year' would be mixing the two languages. Everyone says "per annum". I think teacher would strike out "year" and write "annum" in red. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • research into nuclear physics: not "research in"?
    "in nuclear physics" sounds awkward. It would also mean two "in"s in close proximity, which would incline me to eliminate one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • He was the first to conceive of the proton synchrotron: it might be a good idea to explain briefly what this is
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "spend whatever was necessary to bring nuclear physics to Birmingham in a big way": quotes require attribution; is there some reason this shouldn't be paraphrased?
    The quote is sourced. paraphrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    Moot now that it's paraphrased, but "requires attribution" means you have to say whose quote it is in the te, and not merely source it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've stopped at "Manhattan Project"—if I forget to return, ping me. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • theoretical issues involved in an atomic bomb: in developing an atomic bomb? This could be read as theoretical issues in an actual atomic bomb.
    I don't follow you. "theoretical issues involved in developing an atomic bomb" would not be correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • energy of tons of dynamite: given the colloquial use of "tons of", it might be better to reword to something like "several tons of". And shouldn't this be "tonnes" in AusEng?
    Yes (Style Guide 11.9); but I'm summarising the Frisch–Peierls memorandum. (Style Guide 11.28) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "United States" pops up a lot, often in quick succession—it doesn't appear that you use "US" or "U.S." at all. Is there a reason for that?
    In AusEng, it is "US" (Style Guide 7.5) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    It looks like Tony1 dealt with this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • as it was not government policy at the time to confer honours on civilians: as opposed to "was government policy ... not to confer honours"? The former sounds like they merely neglect to.
    If you think it reads better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It was academic suicide: Why?
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The establishment of a world-class nuclear physics research capacity: is "a capacity" the right term here?
    Changed to "capability" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You might want to specify that the McCarran Act was an American act, and that the State Department was American—it could be read as Australia restricting Oliphant's travel
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • one of the capital's most striking designs: "the capital" would be Canberra?
    Correct. Face-smile.svg Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The Age newspaper reported: this sounds strange to me—would you be opposed to rewording it to something like "The newspaper The Age"?
    Deleted "newspaper" Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Rosa, suffer before her death in 1987: do we know what caused her to suffer?
    No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • his son Michael having died in 1971: outliving a son is usually a pretty big deal. Do we know the story?
    Cancer. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Electromagnetic separation was a technique Oliphant had pioneered back in 1934.: should this not be mentioned when it happened chronologically, then? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    Done, but many editors dislike chronological order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "that was the prevailing attitude of almost the entire white population of Australia until well after World War II": won't make an issue of it, but you might want to reconsider having removed the non-breaking space in "World War II" here. It's particularly ugly for the "II" to break at the end of a paragraph.
    Done, but nbsps cause a lot of problems. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a well known (among mushroom enthusiasts) family of fungi which also has considerable ecological importance. I boldly submit this as my first FAC, after expanding it over the last months, with much appreciated help from Sasata, Circeus, and Casliber, and having passed a GA review. The article draws on a wide range of different sources, most of them research articles. This is partly due to the fact that the family's taxonomy has changed a lot over the last years, which is not yet reflected in many standard mycology works and field guides. I'm looking forward to comments and critiques! Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support (mostly) The article meets most, or all, of the criteria, depending on the way you look at it. It is certainly comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and very stable. The prose is very good, but I can't say it is exactly brilliant, as WP:FA? states. It is one of these things were I can't give examples, but is just the minute differences between choice of words and way to phrase that make all the difference between very good and purely brilliant. Gug01 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This review is for the second set of criteria. The article has a clear and concise lead section, has appropriate structure, and has a consistent format of using footnote citations. Gug01 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Lactarius_rubidus_spores_1000x.JPG: what is meant to be the description on the image page?
This looks like a broken template linking to the original source of the image (Mushroom Observer). I am not familiar with Commons and don't know if this can be repaired. Can anybody help? Otherwise I can replace the spore image with one of slightly lower quality, but with a good description. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed that (just skimming) - the template name was misspelled. GermanJoe (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Uniflora-root.jpg: do we have evidence of the listed permission? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I've asked the user that uploaded the image. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I had received permission via email correspondence with Martin Bidartondo (who I had also fact check the article on mycoheterotrophy when it was initially written). I never went through the formal documentation procedure, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Peter G. Werner. Is this accepted as evidence? The image is surely informative, and I would like to keep it in the article. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Peter, if you still have that correspondence I would suggest forwarding it to OTRS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review The quality of refs is fine: all academic, reputable organizations, or books. However I see an inconsistency with web refs: Ref 28 doesn't have a publisher, most of them have the publisher as part of the title (which I haven't seen before so I don't know if that is or isn't allowed); as for book refs some have locations and some don't. HalfGig talk 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Book references now all have locations, and websites have publishers as separate parameters. Also added some English translatons of foreign titles, where helpful. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'm not a fungus expert, but I've reviewed a few fungus GANs, so will make some comments as a "layreader"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the last half of the articles, there are a lot of single sentence paragraph, is it possible to merge some of these? Looks a bit fragmentary/disjointed now.
  • There are three or more "introduction" sentences in the beginning of some sections that end without citations, but they should probably have citations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone there? FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, was offline over the weekend. I'll see how I can integrate your comments this evening – thanks anyway! Tylototriton (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Merged some paragraphs in the "Chemistry" and two other small sections.
However, after reviewing, I do not see where an introductory sentence in a section would need citations. They are merely "wrappers", and the facts they contain are all backed up through citations later on in the respective section. Could you give me an example where you think a citation is necessary? Tylototriton (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, in FAs, it is best to have citations after every paragraph to be safe, including "wrappers". FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced; I feel citations should be used where necessary and not simply "to be safe". For me, these introductory wrappers act a bit like the lead for the whole article; the sections as a whole have references where appropriate. But I'm not a very experienced editor, if others support your view, I can add references... Tylototriton (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd do it myself. But well, let's see what do others say? You have any view on this, Casliber? FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The name Russulaceae was first validly used in 1907" I'd suggest replace "used" with "named". FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "does not meet the requirements for valid publication" Why? Couldn't hurt to elaborate in a sentence.
  • "The agaricoid species in Lactarius" Why is agaricoid italicized?
  • Likewise for: "Laterally stiped (pleurotoid)"
  • There are three or more such issues after the above.
  • "Some characters of the mushroom-forming genera (marked with *) can be less obvious or absent in tropical species" Wouldn't it make more sense to explain the asterisk before the list?

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Looks good - few queries below:

  • I'd change "has significantly changed ideas about the taxonomy of the family." to something like "has significantly changed ideas about relationships within the family." - and tchange the next "relationships" to "affinities" in the next sentence. makes the segment more accessible to the lay reader without sacrificing meaning.
  • Link genera at first instance in body of text.
  • Can go either way on refs for the wrappers....

Otherwise looks good and worthy of FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Included your suggestions, thanks! Tylototriton (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Support on comprehensiveness and prose - nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

@Casliber, FunkMonk: How are things looking for you guys now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll look though this today... FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Blackrock (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an independent Australian film that was inspired by the murder of Leigh Leigh (which is a previous successful FAC nomination of mine). Freikorp (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed (one fair-use). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now - did browse where was I.....

I'd add who Felicity Holland and Jane O'Sullivan are (are they film critics, sociologists etc.) - helps understand the context.
ditto Brian Joyce

Otherwise looks pretty good overall WRT prose and comprehensiveness.

Thanks for your comments. The journal article itself does not introduce them, though google reveals that Jane is an academic. I think it's reasonable to assume that Felicity would be also, so i've described them as such. Brian Joyce is introduced in the 'Theatrical origins' sub-section. Freikorp (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
ok my bad - support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. Looks good; all my issues have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • "his relationships with both Rachel and Diane": I think it would be more natural to say "Rachel and his mother".
I though about this while I was writing the plot; what concerns me is the rest of the plot section. I.e should "Jared joins Diane and Cherie" and "Despite learning of Diane's illness" be changed to "Jared joins his mother and Cherie" and "Depite learning of his mother's illness" respectively? I thought I should be consistent, and it didn't sound right to keep using 'mother'. Your thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see your point. I'll think about it some more and see if I can come up with a better approach, but I've struck the comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The film's critique of criminal masculinity, however, undermines the status of previously celebrated masculine lawbreakers in Australian history and cinema": why "however"?
Good point, removed. Freikorp (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you give a date, even an approximate one, for Joyce's initial approach to Enright? If not I think this sequence should be in past perfect to make it clearer to the reader that we're going back in time prior to the film. A date for the Sydney Theatre Company commission to Enright would be good too.
I don't think so, but i'll keep looking. Leigh was murdered in November 1989. The draft for the play was completed in "early 1992". I can't find anything that narrows down the time that Joyce approached Enright anymore than that. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Struck; if there are no sources then no worries. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "By December 1995, Vidler was working with Enright as an unofficial script editor. He stated that they were having trouble finding financing for the film." This is a little bit proselinish; if the source supports the two things happening around the same time, can we combine them? "By December 1995, Vidler was working with Enright as an unofficial script editor, although they were having trouble finding financing for the film" or something similar. Unless there's some reason to doubt Vidler's reliability we don't need to ascribe this to him inline.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "her attempts failed after the film received government financial backing;[16] the film received financing and assistance from the New South Wales Film and Television Office.[1]" A bit repetitive; could we make this "her attempts failed after the film received financial backing from the New South Wales Film and Television Office", and combine the refs?
Good point, done. Freikorp (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The "Film adaptation" section doesn't say the film was shot in Stockton explicitly. It mentions that Stockton landmarks were visible, which made me wonder if they had been intercut with wherever it had been shot; then I remembered the lead mentioning that it was shot in the town where the murder took place. Then the controversy is mentioned. It wouldn't hurt to make it explicit, either by adding a few words to the place where you mention the Stockton landmarks, or by moving that section below the mention of the controversy, and making it explicit at the point that the controversy is mentioned.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There are a dozen or so uses of "stated" or "stating", which are often unnecessary and are very stilted when overused. They're appropriate for a reporting a statement, particularly an official statement, and a very occasional use is OK, but there are too many here. Just using "said" is usually OK, "said" is an almost invisible word; but if you want variation, you can sometimes rephrase to avoid needing to use a verb at all -- for example, see my suggested rewording above about having trouble finding financing, which eliminates a "stated".
Removed 10 uses of the terms. Freikorp (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources yet. Some of the later sections, in addition to the issue with "stated" mentioned above, also feel a little listy; there's a bit of recitation of what various people said, rather than anything more directed. It's hard to avoid this with reception sections, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for your comments. I've attempted to address everything so far. If you give me some specific examples of 'listy' stuff that you'd like changed i'll see what I can do. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I've struck everything above. I'll have another read through, probably today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Hi Mike. Did you have time to finish taking a look at this? Let me know if you'd like me to review something in return. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to get back to this sooner. In a plane on the way to a cabin with unknown cell reception so may not get to it this week, but will do so as soon as I can. Thanks for the review offer; do you have a humanities background? I have radiocarbon dating at FAC at the moment and would love to get a non-technical reader's opinion. The only reviewer so far who does not, as far as I know, come from a technical or scientific background raised a comment I'd like to get more opinions on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: No worries take your time. Can't say i'm overly familiar with that subject, so I can give you a nontechnical opinion on it :). (Bolding so I get everyone else's attention) I won't have computer access from March 21-29, and I don't think i'll have time to look at your FAC before I go, though hopefully it will still be open when I get back. If so i'll have a good look at it. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

More comments.

  • I think the lead is a little short. You don't mention the questions of historical accuracy, for example, and I think there's room for a little more detail on some of the areas you do summarize.
  • "The film's portrayal of the rape and murder at a teenage party": I think "a rape" or just "rape" would be better than "the", which doesn't really work with "a party".
  • 'concluding it was "almost guaranteed to find a distributor in the U.S"; the film never found an American distributor': I think some connective tissue is needed between the critical comment and the contradicting note. Perhaps 'concluding it was "almost guaranteed to find a distributor in the U.S", though in the event the film never received American distribution'.
  • "Brien theorised that some of the condemnation the film received may have been due to public frustration with the legal system, as the film achieves justice for the victim, whereas no one was ever convicted of raping Leigh; citing the film as an example of why sensitivity and care must be taken when fictionalising an actual crime". The last clause, beginning "citing the film", is intended to be parallel with "theorised", but it's so far away from it that it's hard for the reader to see that, and the punctuation doesn't help. How about "Brien theorised that some of the condemnation the film received may have been due to public frustration with the legal system, as the film achieves justice for the victim, whereas no one was ever convicted of raping Leigh. Brien cited the film as an example of why sensitivity and care must be taken when fictionalising an actual crime"?

I made some copyedits; let me know if you disagree with any of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Mike Christie; i'm happy with your changes. Freikorp (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
All the changes look OK, except that I copyedited the lead a little -- I think the way you had it was redundant: if you say Leigh's family opposed it, you don't need to say the film-makers didn't have the victim's family's consent. I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tomandjerry211[edit]

  • The Plot section has a number of paragraphs that are unsourced.
  • Plot sections do not require sourcing, as the film itself is the source. Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think citing Infobox data is necessary, if it is cited in the article
  • Most features articled tend to at least have a citation in the infobox for box office revenue; i'll wait for a second opinion on this :) Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You might want to broaden your research a little bit (I only see eight sources).
  • There's only 8 book and journal sources, but there's also 13 online sources, 11 offline newspaper sources and 2 citations from the film itself. Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose I'm supporting you on prose, since it looks OK for a FA.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Love It to Death[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Alice Cooper band's breakthrough album, which took them from mere chicken-slaughtering infamy to pop superstardom—within two years they'd be rivaling Led Zeppelin in ticket sales, and would leave a lasting influence on punk, hard rock, and metal. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Media review

  • "I'm Eighteen" snippet caption needs editing for grammar
  • File:Dwight_Frye.png needs author's date of death and a US PD tag
    • This one still needs fixing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Removed. The film's supposed to be in the public domain, but I can't figure out who to attribute it to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Alice_Cooper_I'm_Eighteen.ogg: what is the length of the original recording?
  • File:Alice_Cooper_-_Ballad_of_Dwight_Frye_snippet.ogg also needs length of original recording as well as a more extensive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Does it look better now?. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Slightly, but the minimal use is now the same as the not replaceable parameter? Also, lyrics can be demonstrated by text alone, so a clearer explanation of why the sample is needed in the purpose parameter would be beneficial. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Somehow I didn't notice this source review on my watchlist. Sorry to have left it so long! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments -- as a minor Alice fan (if that's possible!) I might recuse coord duties to review, hopefully over the coming week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking forward to that! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here we go...

  • Copyedited a bit so I don't have any special issue with the prose as it now stands -- tks Curly for responding to and actioning a couple of queries I raised in my edit summaries.
    • The only thing I've gone and undone is the past tense in the album cover bit—we're supposed to describe these things in the present tense, as these details remain true today. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Didn't really notice the lack of anything much in terms of comprehensiveness -- background, recording, style, reception and legacy all seemed to be treated in reasonable depth without going into the trivial.
  • Media-wise I'll happily go with Nikki's review above.
  • Source-wise I'd welcome a review for formatting/reliability from Nikki but I'll probably spotcheck some sources myself, particularly in the Content section, for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. This isn't because I think Curly's a risky proposition but I find it's a bit of a challenge to paraphrase discussions of popular music while remaining close to the meaning intended, so worth a look in any such article.
  • That brings me to a couple of structural suggestions: I wonder if Content might not be better as Style or simply Music and lyrics, unless those are frowned upon by WP:Albums these days. I also feel the present Content style should be sandwiched between Recording and production and Release and reception, since going from the latter to Content seemed to be rewinding things.
    • You're right—I think I may have had the bit on the cover artwork in there at some time, but now there's only the music and lyrics, so I've retitled the section "Music and lyrics". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's about it for now, I enjoyed the read and am leaning to support but will await your responses re. structure and also look at a few sources before committing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Curly Turkey, what is the status of addressing Ian's comments? I see no progress or movement in over a week, and no support in more than a month. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Unless I'm misreading, the only actionable comment I saw was the titling of one section, which I changed. As for no progress and no support—what can I say? Wikipedians don't know good music. I guess it'll be another FAC archived over lack of interest. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. I'm not planning to archive it as of now, since we have some ongoing commentary and Ian Rose leaning to supporting. I wish I could review but I have a COI, I'm afraid. :) --Laser brain (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I must apologise for my tardiness in returning to the review. Just a couple of things:
  • Doesn't look like my suggestion about moving Content (now Music and lyrics) to between Recording and production and Release and reception was acknowledged.
    • I'm not sure why I ignored that. Of course, it works better that way, and I've now moved it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I spotchecked Music and lyrics and had only one concern, namely that I couldn't see anywhere in Kofman suggesting that "Is It My Body" was a "sleazy boogie", or indeed referring to the song's musical style at all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmmm ... I'm looking through my sources and can't find where I came across that. The only "boogie" I can find is here, where it's called "necrophiliac boogie" (I have no idea where necrophilia would come into it). This source describes the vocals as "sleazy", but I don't think it would be appropriate to use these souces that way. I've removed "sleazy boogie" for now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Tks mate, I've also just scanned the reference section for formatting and reliability and apart from a bit of redundancy in page refs nothing leapt out, so happy to offer full support -- hope we see more of these... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments Just a couple of points:

  • "The band moved to Detroit in 1970 and was influenced by the aggressive hard rock scene there. The group enlisted a young Bob Ezrin as producer and spent two months rehearsing ten to twelve hours a day as Ezrin encouraged the band to tighten its songwriting." Two sentences in a row starting "The band... The group ...". How about combining this with a semicolon and putting "they" for the subject of one half?
    • Apparently we're constricted to using only "they" or only "it" when referring to groups; "it" doesn't really sound natural here, and the rest of the article uses "it". One of those "foolish consistency" rules I think, but I'm not going to bother fighting it—I've reworded to "A young Bob Ezrin was enlisted as producer". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You use "changing names" and "changed names"; I think this might be a touch colloquial. I'd use "they changed their name to" or "renamed themselves", though I'm not sure if American usage makes a band plural or singular.
    • NAmEng uses both singular and plural, but here we're required to stick with one. For istance, "Onomapotpoeia is a Canadian rock band; they are four of the riff-rockin'-est musicians from Banff."—NAmEng requires the singular for the first statement and the plural for the second. Wikipedia requires us to settle on one or the other, and awkwardness ensues. Anyways, I've reworded to "a name change" and "the band adopted the name". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "perpetuated the story": I don't think you can use "perpetuate" if the story wasn't already in circulation. I think you could just say "claiming that it came from".
  • If "the" belongs in the link for Guess Who, shouldn't it be capitalized? Same question for the Melvins.
    • I seem to remember there was a bloody battle over this issue, and I can't remember which side won. A quick look at the article for the Beatles has "the" in lowercase in the body, but if there's a decision it should be otherwise then please go ahead and change it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "being "in the middle"—"of life" or "of doubt".": suggest "being "in the middle of life" or "of doubt"." as a little easier to parse.
    • I went with a "such of" wording, because in the first verse it's "in the middle without any plans". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

-- Sources look good to me; I checked a few and found no close paraphrasing or other issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review, and for checking out some of the sources! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm curious about the WP requirement that a band be consistently singular or plural throughout the article; where's that stated? Is it in the MoS? Re "the Guess Who", my concern was more that the link should follow the capitalization -- if it's "the Guess Who", I'd just link "Guess Who". Having the leading lowercase "the" in blue as well just looks odd. But it's not something that one could oppose over, so I've supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. My concerns above have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment – Just a concern, really. I've noticed multiple instances of references appearing in the middle of sentences, not following punctuation. I don't exactly recall what policy/guidelines/whatever says about this, but I personally find such to be obnoxious and POINTy. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • If by "not following punctuation" you mean "not following a period at the end of a sentence", there never has been a rule that that has to be the case—only that citations not immediately preced a punctuation mark. As for POINTy—what POINT do you think is being made? It's hard to respond when I don't know what I'm accused of. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Support - I wanted to do this review for a while, but I'm burnt out after the GA Cup. It looks like all the issues are ironed out. I did not find any problems. Good job!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"When asked which state he hails from, our sole reply shall be, he hails from Appomattox and its famous apple tree." Fellow Wikipedians, I give you Ulysses S. Grant. Soldier, politician, businessman, and author, he bestrode mid-19th century America like a Colossus. Easily the most popular man of his age in the United States, he comes before you in this article which, since it last appeared on these pages, has undergone extensive copyediting and significant content changes, not to mention a thorough A-class review at WikiProject Military history. My co-editors and I think it meets the FA criteria. As the bit of doggerel that I've copied above suggests, we hope to get this on the Main Page by April 9, 2015, the 150th anniversary of Grant's victory at Appomattox Court House. Thank you for your attention. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: I am a Wikicup participant, and I believe I would be eligible for points on this, but I have to check with the coordinators -- much of the work was done last year. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Support I was an A-class participant. Much improved and very worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you, and thanks again for your comments at the A-class review. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "Emboldened by Lincoln's call for a general advance": This was "... a general advance of all Union forces" at the end of the A-class review, and many readers won't think these two sentences mean the same thing. There have been a lot of tweaks since A-class, and they're mostly fine from a copyeditor's point of view, but some of them change the meaning, and I have no knowledge of whether they were made by people consulting the sources who decided to change the meaning. But I trust Coemgenus's and Wehwalt's judgment on this.
  • "an immediate taking": ugh.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support and the copyediting. I've reworded the parts you pointed out above. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

My interest in the Gilded Age has been stimulated by some fine articles from the Wehwalt stable, and I realise that Grant is a central figure of the period. But I feel somewhat frustrated with this, an evidently well-prepared and accurate account of Grant's life, the issue that niggles being that of length. The article is over 14,300 words long, not the longest-ever potential FA, but within the top half-dozen, I suspect. However, this is the "main article" in a series covering all aspects of Grant's life; the series collectively amounts to well over 55,000 words – including a whopping 18,000+ in the article on Grant's presidency. With such an abundance of detail available in the subarticles, does this main article have to be quite so long? The art of encyclopedia writing encompasses selection, summary, and succinct expression, and it doesn't seem that these have been fully exercised here. My chief frustration is that, because of the pressures of my other WP commitments, I simply won't have time to read and properly review an article that is of great interest to me. This is no reflection on the efforts of Coemgenus and the other principal contributors, but it does raise – again – the question of what is, or should be, the accepted maximum length of a WP article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. The article is long, longer than any I've ever worked on. Since before it was made GA, Alanscottwalker and I have worked to tighten and summarise the prose, with some success. Compare, for example, this pre-GA version. I've cut things and had editors object, so we add them back in in the name of consensus. The sub-articles have helped, but have not solved the problem.
I recognise that saying "it could be worse" is not a great defense, but it is illustrative of how much information there is out there about Grant, and how much of it various editors wish to include in the article. The size of major articles have crept up over the years across the encyclopedia. I think a lot of this is because things that used to be just stated and linked are now both linked and explained briefly in the article. It makes for a more fluid read, but it does add to the length of the thing.
If you can think of some areas that could use trimming, I will gladly cut them down, but I think we're approaching the point where leaving more out means telling an incomplete story of the man. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
A FA quality biography of the leading general of the US Civil War and a two-term president is inevitably going to be fairly lengthy. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That's how I look at it. We could use better data on this on how people use our articles, as it is, we are just guessing on length.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: – for what its worth I don't think there are any particular issues with length, by my count there are more than 115 currently featured articles that are longer than this one, so no where near "within the top half-dozen". Indeed the top ten largest FAs range from 190 kb to a rather large 248 kb. At approx 138 kb this isn't even close. You can run the script here for these stats [24]. Anotherclown (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The number of kb is a useless measure of length so far as the reader – or indeed the reviewer – is concerned. It is the number of words in the text, in this case 14,300+, that creates the burden. I'm not sure how many FAs have more than 14000 words, but I suspect the answer is not too many. It is a matter of concern whether these uber-articles get the depth of review treatment that they warrant – are potential reviewers put off by the length and time required, as I was? Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Gday thanks for clarifying that. By my reading WP:SIZE seems to mainly talk in terms of kbs and I'll admit I don't have any stats readily at hand on regarding FAs and prose size, although you are probably right in saying that this would be at the higher end. I agree longish articles can struggle to attract reviewers due to the work required, although I don't see that that is a warstopper (for instance by my count this article was reviewed by no less than 7 editors during its A class review - where it is unfortunately now fairly rare to get more than the minimum three). Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I see that Coemgenus has been trimming and has the count below 14,000 now. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nick-D[edit]

I don't think that I'm qualified to comment on Grant's political career, so I'll limit my coverage to his military career.

  • "not in charge of any company" - would a brevet second lieutenant typically command a company? - the article later says that he commanded a sub-unit of this size only after he'd been promoted to be a captain.
    • You're right, and I deleted this clause.
  • "Grant participated in leading a cavalry charge " - could this be "Grant led a cavalry charge"?
    • Sure could. Fixed.
  • "Grant's mandatory service expired during the war, but he chose to remain a soldier" - do we know why he went from wanting to get out of the Army as soon as he could to deciding to stay on?
    • His memoirs don't say, and I don't recall his biographers giving a reason, either, though I'll recheck this evening.
  • "He grew unhappy separated from his family" - this wording is a bit awkward
    • Should be better now.
  • The material on 1862 doesn't really explain Grant's role and campaign strategy - he and his army simply move from battle to battle, meeting other friendly and enemy armies. It would be good to explain how Grant fitted into the Union war effort in the west at this time.
    • I'm not sure how much of Halleck's strategy we can add within the space constraints. I noted that Forts Henry and Donelson were important to control of the rubbers, so the reader should understand why the army went that way, I think.
  • "Before the attack on Fort Sumter, Grant had not reacted strongly to Southern secession.[46] The news of the attack came as a shock in Galena," - this para seems a bit out of place given that it breaks up the chronological order of the article. I'd suggest reallocating this material.
    • Yes, it should be more chronological now.
  • "the attack be conducted with oversight by navy Flag Officer Andrew H. Foote" - what's meant by 'oversight' here? Was Grant under Foote's command?
    • The chain of command isn't clear in the sources, but this, at p.97 in McFeely, explains better. Halleck didn't approve it when Grant suggested it, but relented when Grant and Foote jointly suggested it.
  • "Lincoln promoted Grant to major-general of volunteers while the Northern press treated Grant as a hero repeating his words "No terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender." - this is a bit confusing as the (fairly dramatic) circumstances in this Grant said this aren't explained
    • I reworded this to make it clearer.
  • "now numbered 48,894 troops" - this seems overly specific: I imagine that it's a point in time figure, but the strength of the army would have varied a bit.
    • You're right, it's far too specific. Changed to "nearly 50,000".
  • The start of the first para in the "Shiloh" section should explain what Grant was trying to do, and his relationship with Sherman
    • There used to be more about the Grant-Sherman relationship, but it was cut for brevity. There's still the part about Sherman convincing Grant to stay in the army. I think that's enough. Probably more could be explained in the sub-article.
  • "Grant's troops challenged the Confederate onslaught" - "challenged" is a bit vague, and misses the drama of the battle: the Union Army was largely taken by surprise, but survived as some of its units conducted a determined defensive action
    • I reworded it to better reflect that the Union troops were surprised and driven back.
  • "At dawn, Grant counterattacked, adding 20,000 fresh troops from Major General Don Carlos Buell and Lew Wallace's divisions" - "adding" isn't quite right: those units (or at least some of them) had arrived as reinforcements during the battle
    • Tweaked the language here.
  • "The battle was the costliest in American history to that point, with total casualties of 23,746, but Lincoln overruled Grant's critics, saying "I can't spare this man; he fights." - the second half of this sentence doesn't sit comfortably with the first (and it seems to relate to the sentence before it)
    • I rearranged it, but I'm still not satisfied completely with how it reads. Any suggestions are welcome.
  • "was the key to Union victory in the West" - you need to explain why (it was the final significant barrier to Union control of the Mississippi)
    • Done.
  • "Grant arrived in Chattanooga by horseback, implementing plans to relieve the siege and resume the offensive" - his development of these plans should be noted (this wording suggests that he was "implementing" someone else's plans)
    • Reworded, should be better now.
  • The para on Grant's assumption of command of all Union Armies should note that he seriously considered making his headquarters in the West
    • Done.
  • "his headquarters with Meade's army" - it would be better to specify that this was the famous Army of the Potomac
    • Done.
  • "Grant and Lincoln devised a strategy of coordinated Union offensives" - did Lincoln play a significant role in developing this strategy? My understanding is that he generally let Grant lead the war effort (you could note that Grant's appointment allowed Lincoln to surrender some of the day-to-day direction of the war effort, which he'd been wanting to do for some time but had been unwilling to do as he lacked confidence in Grant's predecessors)
    • I think you're right. I deleted "and Lincoln".
  • "Depending on Lee's actions, Grant would join forces with Butler's armies and be fed supplies from the James" - the first part of this sentence implies that Grant had several options planned to take into account Lee's different potential responses, but then the second part of the sentence specifies only one option
    • True. I reworded.
  • "The costly assault at Cold Harbor was the second of two battles in the war that Grant later said he regretted" - what was the other one?
    • An assault on the Vicksburg trenches. I added a parenthetical to that effect.
  • "Unbeknownst to Lee" - this is a bit confusing. "Without being detected by Lee" perhaps?
    • Done.
  • The "Commanding general" section is probably a bit over-long: the years of political manoeuvring could be covered in less detail Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • We've trimmed some where we could over the last few days, but I'll take another look this afternoon.
      • The para starting with 'When the Senate reinstated Stanton' could be trimmed considerably given that it provides a blow by blow account of events. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I've tightened the language some, but I'm afraid that losing any more will obscure the reasons behind Johnson's impeachment and breach with Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Nick-D, are these all resolved to your satisfaction? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
        • @Nick-D:, is there anything else that needs fixing here? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry for the delay - I'll follow up later today Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The coverage of Grant's military career now looks good. My only additional comment relates to Grant met with Brigadier General William T. Sherman, and the two readied their troops to attack a Confederate army of roughly equal strength at Corinth, Mississippi, a vital railroad junction" - this implies that Sherman held an position of equal seniority to Grant: this is not correct, as Sherman was one of the several divisional commanders in Grant's army. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Great, thanks for your review. I tweaked the language in the Shiloh section to make clear that Grant was senior to Sherman. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:UlyssesSGrantSignature.svg: what's the original source for this?
    • I left a query on the original uploader's talk page. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
      • To follow up, User:Connormah replied "if I recall correctly this is a trace from a previously uploaded image here on Wikipedia from years ago." --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, we should include more details on the image description page, but even that is a bit...vague. Any idea what previous image was being traced? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Battle_of_Fort_Donelson.png needs a US PD tag
  • File:VicksburgBlockade.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, without which the copyright tag cannot be verified. Same problem with File:Senate-Johnson-Impeachment-Trials.jpg
  • File:Ely_S._Parker.jpg, File:Kalakaua_Grant_state_visit_1874.jpg: source link is dead
    • Fixed the first. I could find no good source info for the second, so I replaced it with File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpg, which has better credentials (and is a better picture, in my opinion).
  • File:US-$50-GC-1928-Fr-2404.jpg: reproductions of 2D works don't garner a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you want here. Should I delete the CC 4.0 license? --Coemgenus (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Nikkimaria, these are all fixed except the last. What should I do with that one? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I think so, but there's also an OTRS tag on it - any idea what that message says? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
        • No idea. I left a note on the uploader's talk page, so hopefully he'll be able to help us sort it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I removed the CC 4.0 tag (which may have been part of the original template I was given). Any other questions please ping me.--Godot13 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Gwillhickers[edit]


The article has made several improvements. While there's always room for more improvement, the article is well written and covers the subject more than adequately. Page length is not an issue for me here, as the article is about an individual who was very involved with U.S. history. i.e. a soldier who fought in two wars, a Lieutenant, then a General, not to mention a two term president who had to deal with the south after the Civil War. Again, a well covered and comprehensive article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Support a well-compiled piece Grant himself would be quite proud of! Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Karanacs[edit]

I think the article is very well-written, but I share the concern above that this is just too long. The events are important, yes, but there's detail here and there that, IMO, doesn't need to be included in this parent article. Just as examples:

a) The information about his order for Jewish expulsion is presented twice - one when it happened, once for the political campaign. Seems like this could be consolidated and just referenced once.
b) I don't really care who he appointed Postmaster General, etc. I would expect most of the information on his appointments to be in the child article on his presidency, and not here.
c) The paragraph that quotes from his memoirs about the Mexican-American War is, IMO, too long and detailed for this article.

Even in places where the content needs to stay, I think there is room for significant tightening of the prose. I really hate to say this, because it is beautifully written, it's just too much. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Karanacs:: Thanks for your comments. There's not much I can say about length that I didn't already say to Brianboulton after his comments above. I'd only add that it's been trimmed some since then, and that if it's a constant battle to keep the article as small as it is. With a figure as written-about as Grant, there is a massive trove of information to choose from that, somewhat counterintuitively, makes it harder to write a high-quality article. I'm sure there's language that can be tightened (I've acted on your first example, in fact) but trimming too much is difficult. But I'll take another pass and see where the prose could be more economical. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I really do sympathize. I just nominated Texas Revolution. After my first draft, it was 12.5k words. I eventually managed to cut 20% to get it down around 10k (and I still worry it is too long). I'd expect an article like this to be 10-12k. Karanacs (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Each sub-section for the individual Civil War battles are much more lengthy and detailed than is the coverage for the Mexican-American War and Early life and marriage, yet I don't see any significant reductions being made in those sections. Every one of these battles has a dedicated article for it. There is no dedicated article for Grant's, family and marriage, so it would seem these topics should get more priority than they are presently getting. After all, this is Grant's Biography. Also, there are other FA (Reagan, Obama, etc) that exceed the guideline for page length and there were no issues because it was warranted, per all the important content involved, so we need to stop holding 'page length' up as the most important consideration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Karanacs: I take your point, and I won't argue with you about how long is too long; reasonable minds may disagree. But the consensus among my co-editors is against any large-scale reductions, and I agree with them. Since this version, we've cut more than a thousand words. I think that's all we can do. Thanks again for reading, and good luck with your own nomination. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm alone on this matter, but I personally determine things to be "too short" or "too long" by detail on key aspects rather than prose size/raw size alone. FA criterion 1b is comprehensiveness (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context) while criterion 4 is length (It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style). I understand not including certain pieces, and would encourage to address specific parts that seem extra. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS, Coemgenus, Cmguy777, Rjensen: Snuggums hits the nail on the head. Comprehensiveness should be our major concern. While the major contributing editors on the Grant page have done wonderful work, they seem to have become overly weary of page length, which is not completely unreasonable. However, in the process comprehensiveness seems to have been neglected from time to time. You can read my comments to that effect, with examples, on the Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Karanacs: If the article were reduced anymore then content and clarification would be lost too...Presidents have Cabinets who can either impact an administration positively or negatively...Grant's Cabinet goes back and forth...I would not reduce the article size. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Sturmvogel 66[edit]

  • I think that most of the battle sections could be usefully compressed to some degree without loss of significant detail. Forex, all the information on McClernand in the Vicksburg section isn't of particular importance here, IMO. And the bit about meeting his brigade commanders before Corinth isn't particularly notable as it's a common occurrence.
    • Makes sense. I'll see what I can do. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The ship that captured Virginius was a cruiser, not a destroyer. (fixed)
  • Link monitor. (Done)
  • I see some references that use the year of publication and others that don't. Standardize on one or the other.
    • After today's changes, the only ones with dates should be those where the same author is cited in two different works. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you, and thanks for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • General Don Carlos Buell and Lew Wallace's Are they both major generals?
    • Yes, Buell had been for some time, Wallace was promoted just before Shiloh. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Link to Army of the Ohio, and move the links for the Army of the Cumberland and Army of the Potomac to the first occurrences.
  • I'm otherwise satisfied with the battle sections.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Great, thanks for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mkativerata[edit]

I am with Karanacs, I'm afraid. It is just too long. I think one of the causes has been the breaking of particular aspects of his military and presidential tenures up into subject-based sections (Gold standard; judicial appointments; etc), which lends itself to a manner of writing that focuses on subject matter detail (which is often dealt with in split articles) rather than the biographical overview. Further, on a more micro level, even if that structure were retained there are numerous examples where two sentences could be slashed down to one, two paragraphs to one, etc. In Brianboulton's words, which I can only echo: "The art of encyclopedia writing encompasses selection, summary, and succinct expression" The prose is very good, but it's not as selective, summary-oriented or succinct as it needs to be. These length issues can certainly be fixed; that's why I haven't said "oppose". Though I reckon a completely independent editor might be the best person to do it - it is tough for those who have spent such significant effort writing the article to then cull it. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget though that FA criterion 4 is "Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style", criterion 1b is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". It would help to state what specifically should be removed in order to maintain comprehensiveness. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved most likely. There are a number of existing daughter articles. pbp 23:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That is true, Purplebackpack89. The question is simply which subarticles to move information to. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mkativerata:, @Karanacs:: I reduced the length quite a bit yesterday, along with my co-editor, Alanscottwalker. The article now weighs in at 13,446 words, the shortest it's been in years. The cuts were needed, and I don't think we lost anything vital. I don't know if that's enough to satisfy your concerns, but it does out the article more in the mainstream of Featured Articles. Thank you for your comments, I hope you enjoyed reading it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. 14,300 down to 13,400 is certainly an improvement, and I think you've hit the correct spot with the biggest cull (judicial appointments). I'd like to see it down further, but nor am I opposing the article's promotion (just emphasising for an FA delegate). --Mkativerata (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Purplebackpack89[edit]

I generally believe the content in the article to be worthy of being an FA. If people are concerned about the length, perhaps we should reduce sections that are covered in daughter articles (such as Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War). pbp 22:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like we all agree that the article is generally well written, so in that event, it would seem that the page length guideline take a backseat to the FA requirement that a FAC be a well covered and comprehensive piece of work. This is not to say we can't condense some of the text in any redundant topics or omit some of the very minor details. Given Grant's very involved life it would seem that page length concerns should be relaxed a bit. It would be almost robotic to not pass this article on the basis of page length alone. The article is rich with information. Btw, most readers don't bother to go to lesser articles, as page view statistics will bear out. If the readers can't find what they're looking for in the main article then they're very likely going to click on something else in their google hit list. Lesser articles don't show up in search results like the plain ol' Ulysses S. Grant biography does. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Inconsistent "Retrieved by" dates (c.f. fn 141, fn 247)
    • These should now be formatted the same way. I'm inclined to just delete them--are access dates still required?
      • WP:CITE requires them for web sources for which publication date is unknown. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Got it. I'll leave them in. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsure about the reliability of Ackerman. Looks self-published, as Ackerman owns "Viral History Press" which publishes his work exclusively.
    • I just removed that cite, since the material there is already cited to Smith. I'm not sure why the double cite was even there.
  • Longacre: check name/spelling of publisher.
    • Fixed.

Otherwise, everything looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

Good patronage at this review, a fair level of support, and necessary checks complete -- but is it stable? There still seem to be daily edits to the article, and a lot of discussion on its talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is busy. With an article of this stature and length, it probably always will be. But most of the regular editors seem to bring things there first for discussion, rather than edit-warring on the article page itself, so I think the stability of the actual article is good. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Crisco seems to be on board with swapping in Grant for the currently scheduled TFA on the anniversary of Appomattox, April 9. To no one in particular and everyone in general: please don't put the TFA coords and community in an awkward position by giving us very little time to evaluate and prep this one. The sesquicentennial of the end of the American Civil War is a big deal for some people, and we like to give people what they want. We don't have any other suitable FAs that I'm aware of. If it's determined that the article isn't ready, that's fine of course and can't be helped (at this late date), but my sense is that opinions are converging. Converge faster, please :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Review of the "unstable" criteria will show that the article is NOT unstable - edit wars are non-existent and edits taken in response to the review (which almost all the edits have been - in the last two months) do not count as instability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

St. Elmo (1914 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a lost silent film that may or may not have been the directorial debut of the influential (if now largely ignored) J. Gordon Edwards. At GAC, I opined that I probably wouldn't even bother bringing this to FAC, but have reconsidered that stance. The primary concern left unresolved from the GA process is the deeply anemic plot summary; unlike most modern films, plot summaries for lost films require citations just like everything else (as the film can no longer source itself). Here, I've taken what I could from four different discussions of the plot ... and can still only offer 114 words for what would have been in the ballpark of a two-hour movie. Unfortunately, further plot details (I know there was a "small child" involved at some point, but nothing further there) seem as lost as the film itself. I leave it to the opinions of other editors whether that should be considered a comprehensiveness concern.

As means of disclosure, I am a WikiCup participant and this would be an eligible FA, if promoted. Additionally, I will note upfront that this would be one of the 10 shortest FA articles. I promise my next trip to FAC will be a more robust piece, regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support and comments I'm happy to support as is, just a couple of suggestions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can see some point to red-linking the two companies once, but not a second time—they won't have changed their status during the course of the article
  • Any idea how this film (or Balboa's films in general) were lost?
  • It has been my understanding that key topics can (and should) be linked from both the lead and the body. In this case, that makes them stand out a bit, because they're currently redlinks, although I don't intend them to be that way for too long (Box Office will go blue via redirect once I fix the mess that is the current structure for Fox pages; Balboa ... I should probably get a stub together for until I have time to do a full write-up). As for how this film was lost, the problem here really is sourcing. The Jura and Bardin history of Balboa is the definitive work, and even they hedge and provide a non-answer to why Balboa's films have such a dismal survival rate. For this one in particular, since Fox (as Box Office) bought the rights to distribution of the film, and continued to distribute it after Fox Films' incorporation, it's almost certain that it was destroyed alongside the actual Fox films in the 1937 vault fire. But Fox has never publicly admitted just what burned (there were legal issues), and no reliable source (well, no any source, actually) that I can find outright makes that observation. So including it would be original research, even though it's probably correct. I can add some generic text about the fate of silent films in general, if that's desirable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with those answers. I thought it was possible that the fate of the film was unknown/unverifiable, just checking that there was nothing omitted. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. A couple of minor points that don't affect my support:

  • Perhaps mention the name of the unrelated Evans novel in the lead?
  • I found a newspaper advertisement of the era crediting "Dad Leonard" rather than "Pop Leonard"; not sure if that's of interest.
  • Ah, the inconsistencies of 1910s film credits! "Pop" is far more common than "Dad", and I'm inclined to think that too much of this would be out of place in the article for this particular film (he is only the eighth-billed actor, after all). But it's something I'll keep in mind if I ever get around to improving the Gus Leonard article, for certain. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I figured it was probably too trivial for this article; just thought I'd mention it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Balboa was not a film distributor, so in May 1914 contracted with William Fox's Box Office Attractions Company": missing "they" after "1914"?
  • I'm not sure the previous construction is wrong, but done regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks -- I could be wrong but I think it will read more naturally to most people that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Fox Film Corporation, Box Office's corporate successor, continued to distribute St. Elmo": it took me a second to realize that you used "continued" because Fox continued to distribute the film after they succeeded Box Office. This might read more naturally as "The Fox Film Corporation continued to distribute St. Elmo after they took over/succeeded Box Office in 19xx".
  • Rewrote this. Thoughts on the new construction? I'm open to fiddling around with this more. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's definitely an improvement. I think the half after the semicolon is fine; the first half might perhaps be improved if you have the sources to be more specific about the nature of the transition: did Fox purchase Box Office? Merge with it? Take it over after bankruptcy? But it works perfectly well as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an ... interesting question. Ask four sources, get five answers. Koszarski claims that William Fox "reorganized" Box Office into Fox Film. On the other hand, Langman says that Fox was incorporated separately and then "absorbed" its predecessor. Solomon discusses Fox Film's incorporation process in considerable detail, but glosses over how Box Office's fate was handled. Other others provide a variety of vague descriptions of the process, not all of which mean interchangeable things: that Box Office was "replaced" by, "renamed", or "became" Fox. In any case, both were privately held companies owned by the same guy, so the precise details were probably mostly of concern to the corporate lawyers. There certainly wasn't a bankruptcy or an explicit merger of the type that later created 20th Century Fox. I can categorically state that Fox Film was not created through the merger of Box Office and the Greater New York Film Rental Company, despite that being the explanation in many less-reliable sources; that misreading of the timeline apparently first appeared in Wikipedia all the way back in 2001 (although I've recently removed it from the relevant articles). I am ... open to suggestions about a preferred wording here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's quite some variation in the sources. In this article I don't think the reader needs the details if they're going to be complicated, so perhaps your current wording is fine. Alternatively, how about "Box Office Attractions ceased to exist in 1915; Fox Films, also owned by William Fox, inherited Box Office's assets, and continued to..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I went through my sources to see if there was any clearer chronology. No such luck. I've taken another stab at cleaning up this section of text. Hopefully it reads better now? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "was the much earlier": presumably this should be "was much the earlier".
  • The suggested change reads as unnatural to me. Perhaps this is an ENGVAR issue? Regardless, I solved the problem by excising "much" entirely; it wasn't needed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    OK -- my ENGVAR is mostly BrEng, but I've lived in the U.S. for decades, so I can't be sure which side of the Atlantic my ear for a phrase is on at any given time. But not an issue since cutting it works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't give the date of the original novel, which wouldn't hurt, and would actually be helpful to the reader when you say it was much later than Beulah.
  • Was given in the lead (1866) but not in the body, which was an error. Added the date of the St. Elmo novel to the discussion of the film's production. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Oops -- it was indeed in the lead; sorry. Adding it to the production section is helpful too, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


  • "Nevertheless, the 1915 Beulah film was "considered a sequel" to St. Elmo.": See WP:INTEXT.
  • Reworded this to avoid the direct quotation, which wasn't necessary anyway, and added a contemporary source (that I was already using elsewhere, actually) alongside Jura and Bardin. Hope that helps, and thanks for taking a look! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, my pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisGualtieri[edit]

Sorry, but there are few issues to deal with.

  • First being the fact that AFI did cite Edwards, but they have sense switched back to Bracken as of this writing.Archived versionCurrent version Secondly, The Complete Index to Literary Sources in Film has been wrong a lot of the time for me. It is actually a compilation of other sources and one of the enduring errors traces back to "Theodore Marston" of whom has been wrongly attributed from Jane Eyre (1910 film) to Rip Van Winkle (1910 film) to The Vicar of Wakefield (1910 film). In this case, American Film-Index 1908-1915 was the source and it was addressed in the 1995 work by Bowers however Gobel's 1999 book (the one and the same) still have the errors. While I like the book... I am just not confident in it based on past experience... but the confusion needs to be cited and included. Though "Who's who in the film world" credits Bracken as well.[25]
  • Additional details from some clippings I got for you. Number of scenes and brief review. Another ad using the 194 scenes. This is certainly from a "canned" advertisement type given its prominence and specific wording... just dig around a bit if you don't believe me. A new film still and account of the film being expensive to show. Another film still with St. Elmo drinking with the Devil. I personally found another still here and there, but the scans were of lower quality and I figure one or two more would be of good use. The low resolution image in the infobox cannot even have the captions be read.
  • The plot is too light... I could not find any official furnished synopsis in the major sources, but I found what seems to be a tailored review in a newspaper and clipped it for you.See here. This should help you expand the plot aspect or even cite the text for the lost film.
  • No interest in covering the release schedule or the persistence of the film? This would mostly be clippings and I know this is probably not as interesting or relevant to readers, but I see it advertised into 1916.

Also, I'll get my butt in gear and do the Vitagraph production and start on the company... just to resolve the red link issue. I wanted to hold off on Vitagraph for awhile...but I finished all of Thanhouser's 1910 releases so I can slack off for a bit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Let me get some of this material integrated. I'd seen the scene count before, and had wrestled with whether to include it. It's not a metric that gets cited by period reviews for very many films, at least in the major periodicals, and I suspected it was more advertising copy than relevant information. On the other hand, I had not scene that film still of St. Elmo drinking with the Devil, which is amazing. And I hadn't noticed that, while I've been developing this article, AFI totally revamped their entry for the film, including swapping their directorial credit. Let me get the plot summary revamped with the new AFI material and that Trenton Evening Times article, take another stab at the director credit issue, and see where we're at with regard to the other topics. And, perhaps most importantly, thanks! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Happy to help out. Here is the low-res film poster.[26] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've made several changes in light of the additional sources and the major revision to the AFI listing:
  • I've completely reworked the plot summary based on the AFI's new content and the Trenton Evening Times (alongside the best of the sources I'd relied on previously). Naturally, no two of these agree on all the details, but I hope this is a more representative overview of the plot.
  • In light of AFI swapping directorial credit to Bracken, I've rewritten both the lead and the production section to give more weight to the idea that Bracken directed.
  • I've also added a little bit of Balboa's marketing copy. Modern film articles often include coverage of marketing campaigns, and this is probably the equivalent. Plus, since we've got the poster, we've got a reason to use Balboa's "194 glorious scenes". I went ahead and pointed out that the film was still running in 1916, too. That's not actually all that unusual for (successful) films in the state rights era, but it's certainly a contrast to what readers will know of modern film distribution. I opted to cite the Honolulu paper (from January) which actually had prose dedicated to the showing, rather than the latest pure advertisement I could find (from a much smaller market, several months later). There's no way we can declare when the last runs would have been, so I don't feel any real obligation to use a poorer-quality source just to eke out a later pub date.
  • Finally, I've reselected images, grabbing that great one of St. Elmo and the Devil from the San Bernadino County Sun and the film poster (which wasn't originally available when I started putting this together... that's what I get for not checking back, eh?). Sadly, I think the still in The Atlantic Constitution is too grainy and dark to be useful, which is unfortunate, since it's the film poster's scene. On the bright side, at least we've got all the content banned by those wacky Chicago censors!
How are things looking now? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Much better, here's another review for you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That one's already in there (reference #2). I did fix an error with the author's name that had crept into the prose, I suspect from some overly ambitious spell-checking early on. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Stephen I of Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first king of Hungary who is also venerated as a holy king by both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. This is the second FAC of the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments[edit]

This looks very interesting – the sort of history we never learn about in English schools. For the moment I have a few minor issues arising in the lead, but I hope I can find time for a fuller reading later:

  • Comma needed after "Holy Roman Emperor" near end of second paragraph
  • Third para: I'm not sure about "ensured" – even draconian measures can be resisited and thwarted. I'd prefer a more neutral word such as "sought" or "encouraged"
  • Final para: De-link Hungary – we don't normally wikilink countries. Also, it's not clear why Bishop Gerard is included in the report of Stephen's canonization.
  • Beyond the lead, there are a couple of uncited statements in the article: see third paragraph of "Early years" section, and first paragraph of "Artistic representation".

I'll return later; meanwhile I hope others will engage with this article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thank you for your review and comments. I started to modify the article taking into account your comments. Please let me know if any further action is needed. I am not an expert in the field of arts and I sought assistance from WikiProject Hungary. If no reference were added within a couple of days, I will delete the non-referenced texts. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Freedom of panorama in Hungary only extends to works displayed outdoors, so File:Szentjobb1.jpg will need to indicate the copyright status of the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your message. Fakirbakir, would you help me again? I am still too simple to understand the above remark. Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Nikkimaria and Karanacs, I deleted the picture, because I cannot fix the problem. Please let me know if there is a better solution. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
comments by Karanacs. I am very close to support.

First, I just want to say thank you for focusing on this period of time and region. It's wonderful to see the history being filled in here on WP :) Second, I'm normally uncomfortable with the use of primary sources in articles, but I think you did a very careful job of placement.

  • There are citation needed tags in the artistic representation section.
  • citations should be in order at the end of a sentence; for example in the 2nd sentence in the Active foreign policy section, ref 106 comes before 59
  • I think there are too many images in the article. Starting with the active foreign policy section, it's just a continuous stream of pretty down the right side, and it is a little much.

Karanacs (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs, thank you for your comments and support. I put the citations in order and deleted some images. I wait some more days before deleting the unreferenced sentences from the last section. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Brianboulton and Karanacs, I'd like to inform you, that I added references and there are no unreferenced sentences in the article any more. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks better. I'm waiting for nikkimaria's image question to be fixed. Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Karanacs (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton returns:

First, I must apologise for my long absence from this review, but until recently have not found much time to engage with the article. I have started a closer reading, now, and have noted a number of points which I think require attention or at least considerstion. None of them are major issues.

    • Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You need to establish that the various years introced at the start of the lead are CE
    • I added AD to the first date. Actually, I am not sure that either AD or CE are necessary. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It is necessary to mention AD or CE in the first date, as not all readers will be aware of the period, at least initially. Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Hungarian chronicles unanimously report..." → "Hungarian chronicles agree..." – less of a mouthful?
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a tendency towards multiple references for quite simple statements where one good ref would do, e.g. "However, Saint Adalbert's nearly contemporaneous Legend, written by Bruno of Querfurt, does not mention this event".[16][17][18] - why is that worth three citations? Or "Koppány, who held the title Duke of Somogy, had for many years administered the regions of Transdanubia south of Lake Balaton."[26][29][33] There are plenty more of these.
  • "...opponents of Christianity represented by Stephen and his predominantly German retinue." It needs to be "of the Christianity
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "even writes of" is too emphatic, non-neutral. You should delete "even"
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword" – the quote needs ascription. It's not clear where it's from.
    • Sorry, I do not understand the above remark. There is a reference to the Illuminated Chronicle in the same sentence. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • The full sentence read: "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword", according to the Illuminated Chronicle placed the brothers Hont and Pázmány at the head of his own guard and nominated Vecelin to lead the royal army." The punctuation was off and the construction awkward. I have revised it to: "Stephen, who according to the Illuminated Chronicle "was for the first time girded with his sword",[38] placed the brothers Hont and Pázmány at the head of his own guard and nominated Vecelin to lead the royal army."
  • "He also prescribed that Koppány's former subjects were to pay tithes to this monastery..." What monastery?
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "If the latter report is valid, the dioceses of Veszprém and Győr are the most probable candidates". Conjectural statements such as this must be specifically ascribed.
    • Scholar added. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "When ordering the display of one part of Koppány's quartered corpse..." → "By ordering the display..." etc
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Who do you mean by "the German monarch". If it's Otto, best to say so.
    • Modified. (I opted for an other solution.) Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That takes me to the end of the "Consolidation" section, so I've a way to go yet, but perhaps you would look at these meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The rest of my review follows
Active foreign policy (c. 1009–1031)
  • I had forgotten that Boleslav was king of Poland. A reminder in the text would be useful. And, unless there are other Boleslavs in the story, I don't think you have to add "the Brave" each time he is mentioned.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "a town identified with Ohrid by Györffy" only makes sense after several readings and use of the link. Better phrasing might be: "...Cesaries", which Györffy identifies as the present-day town of Ohrid".
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stephen's legends also wrote of 60 wealthy Pechenegs..." Legends don't write. They may be written. Perhaps "refer to " or "include stories of", or similar.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This section is headed "Active foreign policy", but includes topics unrelated to foreign policy, e.g. minting of coins, settling of pilgrims etc. You should either relocate these bits, or find a more inclusive section title.
    • Thank you. I would prefer the present title without changing the text. I think that the main feature of that period is the active foreign policy. For instance, if somebody works for the XZW Group between 1990 and 2015, we can say that those are his "Working for the XZW Group" even if he had an appendicitis, fathered three sons and four daughters and travelled to Antarctica, if we think that his working for that company was the most featuring detail of his life during those days. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • " also dated by many historians to the very end of the 1020s..." I'd say the words "also" and "very" are reundant here.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "had taken his power from the Greeks" – attribute.
    • Thank you. Included. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • " who adopted an active foreign policy". This doesn't convey much. Do you mean an "aggressive" foreign policy?
    • Thank you. Modified ("offensive foreign policy"). Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "informed on" → "informed of"
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The phrase "in the autumn of 1027" would fit better at theb start of the sentence.
    • Thank you. Phrase moved. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Last years (1031–1038)
  • "Stephen's legends writes..." Mangled prose, and as I said earlier, legends do not "write"
    • Thank you. Modified ("refers to"). Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The statement introducing the chart reads: "The following family tree presents Stephen's ancestors and his relatives who are mentioned in the article". This is not quite the case. For example, Vazul, described as Stephen's cousin, is nowhere to be seen in the tree.
    • Thank you. Vazul added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Andrew I, who died before December 1060 according to the link, refers to "King St. Stephen", yet Stephen was not canonized until 1083 – which is a little odd.
    • Thank you. Reference to the source (a 14th-century chronicle) added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Legend tells that Stephen's coffin could not be opened until King Ladislaus held his dethroned cousin Solomon in captivity at Visegrád." This introduces new material which will baffle readers unless you add a word or two of explanation.
    • Thank you. Info of the imprisonment of Solomon added in a previous sentence. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "confessor king": would a pipe-link to, say, Confessor of the Faith help readers to understand what you mean by "confessor king"?
    • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "An annual procession has celebrated the relic since 1938, except between 1950 and 1987, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government". This doesn't quite read right, since the excluded years represent half of the total period. Suggest rewrite: "An annual procession celebrating the relic was instituted in 1938, and continued until 1950, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government. It was resumed in 1988".
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am distressed to see Zoltán Kodály curtly introduced as "another Hungarian composer". Surely he is a little more distinguished than that?
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal issue: I found the frequent insertions of chunks of quoted material rather distracting. I wasn't sure whether these formed a necessary part of the narrative, or if they were there to illustrate or emphasise points already made. Either way, there were rather a lot of them – are you sure they are all necessary?

    • Thank you. Two quotes deleted. I think we should insert some quote to illustrate points already made. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you have found this review helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, first of all, I must apologize for failing to answer for days, but I did not notice that you had meanwhile completed your review. I highly appreciate your comprehensive and bold review. Please let me know if further actions are needed to improve the article. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
On the "Active foreign policy" heading, I don't think your argument for keeping it, unamended, holds good. For a start, you don't need "active". With or without that, it's a very specific title to use for the period it covers, and the non-foreign aspects within the section are quite substantial – the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. My preferred option would be to incorporate the three paragaphs into a separate subsection, but at the very least you should amend the title to, perhaps, "Foreign and domestic policies". Ping me when you've resolved this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Brianboulton, thank you for your comments. I inserted two new subtitles. Let me know if further changes are necessary. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
That arrangement looks good to me. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Support: Borsoka has dealt effectively with the issues I have raised in the course of this review. I believe the article now meets the featured article criteria, and hope to see it promoted soon (the nominator's first, I believe). A request for further reviewers would not be amiss. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Brian, do you think you could manage a source review here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
At the moment I am tied up with TFA scheduling issues, a review backlog, and trying to progress my own work, so I can't do this immediately. I'll check back in a few days to see if it still needs doing, but hopefully someone will pick it up before then. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ian Rose and Brianboulton, do you think I could contribute anyhow to the source review mentioned above? Borsoka (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, it needs to be conducted by a reviewer, and you should then respond to queries/concerns as with any other review. I'll post a request for this at WT:FAC as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "relled": relied?
  • "The opening of Stephen's tomb was followed by the occurrence of healing miracles, which are attributed by historian Kristó to mass psychosis and deception.": Unless the implication is "misattributed", the sentence contradicts itself. "by reports of healing miracles" would fix the self-contradiction, but I don't have a position on how to fix the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Dank, thank you for your comments and edits. I tried to fix the issues you mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This is an interesting article and a lot of work has gone into it, but it relies extensively on original research. For example there are quotations and citations from Hartvic's hagiographical life and Thietmar's nearly contemporary chronicle. There is an extensive list of primary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, thank you for your remark. However, I think you misunderstand the concept of OR. Sentences based on academic works cannot be qualified as OR. If an academic work refers to a primary source we can (should) use the standard English translation of that source. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, that was my first reaction too. After spending more time on the article, I came to Borsoka's point of view. All of the analysis is from third-party sources; only quotations of the original sources are cited to the primary sources, and I believe that falls within policy. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This is in many respects a first rate article on an important and neglected subject, but I am still concerned about its use of primary evidence. I am not sure that including quotations cited to original sources falls within Wiki policy. This applies in an article about a work of literature in describing the contents of the work, but extensive quotations from medieval sources which may not be reliable are a different matter. My main concern is that it is not always clear whether the claims of medieval writers are endorsed by modern historians. Three examples of problematical passages are:
"Stephen's official biography, written by Bishop Hartvik and sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, narrates that he "was fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art" in his childhood,[18] implying that he studied Latin.[2]" Hartvik (or Hartvic, the spelling is inconsistent) wrote a hagiography of Stephen. It is described as a hagiography in the title of the translation and the quotes from it make clear that it was not an impartial account. To describe it as a biography which "narrates" facts is misleading. The first citation is to Hartvik, the second to a historian. If what is being said is that Hartvik claimed that Stephen was instructed in the grammatical arts and x said this implies that he studied Latin, then put in that form it would be valid, but not as stated.
Dudley Miles, thank you for your remarks. Please let me copy here the whole context of the above sentence: "Stephen's official biography, written by Bishop Hartvik and sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, narrates that he "was fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art" in his childhood, implying that he studied Latin. His two other late 11th-century biographies do not mention any grammatical studies, stating only that he "was brought up by receiving an education appropriate for a little prince". Kristó says that the latter remark only refers to Stephen's physical training, including his participation in hunts and military actions." Gyula Kristó (a Hungarian historian, specialist of the the history of the Hungarian people and Hungary till the 14th century) writes: "According to the evidence of one of the three legends (life history) of Stephen written later on, he studied 'grammatica' (grammar) in his childhood that can refer exclusively to his learning of the Latin language. However, we better take this kind of information with caution. The medieval sovereigns, apart from some really conspicuous exceptions (like for example the Hungarian Kingd Coloman), never attained knowledge of writing and that is something that we have to keep in mind in case of Stephen as well. His other legend does not even mentione his grammatical studies and touches on his youth only lightly by saying that "he was brought up by receiveing an education approproate for a littele prince". This education meant much more a physical training (hunting, participation in military actions) than an intellectual refinement." (Kristó 2002, p. 15.). I think that the article properly summarizes the scholarly POV and the direct quote from Stephen's hagiography is based on the cited scholarly work. Consequently, no OR can be detected. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"Stephen, who according to the Illuminated Chronicle "was for the first time girded with his sword",[38]" This is cited to the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle but is it endorsed by historians? This is not clear.
Pál Engel (a Hungarian historian, specialiast of the history of Hungary between 896 and 1526) writes in his cited work: "Among the foreign knights one should mentione the brothers Hont and Pázmány, who were later remembered as having girded Stephen with his sword before the campaing against Koppány..." (Engel 2001, p. 39.). Gyula Kristó, whose work is also referred to, writes: "When Koppány, after having passed around Lake Balaton set out to measure himslef against the prince, Stephen was ceremoniously girded with the sword in Esztergom ..." (Kristó 2002, p. 19.). I do not have the English (cited) version of the third Hungarian historian, György Györffy. In the Hungarian version of his work (Györffy, György (2000). István király és műve. Balassi Kiadó. ISBN 9789635068968.), also mentions that Stephen was girded with a sword and refers to the Hungarian chronicles (one of them being the Illuminated Chronicle) as the source of this piece of information. Consequently, the statement is based on the works of three historians and the Hungarian chronicles (one of them being the Illuminated Chronicle) were their primary sources. I think that the direct quote from the Illuminated Chronicle cannot be described as OR. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"[H]aving completed the office of Vespers the third day, everyone expected the favors of divine mercy through the merit of the blessed man; suddenly with Christ visiting his masses, the signs of miracles poured forth from heaven throughout the whole of the holy house." This is a quote from Hartvik. Is it "colour" or a claim that Stephen was responsible for miracles? It is not clear, but as Borsoka insisted in the previous FAC that the 'Holy Dexter" had been miraculously found, I think he is probably saying that Stephen had miraculous powers, and that is POV.
Dudley Miles, as I mentioned during our previous discussion, sainthood itself is a POV. Of course, we can say that saints and their miracles are fairy tales and should be ignored, but in this case we would ignore WP:NPOV. The whole context of the above quote is the following: "Stephen's cult emerged after the long period of anarchy characterizing the rule of his immediate successors. However, there is no evidence that Stephen became an object of veneration before his canonization. For instance, the first member of his family to be named after him, Stephen II, was born in the early 12th century. Stephen's canonization was initiated by Vazul's grandson, King Ladislaus I of Hungary, who had consolidated his authority by capturing and imprisoning his cousin, Solomon. According to Bishop Hartvik, the canonization was "decreed by apostolic letter, by order of the Roman see", suggesting that the ceremony was permitted by Pope Gregory VII. The ceremony started at Stephen's tomb, where on 15 August 1083 masses of believers began three days of fasting and praying. Legend tells that Stephen's coffin could not be opened until King Ladislaus held Solomon in captivity at Visegrád. The opening of Stephen's tomb was followed by the occurrence of healing miracles, according to Stephen's legends. Historian Kristó attributes the healings either to mass psychosis or deception.". The context makes it clear that Stephen was not venerated during the four or five decades after his death, and the miracles described in his legends can be the consequences of "mass psychosis or deception". Again, I think that the quote is based on scholarly work (Kristó's cited book). Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at it again, I think it would be FA quality if the extensive citation of original sources were cut out, but not as it stands. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, as I have mentioned, I think that the "extensive" citations are always based on scholarly works. Consequently, they are in line with WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is being nominated to join the relatively short tradition of other Sounders winning Open Cups ('09, '10, and '11. It should meet or exceed the FA standards set by other articles seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Showcase.

As the primary author, my usual shortfall is general copy editing. I feel that any issues can be addressed in a timely manner. Also, I used Sounder At Heart as a source in a few instances. The sources from that site relied on writers who have press badges and not general user generated content. Please let me know if any improvement is needed to reach FA and I will be on it immediately. Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi—can you state whether this is a Wikicup entry? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I am participating in the Wikicup.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maralia: This does need a good copyedit. Examples of issues:

  • “the The Cup”
  • Carlos Valdés (footballer)|Carlos Valdes]]”
  • “Pappa, who had just returned from international duty with the Guatemala,”
  • “There first big chance came”,
  • ”Casey received a yellow card at the 57th minute an was later replaced”
  • ”were able to effectively counter Philadelphia's attempts attack in the second half”
  • ”While being praised as good tactics by one Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins due to a muscle strain.”
    • This now reads "While being praised as good tactics by a Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins was due to a muscle strain" which brings up some new issues:
      • Presumably the intent is that Schmid was being praised for good tactics (not as good tactics), and that Martins was not started due to a muscle strain (not the decision...was due to a muscle strain).
      • The relationship between the two halves of the sentence is not immediately clear. A quote from Liviu Bird clarifies what Martins not starting has to do with good tactics—but the quote is back in the Extra time section. Suggest moving it from Extra time to Post-match for better context; the quote is technically postgame commentary anyway.
That is better. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ”THe Sounders received”
  • Image captions should not end with a full stop unless the caption forms a complete sentence (and none of the current captions does).

This is not an exhaustive list; someone needs to go through from top to bottom for grammar, spelling, etc. That being said, though, the copyedit that’s needed here is not a particularly intensive one, since there is not a lot of complicated language or nuance in this sort of article, so it should be pretty fast and easy once you find someone to do it. Maralia (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The GA reviewer did a good job then I added a few lines (most are the ones you mentioned). Nothing like a good 'ol FAC to remind me that I suck at typing. All mentioned are fixed. Also, I removed the periods from the captions. I tend to agree with you but have added them in articles I work on due to the insistence of other reviews at GA and FA. Can you point me to something in the MoS for future discussions?Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
RE the image caption punctuation question, you can refer people to these:
MOS:FULLSTOP: "Sentence fragments in captions or lists should in most cases not end with a period."
MOS:CAPTION: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period."
This part of MOS is fairly longstanding policy; off the top of my head, I'd say it's been in force since at least 2008, so reviewers should be familiar with it. People do tend to trip up over that last bit concerning multiple sentences/fragments, though. Maralia (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Maralia: Coemgenus went through it a couple times. Do the prose look good to you now? Let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. Thanks!.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I will take another look, but my eyesight is pretty compromised right now (busted glasses, lousy contacts) so it might take me a few days to make it through. Maralia (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Ugh... take your time. I tried using Gorilla glue on my glasses the other day and they are now half broken with glue dried on the lenses.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
This is definitely in better shape after Coemgenus' review. I made a few minor copyediting fixes tonight. Some other remaining issues:
  • “Attendance at PPL Park would only be 15,256, the lowest for an Open Cup final in six years.” - This sentence is out of place in the Pre-match/Venue selection section.
I found a line in the post-match review of the game that it ties in with.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • “The Open Cup is not held in as high regard as winning the MLS but it is still considered an important achievement.” - by "winning the MLS" you mean winning the MLS Cup, yes?
Fixed and wikilinkedCptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ”The 2014 Open Cup was an exceptional challenge due to the MLS season being interrupted by the World Cup.” - Doesn't this happen every four years? 'Exceptional' might be overkill.
Fixed by removing "exceptional" and added that it was due to player call-ups.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ”The home team kept control of the first half and continued creating chances into Seattle's penalty area.” - Can you reword this? Google finds almost no other uses of "creating chances into" and I gotta agree it's super weird.
Almost naughty... Changed to "...and continued creating scoring opportunities."Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ”As runners-up, the Union was awarded $60,000.” - This mixes singular (was awarded) and plural (runners-up). In the US, we would go with the singular "As runner-up, the Union was awarded".
Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Maralia (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Maralia: Thanks for being so thorough.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Revisiting at nom's request. I have watched with interest as Mike Christie worked his magic here; you are both to be commended as the prose is vastly improved! I made a few very minor copyediting tweaks, as well as two larger changes:
  • I tweaked the phrasing at the end of the Sounders section regarding Cooper, because I couldn't parse how he "ended the tournament with a total of 13 goals" yet "netted six in 2014 alone". I added the clarification that it was 13 career Open Cup goals, per the cited source.
  • I reorganized the last paragraph of the Post-match section so that it now ends with the "It's a shame" quote, which (it turns out) was a comment on all three issues (not just tv broadcast and attendance, but also the livestream situation). I think it makes for a stronger ending, too.
Happy to support on prose and MOS. Maralia (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
You guys are are my heroes. I didn't realize how much it could be improved and now need to revisit other articles.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

It's nice to see this here. I actually attended this match, but I promise not to add any original research! --Coemgenus (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • "While both teams created multiple chances, Philadelphia unsuccessfully attempted a comeback and took firm control of the match at the end." This seems to suggest the Union took control of the match at the end. Didn't they lose? Or do you mean they looked to be in control before the start of extra time?
I see what you mean. I added a couple lines to expand on the thought. I am trying to convey the credit reporters gave to Philly.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Philadelphia Union
  • "Philadelphia were almost eliminated..." I understand the convention in European soccer is to treat teams as plurals, but in American sports we treat them as a singular noun ("Philadelphia was almost...") Unless there's some differing convention in U.S. soccer I don't know about.
Fixed 2 times.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "winning silverware" Kind of informal.
Fixed 3 timesCptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Seattle Sounders FC
  • "The Seattle Sounders won the title..." You should say which title. The Open Cup? The MLS championship?
Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Seattle were leading..." Again, probably "was", I think.
  • "the game went to kicks" This might be impenetrable to an outsider. Maybe say "penalty kicks" with an appropriate wikilink.
Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Philadelphia had never been to a final and it was their first chance at winning silverware since their inception 5 years earlier." You say this earlier. Maybe something shorter, like "For Philadelphia, it represented their first-ever chance at a trophy."
Nice. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "depth that could traverse" I don't think "traverse" is right here. "Withstand" maybe. "Survive"?
"withstand" works.
  • "The all-time record between the clubs was Philadelphia with two wins and Seattle with three." A little fuzzy. Maybe something like "The all-time record between the clubs stood at 3–2 in favor of Seattle."
Agreed. Fixed.
First half
  • "The Union began to pick up the pace with Andrew Wenger playing wide left. He was continuously able to get past Yedlin to the byline or cut back for shots." I think the prose could be improved with more active verbs, less "to be" and "to have". For example, the sentences quoted above might be better tightened up as "The Union began to pick up the pace with Andrew Wenger playing wide left, where he repeatedly passed Yedlin to the byline or cut back for shots." See what I mean? The verb we're concerned about is "to pass" -- Wenger passed Yedlin -- not that he was able to pass him.
A dozen instances adjusted.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Second half
  • Active voice also helps clear up the writing. Instead of "No substitutions were made at halftime", you could say "Neither team made a substitution at halftime." More direct.
I made a few changes. Does anything else jump out?Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In Injury time..." Should "Injury" be capitalized? I was going to change it myself, but I wasn't completely sure.
You might be right. I couldn't tell from the main Wikipedia article and changed it to "extra time".Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Extra time
  • "Martins, Dempsey, and Pappa were able to effectively counter..." Why not just "Martins, Dempsey, and Pappa effectively countered..."
Fixed.Cptnono (talk)
  • "...when he was able to make header on the Sounders goal." Here we have the "was able" problem again, and I'm also not sure of the expression "make header". I watch a lot of soccer, but I'm no expert on the terminology.
I think one of my favorite sports writers uses it or something. Ripped a bunch out.
  • "The final was Philadelphia's first chance at a championship in their five-year history." You could probably lose this line -- you've said it twice already.
Agreed. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The performance was poor enough..." This sounds like you're talking about the teams' performance. I assume you mean the internet feed didn't work right? Should clarify.
  • Nice article. It was more enjoyable than the forty-five minutes it took me to get out of the parking lot in Chester that night. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Coemgenus:. Wow, nice stuff. I think some good adjustments were made. I hope the game was a blast (regardless of who you were supporting)!Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • These changes look good. I made a few more copyedits--if you think they change the meaning of what you've written, please feel free to revert.
  • In the Seattle section, you link the 2010 and 2011 finals, but not 2009. Is there no article for it? If not, it wouldn't be wrong to include a redlink to encourage creation of that article.
It is linked a couple paragraphs above.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You could also use a citation for the last sentence. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I ended up removing it. There wasn't anything in RS relating the deal to the 2014 final so it was a little out of place.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, looks good. I'm happy to support.--Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

At the moment I don't think the prose is at FA level. I'm not going to oppose immediately, but I think some work remains to be done here. The problem is not that there are grammatical errors or specific places with poorly chosen words or phrasing; it's that the writing is often flat and lacking any rhythm. For example, the lead -- particularly the second and third paragraphs -- reads like a staccato series of short sentences, with no flow between them. If you look at the lead of hermeneutic style, or German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations, two other FACs I've recently reviewed, I think you can see that those paragraphs flow more smoothly -- the sentences are varied in rhythm and length, and it sounds more like a narrative. To put it another way, a well written lead sounds like someone interesting explaining the topic to you; this article's lead sounds like someone reciting some of the key facts. Try reading the lead out loud while imagining that you're telling an acquaintance about the game. Would you use this phrasing? I doubt it; you'd use connected sentences, and you'd make it into a narrative. That's what needs to be done here.

The body is in better shape than the lead, but there are instances of this problem throughout; see the Seattle Sounders section for more examples. I have read the article twice, once fairly closely and once skimming, and didn't see much else wrong other than the prose style; I'll come back and take another look once the prose is addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for taking a look. I'm admittedly flat and boring when writing prose to keep it to the point. The fear of being to over the top in my fandom is always there and I am not Charles Dickens (CenturyLink Field is probably boring as hell to anyone who isn't interested in minor details about architecture and the local teams). Did you have ideas on lines that can be improved during your read throughs? I know that asking you to rewrite entire sections is out of the question but I would love any thoughts since it would help this and other articles.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind doing some rewriting for you, but I can't promise I'll have time. One thing you could try -- and I'm serious about this; I think it will help -- is to read through the lead a couple of times to get into your mind the key points, and then roleplay explaining the game to someone else, and video or record yourself doing the explanation. Explain it as you would in real life -- you'd try to make it interesting, rather than just reciting the facts. Transcribe that version and see how it differs from what you've got at the moment. Try it on just one of the paragraphs and see how it goes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Well wow, you were right. I like the boring prose of The World Almanac but decided to recite it in the bathroom mirror instead. It is a couple feet away from my apartment's front door so now I sound crazy (it is all bachelor's on my floor of the apartment and I know at least 3 of the neighbors are soccer fans). I played with two paragraphs in the lead and the Sounders road to the final section. What do you think? Obviously I want to get this to FA now but this was a good learning experience for other articles even if this has to go through a second round in the future. Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a big improvement! I'm glad that helped. I'll take another look tonight or tomorrow; in the meantime, can you tell me if you've gone through the whole article to fix similar issues? The places I mentioned were the ones where I noticed the problem most, but you might try reading the whole article out loud to yourself and see if you spot other places where it could be improved. I'll do a copyedit pass when you tell me you're done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I hit the Match section a bit. I'll make another pass through (tonight or tomorrow depending on beer intake and House of Cards binging). Thanks again. Your input is actually more appreciated than a !vote.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a great compliment; I really appreciate it! Let me know when you're ready for me to go through it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: I did another read through and kicked myself after seeing some needlessly repeated terms close together and tinkered with multiple lines to give it better flow.Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are a huge improvement. I'm doing a copyediting pass now; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • "uikwila"? Presumably a typo for Tukwila?
Yeha. FixedCptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I noticed you're using dashes for "shoot—out"; I've changed these to hyphens, but is there a convention I don't know about that says a dash should be used?
I did "shoutout" originally but changed it to "shoot-out" based on our article Penalty shoot-out (association football)Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "He ended the tournament with a total of 13 goals; one goal shy of Le Toux's modern-era total goal record of 19." Is 19 a typo for 14?
Match hard? Double checked and fixed.Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "player-depleted schedule": does this mean that there were several players injured and unavailable because of a packed schedule? I think this needs some clarification if so; it's a bit too much shorthand for the average reader.
The thought was broken into two sentences. I tried to expand the second. Fixed?
Yes, that's much cleaner. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Defensively, Philadelphia's Edu had become their best defender": I'd rephrase this to avoid having "defensively" and "defender" so close together. Perhaps "Defensively, Edu had become Philadelphia's strongest player"?
That works. FixedCptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No citation for the first paragraph of the Match section.
Added.Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The given source doesn't support "heralded by competition organizers".
Changed it to "Although he won the Golden Boot for most goals scored..."
That fixes the issue, but the new citation is showing a date error. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources yet; will do that after you take care of the points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I did half a dozen spotchecks of the source text vs. the article. I made one change where the phrasing was pretty close to the original. One more fix needed -- "the shot lacked power and was easily saved": the source doesn't say the shot lacked power. That's the only issue left, other than the citation date issue I mentioned above.

On the assumption you'll fix both these minor issues, support. To the coords: I checked six sources and found one fairly close paraphrase, which I fixed, and two cases where a minor fact wasn't in the source (both are in my notes just above). In both cases the source did support the major information being provided, so I'm not too concerned, but I'd suggest asking for another spotcheck just to make sure these were isolated issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't fix image size at smaller than default. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thumbed the image in the lead. Is that the correct way to go about it? The other images did not have pixels specified.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's good, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Edward II of England[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Edward II, an ill-fated English monarch who remains a famous figure in modern films, plays and art. The article reflects the current academic scholarship on Edward, and has been through Good and A Class reviews; I believe that it also meets the criteria for FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class ... and I noticed that I missed some misspellings, so take this support with a grain of salt. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Support: All my concerns have been addressed. Really like this article! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this article, both in terms of general interest and the prose itself. I'm finishing A Distant Mirror, which dovetails nicely into this article. But there are minor prose issues, a little missing info, and one very confusing passage. I'm opposing only on that last one, the rest are merely comments.

    • "to help secure peace with France, but war broke out"... what war?
      • I've added an explanation. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
        • But does the war in question have a name? Maybe a page here on the wiki? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Not that I can find. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
this might be the one. May I offer an assist for some copy editing? auntieruth (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, and yes. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "deploying his own siege engine in the operation", do we know what sort of engine?
      • I don't think so, but will check further. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "he was knighted in a ceremony at Westminster Abbey", this confuses me. Was it not the case that a knight was a rung in the feudal ladder that he would have been part of by birthright? Is this knighting not redundant? I may just misunderstand the role of knighthood, but if that's the case I suspect I'm not alone and little expansion here would help.
      • Knighting ceremonies were a major event in the medieval period; I've added a bit to the article on knights, and wikilinked to that. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "before then permanently exiling Gaveston", "then" is redundant and reads oddly to my eyes.
    • "same way that it might do in the 21st century", ditto for "do".
    • "Edward gave Isabella a psalter as a wedding gift", tricky link in here, which I always get annoyed at - I wanted to know what a psalter was, not the details of this particular one. Suggest something along the lines of "Edward gave Isabella a psalter, now known as the Isabella Psalter, as a wedding gift"
  • I'd be keen to avoid repeating psalter twice in the same sentence; the article now explains what a salter is in the first sentence, which should help. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Gaveston that he had stolen royal funds and had purloined Isabella's wedding presents", simply "stolen royal funds and Isabella's wedding presents". "purloined" is not a common term, and given the context it seems to suggest it means something different than stolen, which it doesn't.
      • Purloin isn't quite the same as stolen; it carries meaning of misappropriation, which is a wider concept than simple theft. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, under threat of excommunication should he return, where he would be given estates to support himself". This is a confusing statement, and I believe it should be broken into two sentences. But which is it... "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, where he would be given estates to support himself. He was threatened with excommunication should he return." OR "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, and was threatened with excommunication should he return. However, Edward said he would be given estates to support himself if he did."
      • Simplified a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • " but which offered to grant Edward", remove "which"?
    • "The Pope agreed to annul Gaveston's sentence of excommunication"... Ok here's the item I think needs to be addressed one way or the other. The statement above suggests this was threatened, but not carried out ("instead sent Gaveston to Dublin") seems to be at odds with the statement only a few lines above, which say it was threatened but never carried out. The next mention of the topic is later in the article and appears unrelated? This is the only problem I think needs to be corrected.
      • I've tweaked the wording - see if it makes more sense now. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm still confused about this, but it's more than just the wording. Apparently the Pope actually did threaten to excommunicate Galveston. Is that correct? If so, why? What does this purely internal matter have to do with the pope at all? And why would this be an excommunication-able (??) offence? It has nothing to do with the church. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've clarified a bit more. The article probably isn't the place for a longer discussion of the role of the Church in the Middle Ages, but in brief, the Church and the medieval state were typically closely entwined. Kings of England typically depended closely on their senior clergy as administrators and government officials, while appointments and many clerical matters were of interest to, and influence by, lay rulers. Events such as the fate of Gaveston would not have been seen as an "internal" matter, but rather something the Church had a valid interest in. Excommunications could be made for various reasons, including as a tool to encourage good behaviour or to enforce peace agreements, as in this case. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
That small edit is a great improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley, and Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders", suggest splitting in two, "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley. Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders"
      • I've gone for a semi-colon, see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • stopping at Famine and criticism for now, getting on a plane back to the GWN.Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Maury, thanks for this. I'll get on and action tomorrow morning. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, all finished. It's a great article BTW! Only two last items and they're minor:
    • "If Edward did die from natural causes, his death may have been hastened by depression following his imprisonment." - is this anything more than idle speculation? I suspect not, and if that is the case, I'd recommend simply removing this statement.It doesn't really add anything to the content unless we its something that is widely commented on and argued in historical circles, at which point that is the notable point. It doesn't appear to be that, though.
      • It's an argument put forward by one of his two major biographers, so I think it's worth keeping in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
        • As there is no way that a biographer could ever know one way or the other, I suggest adding that caveat - "According to one of his biographers, it is possible that...". Or am I incorrect, is there some sort of physical evidence they offer for this opinion? 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Phillips puts forward his reasoning in the peer-reviewed biography, partially drawing on the Brut source, and partially on modern psychology; we're already putting forward the statement in the conditional tense, so I'm not personally convinced we need to caveat it further. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, striken. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The image in the Battle of Boroughbridge appears to show the opening dispositions of the fo